|
Post by biglad180 on Dec 29, 2017 17:10:42 GMT
they have just spent 75 million on van dyke so we should want at least the same for butland don't flog our prize assets cheaply Southampton do it very well . pay up or fuck off
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Dec 29, 2017 17:14:01 GMT
they have just spent 75 million on van dyke so we should want at least the same for butland don't flog our prize assets cheaply Southampton do it very well . pay up or fuck off That would more than double the world record fee for a goalkeeper. Not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by biglad180 on Dec 29, 2017 17:15:55 GMT
it going happen sometime transfers are crazy now
|
|
|
Post by biglad180 on Dec 29, 2017 17:19:10 GMT
just out of interest how much do you think man utd woulod ask for de gea
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Dec 29, 2017 17:19:40 GMT
just out of interest how much do you think man utd woulod ask for de gea De Gea will break the record for sure.
|
|
|
Post by turtlefox on Dec 29, 2017 17:23:40 GMT
just out of interest how much do you think man utd woulod ask for de gea £80mil
|
|
|
Post by potterglen on Dec 29, 2017 17:25:10 GMT
Think you’ll find Chewsay chose Stoke, pay him £7 million and must play every game. They don't pay him £7M part of that will be covering player amortisation on his contract, small profit for Chelsea and the rest his wages and that would have been the same deal whoever took him. I stand corrected, it’s costing Stoke £7 million, that’s the point.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 17:25:27 GMT
just out of interest how much do you think man utd woulod ask for de gea De Gea is in a different league to Jack when it comes to goalkeeping. Poor example in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by samba :) on Dec 29, 2017 17:26:55 GMT
they have just spent 75 million on van dyke so we should want at least the same for butland don't flog our prize assets cheaply Southampton do it very well . pay up or fuck off That would more than double the world record fee for a goalkeeper. Not going to happen. Goalkeepers are underrated, most important players in the team
|
|
|
Post by potterglen on Dec 29, 2017 17:27:34 GMT
Think you’ll find Chewsay chose Stoke, pay him £7 million and must play every game. Other clubs would have offered the same. You reckon?
|
|
|
Post by turtlefox on Dec 29, 2017 17:29:57 GMT
That would more than double the world record fee for a goalkeeper. Not going to happen. Goalkeepers are underrated, most important players in the team Not quite but certainly top 4
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Dec 29, 2017 17:33:36 GMT
That would more than double the world record fee for a goalkeeper. Not going to happen. Goalkeepers are underrated, most important players in the team They are underrated, I completely agree.
|
|
|
Post by turtlefox on Dec 29, 2017 17:35:55 GMT
Goalkeepers are underrated, most important players in the team They are underrated, I completely agree. Danny Ings in goal
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Dec 29, 2017 17:44:42 GMT
Shit footballer great tatts
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 29, 2017 17:51:21 GMT
They don't pay him £7M part of that will be covering player amortisation on his contract, small profit for Chelsea and the rest his wages and that would have been the same deal whoever took him. I stand corrected, it’s costing Stoke £7 million, that’s the point. On that basis how much is Wimmer costing? You're adding wages on to the loan fee do you go around saying Imbula cost £38M?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 17:57:37 GMT
they have just spent 75 million on van dyke so we should want at least the same for butland don't flog our prize assets cheaply Southampton do it very well . pay up or fuck off Klopp says Defenders are usually a third of the cost of the most expensive strikers, and the VVD fee is similar to Neymar’s move to PSG. On this basis, Butland must be worth £50m using the same logic that Keepers are usually around 2/3rds of a defenders fee.
|
|
|
Post by potterglen on Dec 30, 2017 19:14:46 GMT
I stand corrected, it’s costing Stoke £7 million, that’s the point. On that basis how much is Wimmer costing? You're adding wages on to the loan fee do you go around saying Imbula cost £38M? Thought we were discussing the loan of Zouma? You can’t compare loan and own, totally different scenarios
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 30, 2017 19:19:16 GMT
On that basis how much is Wimmer costing? You're adding wages on to the loan fee do you go around saying Imbula cost £38M? Thought we were discussing the loan of Zouma? You can’t compare loan and own, totally different scenarios They're not different in any way. If you buy a player you have to pay them but nobody starts adding the wages onto the transfer fee yet if you loan a player you feel its reasonable to do that.
|
|
|
Post by potterglen on Dec 30, 2017 19:27:21 GMT
Thought we were discussing the loan of Zouma? You can’t compare loan and own, totally different scenarios They're not different in any way. If you buy a player you have to pay them but nobody starts adding the wages onto the transfer fee yet if you loan a player you feel its reasonable to do that. What? Of course they’re different!
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 30, 2017 19:36:33 GMT
They're not different in any way. If you buy a player you have to pay them but nobody starts adding the wages onto the transfer fee yet if you loan a player you feel its reasonable to do that. What? Of course they’re different! Give just one reason why it is justifiable to add wages onto a loan fee but not onto a permanent transfer fee. They're both transfers one is permanent (not actually just for the length of his initial contract) the other is temporary. The fees should be either inclusive of wages or exclusive of wages in both instances.
|
|
|
Post by Edward Tattsyrup on Dec 30, 2017 19:41:14 GMT
At the moment I'd take Danny fucking La Rue, at least hed strike some form of fear into the opposition.
|
|
|
Post by potterglen on Dec 30, 2017 19:44:19 GMT
What? Of course they’re different! Give just one reason why it is justifiable to add wages onto a loan fee but not onto a permanent transfer fee. They're both transfers one is permanent (not actually just for the length of his initial contract) the other is temporary. The fees should be either inclusive of wages or exclusive of wages in both instances. I’m not justifying anything, but a loan is a different scenario to a transfer.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 23, 2018 22:12:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jan 23, 2018 23:55:47 GMT
Not a bad shout probably a safer bet to loan bearing in mind our current predicament.
|
|
|
Post by steino1966 on Jan 24, 2018 0:06:52 GMT
For the last 15 minutes he was on the pitch for Liverpool on Monday night - he did look quite sharp in his movement, got a shot away on his weaker left foot and did a nice backheel, which led to Firmino hitting the post.
If he can stay fit, he should be a decent loan deal and I think he'd be good for the high pressure game that PL wants.
Question would be if Liverpool would let Sturridge and Ings go out in the same window. Think Sturridge has been linked to a loan move abroad.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 24, 2018 7:08:07 GMT
In the summer this could be a good signing as he has an eye for goal. However he's had multiple injuries he wouldn't be anywhere near fit right now. Not for me at this time.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Jan 24, 2018 7:14:55 GMT
In the summer this could be a good signing as he has an eye for goal. However he's had multiple injuries he wouldn't be anywhere near fit right now. Not for me at this time. I agree. He may come and be decent, but I'm not sure on this one. Just wish we'd go out and get a striker who's fit, strong, athletic and raring to go, from here or abroad.
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Jan 24, 2018 8:30:20 GMT
In the summer this could be a good signing as he has an eye for goal. However he's had multiple injuries he wouldn't be anywhere near fit right now. Not for me at this time. I agree. He may come and be decent, but I'm not sure on this one. Just wish we'd go out and get a striker who's fit, strong, athletic and raring to go, from here or abroad. All true of course but in the real world but ... who is that and are they achievable by us in this window?
I just can't see us spending the serious money now on a striker.
I don't actually sign up to the penny pinching conspiracy theory (penny pinching and the PL surely just don't 'go') but, yes, on the other hand, they have had their fingers well and truly burned by a previous manager on a striker (SB) and, ideally, can't afford ano multi million £ loss right now.
Don't forget either the board are still having a serious close up look at Lambo - in any other business, he would still be on probation and not, I would suggest, given the keys to the safe just yet.
Hence I can 100% see why a loan would suit right now - and if Ings is back up & running (& looking like scoring) he'd be right in the frame.
Obviously that doesn't coincide with our undoubtedly urgent need for our own fire-breathing, big bucks striker, but that's the big bucks 'call' that the top brass need to make.
So unless Farto & the pizza dept have a genuine and sure fire rabbit to pluck out of the proverbial hat this week, I'd go with DI, yes.
|
|
|
Post by knyperstokie on Jan 24, 2018 8:34:47 GMT
It would be an interesting experiment - might work and might not.
I don't think that Stoke can take the risk in their current predicament. They are again looking to do things 'on the cheap' as it were. Better to shell out £25 million for a proven goalscorer with the right attitude. It will be cheaper in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Jan 24, 2018 10:32:45 GMT
It would be an interesting experiment - might work and might not. I don't think that Stoke can take the risk in their current predicament. They are again looking to do things 'on the cheap' as it were. Better to shell out £25 million for a proven goalscorer with the right attitude. It will be cheaper in the long run. Easy to say but that striker is ... ?
|
|