|
Post by ashley luiz on Aug 16, 2017 19:51:27 GMT
wow we keep spending less in 5 years we will spend 0 Can't answer my question then? who cares about Sunderland. And I judge each season as a new one . Selling your best players . Spending no money and trying sign loan players and players who no one else wants on a free sure will make us competitive
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Aug 16, 2017 19:52:25 GMT
14/15 Sunderland spent £20m - finished 16th... We spent £1.6m, finished 9th 15/16 Sunderland spent £60m - finished 17th... We spent £48m, finished 9th 16/17 Sunderland spent £38m - finished 20th... We spent £35m, finished 13th By your logic I don't understand why Sunderland haven't finished above us each season. Why weren't they competitive? wow we keep spending less in 5 years we will spend 0 So by that logic if we spent 5 million on Pericard would that have made him a decent striker? Or if Shaqiri cost 3 million hed be a worse player? Cost is not necessarily indicative of quality
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Aug 16, 2017 19:57:50 GMT
Can't answer my question then? who cares about Sunderland. And I judge each season as a new one . Selling your best players . Spending no money and trying sign loan players and players who no one else wants on a free sure will make us competitive Well using your simple logic, spending lots of money makes you competitive. I pointed out that Sunderland did exactly that and were far from competitive, therefore your theory is bollocks. There are plenty of other examples of clubs spending badly. Who you recruit and how you play them is important, not what they cost. If we went out and spunked £45m on Robbie Brady and Tom Huddlestone, we'd be competitive, right?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 19:58:09 GMT
I take it you don't know the Tom Dooley song, John!
|
|
|
Post by sanmarinostokie on Aug 16, 2017 20:02:06 GMT
Hmm anyone else think it was weird that every single Stoke caller agreed with Durham and Gough?!... How many voices can Benji do?
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Aug 16, 2017 20:11:30 GMT
Every one around football knows u need to spend more then what we do to stay competitive. That's why there are saying what they are saying and if it Carey's on we will go down . And guess what we will go down as we'll . Coates comments after his statement back to the media gets capped off with we spend to much ! So clearly he wants to reduce it even more . So every one else in the media and footballing world is wrong . And Coates is right ffs . Wake up Coates and Hughes have taken this club as far as they can they both need to go before we end up going down 14/15 Sunderland spent £20m - finished 16th... We spent £1.6m, finished 9th 15/16 Sunderland spent £60m - finished 17th... We spent £48m, finished 9th 16/17 Sunderland spent £38m - finished 20th... We spent £35m, finished 13th By your logic I don't understand why Sunderland haven't finished above us each season. Why weren't they competitive? Every time I see stuff like this it makes me realise what a cracking job Hughes has done at Stoke City. What was the spend in 13/14. I bet it was about 10 bob.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 16, 2017 20:16:04 GMT
Anybody listen to Talksport this afternoon. Again banging on about how we're a club in crisis and two callers calling in to agree because our outgoings this summer are 7 million and questioning the ambitions of the club and querying why we are setting out deliberately for a relegation battle? I love listening to the show but they don't half talk some shit £7m Zouma, £7m Martins Indi, £2m Tymon and whatever loan fee we are paying PSG.....£7m it is then Utter wank station We're paying 7m to get a player fit for his club? Shouldn't they be paying us? Semi serious question actually!
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Aug 16, 2017 20:16:17 GMT
14/15 Sunderland spent £20m - finished 16th... We spent £1.6m, finished 9th 15/16 Sunderland spent £60m - finished 17th... We spent £48m, finished 9th 16/17 Sunderland spent £38m - finished 20th... We spent £35m, finished 13th By your logic I don't understand why Sunderland haven't finished above us each season. Why weren't they competitive? Every time I see stuff like this it makes me realise what a cracking job Hughes has done at Stoke City. What was the spend in 13/14. I bet it was about 10 bob. £6.3m www.transfermarkt.co.uk/stoke-city/alletransfers/verein/512You're right. Our best period coincided with minimal spend. 15/16 and last season we spent big and went backwards.
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Aug 16, 2017 20:17:57 GMT
14/15 Sunderland spent £20m - finished 16th... We spent £1.6m, finished 9th 15/16 Sunderland spent £60m - finished 17th... We spent £48m, finished 9th 16/17 Sunderland spent £38m - finished 20th... We spent £35m, finished 13th By your logic I don't understand why Sunderland haven't finished above us each season. Why weren't they competitive? Every time I see stuff like this it makes me realise what a cracking job Hughes has done at Stoke City. What was the spend in 13/14. I bet it was about 10 bob. Wasn't much. 2.5 for arnautovic, 3.5 million for Pieters, Odemwingie swap deal for Jones, resigning Pennant on a free, Assaidi on loan, Ireland on loan. Not too shabby that
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Aug 16, 2017 20:22:22 GMT
£7m Zouma, £7m Martins Indi, £2m Tymon and whatever loan fee we are paying PSG.....£7m it is then Utter wank station We're paying 7m to get a player fit for his club? Shouldn't they be paying us? Semi serious question actually! There's also an element of risk for chelsea albeit small. They have a central defensive crisis then they're short a quality centre back. No club will pay another club to loan to them. Loans are genuinely mutually beneficial to both parties. Put it this way, if and wed signed him permanently for 20 million on a 3 year deal and paid him 70k a week nobody would be batting an eyelid really. 7 million including wages for a player of his quality is a good deal in my eyes
|
|
|
Post by samba :) on Aug 16, 2017 20:27:46 GMT
wow we keep spending less in 5 years we will spend 0 So by that logic if we spent 5 million on Pericard would that have made him a decent strker? Or if Shaqiri cost 3 million hed be a worse player? Cost is not necessarily indicative of quality only 5 million for pericard? Youve got no chance even at this age!
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Aug 16, 2017 20:33:33 GMT
So by that logic if we spent 5 million on Pericard would that have made him a decent strker? Or if Shaqiri cost 3 million hed be a worse player? Cost is not necessarily indicative of quality only 5 million for pericard? Youve got no chance even at this age! He played for Juventus you know.....
|
|
|
Post by samba :) on Aug 16, 2017 20:34:59 GMT
only 5 million for pericard? Youve got no chance even at this age! He played for Juventus you know..... he would be unsignable in the modern era, nobody could afford to buy him and stay within financial fair play
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 16, 2017 20:38:39 GMT
We're paying 7m to get a player fit for his club? Shouldn't they be paying us? Semi serious question actually! There's also an element of risk for chelsea albeit small. They have a central defensive crisis then they're short a quality centre back. No club will pay another club to loan to them. Loans are genuinely mutually beneficial to both parties. Put it this way, if and wed signed him permanently for 20 million on a 3 year deal and paid him 70k a week nobody would be batting an eyelid really. 7 million including wages for a player of his quality is a good deal in my eyes I just look at it as 7 million burnt. If it's mutually beneficial, it should be free. Chelsea at the end of the day get the most out of it. And I know, that's not how it works but that's why I don't like loans if they're not with a view to something more permanent.
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Aug 16, 2017 20:44:32 GMT
There's also an element of risk for chelsea albeit small. They have a central defensive crisis then they're short a quality centre back. No club will pay another club to loan to them. Loans are genuinely mutually beneficial to both parties. Put it this way, if and wed signed him permanently for 20 million on a 3 year deal and paid him 70k a week nobody would be batting an eyelid really. 7 million including wages for a player of his quality is a good deal in my eyes I just look at it as 7 million burnt. If it's mutually beneficial, it should be free. Chelsea at the end of the day get the most out of it. And I know, that's not how it works but that's why I don't like loans if they're not with a view to something more permanent. There's no way of telling who gets the better deal with it yet. If say he plays for us breaks his leg and retires it's Chelsea who lose out, if he say scores the winning goal against spurs in April and stops them winning the title then Chelsea win. If he scores the winner to keep us up or win a cup or a semi final we win. It's all it's and buts so nobody knows who's got the best of the deal until a particular scenario plays out.
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Aug 16, 2017 20:45:20 GMT
we all now durham is a knob and ghoffy is his little lapdog, pair of wankers if we were not in the premier league they would not have much to talk about, one supports fucking Barnsley and the other peterbourgh so they cannot really take the piss can they Gough is from Barnsley says he supports Barnsley but supports Spurs too and had a box at Mk Dons. What a wanker he is
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 16, 2017 20:47:07 GMT
I just look at it as 7 million burnt. If it's mutually beneficial, it should be free. Chelsea at the end of the day get the most out of it. And I know, that's not how it works but that's why I don't like loans if they're not with a view to something more permanent. There's no way of telling who gets the better deal with it yet. If say he plays for us breaks his leg and retires it's Chelsea who lose out, if he say scores the winning goal against spurs in April and stops them winning the title then Chelsea win. If he scores the winner to keep us up or win a cup or a semi final we win. It's all it's and buts so nobody knows who's got the best of the deal until a particular scenario plays out. Chelsea lose a good player but financially they've still done ok and they know for sure then he's no use and he hasn't taken up a squad place of theres. If he does well for us, it means very little other than we need to sign another cb and go back to square one.
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Aug 16, 2017 21:08:59 GMT
There's no way of telling who gets the better deal with it yet. If say he plays for us breaks his leg and retires it's Chelsea who lose out, if he say scores the winning goal against spurs in April and stops them winning the title then Chelsea win. If he scores the winner to keep us up or win a cup or a semi final we win. It's all it's and buts so nobody knows who's got the best of the deal until a particular scenario plays out. Chelsea lose a good player but financially they've still done ok and they know for sure then he's no use and he hasn't taken up a squad place of theres. If he does well for us, it means very little other than we need to sign another cb and go back to square one. So it's mutually beneficial then... .
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 16, 2017 21:09:40 GMT
Chelsea lose a good player but financially they've still done ok and they know for sure then he's no use and he hasn't taken up a squad place of theres. If he does well for us, it means very little other than we need to sign another cb and go back to square one. So it's mutually beneficial then... . So it should be free.....
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Aug 16, 2017 21:12:27 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong on this but if you pay 20m for a player on a 5 year contract, the financial statements recognize a 4m hit per year?
That being the case, a 3m loan fee to rent Zouma for a year is good business.
Yes we will need to replace after 12 months and it would have been perfect if we had the option to buy but it's a lot better than shelling out 20m for a player that may be a flop.
I wish we had taken Imbula on loan. Jese may be the same gig, give us 10 good games then crawl up his arse when it gets cold. At least we will be paying wages for 28 wank games instead of 5 seasons.
|
|
sting
Youth Player
Posts: 354
|
Post by sting on Aug 16, 2017 21:12:36 GMT
If we have spent £17m on two loan signings then that is very strange business indeed. No resale value, dead money. Almost suggests we're scared of long term commitment and neither are likely to hang around. Where are the building blocks? The building blocks is the investment in youth. Develop them and sell them on for big money like how Southampton have done I get that and hopefully we'll see some fruits from the investment. I was referring to the more immediate period. It will also need a manager who will play the youth and I'm not convinced Sparky is the best man to do this. It needs a Rodgers type manager.
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Aug 16, 2017 21:16:46 GMT
So it's mutually beneficial then... . So it should be free..... Then it wouldn't be mutually beneficial as you've already stated, Chelsea make a modest amount and we get a good player for a season
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Aug 16, 2017 21:28:48 GMT
There is only one financial statistic that consistently holds water in the PL. Simply put
"on average, your wage bill most likely reflects your league position over time"
Top 3 is about £300-£350m At £90m ish we sit between 9-13 th.
I suspect regardless of transfer fees the effective wages of Jese and Zuoma plus a couple more will push us above £100m Which is why we have to lose our deadwood. Same in most businesses you usually get better skills and value from one highly paid expert than 2 at half the salary. In this business the best players can command the best wages.
Which is why good/excellent foreign players would rather play in the PL than stay at home.
In short the transfer fee is cock all to do with your league position,
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 16, 2017 21:29:07 GMT
So it should be free..... Then it wouldn't be mutually beneficial as you've already stated, Chelsea make a modest amount and we get a good player for a season We're getting him fit. He's using our facilities etc. This saving them money. Mutual beneficial. It should be free.
|
|
|
Post by jinxed71 on Aug 16, 2017 21:38:29 GMT
sick of hearing the crap that talkbollocks say!Look how much west ham have spent and how badly they played.Its not all down to how much you spend on a player,its if they can gel together thats the winner.now prove a point stoke and lets nail the arsenal.
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Aug 16, 2017 21:43:08 GMT
Then it wouldn't be mutually beneficial as you've already stated, Chelsea make a modest amount and we get a good player for a season We're getting him fit. He's using our facilities etc. This saving them money. Mutual beneficial. It should be free. He's playing for our team. Benefiting our first eleven. Surely you must get that!?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 16, 2017 21:46:43 GMT
We're getting him fit. He's using our facilities etc. This saving them money. Mutual beneficial. It should be free. He's playing for our team. Benefiting our first eleven. Surely you must get that!? I don't want him to tbh. I'd rather we played the players we own.
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Aug 16, 2017 21:50:47 GMT
He's playing for our team. Benefiting our first eleven. Surely you must get that!? I don't want him to tbh. I'd rather we played the players we own. So you won't be supporting him then come Saturday?
|
|
|
Post by WhyDelilah on Aug 16, 2017 21:51:21 GMT
"It should be free"
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 16, 2017 21:51:50 GMT
I don't want him to tbh. I'd rather we played the players we own. So you won't be supporting him then come Saturday? Of course I will.
|
|