Summer Transfer Superthread

RasTa

Maguire story is rubbish at the moment. Going off a Sun article by some child

TitianGerm

TitianGerm wrote: »

Not sure about most hated but definitely most expensive CB (until De Ligt moves) but you've went a long way to sorting the defense now which will help a lot next season.

£80m doesn't look to bad when Dunk is going for £45m.

Ref to slab head post :P

StringerBell

60 and add ons given the circumstances isn't that bad I suppose. An improvement and more importantly a player who stands up in the bigger games, if he's capable of getting stuck into his own teammates when required it will turn out to be a very good deal.

*If true obviously

ERG89

MD1990 wrote: »

Rumours Maguire for 80m & Dunk for 45m,

Maybe Chelsea are lucky they have a ban. These sort of prices have to end soon if they are true.

The English tax is growing even as the pound has dropped.
City could look for 100m for Stones with him having Champions League experience.
De Ligt looks a snip now as even with his buy out clause being triggered in the future Juve will double their money.

Corholio

Clubs fans will always position themselves into 'explaining' these fees though and how they are actually all good deals. The term 'as long as they improve the team' will be trotted out a lot, regardless of the average quality that was there to be needed to improve upon.

Corholio

Corholio wrote: »

Clubs fans will always position themselves into 'explaining' these fees though and how they are actually all good deals. The term 'as long as they improve the team' will be trotted out a lot, regardless of the average quality that was there to be needed to improve upon.

Wasn't aware the fans discussing it paid 60-80 million for Harry

Corholio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wasn't aware the fans discussing it paid 60-80 million for Harry

But the same fans will claim/have memes/laugh at other clubs for paying too much for players too. They aren't paying the millions either.

el Fenomeno

£45m for Lewis Dunk....

I don't know. That has an air of "we just got loads of money, let's replace Torres with Carroll" to it.

Corholio

Corholio wrote: »

But the same fans will claim/have memes/laugh at other clubs for paying too much for players too. They aren't paying the millions either.

Fair play to them

Corholio

el Fenomeno wrote: »

£45m for Lewis Dunk....

I don't know. That has an air of "we just got loads of money, let's replace Torres with Carroll" to it.

Dunk is a good player imo. That'll be a decent signing for Leicester, good leader too. Maguire ain't no Torres either.

Cantona's Collars

https://twitter.com/TransfersLlVE/status/1150480605488062464

Dani Alves to City on a free transfer.

martyos121

£80m sure is an awful lot and I don’t rate Maguire that highly, but the reality is that he’s better than anything Man United have in defence right now and they’d be held to ransom over any signing this summer, given their financial clout and their desperation to get back into the top 4. Yes, they certainly overpaid, but he’s got a fair amount of PL experience and he’ll improve the team.

The real problem they have to solve is the right wing, because they offered no threat from that side last season and have yet to add any proven quality there. James could end up making an instant impact and his pace would cause a few problems, but I can’t imagine he was bought to go straight into the first team.

Even at a significant cost, they’re having a good window, I’ll give them that.

Mitch Connor

martyos121 wrote: »

£80m sure is an awful lot and I don’t rate Maguire that highly, but the reality is that he’s better than anything Man United have in defence right now and they’d be held to ransom over any signing this summer, given their financial clout and their desperation to get back into the top 4. Yes, they certainly overpaid, but he’s got a fair amount of PL experience and he’ll improve the team.

The real problem they have to solve is the right wing, because they offered no threat from that side last season and have yet to add any proven quality there. James could end up making an instant impact and his pace would cause a few problems, but I can’t imagine he was bought to go straight into the first team.

Even at a significant cost, they’re having a good window, I’ll give them that.

Until we sign some midfielders I'll still be suspect on this window for United. The midfield is TERRIBLE.

doesn't look like a winger is in the cards, seems they want Sancho and hope they can get CL football without him then get him next summer. Huge gamble imo, a dangerous one.

Grueller

Corholio wrote: »

Dunk is a good player imo. That'll be a decent signing for Leicester, good leader too. Maguire ain't no Torres either.

I would agree with that. I think Dunk will prove to be as good a signing as Maguire.

martyos121

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Until we sign some midfielders I'll still be suspect on this window for United. The midfield is TERRIBLE.

doesn't look like a winger is in the cards, seems they want Sancho and hope they can get CL football without him then get him next summer. Huge gamble imo, a dangerous one.

From what I’ve seen of ye last season, the attacks became too predictable as nearly every attack started down the left due to the lack of pace and quality on the other side. Sancho would instantly balance the attack and offer a huge threat from the right, but that’s a tough transfer to pull off at any point.

It’s a gamble as you said, as getting into the top four without him would be tough, but convincing him to sign without CL football would be even tougher. If he’s motivated purely by money, there’s always a chance unless Man City try to bring him back, the only English club that could realistically offer Dortmund and Sancho a better deal.

As for the midfield, Bruno Fernandes looks like it could happen and that’d a quality signing. Would hate to see him him join ye because he seemingly has it all and I’d love him in our midfield, but I don’t see any clubs other than Man United being linked with him anymore. Get that one done and the team instantly goes up a level, IMO.

But back to Maguire, I think he’d be great for the atmosphere around your club, as well as improving the team on the pitch. He’s always been spoken of as a leader and he might bring some much needed professionalism behind the scenes, it seems to be an issue with a couple of players in your squad, based on what I’ve read from United fans. Any other club pays that for him and I’m rolling my eyes, but I think he’s a good signing for ye.

el Fenomeno

Corholio wrote: »

Dunk is a good player imo. That'll be a decent signing for Leicester, good leader too. Maguire ain't no Torres either.

It was more a comparison of the situation, ie. losing a key player and overspending to replace him because the selling club knows you've just got a windfall.

Mr.Nice Guy

https://twitter.com/Transfers/status/1150404149286244352

Good move for both parties I reckon.

sabat

Corholio wrote: »

Clubs fans will always position themselves into 'explaining' these fees though and how they are actually all good deals. The term 'as long as they improve the team' will be trotted out a lot, regardless of the average quality that was there to be needed to improve upon.

You could easily argue that VvD by his presence alone has added a cumulative value of at least £50M to the potential transfer fees of the other centre-halves at Liverpool though, even before you try to evaluate whether his fee was worth it in its own right. Conversely I can't see Maguire turning Jones and Smalling into £30M+ defenders...

Utds spending this summer reminds me of Liverpool in the summer of 2011. Big money on good to average players. Be interesting to see if it works out.

Agent Coulson

Can't blame Maguire wanting to go to Man U he will more than likely triple or quadruple his wages there.

He would be looking for close £200k minimum at Man U with there wage structure as it is now. No way Leicester could never match that

Whatsisname

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Can't blame Maguire wanting to go to Man U he will more than likely triple or quadruple his wages there.

He would be looking for close £200k minimum at Man U with there wage structure as it is now. No way Leicester could never match that

Yeah cause moneys the only reason. Shame we're always fighting relegation at United.

ThunbergsAreGo

Whatsisname wrote: »

Yeah cause moneys the only reason. Shame we're always fighting relegation at United.

Neither are Leicester to be fair

D14Rugby

The money for transfers these days is absolutely ridiculous, even though there's loads of money around in football at the moment this really seems like a bubble that when it bursts will be catastrophic. 80m used to buy you the best player in the world not that long ago, now it gets you a decent centre back, that's ridiculous.

rob316

D14Rugby wrote: »

The money for transfers these days is absolutely ridiculous, even though there's loads of money around in football at the moment this really seems like a bubble that when it bursts will be catastrophic. 80m used to buy you the best player in the world not that long ago, now it gets you a decent centre back, that's ridiculous.

It would take Sky/BT and whoever else agreeing to drastically reduce the price they pay for the PL TV rights. That won't happen though.

I also think agent fees are driving up the prices of transfers too, so I would like to see a rule in place that the players pays the agents fee and not the clubs.

I agree though if it does burst, it will be catastrophic. Some of the PL clubs are operating wage bills as high as 80% of turnover, its mental.

Lucas Hood

D14Rugby wrote: »

The money for transfers these days is absolutely ridiculous, even though there's loads of money around in football at the moment this really seems like a bubble that when it bursts will be catastrophic. 80m used to buy you the best player in the world not that long ago, now it gets you a decent centre back, that's ridiculous.

Football clubs income has increased massively, makse sense that transfer fees increase too

https://twitter.com/HLNinEngeland/status/1146088280221454336?s=19

rob316

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Football clubs income has increased massively, makse sense that transfer fees increase too

https://twitter.com/HLNinEngeland/status/1146088280221454336?s=19

Harry Maguire is not the quality of Rio though, lets call a spade a spade here.

Its obscene most fees now, you can't defend it.

PARlance

How will it be catastrophic? It's a fairly dramatic word, would love to see what the bubble bursting would entail?

Player prices crash... as long as a club isn't dependent on selling players as a big part of their business model, this shouldn't be a massive impact.

If there's some crash then high wage levels could be an issue but not something that couldn't be rectified in 2-3 years.

Liam O

rob316 wrote: »

Harry Maguire is not the quality of Rio though, lets call a spade a spade here.

Its obscene most fees now, you can't defend it.

Sure Rio was commonly referred to as a donkey when he joined United if I remember correctly...

AidoEirE

rob316 wrote: »

Harry Maguire is not the quality of Rio though, lets call a spade a spade here.

Its obscene most fees now, you can't defend it.

Thats not the point though, player quality will remain the same but the prices will always increase.
Theres so much money to made by clubs now. With CL/EL bonuses, tv rights, marketing, brand promotion, player agents
This was all a lot lower when we signed Rio as you said.

Throw enough **** it's bound to stick sometime. Theres just to much money floating around/to be made.

Us/pool/arsenal are good in the fact we are globally recognised.
It will implode on the smaller teams, no disrespect to them, but all this inflation will do is drive a bigger wedge between lower level clubs and the top tier.

TitianGerm

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Football clubs income has increased massively, makse sense that transfer fees increase too

https://twitter.com/HLNinEngeland/status/1146088280221454336?s=19

It's only £80m not £90m. But Rio was a far better defender than Maguire ever will be. Rio was unbelievable.

racso1975

But surely the smaller clubs benefit from the extra money being paid given the majority of players come from smaller clubs

AidoEirE

racso1975 wrote: »

But surely the smaller clubs benefit from the extra money being paid given the majority of players come from smaller clubs

Not in comparison to what the big 6 would make every season.

IncognitoMan

racso1975 wrote: »

But surely the smaller clubs benefit from the extra money being paid given the majority of players come from smaller clubs

They just end up paying more for the mid table - lower table level players.


Tyrone Mings for 20m potentially rising to 25m for example.

Baggly

TitianGerm wrote: »

It's only £80m not £90m. But Rio was a far better defender than Maguire ever will be. Rio was unbelievable.

Min no of English players rule wasnt in place at the time.

The fee being paid now isnt just for his playing ability (unfortunately). At the time Rio moved to Utd he was good - but he wasnt nearly as good as he became.

Lucas Hood

TitianGerm wrote: »

It's only £80m not £90m. But Rio was a far better defender than Maguire ever will be. Rio was unbelievable.

The tweet is a few weeks old at this stage.

Just a comparison of transfer fees or potential transfer fees as a percentage of revenue.

AdamD

I don't see how there will be a casastrophic crash. Most of the income these clubs are getting comes from TV deals, prize money and sponsorships. Each of these are decided 2/3 years in advance. Most player contracts are 3-4 years, if their revenue was to drop they'd know far enough in advance to plan for it.

Drumpot

AidoEirE wrote: »

Not in comparison to what the big 6 would make every season.

Its not all bad for lower ranked teams. What the middle to lower table clubs can do now is refuse bids and be bolder in holding onto players. Could Leicester refuse a 40-50mil bid for Maguire if they weren't getting 150 mil from TV money ?

They can also offer more money for players and compete with bigger named clubs on the continent. I remember when Everton signed Lukaku for £32mil , 5 seasons ago, I was like "f**kin hell . . Everton spending that much on one player ?!"

Crash Bang Wall

Baggly wrote: »

Min no of English players rule wasnt in place at the time.

The fee being paid now isnt just for his playing ability (unfortunately). At the time Rio moved to Utd he was good - but he wasnt nearly as good as he became.

I believe its actually a max number of foreign players I believe.....One season Chelsea only listed of 22 players (I think) because they had the max allowed no of foreign players, and hadnt enough English to fill a 25 man squad

Unearthly

The premier league would probably be far richer if they wiped out the middle companies like Sky and BT and just did their own subscription package of like 15 euro a month.

Baggly

Crash Bang Wall wrote: »

I believe its actually a max number of foreign players I believe.....One season Chelsea only listed of 22 players (I think) because they had the max allowed no of foreign players, and hadnt enough English to fill a 25 man squad

Its entirely possible the point has flown far far far above my head, but does it not equate to the same thing?

Tomw86

Unearthly wrote: »

The premier league would probably be far richer if they wiped out the middle companies like Sky and BT and just did their own subscription package of like 15 euro a month.

An interesting idea, but what TV platform would they put that on?

If it was streaming only, that is going to cause issues for pubs or people who enjoy watching games on a bigger screen.

D14Rugby

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Football clubs income has increased massively, makse sense that transfer fees increase too

https://twitter.com/HLNinEngeland/status/1146088280221454336?s=19

Same percentage of turnover but player quality, as much as I like maguire, isn't even in the same ball park imo

Know the home grown rules weren't the same and now inflate it but even still that's mad.

racso1975 wrote: »

But surely the smaller clubs benefit from the extra money being paid given the majority of players come from smaller clubs

Yeah in theory but look at Hull, they got 17m for Maguire 2 years ago, nevermind the peanuts Sheff Utd got

AdamD wrote: »

I don't see how there will be a casastrophic crash. Most of the income these clubs are getting comes from TV deals, prize money and sponsorships. Each of these are decided 2/3 years in advance. Most player contracts are 3-4 years, if their revenue was to drop they'd know far enough in advance to plan for it.

Man United got roughly 150m prize and TV money for Europe and EPL last season, that's a huge amount of money but in comparison to the transfer fees being thrown around its not actually that much. That puts a lot of pressure on sponsorships to bring in money.

Blinky Plebum

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Football clubs income has increased massively, makse sense that transfer fees increase too

https://twitter.com/HLNinEngeland/status/1146088280221454336?s=19

Problem with the comparision being made is that Harry Maguire isn't close to being in the same league as Ferdinand.

Ferdidnand was so good he broke the British transfer record twice.

SureYWouldntYa

Baggly wrote: »

Its entirely possible the point has flown far far far above my head, but does it not equate to the same thing?

I'm filling in from my Football Manager here but I believe it's correct

The max number of over 21 players a PL club can register is 25, u21s dont need to be registered once they're with the club two years so that only really applies to youth players

Of this 25 man squad a max of 17 foreign players are allowed, the rest must be made up of homegrown players should you want them, nothing stopping a PL club having 17 foreigners and 1 youth making up their permanent matchday 18

There's no minimum amount of homegrown players you should have, it is prudent though since you can only have 17 foreign players

I believe there was even talk of reducing the number to 13 players after Brexit, which would be restricting a lot of clubs

Baggly

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

I'm filling in from my Football Manager here but I believe it's correct

The max number of over 21 players a PL club can register is 25, u21s dont need to be registered once they're with the club two years so that only really applies to youth players

Of this 25 man squad a max of 17 foreign players are allowed, the rest must be made up of homegrown players should you want them, nothing stopping a PL club having 17 foreigners and 1 youth making up their permanent matchday 18

There's no minimum amount of homegrown players you should have, it is prudent though since you can only have 17 foreign players

I believe there was even talk of reducing the number to 13 players after Brexit, which would be restricting a lot of clubs

Gotcha! Thanks!!

Unearthly

Tomw86 wrote: »

An interesting idea, but what TV platform would they put that on?

If it was streaming only, that is going to cause issues for pubs or people who enjoy watching games on a bigger screen.

Their own streaming app. Pubs would have to pay a much larger fee for access like how they do with Sky.

Nowadays most people have a device or smart tv that can play 4k/HD streaming on big tv's

D14Rugby

Unearthly wrote: »

The premier league would probably be far richer if they wiped out the middle companies like Sky and BT and just did their own subscription package of like 15 euro a month.

Potentially, but part of the reason the EPL is so big is because of how easily accessible it is, it get the casual football fan in that otherwise wouldn't be a football fan.

Cookiemunster

Crash Bang Wall wrote: »

I believe its actually a max number of foreign players I believe.....One season Chelsea only listed of 22 players (I think) because they had the max allowed no of foreign players, and hadnt enough English to fill a 25 man squad

It's the number of home grown players (8 per 25 man squad) that are in your squad. A home grown player doesn't have to be English. They can be any nationality as long as they've spent three years in an English or Welsh academy before the age of 21.

Unearthly

D14Rugby wrote: »

Potentially, but part of the reason the EPL is so big is because of how easily accessible it is, it get the casual football fan in that otherwise wouldn't be a football fan.

Well the majority of the matches are on Sky if we are talking about the Irish/UK market. To get access to that you need to also pay for their entertainment package then the sport package which is about 30 or 40 euro. It freezes a lot of people out.

15 euro would grab a lot of the population I reckon

D14Rugby

Unearthly wrote: »

Well the majority of the matches are on Sky if we are talking about the Irish/UK market. To get access to that you need to also pay for their entertainment package then the sport package which is about 30 or 40 euro. It freezes a lot of people out.

15 euro would grab a lot of the population I reckon

Yeah but it's a lot easier to click a button to add sky sports to your package than it is to set up a completely separate subscription. It's not the super committed fan that has made the EPL the powerhouse it is, it's the ultra casual fan that they have tapped so well into that has done that. If it's not as easy as hitting a button they'll be lost.
Probably the subject of another thread though.