The 2011 Summer Transfer Rumors - part 2

[EnglishWarrior]

The thing I'd like to know, exactly where was EW when Bradford were paying Benny Carbone £40k a week, or Leeds buying Seth Johnson for £9m and giving him £32k a week when he was planning on holding out for £16k. And where was EW when Spurs manager Bent Arry Redknapp was tapping up City players to move to Pompey on high wages thanks to Mr Gaydamak. Where was he when Spurs went into the academies of the likes of Crystal Palace, and Nottm Forest, planting stories in the press and convincing their most promising players to knock back contract extensions so Spurs could get them on the cheap.

Where was EW each time Arry pops up on TV talking about how triffic certain players are "but not talking about how much he would love to sign them because they belong to someone else.

All these times when there wasn't someone standing between Spurs and the gravy train of the champions league was EW protesting against the lack of integrity in football?

Ha ha, was he ****. EW is just a bitter jealous spud, and that is your lesson for today.

Well we will all know how bent Harry is when his trial begins in the High Court later this month. Until then you can say what you want, I will wait until the court passes verdict.

What you are talking about is just the way football works. It doesn't make it right, but then if everyone is at it....

You want to know how penalised Spurs have become next to the likes of Chelsea (still to me a team that bounced between the old Div 1 and 2) and Man City (still and always will be a joke)? Well none of our players are on £80,000 per week. We have a strict wage structure because we are a club who runs itself on profit margins. We are not a club who can hand out dodgy oil money like it is going out of fashion.

And to be honest, I'm happy that way. Nothing like a bit of integrity. If we make it big, then I know we would have deserved it. Unlike you and Chelsea, who are like the uncouth neighbours moved into the rich neighbourhood after a lucky lottery jackpot. You'll never have the real class of a Barca or Man td cos you've never built yourselves up the legitamite way.

And I hope you read what Embers has posted. He is spot-on. You are nothing but a hypocrite.

 

[moomba]

Where was this attitude when West Ham was spending money moomba? You did a big backflip once Man City had the cash in hand yet for some reason you cant see it.

Eh!!!! Correct me if I'm wrong (a link would be nice) but I don't think I've ever suggested that West Hams spending was immoral or wrong?

Ive held the firm view that spending to an extent is fine but it cant be done at the expense of the clubs core values. Given the fact West Hams academy is probably one of its core values id frown upon any Man City style expenditure personally. A little bit here and there is fair enough but if owners came in and sold Collison, Noble, Tomkins, Tombides etc and replaced them with complete flogs like Robinho, Adebayor and Gareth Barry I wouldnt have a bar of it personally and would reconsider my allegiances to what id consider my former club.

To each his own. I love seeing academy kids break through, but if they aren't as good as a non academy player then I'd rather we pick the better player.

FWIW West Ham have signed as many senior players from outside their own academy as we have since the takeover.

IIRC you big hubub was the crazy wages we were paying. IMO what a club chooses to pay its players is completely irrelevant to me. I dont have any issue with what clubs choose to pay players. I do have issue with players chasing clubs in order to pay them however. IMO that is rotten and goes against the mere spirit of competition in itself. High wages however always should be related to the revenue produced and should always be down to the clubs management to determine what is and what is not reasonable.

You were spending money you couldn't afford, and you weren't getting anywhere near value for your spending that IMO you could have got. People are more than welcome to discuss the same issues with me, in many cases I have agreed with them about the transfer prices and wages we have paid. If you think we're spending money we can't afford you'd be wrong and thats just the way it is. It's why when we spend £18m on Roque Santa Cruz I will be the first to say it's a bad deal, but I won't join in the hysterics on here that having him on the books represents anything other than a small dent in the wallet of the owner. If we didn't have the security of the owners wealth, then I probably would be yelling, kicking and screaming a lot louder.

moomba was happy to talk up Stephen Ireland as the next best thing since sliced bread but when the money came he was happy to cast him aside like a piece of rotten meat for the next goose that was put in the window. Personally id rather be relegated then support a club in the top 4 that has a mercenary like Tevez has become as a club legend.

I was actually very opposed to the deal at the time, and said so on here. But I'm just a supporter, I don't make the deals.

And FWIW if you do search of Carlos Tevez West Ham legend in google you get about 400,000 more hits than you do if you substitute Man City. For me I'll remember him fondly, but he'll never be a legend at Man City. I have a sneaking suspicion if I could be bothered looking through your old posts I could probably find one from you annointing Tevez as a legend of your club.

 

[Coledinho]

You said you never called West Hams spending wrong and then two CMs below you start explaining all the things wrong with West Hams spending

Tevez was a legend at West Ham. Most unbiased football fans would agree with that. He was playing with passion and joy. At Man City hes playing for money and because he is legally forced too. Comparing apples and oranges. Tevez is a shell of his former self. Everyone can see that bar you

 

[Seriously]

If Villa wants to come to us then I would be very happy (highly doubt it though )

A front 3 of

Suarez--Carroll--Villa

would be scarely good

 

[apollo_creed]

Got to laugh at the jealous many giving Moomba/City shit.

Spending power is part of football and has been for a while. ****ing get over it you dafodils.

And Embers, I remember Moomba always defended Chelsea - and this was before City had any glimpse of big $$. I think that makes him consistent with his opinion on the subject. Don't think we should be accusing people of saying/stating things without proof at hand.

English Warrior - you are jealous. Too bad Harry wastes a shitload of money, sells players (even buys some of them back!) and can't amount those shady deals into anything substantial. For years your spending power was >>>> City's, it's greater than 99% of clubs in English football. Is that wrong? Should you feel hollow after beating Wigan or someone and acknowledge that it doesn't matter.

Spending power is relevant to every single club in the league. You have more than some, others have more than you. No reason to throw your toys out of the pram on a weekly basis.

And Liverpool fans lecturing others on wasteful spending. Oh my. Oh my.
I wouldn't even know where to start. But be careful what you criticise Mr. WorldCup2022, as Wayne Bridge is looking for a new home and you missed out on Clichy. And he does fit the Kenny Daglish mould of signing. (shit players, big money)

 

[moomba]

You said you never called West Hams spending wrong and then two CMs below you start explaining all the things wrong with West Hams spending

I'm a little confused here. If you're saying that I criticised value for money West Ham got on their signings but refuse to do so with City signings you would be wrong as I've criticised or questioned a number of signings we've made and the money we've paid to get them.

If you're suggesting that I was talked about whether or not West Ham could afford what they were spending, but refuse to do so with City you would be right as we are too totally different animals. We can spend £18m and £100k a week on Roque Santa Cruz and it probably had less effect than you getting Ljundberg for a few million.

IF you're suggesting that I criticised West Hams spending as morally wrong or unethical but refuse to do so with City then you would be wrong as I've never criticised West Hams spending as unethical or immoral. Neither has the likes of EW, but West Ham are another club that weren't a threat to Tottenham so it was morally OK.

Tevez was a legend at West Ham. Most unbiased football fans would agree with that. He was playing with passion and joy. At Man City hes playing for money and because he is legally forced too. Comparing apples and oranges. Tevez is a shell of his former self. Everyone can see that bar you

For me, 1 or 2 years just isn't enough time for anyone to be legend of a club, but to each his own. If Tevez stayed for 5 years putting in the effort and the goals from his first two then I'm sure I would think differently. Whether he spent each off season carrying on about leaving or not.

Funny thing though, if Tevez does leave we would have got two years of great performances, over 50 goals and a profit of £20 odd million in the transfer market. West Ham got 1 year, 7 goals and it cost them close to £50m all up. That sort of legend I wouldn't want at the club.

 

[moomba]

Stefan Savic is apparently in Manchester for a medical, Liverpool supposed to be trying to highjack the deal to City. Fee would be around £7m, can't say I know anything about him.

 

[Gak Attack]

Why are the Chelsea and City fans so defensive? No fans of other clubs are going to agree that spending 200% more and higher is similar to teams like Liverpool, Villa and United spending 10-20% more than their rivals in the 90's but you guys try and and link the two situations.. also slightly different when both sides could account for that money through club operations and profit(to an extent), not outside inputs. It is what it is and is now more than ever about buying success as we have seen with other clubs like us and United getting into financial problems trying to keep up. It's not good for the game but it is part of the game, I guess the positives are if you are a smaller club with a good academy you can make some nice money developing future stars and selling them to the cashed up clubs.

I love how the Carrol buy gets thrown about as an example of over spending, which to an extent it was but you're kidding yourself if you think that is the same situation as a team throwing straight out big dollars cash at someone. Chelsea overpaid for Torres which meant any team in that window was going to force us to pay big dollars, we would of got Carrol for less in that window without the transvestite sale.

Yeh Bridge... More chance of Tevez not whinging than him coming to us.

 

[apollo_creed]

Why are the Chelsea and City fans so defensive? No fans of other clubs are going to agree that spending 200% more and higher is similar to teams like Liverpool, Villa and United spending 10-20% more than their rivals in the 90's but you guys try and and link the two situations.. also slightly different when both sides could account for that money through club operations and profit(to an extent), not outside inputs. It is what it is and is now more than ever about buying success as we have seen with other clubs like us and United getting into financial problems trying to keep up. It's not good for the game but it is part of the game, I guess the positives are if you are a smaller club with a good academy you can make some nice money developing future stars and selling them to the cashed up clubs.

I love how the Carrol buy gets thrown about as an example of over spending, which to an extent it was but you're kidding yourself if you think that is the same situation as a team throwing straight out big dollars cash at someone. Chelsea overpaid for Torres which meant any team in that window was going to force us to pay big dollars, we would of got Carrol for less in that window without the transvestite sale.

Yeh Bridge... More chance of Tevez not whinging than him coming to us.

You paid 35 million for a shit, very limited player.

You can paint it anyway you like mate.

IT IS AN UNBELIEVABLE WASTE OF MONEY.

35 million for Andy Carroll.

Who cares what Chelsea paid for Torres? There is no justification for even paying half that much for him.

It was a very, very bad deal. I know Kenny can do no wrong but evidently Kenny can do very, very wrong.

 

[moomba]

Why are the Chelsea and City fans so defensive? No fans of other clubs are going to agree that spending 200% more and higher is similar to teams like Liverpool, Villa and United spending 10-20% more than their rivals in the 90's but you guys try and and link the two situations.. also slightly different when both sides could account for that money through club operations and profit(to an extent), not outside inputs.

Go through the history of pretty much every club and you will find a sugar daddy or external funding somewhere along the line. United, Liverpool, Arsenal all have been the beneficiary of this and it has helped them get to where they are today. We are no different, although we are aiming to do in 3-5 what would normally take 10+ years. FFPR rules are one of the reasons why we are doing that, and it is on record that our spending the past 2 years has been accelerate due to the impending rules coming in.

And I can tell you right now, the thought that Liverpool, United and Villa only spent 10-20% more than the likes of City in the 90's is laughable. But it was OK then, good for the game when your club is the one doing the spending. The stench of hypocrisy is particularly stenchy today.

Our spending in the premier league years is less than £5m a year more than Liverpool on transfers, Liverpool would have paid much more in wages than us over the years.

 

[Gak Attack]

Go through the history of pretty much every club and you will find a sugar daddy or external funding somewhere along the line. United, Liverpool, Arsenal all have been the beneficiary of this and it has helped them get to where they are today. We are no different, although we are aiming to do in 3-5 what would normally take 10+ years. FFPR rules are one of the reasons why we are doing that, and it is on record that our spending the past 2 years has been accelerate due to the impending rules coming in.

And I can tell you right now, the thought that Liverpool, United and Villa only spent 10-20% more than the likes of City in the 90's is laughable. But it was OK then, good for the game when your club is the one doing the spending. The stench of hypocrisy is particularly stenchy today.

Our spending in the premier league years is less than £5m a year more than Liverpool on transfers, Liverpool would have paid much more in wages than us over the years.

So you are saying teams in the lower divisions should be spending the same as the premier league teams? that is just stupidity considering the higher amounts of money paid to the clubs on TV rights alone, not to mention the higher attendances and possible UEFA TV money and gate receipts. You keep mentioning this 5m but it's a massive amount over the course of the EPL considering you were not always in it, teams you have spent more than when using the period were playing consistently in the CL. I believe it's something like 15m net a year for you, a bit more for Chelsea and 10ish for us and United if I am correct? It just shows how massive the input was to jump your yearly net up that much over these teams.

No one is doubting the fact you were outspent in mentioned times but its just your inability to view from outside your own team if you think it is in any way similar, I know you choose to ignore it but I have made the point numerous times that 10-20% was to the closest rivals.. of course the lesser sides will be grearter but this hardly helps your argument if we compared your spending to the bottom teams instead of the 300-400% more you spent than your closest rivals. You cannot honestly say they are the same situations, if I was complaining about a club like Villa when they spend 40 odd million a few years back then that would be hypocrisy. The amounts extra spent in the 90's by the top teams may have got them maybe 1-2 more decent(not star) players than the teams spending less... how is that similar to outspending the entire competition combined on net transfers?

Like I keep saying, why try and justify it? It is what it is. I agree that setting a platform is a good idea while you can, do you think the push will be now for more younger players you can sell for larger amounts down the track? You have a great base age for dominance over the next 5 years or so but most of your signings are guys who's value is likely to either fall or hover over the coming years. Not a criticism but just a question would you prefer they keep working on the squad on a current skill/ability level basis or start bringing in some gun u21's?

 

[moomba]

Teams should be able to spend what they can afford. And if a 4th division team can afford to spend as much as a premier league team then good luck to them.

If it's morally wrong to spend money that's not earned from football operations then that should be the case for all clubs, not just the one or two at the top threatening the status of the established order. Crawley shouldn't have been allowed to play non-league football with a transfer and wage budget higher than every league 2 team combined last season.

Aston Villa, Fulham, Blackburn, Newcastle shouldn't be allowed to have owners putting money into team operations. Neither should QPR, Leicester and Ipswich. And personally if we're going down the fair play route TV and champions league revenue should be shared more equally amongst all clubs so the ones on the gravy train don't get the funds needed to stay above their rivals on the gravy train.

If we're serious about creating a fair sport, then we should be serious on all fronts. Get rid of the owners that invest in their team, club and city, share out media and champions league revenue as well as have a more equitable distribution of premier league funds to the lower divisions. Lets have a salary cap, not one where the bigger teams automatically have the ability to spend more than their competitors but one where all clubs have the same resources.

Do you think Liverpool, Arsenal, Man United would vote for that?

The funny thing, we wouldn't have 1% of the criticism we've got over the past couple of years if we got a new owner that was trousering profits, selling off our best assets, refusing to invest in the facilities, breaking up the academy etc. No-one in the football community was breaking out the placards and organising protests when a club averaging over 30k week in week out was in the 3rd division due to mismanagement, or when a club with over 40k week in week out had a nett transfer spending of -£15m not that long ago.

And I wonder why that is? Are critics really worried about ethics and the morality of football club ownership or is there just a load of self interest, fear, jealousy and hypocrisy?

 

[moomba]

You have a great base age for dominance over the next 5 years or so but most of your signings are guys who's value is likely to either fall or hover over the coming years. Not a criticism but just a question would you prefer they keep working on the squad on a current skill/ability level basis or start bringing in some gun u21's?

We've been bringing in a lot of youth to the club for the past couple of years, and that will continue. It seems mainly in the 16/17 year old range probably to meet home grown player rules down the line so we won't see too much of them for a few years yet.

But it will be the path we end up taking, although we do have a very young team already:

Hart 24
Richards 23
Kompany 25
Savic 20
Clichy 25
De Jong 26
Milner 25
Yaya 28
Silva 25
Johnson 24
Balotelli 21

Obviously picked and chose a bit, but it's not a totally unrealistic first team lineup come the start of August. Only two players over 25 there, it's a strategy under Mancini that has pretty much passed without much comment from the wider football community.

 

[Gak Attack]

Like I have mentioned in here and other threads plenty of times, it is impossible to make it completely even. Do I think teams should be limited on the outside spending? yes of course. That being said if they can spend on infrastructure with outside money(just like in the AFL) that may make them appealing to players and increase attendances to meet demands... no problem there even though its not even.. it's better for the fans and the game. You should know as well as anyone that poor management of funds and trying to spend money you don't have can ruin clubs and the more teams massively spend compared to rivals the more some others will spend to try and keep up and we have seen the results of this.. even the big clubs such as United and ourselves have not been in great financial positions of late. Even a salary cap won't stop certain teams remaining at or around the top and unless it's world wide it just hurts English football.

Call me a hypocrite all you want, I have explained numerous times why I find the situations are different so while we've both made our points it's just repeating the same old arguments now.

On the above post. I think it's smart, in theory most of those guys will now get a good amount of seasons together in their prime.. which is why I asked the question. The Chelsea route was more of a keep buying the best we can and after decent success now start to look a bit old. So personally would your prefer now they stock up on the next generation or just keep a sort of replacement policy? I guess meaning more around then 19-22 than under 18's which can of course produce great players, isn't always as easy to pick out who will make it.

 

[moomba]

I think we'll just add a few to the squad each year. No need for wholesale changes any more, we have the core of an excellent squad.

I think we'll keep with the 16/17 year old signings, and just hope from a batch that one or two will come in. Senior signings will ideally be younger (talk about Aguero being the preferred replacement for Tevez) but already established senior players. I think if a top notch player is available we would still be prepared to spend big on an older player.

 

[kane249]

Coentrao to Real

http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satell...ia/Fabio_Coentrao_to_play_for_Real_Madrid.htm

 

[Coledinho]

I'm a little confused here. If you're saying that I criticised value for money West Ham got on their signings but refuse to do so with City signings you would be wrong as I've criticised or questioned a number of signings we've made and the money we've paid to get them.

If you're suggesting that I was talked about whether or not West Ham could afford what they were spending, but refuse to do so with City you would be right as we are too totally different animals. We can spend £18m and £100k a week on Roque Santa Cruz and it probably had less effect than you getting Ljundberg for a few million.

IF you're suggesting that I criticised West Hams spending as morally wrong or unethical but refuse to do so with City then you would be wrong as I've never criticised West Hams spending as unethical or immoral. Neither has the likes of EW, but West Ham are another club that weren't a threat to Tottenham so it was morally OK.

Im not buying this part one bit. Your Craig Bellamy backflip was as laughable as it gets. For 6 mill Bellamy was the rip off of the century but when City bought him the fee was irrelevant and he was a handy player albeit one you would not support. I also think its pretty well arrogant to suggest you know what club X can and cannot afford and what City can. In fact you say it in another post City cant afford what they are spending. The owners have to pitch in. Same thing applies to West Ham and any other club spending money

The whole moral and ethical thing clearly means nothing to you given the conduct of your owner pre Abu Dhabi. Osama Bin Laden would of been welcomed by you if he had the money

 

[manureid]

I think we need a new thread called 'Is spending money fair' or something. Have to wade through a fair bit of stuff to find much in the way of transfer rumours in here at the moment!!

 

[Kompany]

Barca is still favourite for Sanchez, but I get the feeling all the talk of done deals and announcements is coming from the Barca side of the negotiations.

I wouldn't be totally shocked if it all fell apart.

At the moment we're just trying to take advantage of the fact that Sanchez himself wants to come to lower the price.

http://www.crunchsports.com/categor...pite-Manchester-United-interest-201107050040/

"At the moment Sanchez is involved in the Copa America but has clearly expressed his wish to play for Barcelona."

says Udinese's sporting director.

 

[moomba]

Im not buying this part one bit. Your Craig Bellamy backflip was as laughable as it gets. For 6 mill Bellamy was the rip off of the century but when City bought him the fee was irrelevant and he was a handy player albeit one you would not support.

The fee we paid for Bellend was way too high. Said it at the time too. Turns out he did OK for us for half a season, still paid way too much for him.

I also think its pretty well arrogant to suggest you know what club X can and cannot afford and what City can. In fact you say it in another post City cant afford what they are spending. The owners have to pitch in. Same thing applies to West Ham and any other club spending money

I was proven correct though wasn't I?

The whole moral and ethical thing clearly means nothing to you given the conduct of your owner pre Abu Dhabi. Osama Bin Laden would of been welcomed by you if he had the money

I pay to watch the XI on the pitch, not the suits in the directors box. What I said about Shinawatra is if he had never been charged with anything how can he not be a fit and proper owner according to the rules (especially since your owner at the time was fine after spending time in jail for fraud).

Anyway, agree with the post above. Will make a new thread got this type of discussion.

 

[Normy132]

As much as I hate City's spending moomba has a bloody strong argument here. They have the budget and they're using it the same way United, Chelsea, Real Madrid and Barca are.

My only concern is how would Chelsea and City cope should their respective owners bail? They're own revenue streams would surely not be enough to hold them up. Just something to think about for the future.

 

[Zidane98]

As much as I hate City's spending moomba has a bloody strong argument here. They have the budget and they're using it the same way United, Chelsea, Real Madrid and Barca are.

My only concern is how would Chelsea and City cope should their respective owners bail? They're own revenue streams would surely not be enough to hold them up. Just something to think about for the future.

That's right. Clubs like United, Liverpool & Arsenal are still big clubs without sugar daddy owners, Chelsea & City are nothing without owners who make billions from natural resources.

Anyway we are getting way off topic, there's a transfer window to discuss!!

 

[Borgsta]

That's right. Clubs like United, Liverpool & Arsenal are still big clubs without sugar daddy owners,

Now they are but they all had money come from no where once upon a time.

 

[moomba]

Not confirmed signing yet, but a deal has been agreed between Liverpool and Blackpool for Charlie Adam, he's having a medical now.

£9m is the price apparently.

 

[apollo_creed]

He'll be good for them.
Good bit of business for them, imo.

Price is fair. Player is something they could use.

Although - on closer inspection what's going on with Raul M and Aqualani mmm.....