Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Spurs


SlugTrail
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

This is where FSG refuse to tread.

We don't do alot of deals where wage is the deciding factor.

 

It's also be the 65 mil.

 

They'll demand that up front, cash, no fucking around.

 

Only 3 clubs, sorry owners, can afford that.

 

And one is in the farmer's league, thankfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, m0e said:

It's also be the 65 mil.

 

They'll demand that up front, cash, no fucking around.

 

Only 3 clubs, sorry owners, can afford that.

They could scrape together 65 mil.

 

No chance they take on the 4 or 5 years of wages - even if they only plan on a couple of those years. It would throw the whole pyramid off.

 

"Erm, yeh- uh Virgil- meet Erling. He makes twice what you do in a week - OOOOH hey Mo, come over and meet Erling!"

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

They could scrape together 65 mil.

 

No chance they take on the 4 or 5 years of wages - even if they only plan on a coule of those years. It would throw the whole pyramid off.

 

"Erm, yeh- uh Virgil- meet Erling. He makes twice what you do in a week - OOOOH hey Mo, come over and meet Erling!"

I don't think we've ever paid anything like that in total, let alone on one player, up front.

 

And that's in our history, let alone under FSG

 

Happy to be proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, m0e said:

You're ignoring his salary and signing on fee.

 

All due respect, I think you're way off here.

 

He's not going to go to France, the Spanish are broke, and Bayern won't touch his fee with a barge pole.

 

As for Juve - hahahahahaha

I think you are writing off a lot of scenarios to get him at Chelsea. As they have money it is a genuine possibility- but I think there are a few others as well. I think a lot depends upon Mbappe. But yep, I think that is a fair point on the wages. That is where my point of view is weak.

 

I think United are more of an option than Chelsea! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jockey said:

I think you are writing off a lot of scenarios to get him at Chelsea. As they have money it is a genuine possibility- but I think there are a few others as well. I think a lot depends upon Mbappe. 

 

I think United are more of an option than Chelsea

No idea what that's based on, but I'll take your word for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

Sancho this year, Haaland next. Nailed on. Cunts.

If Sancho is so good, why isn't he getting into the England team? Why are the big clubs not in for him?

 

And when was the last time United pipped someone to a major transfer?

 

Haaland won't go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jockey said:

Stop be such a precious twat over this! Jesus, you've no proof he is signing for Chelsea - I've no proof he is signing for United, or not signing for Chelsea. 

 

Me disagreeing isn't a slight on you! 

Who said I've got no proof?

 

tenor (14).gif

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kane's stats this year are a little misleading, he raked up 8 assists in a month (4 in 1 game) and then just 3 in the next 22 games. His big game goals where way down too, 2 against 10 man Man Utd and 1 against Arsenal. In the games against us I never felt he was the threat he was in years gone by, he no longer seemed to have the ability to physically bully our defenders, he certainly couldn't run away from them anymore.

 

He was a great player and is still a very good one but Man City are trying to get a player who's best years are in the rear view mirror. I think he will stay with Spurs simply because City won't pay what he's worth to Spurs, they are Everton without him and top 4 hopefuls with him.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, No2 said:

Kane's stats this year are a little misleading, he raked up 8 assists in a month (4 in 1 game) and then just 3 in the next 22 games. His big game goals where way down too, 2 against 10 man Man Utd and 1 against Arsenal. In the games against us I never felt he was the threat he was in years gone by, he no longer seemed to have the ability to physically bully our defenders, he certainly couldn't run away from them anymore.

 

He was a great player and is still a very good one but Man City are trying to get a player who's best years are in the rear view mirror. I think he will stay with Spurs simply because City won't pay what he's worth to Spurs, they are Everton without him and top 4 hopefuls with him.

Spot on this. Especially with the assists. There was a game last season where he played a 5 yard pass to a teammate in his own half, who then ran the length of the pitch and scored a great goal yet the narrative was all about Sur Harry’s assist. 
 

I’m surprised Peps gone in this big for him. He was never the quickest of players and he’s not an intelligent footballer like Aguero so can’t see how he’s gonna improve them that much the way they set up. 
 

For personal awards he’s done great for himself at Spurs but I feel he’s holding them back. They couldn’t buy another forward under Poch as he liked playing up front on his own and no one decent was going there to sit on the bench.

 

If I was Levy I’d ask for the 3 players mentioned - Sterling, Jesus & Laporte plus a couple of quid cash to cover their first years wages and do the deal. 
 

Considering the shite Spurs have bought when they’ve had cash this seems a far lower risk for them.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, No2 said:

Kane's stats this year are a little misleading, he raked up 8 assists in a month (4 in 1 game) and then just 3 in the next 22 games. His big game goals where way down too, 2 against 10 man Man Utd and 1 against Arsenal. In the games against us I never felt he was the threat he was in years gone by, he no longer seemed to have the ability to physically bully our defenders, he certainly couldn't run away from them anymore.

 

He was a great player and is still a very good one but Man City are trying to get a player who's best years are in the rear view mirror. I think he will stay with Spurs simply because City won't pay what he's worth to Spurs, they are Everton without him and top 4 hopefuls with him.

Please tell us about all those other players who didn't have such misleading stats, and how much they're worth in today's market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SlugTrail said:

Name them, I bet we can get that list down to about 3

You're right.

 

1. Gini. Became the best player in the world when we let him leave.

 

2. Suarez. Would have won the treble this season had we signed him.

 

3. Coutinho. Haven't replaced him since he left.

 

Everyone else is shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always find it weird when people talk about transfers as if wages were a minor piece of the puzzle. I think it comes from Football Manager?

Anyway, in the real world, clubs decide how much a player is worth, total, in terms of price/season. This includes fee, agent fee, signing on fee, and wages, all of it.

 

If Liverpool decide that Haaland is a great player and he's going to transform the team, Edwards might be willing to pay, say, £30m/season total for him (keeping in mind that our most expensive player ever, van Dijk, costs us £25m/season when including wages and fee amortised over the length of his contract).

 

So then, if he only costs £65m to Dortmund, say another £10m in agent's fees/signing bonuses, that's £15m/season over the 5 years of his contract, which leaves us being able to offer him £15m/season (roughly £300k/week) in wages. Sounds doable, right?

No! Because Man City or Chelsea, who already have multiple players they spend over £30m/season on, if you factor in total cost, will be happy to pay £45-50m/season for him! They're not going to outbid us on the fee - the buyout clause already ensures they won't have to. It basically allows Haaland and his agent to have a bidding war on his wages, which they will undoubtedly do.

 

So no, just because he's available with a buyout clause next season doesn't mean we have a chance at him. It means he'll end up with wages north of £500k/week, and we will never even be in the running.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

Always find it weird when people talk about transfers as if wages were a minor piece of the puzzle. I think it comes from Football Manager?

Anyway, in the real world, clubs decide how much a player is worth, total, in terms of price/season. This includes fee, agent fee, signing on fee, and wages, all of it.

 

If Liverpool decide that Haaland is a great player and he's going to transform the team, Edwards might be willing to pay, say, £30m/season total for him (keeping in mind that our most expensive player ever, van Dijk, costs us £25m/season when including wages and fee amortised over the length of his contract).

 

So then, if he only costs £65m to Dortmund, say another £10m in agent's fees/signing bonuses, that's £15m/season over the 5 years of his contract, which leaves us being able to offer him £15m/season (roughly £300k/week) in wages. Sounds doable, right?

No! Because Man City or Chelsea, who already have multiple players they spend over £30m/season on, if you factor in total cost, will be happy to pay £45-50m/season for him! They're not going to outbid us on the fee - the buyout clause already ensures they won't have to. It basically allows Haaland and his agent to have a bidding war on his wages, which they will undoubtedly do.

 

So no, just because he's available with a buyout clause next season doesn't mean we have a chance at him. It means he'll end up with wages north of £500k/week, and we will never even be in the running.

The only possible way we could sign Haaland, Mbappe, a player of that calibre, is if like the van Dijk transfer, they say they'll only sign for us. The second we're competing with other clubs for them two, we're out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...