Summer Transfer Thread 2012

[Trucker Paddy]

 

Chelsea have just got Hazard, Hulk and Marin to replace and improve upon the likes of Kalou. In order to leapfrog Chelsea in the table, some people are saying we should buy Kalou.

 

Makes sense.

 

I must have missed Hulk signing

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Nailed on, isn't it? Point still stands with Hazard and Marin. Doubt they're anywhere near done in the market.

[Whelan]

Chelsea have just got Hazard, Hulk and Marin to replace and improve upon the likes of Kalou. In order to leapfrog Chelsea in the table, some people are saying we should buy Kalou.

 

Makes sense.

 

No they are not! And you know quite well that they are not. They are saying that Kalou is accepted, if Ramierez is signed. If Ramierez and Belhanda even better, but I would rather we bought a genuine exciting, talent than bought four players of average quality.

 

And if Chelsea are spending £100m, then what we do is irrelevant as we are not, and never will spend that money.

[Evil_Ways]

Yes i know i can read.

 

But what you were saying was 100m well spent would have seen us get 4th it follows logic that if 100m spent wisely would secure that position, which you said it would, then surely you can predict that another figure spent wisely would get us 1st position?

 

I dont know. And it's not relevant to the point i was making that we spent much more than the teams we should have competed for fourth with.

[Evil_Ways]

So Spurs and Arse had a negative (net) spend prior to 2011 (a profit) and then you say we spent 100£ million (gross). Now, the owners put in about 30£ mill (net), and whether or not that should have been enough to put us into 4th, confusing matters by using the gross number of 100£ mill ruins your argument!

 

If you want to compare numbers at least compare apples and apples not apples and oranges......

 

How is it confusing ?

I compared their net vs ours, they made a profit, we spent 30m. The players we bought cost in excess of 100 million. I havent said 100 million is the difference between their spending and ours, simply that the players we bought cost in excess of 100m and that it should have been enough to overtake them. If you disagree, fine.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

No they are not! And you know quite well that they are not.

 

Hold on, I was talking in general. Some people are well into the idea of Kalou.

[Whelan]

Hold on, I was talking in general. Some people are well into the idea of Kalou.

 

Sorry! I was a bit tetchy there.

 

But I am not sure anyone has suggested Kalou as a primary target, people have argued he is a good player, but I would argue that most are aware that we need quality up front and do need a big signing to get that. We need another Suarez basically.

[Sandford]

I dont know. And it's not relevant to the point i was making that we spent much more than the teams we should have competed for fourth with.

 

If you were just trying to make the above point?(which you wasn't, amazing how things become irrelevant when you are pulled up on something) you could've just wrote the highlighted sentence.

[Funkasy]

Chelsea have just got Hazard, Hulk and Marin to replace and improve upon the likes of Kalou. In order to leapfrog Chelsea in the table, some people are saying we should buy Kalou.

 

Makes sense.

 

Ac Milan got rid of Pirlo, didnt work out that well and Juventus won. Im not saying its the same in any way, but players need the right environment to blossom and that might be liverpool. I would happily take him on a free instead of downing or cole.

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

No they are not! And you know quite well that they are not. They are saying that Kalou is accepted, if Ramierez is signed. If Ramierez and Belhanda even better, but I would rather we bought a genuine exciting, talent than bought four players of average quality.

 

And if Chelsea are spending £100m, then what we do is irrelevant as we are not, and never will spend that money.

 

you have a short memory. i think we spent that plus about 5-10 million last summer. and adding to that, the amount of money you spend is irrelevant, its how you spend that money

 

if all signings were like torres then no one would get anywhere. if our signings were similar to newcastles then we would be in the top 4. spurs, arsenal and newcastle are the best examples to show that its not about the money you have to spend but how you spend it. obviously having a lot of money to spend helps but if chelsea had used their money like city used theirs then they would have won a lot more after mourinho left

[Whelan]

you have a short memory. i think we spent that plus about 5-10 million last summer. and adding to that, the amount of money you spend is irrelevant, its how you spend that money

 

 

Did we? Last Summer?

 

Downing, Henderson, Adam, Enrique and Coates where under £60m, if you are adding in Suarez and Caroll, then you factor in Toress and Babel.

 

 

So thankfully my memory is fine.

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

Ac Milan got rid of Pirlo, didnt work out that well and Juventus won. Im not saying its the same in any way, but players need the right environment to blossom and that might be liverpool. I would happily take him on a free instead of downing or cole.

 

Its just not the same though is it? pirlo is world class and milan made a huge mistake in letting him leave. kalou is nowhere near that level. Also kalou would be on massive wages that would not reflect his ability. who was the last person we got on a free from chelsea to do a similar job to kalou? joe cole and look at how his wages are making it difficult to bring other players in who deserve to be payed that.

 

if we want top 4 we have to aim for better than kalou. saying that you would have them over cole and downing means nothing, as they pretty shit tbh. i would rather give sterling a go than kalou, or do what other teams do, pick out gems in other leagues and get him for a modest fee on a modest salary

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

Did we? Last Summer?

 

Downing, Henderson, Adam, Enrique and Coates where under £60m, if you are adding in Suarez and Caroll, then you factor in Toress and Babel.

 

 

So thankfully my memory is fine.

 

Well obviously you factor in suarez+carrol/ torres+ babel. but we did spend just over £100 million on transfers but about £30 million net. I'm just saying that we were not too dissimilar to chelsea last season in the transfer market. of course chelsea will spend £100 mil + this season, but like us some of it will be funded by the sale of their players.

 

but yeah you're right, because without a ridiculous sale of a player for £50 million, we probably wont be spending over £100mil for a long long time

[Whelan]

It annoys the fuck out of some people, but the Net spend is relevant. Spurs will spend big this summer but essentially because they will sell Modric for about £40m, add in £20m and they can buy a lot of players, probably the same ones that we will be in for.

[dickie mint]

Shelvey is off to West Brom.

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

Shelvey is off to West Brom.

 

Bollocks(?)

[Frankenhooker]

Shelvey is off to West Brom.

 

Why ? Fucking mental if true, I wouldn't even let him out on loan what with the Europa League.

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

Why ? Fucking mental if true, I wouldn't even let him out on loan what with the Europa League.

 

Reckon its BS to be honest

[WaltonRed]

Best be on loan if he is

[fowler9]

if its a loan it might be a good idea given the amount of players we have for the position and seemingly more targeted, if its permanent its a huge fucking mistake

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

maybe him and Clarke making sure we get off to a good start next season? (6)

[Scott_M]

I'd let Shelvey go, don't rate him.

[WaltonRed]

maybe put a buy back in or something

[Guest ShoePiss]

I'd let Shelvey go, don't rate him.

 

Really? After the promise he's shown in games last season? He's only 20, plenty of room for improvement. I think there are a number of other players that we should be letting go before him.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

Gravy?