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.

Summer 2021 transfer thread.


manwiththestick
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Herp McDerp said:

 

There's no need for you to explain anything, I understood the gist of your argument and was just telling you that it's equal parts idiotic and myopic.

 

Oh and I believe that people like you are not far removed from City and Chelsea fans in your "Fuck you we've got ours" attitude.

You really do have a myopic outlook. You can believe what you want, still doesnt make you right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

I think maintaining equilibrium is a bloody good idea in the current financial circumstances. But hey ho,on you go.

sell to buy equilibrium on transfers.

 

a hugely risky strategy.

 

Lets say we sell Salah and buy Sancho and Konate. 

It could all go pete tong very quickly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, El Rojo said:

There was a piece in The Athletic recently suggesting that Red Sox fans are convinced the owners have completely abandoned them for us, which is hardly encouraging for either group of fans. 

I think that crops up every other season doesnt it?

 

Imagine what it would be like if FSG did start building a portfolio of other football clubs like the city group! No thanks, FIFA should outlaw that shit but they wont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, El Rojo said:

There was a piece in The Athletic recently suggesting that Red Sox fans are convinced the owners have completely abandoned them for us, which is hardly encouraging for either group of fans. 

For years, both sets of fans have thought they've favoured the other. This isn't exactly new.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KevieG said:

Our current "self sustaining" model roughly equates to maintaining some kind of sell to buy equilibrium. Our net outlay on transfers is minimal. I would think the best case scenario in the picking up gems model is to become an english Borussia dortmund.  In effect, operate as a second tier club but every now and again hit the jackpot and have a short run of success. Thats a best case scenario. You could just as easily plod along like Arsenal or Tottenham.

 

There isn't an obvious solution. No-one can compete with the Oil Money head on. Klopps genius brought us close and I think we should have looked to make a bit of hay while on top but our owners for whatever reason thought differently.

 

 

We're owned by businessmen, hence are run like a typical business. That's kind of all there is to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't be popular but I think he's decent. Level below what we have(when on form) though. But would offer something different from what we have. 

 

What I give to see a Suarez, Torres, Sturridge again up top. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

Won't be popular but I think he's decent. Level below what we have(when on form) though. But would offer something different from what we have. 

 

What I give to see a Suarez, Torres, Sturridge again up top. 

Im still amazed no one has offered Dan a pay as you play deal. Or maybe they have and it wasnt tempting enough for him? He's one of the most natural goalscorers Ive seen in a red shirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Im still amazed no one has offered Dan a pay as you play deal. Or maybe they have and it wasnt tempting enough for him? He's one of the most natural goalscorers Ive seen in a red shirt.

Probably FSG summer idea if we don't make top 4. 

 

Yeah it's strange, I think he's got a bad rep as having a attitude and from what I've read it's bollocks. Always have time for him, not his fault his body broke down. He was sensational for a couple of years and even later got a few important goals to help us get over the line. Important player in a side trying to get back into the big time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lee909 said:

Probably FSG summer idea if we don't make top 4. 

 

Yeah it's strange, I think he's got a bad rep as having a attitude and from what I've read it's bollocks. Always have time for him, not his fault his body broke down. He was sensational for a couple of years and even later got a few important goals to help us get over the line. Important player in a side trying to get back into the big time. 

he was good for a very short period. but mostly he has spent his entire career (including before us) injured. i don't know why anyone would want to spend a penny on him. he's a complete waste of a wage and there'd be no point him signing pay as you play as he'd be going to the treatment room every day and not get paid.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 3 Stacks said:

For years, both sets of fans have thought they've favoured the other. This isn't exactly new.  

Comments from the Red Sox CEO that they wouldn’t be ‘going all in’ to win the World Series in 2021 probably gives it new legs over there this year. 

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

EXACTLTY! We are no different to Weetabix. 

Our players certainly display all the durability of milk-soaked breakfast cereal. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, El Rojo said:

Comments from the Red Sox CEO that they wouldn’t be ‘going all in’ to win the World Series in 2021 probably gives it new legs over there this year. 

Yeah, the Red Sox are in a transition period. But that's where baseball is different. You spend until you hit a certain threshold and then you have to pay a tax. If your team isn't at the level where you have a chance to win, you have a choice to not spend a lot of money because there's no salary cap you have to be over.

 

I'd say 20 of the 30 teams in MLB do not spend as much money as they could be spending and avoid paying this tax. There's a bit of an anti-competitive sentiment throughout the league at the moment. The Red Sox have spent a lot of money this past decade, but they have currently decided to be in this glob of teams who don't really want to spend so much. But this is temporary. They've always been amongst the highest spenders and they'll likely rejoin that group pretty soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

Im still amazed no one has offered Dan a pay as you play deal. Or maybe they have and it wasnt tempting enough for him? He's one of the most natural goalscorers Ive seen in a red shirt.

 

Finances are incredibly tight for most clubs, so players with a bad injury record will be seen as too risky even on a pay as you play deal. 

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...