tajjuk

I don't know have you recovered from being a twat? Oh no sorry that is a permanent state for you.

Wow one signing, a week before the season starts, to get back to the exact level they were before the season starts, much wow, much spending. OMGERD they must be bankrolled by a billionaire, how could we possibly ever compete with one signing....

6' 3" as well, hopefully there is an option to buy in there though.

Thought Nat Phillips looked pretty good to be honest, a loan with an option to buy would be a decent deal. Apparently Liverpool want about £12-15 million for him and might accept a delayed payment.

Wasn't he supposed to be already signed for Palace pretty much? Still think a lot of this 'news' is basically just trying to the drive the price up and start a bidding war.

They have just lost 4-0 to Utd and have their two main goalscorers likely out, plus the whole Rafa thing. But considering we never do well there I am not wholly optimistic, I am more wanting to see a decent performance more than anything even if we say unluckily lose or something, just put in a good performance to build on.

Poor league maybe but they got him to score at a rate way above anything else in his career, reminds me of that article about that Greek guy for VVV Venlo who we were also apparently linked with, is it fluke or is it maybe just a case of where a team plays to his strengths. Maybe a bit of both, so might be clasping at straws but maybe there is something there to get the best out of him, maybe to not score that many goals in PL as he did in Turkey but a decent amount (say like 15). Interesting note on his wikipedia that says he broke some sort of instragram record or something for comments on a post and apparently is was fans from that Turkish club asking him back they loved him so much.

Ah so the Express, my god how could I call something from such a might source a 'transfer rumour' lmao. My god you are dumb, you get what the subject of the thread is yeh? It's about spending in the league, clubs being richer than us and everyone having owners that invest money to buy players that we can't. It LITERALLY says to survive in the league you apparently have to spend more than you earn, so OF COURSE their sales are important. Like I said when you can't understand the actual point being made and you respond with retarded strawman arguments, then it's pointless talking to you, you can't grasp simple points. They are spending money based on their sales FFS, that is the whole point, so when I said they are 'no spending' it means they are not just splurging the untold millions that every other club apparently has, it doesn't mean they are LITERALLY not spending because every football club has to spend money to actually exist, otherwise they would cease to actually be functioning businesses. Didn't think it was a particularly hard point to understand, apparently for numnuts like you it is.

Tielemans came to them on loan, so he basically proved himself in the league before they signed him, so it made the investment less risky hence they spent more (and probably why he cost more). They spend more on transfers now, but we have screwed our signings over the last 3-4 years so haven't had the money to re-invest. Easier to go buy a player £20-30 million, which is where most of their players are priced, when you have sold players for like £70-80 million. I mean the year the spent on Tielemans they had sold Maguire for £80 million. But yeh they do it better than us, hence why they have been more successful with it, but they haven't needed great investments, it's just good scouting. Our scouting has been crap, it's only picked up a bit recently with the change of board.

We'll see, but the Armstrong stuff is all over the place, who knows what is going on there, to me it looks like agent talk and Blackburn trying to drive the price up, iirc Norwich were claimed to have made a bid, but then came out and said they weren't interested in the player, a few days ago we were apparently close to signing, now it's Palace.

Yeh you are repeatedly. Mr Wrong himself. You are arguing a dumb strawman because you know I am right, and I don't see any confirmation of any Spurs signing, just usual transfer news that deal has apparently been done, cos those are always correct. So how am I wrong exactly, there is no official confirmation. You were already wrong because you claimed they had spent £23 million when they had already received MORE than that. Plus they are likely going to have to sell Kane, so even if they do sign, they are likely to receive more than they spend. And no comments on you being wrong on Brentford or Norwich then? Do your own research 'pal' and learn how to make an actual argument, not a dumb strawman, you are the guy that claims we are the only club that needs to sell to buy, yet about half the PL have basically bough what they have sold LMAO.

Does it, or are they flooding the rumour mill trying to do just that and start a bidding war when most of the bidders are not actually interested. He was signing for Norwich the other day, until Norwich said they hadn't even made a bid.

LOL no I didn't, didn't say anything of the sort, if you can only claim stupid strawman arguments it shows how dumb you are. Plus you can't answer any of the others mentioned can you, wrong on Brentford, wrong on Norwich, didn't know Spurs had sold more than they spent, oh look nothing said about those, what a surprise. Simple reality is a lot of clubs are not spending massively, aren't getting huge investment from their owners and are often just re-investing sales money or spending a little over, so the claim the league is 'too rich for us' makes no sense. Again the irony of you calling others 'Mr Wrong' when you fit the name so well.

You mean the £50 million that allowed Brighton to spend then, basically covering more than their incomings. Then Norwich spent £35 million did they? Oh did they not sell Buendia for £33 million? Hmmmn. Brentford are promoted so they have a windfall of PL money, but LOL that would be Brentford who got £50 million in sales last season and only spent £6 million. Almost like they are re-investing that money. That would be Palace who released FOURTEEN players, including some of their highest earners, tends to free up a lot of funds to add to your squad when half your squad is gone. That would be Spurs who have spent £22 million and received £26 million then, but of course if you need transfer rumours then you are grasping at straws aren't you and don't really have a point. Yeh who doesn't know what they are on about? Would be you by the looks of things. But how could we possibly compete with like half the PL who are all pretty much spending what they earn or a little bit more, I thought it was only us that do that? LMAO 13 of the 20 PL club so far in the window have spent less than £20 million or received more than they have spent, but yeh we can't possibly compete, everyone is clearly richer than us, oh wait....

Wolves aren't spending, Arsenal aren't spending, Spurs aren't spending, Burnley aren't spending, none of the promoted clubs are spending much, Newcastle have literally not signed anyone, not even a freebie, Palace are only spending because half their team left on a free, Liverpool have bought one centre-back and have lost an influential centre mid. Villa so far have only actually spent the money they got from Grealish. Even money bags Everton have basically signed free transfers. The only clubs that can sustain real big spending are Utd, City and Chelsea. Clubs like Everton and Villa have had some investment, but the former have wasted it and I reckon are now restricted by their wage bill and I think Villa had the freedom because they were promoted. Leicester do what we did, but now do it better, by cheaper, sell big and then re-invest wisely. Their transfers have largely been funded by selling Mahrez, Maguire and Chillwell for huge fees. They look like the might do it again with Maddison, buy him for £25 million sell him on for £70 million. I don't really get this 'woe betide us' attitude everyone has like we are hard done by, 98% of the clubs in world football are run sustainably and only spend what they make. The second biggest club in Germany that has 80k fans follows the exact same policy we do pretty much, buy cheap, develop youth, sell big. The biggest club in Portugal, Benfica have sold 1 billion Euros worth of players in the last year, that is an average of 100 million Euros per season in sales, their best players going year in year out and they are traditionally one of the biggest clubs in Europe with a big fanbase who regularly get 65k ever match watching them. Even Real Madrid and Barcelona can't afford to buy players at the moment and Inter are having to sell their best players. We get like £120 million in TV money, that is more than enough to run a decent PL club together with the usual income of gate receipts, merchandising, sponsorship etc. not exactly sure why people we are hard done by. Until recently we have spent like £50-60 million on new players every season. We are only struggling in the last two to three years because of a string of poor signings who basically have not contributed anything to the club and have had next to no re-sale value. Carrillo, Hoedt, Lemina, Elyonoussi, etc. have probably cost us north of £150 million in transfer fees and wages, and we are still probably paying some of their wages now just to get other clubs to take them. Add in the lost revenue from Covid and the club are probably £200 million down from where they should be, as either those players would have been successful so we would have sold them for a profit or they would be key first teamers and we wouldn't needed to have signed other players to replace them. Like if Lemina is a key first teamer we don't need to spend £12 million to sign Diallo, if Hoedt wasn't wasn't utter gash we don't need to spend on Vestergaard etc. etc. A raft of utter crap signings that have had no re-sale value and have shackled the wage bill, plus covid on top, that is why we are skint. Not because we are crap and everyone elses owners splash the cash, because they simply don't. Even Man City are trying to run more sustainably and Chelsea's big splurge of spending was largely funded by sales, for example Hazard.

lol this thread looks kind of silly when more than half the league have barely bought more than 1 player so far.

To be fair to him he's playing for one of the greatest managers of all time in probably one of the greatest club sides of all time and is likely to win several trophies.

Yeh possible, massive screw by Barca to even get into this position to be honest though, I mean we have made some stinkers in the transfer market but they are true champions at it, the fees and wages they have been paying. --------------------------- Grealish is official now, £100 million, apparently a release clause in his contract.

The Blackburn FM researcher must think hes very quick because he has a lot of pace and acceleration in the game.

It's interesting cos you have to wonder where he'll go, maybe PSG but you'd think with them signing Ramos, Donnarumma, Wijnaldum and Hakimi, their wage bill must have gone up massively, and they already pay like Neymar £600k a week or something, and have offered Mbappe something similar. Could they take on another £500k wage? You'd presume city could maybe, but do they want to? Not sure. After that? Very odd the greatest footballer of all time doesn't have a club, ok he's 34 but he's still looked close to his best.

It's a random tweet, no idea why people are taking it as verbatim. We don't even know if we are actually interested in Armstrong either. Also if £25-30 million is a good deal for Danny Ings, then logically £20 million for a player, ok younger, but only proven in the Championship, in the exact same contract situation is clearly too much. Not a huge amount of difference in age or goals scored between Armstrong and Che, and we paid around £15 million for Che, so a fee closer to that makes more sense.

Seems fine to me, Ralph seems a very loyal guy, maybe he took the refusal to sign a bit personally, thinking that he had improved Danny a lot and that he owed him a little bit of loyalty back, so took his wanting to leave a bit personally. Ralph is all about the project and being committed to it, Ings wasn't committed so Ralph thinks less of him.

Kind of either way on Vestergaard, do think he adds something to the team and showed in the first half of the season he can be very good. At the same I wouldn't say he was integral and seems to have plenty of mistakes in him. So I'd take him signing a new contract and going for about £15-20 million which we re-invest, don't think losing him on a free does much for us though. It's also probably the position we are least worried about, as in Salisu I think could be better defensively anyway and is certainly more mobile, Bednerak and Stephens are ok (would be great to do better but we don't have the cash) and we now have the guy from Chelsea in who could be 4th choice and I wouldn't be too worried.

Yeh they said no to a loan and want £40 million, can't see us getting him.

I have a feeling the GK situation has been parked for next season, I reckon we are stuck with both of them this year.