January 2021 Transfer Thread

[Barrington Womble 8,947]

1 hour ago, No2 said:

The Guardian have a transfer section that shows only Arsenal have bought anyone, some lad for a half a million from Herta Berlin and they released Ozil, Sokratis and the young French lad to do that. Something is going on, is the bubble about to burst? Are Sky or BT or bigger European broadcasters fucked? Loads of teams are desperate for players and loads must be desperate to get rid of them yet nothing is happening anywhere. If we gave Ox, Keita or Origi away for free we would struggle to find a taker willing to match their wages.

 

Taking ourselves as example we have our front 3 on roughly 200k per week, with Madrid and Barcelona fucked the market for them now consists of 3 English rivals and PSG if we wanted to sell them. FSG are a million things but stupid isn't one of them, if a 20m investment guaranteed champions league football they would do it so why aren't they?

 

I watched the big short last week, this all has a feel of that about it.

I always think a lot of spending is driven by the club's facing relegation - arsenal's situation is surely understandable as they've not had CL for years and have an owner who won't want to invest to turn things around, it's why him and usmanov never got on. 

 

The thing with the teams facing relegation this season is there's sheff united - they blew what they had on Brewster, there's nothing.left. there's Fulham, but they can probably accept relegation and are showing signs of some recovery anyway. There's west brom, who again can probably survive going down and their bid to stay up was to roll with fat Sam. Burnley are going through a take over. And Brighton I am pretty sure will feel they don't need to sign anyone. Newcastle are not really in amongst it as they often spend in Jan. Wolves and palace are 10 or more points clear of relegation. 

 

So I don't really see what would drive spending. You could argue us needing to spend as top 4 is under threat right now (I am.making my normal assumption we wouldn't spend to try and win it, we're about protecting revenues). And maybe man united if they feel they can win the league, although equally you could argue it may destablise them, they have a big squad and sticking is their best strategy. 

 

So I can see why spending is low, especially while the grounds are shut. But our defensive issues clearly undermine us and are extreme and you would like to think it would allow for an exception. But as we heard yesterday, that's not happening. 

 

I don't think there's any big bubble burst, it's just the league is more full of owners than ever who's objective is financial reward and not sporting. 

[TheHowieLama 10,883]

32 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

I don't think there's any big bubble burst, it's just the league is more full of owners than ever who's objective is financial reward and not sporting. 

What is City's objective?

[Barrington Womble 8,947]

7 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

What is City's objective?

What do you mean? Aside from the spent in the summer and are going to piss the league anyway? They don't need anyone. 

[No2 937]

40 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

I always think a lot of spending is driven by the club's facing relegation - arsenal's situation is surely understandable as they've not had CL for years and have an owner who won't want to invest to turn things around, it's why him and usmanov never got on. 

 

The thing with the teams facing relegation this season is there's sheff united - they blew what they had on Brewster, there's nothing.left. there's Fulham, but they can probably accept relegation and are showing signs of some recovery anyway. There's west brom, who again can probably survive going down and their bid to stay up was to roll with fat Sam. Burnley are going through a take over. And Brighton I am pretty sure will feel they don't need to sign anyone. Newcastle are not really in amongst it as they often spend in Jan. Wolves and palace are 10 or more points clear of relegation. 

 

So I don't really see what would drive spending. You could argue us needing to spend as top 4 is under threat right now (I am.making my normal assumption we wouldn't spend to try and win it, we're about protecting revenues). And maybe man united if they feel they can win the league, although equally you could argue it may destablise them, they have a big squad and sticking is their best strategy. 

 

So I can see why spending is low, especially while the grounds are shut. But our defensive issues clearly undermine us and are extreme and you would like to think it would allow for an exception. But as we heard yesterday, that's not happening. 

 

I don't think there's any big bubble burst, it's just the league is more full of owners than ever who's objective is financial reward and not sporting. 

There has been no signings at all compared to 230m last year with loads of those point's above just as valid last year. Clubs have to be looking at their wage bill and seeing they aren't compatible with reality if the TV companies go under and that is something they are probably  considering for the first time.

[Barrington Womble 8,947]

7 minutes ago, No2 said:

There has been no signings at all compared to 230m last year with loads of those point's above just as valid last year. Clubs have to be looking at their wage bill and seeing they aren't compatible with reality if the TV companies go under and that is something they are probably  considering for the first time.

Why do you think TV companies will go under? 

 

Edit and if they do, they'll just launch a Global PL TV station and stream it though Amazon or whatever. 

[an tha 6,077]

2 hours ago, El Dangerous said:

I think so too and he’s certainly not young enough to see as a good punt but Kloppo seems to love him. I’d be surprised if Big Mike see’s the value in him at whatever extortionate fee Wolves will want.

He is good at running and that is about it.

 

Would be a 50m plus job and he wouldn't fit in at all with how we play IMO.

 

[Barrington Womble 8,947]

20 minutes ago, No2 said:

There has been no signings at all compared to 230m last year with loads of those point's above just as valid last year. Clubs have to be looking at their wage bill and seeing they aren't compatible with reality if the TV companies go under and that is something they are probably  considering for the first time.

Is this not compatible in net spend to last year? (Note the negative is back to front to how I'd interpt it)

 

Only 3 clubs spent over 10m

Man united - with a signing they failed to complete in the summer

Spurs, who'd just hired mourinho and had their CL money

And sheff United - who i think are the only outlier, but there is covid which has to hamper things to some extent and the window isn't closed yet. 

 

https://amp-sportsmole-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.sportsmole.co.uk/football/transfer-guides/feature/premier-league-transfer-ins-and-outs-january-2020_382539.html?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16114146807703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportsmole.co.uk%2Ffootball%2Ftransfer-guides%2Ffeature%2Fpremier-league-transfer-ins-and-outs-january-2020_382539.html

 

Arsenal net transfer balance: -£4.5m

Aston Villa net transfer balance: -£6.75m

Bournemouth net transfer balance: -£0

Brighton net transfer balance: -£9.1m

Burnley net transfer balance: -£4.73m

Chelsea net transfer balance: £5.31m

Crystal Palace net transfer balance: -£270,000

Everton net transfer balance: -£1m

Leicester City net transfer balance: -£0

Liverpool net transfer balance: -£7.65m

Man City net transfer balance: -£0

Man Utd net transfer balance: -£48.15m

Newcastle net transfer balance: -£4.05m

Norwich City net transfer balance: -£4.01m

Sheffield United net transfer balance: -£19.17m

Southampton net transfer balance: £0

Tottenham Hotspur net transfer balance: -£37.1m

Watford net transfer balance: -£9m

West Ham net transfer balance: -£27.45m

Wolverhampton Wanderers net transfer balance: -£5.31m

 

 

Share thi

[No2 937]

8 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

Why do you think TV companies will go under? 

 

Edit and if they do, they'll just launch a Global PL TV station and stream it though Amazon or whatever. 

I don't think or know they will go under, I'm just speculating on why nobody is spending any money. Its not less or slightly restrained its none. Its too weird to be just coincidences.

[No2 937]

1 minute ago, Barrington Womble said:

Is this not compatible in net spend to last year? (Note the negative is back to front to how I'd interprut it)

 

Only 3 clubs spent over 10m

Man united - with a signing they failed to complete in the summer

Spurs, who'd just hired mourinho and had their CL money

And sheff United - who i think are the only outlier, but there is covid which has to hamper things to some extent and the window isn't closed yet. 

 

https://amp-sportsmole-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.sportsmole.co.uk/football/transfer-guides/feature/premier-league-transfer-ins-and-outs-january-2020_382539.html?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16114146807703&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportsmole.co.uk%2Ffootball%2Ftransfer-guides%2Ffeature%2Fpremier-league-transfer-ins-and-outs-january-2020_382539.html

 

Arsenal net transfer balance: -£4.5m

Aston Villa net transfer balance: -£6.75m

Bournemouth net transfer balance: -£0

Brighton net transfer balance: -£9.1m

Burnley net transfer balance: -£4.73m

Chelsea net transfer balance: £5.31m

Crystal Palace net transfer balance: -£270,000

Everton net transfer balance: -£1m

Leicester City net transfer balance: -£0

Liverpool net transfer balance: -£7.65m

Man City net transfer balance: -£0

Man Utd net transfer balance: -£48.15m

Newcastle net transfer balance: -£4.05m

Norwich City net transfer balance: -£4.01m

Sheffield United net transfer balance: -£19.17m

Southampton net transfer balance: £0

Tottenham Hotspur net transfer balance: -£37.1m

Watford net transfer balance: -£9m

West Ham net transfer balance: -£27.45m

Wolverhampton Wanderers net transfer balance: -£5.31m

 

 

Share thi

That's kind of my point,  clubs haven't sold some one for 10m and replaced them for something similar.  They haven't taken on any extra costs at all, no agents, no additional contract lengths. It would be interesting to see who has recently signed up players to newer contracts. 

[El Dangerous 2,630]

1 hour ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

Any one of these would be better than our current options of playing CMs at CB or underdeveloped / not up to standard young players. 

 

 

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/spieler/vertragslosespieler/statistik/1/plus//galerie/0?ausrichtung=alle&spielerposition_id=3&land_id=alle&altersklasse=&wettbewerb_id=alle&seit=alle&yt0=Show

I like the sound of that Bruno Romo. Sounds like a 1980’s WWF wrestler.

[joe_fishfish 403]

I'd rather see Williams and Phillips both play every game til the end of the season than re-sign a 36 year old Martin Skrtel.

[TheHowieLama 10,883]

33 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

What do you mean? Aside from the spent in the summer and are going to piss the league anyway? They don't need anyone. 

I don't think there's any big bubble burst, it's just the league is more full of owners than ever who's objective is financial reward and not sporting. 

 

So you think they are a good example of the latter? Who else is?

[MegadriveMan 814]

9 minutes ago, joe_fishfish said:

I'd rather see Williams and Phillips both play every game til the end of the season than re-sign a 36 year old Martin Skrtel.

Hasn't Skrtel got a really bad injury?

[an tha 6,077]

22 minutes ago, joe_fishfish said:

I'd rather see Williams and Phillips both play every game til the end of the season than re-sign a 36 year old Martin Skrtel.

Neither of those two options should be options.

[Barrington Womble 8,947]

59 minutes ago, No2 said:

That's kind of my point,  clubs haven't sold some one for 10m and replaced them for something similar.  They haven't taken on any extra costs at all, no agents, no additional contract lengths. It would be interesting to see who has recently signed up players to newer contracts. 

Well I think there might be some wage depression because of covid. All over Europe people have got less, so I would imagine there's a lot of lads sitting on benches who maybe can't get a bigger (or as good) salary as they are getting now, so agents are not able to generate the churn they normally can. 

[Barrington Womble 8,947]

54 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I don't think there's any big bubble burst, it's just the league is more full of owners than ever who's objective is financial reward and not sporting. 

 

So you think they are a good example of the latter? Who else is?

City owners are here for financial reward. Just a different financial reward as fsg. They've spent, they've had their run in with uefa on ffp and got away with it on a technicality. They won't get away with it on a technicality again. 

[TheHowieLama 10,883]

2 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

City owners are here for financial reward. Just a different financial reward as fsg. They've spent, they've had their run in with uefa on ffp and got away with it on a technicality. They won't get away with it on a technicality again. 

So which clubs are examples of sport over finance?

[Barrington Womble 8,947]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

So which clubs are examples of sport over finance?

Chelsea currently. Maybe Everton, I don't really understand what is happening there.  It used to be just about everyone. But since the league has been full of people who are here as an investment rather than an ego trip, it's becoming less and less about the sport. I don't really see the premier league as much beyond a reality TV show any more, there for the financial benefit of the people who own the show. What was the old saying "nobody owns a football club to make money". That was maybe the 90s when that was last true and slowly but surely we've morphed from a sport into an entertainment industry. 

[TheHowieLama 10,883]

29 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

Chelsea currently.

I guess you must mean cuz they bought a few players recently with the Hazard money.

 

Last 5 years net:

 

13. Chelsea – £115.57m
14. Liverpool – £107.58m

 

 

 

I think Everton has probably been the best example of how not to do it.

[Barrington Womble 8,947]

4 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I guess you must mean cuz they bought a few players recently with the Hazard money.

 

Last 5 years net:

 

13. Chelsea – £115.57m
14. Liverpool – £107.58m

 

 

 

I think Everton has probably been the best example of how not to do it.

That only surprises me to an extent as some of the incoming fees (not Hazard) over the years have been inexplicably eye watering. Although they have been very good at the people trafficking thing they do. 

[Lee909 11,540]

I see the line should Liverpool fail to finish in the top 4 then transfers and new contracts will be difficult to get over the line has been sent out to the club mouthpieces, I mean journos

[m0e 1,532]

20 hours ago, an tha said:

Neither of those two options should be options.

 

[m0e 1,532]

On 22/01/2021 at 21:11, Barrington Womble said:

But we got those two in by sacrificing players who we've previously been told were sacred and the future. Thiago came in because we got his fee off sheff United for brewster. Jota came in because we've taken the 1st installment off hoever and the 2nd will likely be paid by whatever tribunal fee we get for Wilson. I've never doubted their capacity to sell to buy. They've done it since their very 1st window at the club. They now need to take some of those millions they've been telling us they were so brilliant at making and invest where klopp wants it. If that means the club needs to increase its rolling credit facility, I'm alright with that, because I'll back klopp to have the talent to make sure the club keeps smashing it. Aside from the hedgefunds, the Tory's mates and fucking amazon, just about everyone else will come out of this pandemic with more debt than they went in. It's completely fucking all business and it's ok if we need to borrow to ensure we've still got a top side at the end of it. 

That's not the same as saying we won't buy anyone. And most of my post reflected an agreement with your take on how we bought them.

 

We also know (and I believe you've been a leader on this theory too) that we big up certain players to inflate their values, knowing we won't be playing them.

 

If you honestly think Hoever and Brewster were ever considered first teamers,  fair enough. I don't.

 

Anyway, to summarise - selling to buy is not the same as not buying. And we're definitely buying this summer.

[Trumo 14,181]

19 minutes ago, m0e said:

Anyway, to summarise - selling to buy is not the same as not buying. And we're definitely buying this summer.

 

So we're definitely selling then.

[Babb'sBurstNad 9,230]

Bring Klavan home.