Two gone...how many to follow?

[cellone]

This thread should be saved for an I told you so bukkake (sp) session at the end of the window.

[Batman]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/on-paper

 

Happy to help.

 

we either are, or not in your opinion

IMO, we are not, and wont be

[The9]

+ Cork and Boruc, into last year of their contracts and have value unless the board fancy a Jack Colback "walk for nothing" type scenario/embarassment in June 2015.

 

I'm not sure why, nearly 20 years after the Bosman ruling, people still see people leaving their contracts for nothing as an "embarrassment". Players will see out their contract and move for free if they can because the "buying" club usually funnels the money they saved on the transfer straight into the player's contract or signing on fee, and the club flogging them for a fraction of their value 6 months beforehand is often counterproductive in terms of how remaining players see their value to the "dumping" club - the "sensitive" squad management probably leaned too far towards the players under Cortese, but you can't really argue that he looked after the fringe players and respected their contracts despite the lack of benefit they were bringing to the First XI, and that was either profligacy with someone else's money or a calculated act to keep everyone happy.

 

Players get enough crap for leaving DURING a contract, why the fuss when they go when they don't have one any more?

[The9]

The other interesting thing about this thread is how many of the posters' opinions I am blocking by default.

[shurlock]

I think that there is a fault in your argument that you appear to have overlooked. We have received mega-inflated prices for those other players and the reasoning might have been that they were all replaceable with players of equal or better ability from the money we received. In the case of Schneiderlin, it hasn't been proven that the board succumbed to fans' pressure to stop his sale. It might always have been the case that he was a player that we didn't want to sell. Furthermore, the ludicrous sum of money that might have had us thinking twice about selling him, would be set at about £27/30 million. Spurs are kicking tyres with a derisory offer far below that and Arsenal also appear to have backed away from the price we want. As it also appears that we might well have dug our heels in and played hardball with Schneiderlin if he went on strike, he seems to have recognised that he will not get his move at this particular time and will have to wait until January or next summer.

 

Yes, the divs were those who stated categorically that Schneiderlin had played his last game for the club. However many on here took the postion that if he went on strike, the club should let him rot in the reserves to make an example out of him. Whether the club takes notice of the attitudes of fans about positions like that, I don't know, but I very much doubt it.

 

Not saying the club succumbed to fan pressure (though there is no doubt the media backlash took everyone by surprise and credible reports suggested we were negotiating deals for Morgan/Jrod); what I am saying is that every sale -right down to that of Chambers- was presented as an inevitability, the soccerball equivalent of the invasion of the bodysnatchers.

 

Lets be clear: the point isn't hat we could have kept everyone; but the trickle didn't have to turn into a quasi-flood.

 

You're implicitly assuming that it was now or never in terms of the inflated fees that we commanded. Rubbish: with the possible exception of Lallana, the value of those players would have held up just fine. Not to worry: your response is that they have been replaced with players of equal or better ability. A complete leap of faith that will take something pretty outstanding to come true.

 

Either way, and more important IMO, the succession planning was a shambles. Had replacements been lined up, we might have been able to avoid the image of a club in crisis, albeit one that was cash-rich. Not only did this make it difficult to attract better players, forcing us to look further down our wishlist; but also enabled other clubs to hold us to ransom. The time lost from our back-to-front planning was also inflationary in that sides like Hull wanted to be compensated for losing players days before the start of the season.

 

All the mockery and self-congratulation over the asset-stripping-that-never-was is a red herring -it was only ever a bizarre, minority position. Of course, it is understandable. It serves a purpose -it usefully deflects attention from being wrong on the points of substance.

Edited 21 August, 2014 by shurlock

[Jackie@home]

I think holding on to our players might be a bit easier now that we don't have a chairman and manager encouraging them to leave and stirring things up in a very negative way in the background. Of course, we will still lose players, it's unrealistic to think otherwise with the current system and FFP weighting everything towards a handful of clubs, but it will be the odd one or two, rather than wholesale changes. I hope the board will keep their ear to the ground after what's happened this year, and make sure that they are not too distant from what's going on in the dressing room. They definitely under-estimated how vindictive Cortese was and how two-faced MP has turned out to be.

 

If I was them, I would not sell any players to Spurs, it doesn't matter how large the bid.

[Turkish]

First up... Need to turn off the fricken auto correct on the iPad.... Gets me every time. Sorry Dalek you are Wrong. Typical of those who have succumb to the belief that football is all about money.... It's not its sport and sport is about being the best. It's the clubs that are obsessed with just being in the prem for the cash, that are are worst, as they have lost those sporting ideals, happy to just feed at the trough and nothing more.... Stagnating and feeding off the 'undying loyalty' that is expected of 'real fans'

 

Sorry but that undying loyalty thing is a load of juvenile, archaic and romantic idealism. Ironic then that those who go on about these virtues also seem to talk of realism whenever ambition is mentioned... Nope, the fact that you think yo yo ing is acceptable is sadly what has become of fans... Your ambition to be the best eroded by the an acceptance that we can never be really good.... Accepting of a 'place' and in effect accepting of failure.... And that defeatism makes you a joke (if it were not for your obvious Wind up) - but you are symbolic of the crap attitude we seem to have... Accepting of the plucky loser tag

 

Football fans in this country need to wake up and see that they are being taken for mugs by the armchair millions, many of whom are aboard and the ruling bodies - because if they don't the game will just drift further away. Until your crap attitude of accepting mediocrity or worse defeat is removed, what is the point of taking part if you never aspire to win?

 

This is a fantastic post frank, the work of a genius. Well it was until about the 4th sentence. Just as a reminder who was it who won the league last season? Oh that'll be the team with the biggest wage bill of any sports team on the planet. How about the season before that? That'll be the biggest football club In the country with the biggest commercial income. Surely the season before that shows us that it ain't all about money? Who won it that season?

 

I love how you lamblast others for romantic idealism shortly after claiming clubs that want to be in the premier league have lost their sporting ideals and it ain't all about money.

 

Yes Franco, it's a sport. It's about being the best. Unfortunately the best are the best because they have the most money.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

The other interesting thing about this thread is how many of the posters' opinions I am blocking by default.

 

I started that last week with Saint Robbie, soon went onto Shurlock and seriously considering Batman and Alpine (again).

[VectisSaint]

we have replaced the players who have left. We have added additional players to enlarge the squad with back-up and are still looking for a further couple of players before the window shuts.

Actually we haven't. We had a very small squad at the end of last season, and this was primary reason why we had a poor spell mid-season which dropped us down from top 4 to 8th. 8 players have left since the end of last season (Shaw, Lallana, Lambert, Lovren, Chambers, Osvaldo, Guly and Sharp). We have brought in 7 (Forster, Bertrand, Pelle, Tadic, Taidir, Long, Gardos). We have ****ed off Boruc by putting Fraser as #1. So we are still one or two short of where we were and we all know we were short anyway. So how have we enlarged the squad?

[Wes Tender]

Not saying the club succumbed to fan pressure (though there is no doubt the media backlash took everyone by surprise and credible reports suggested we were negotiating deals for Morgan/Jrod); what I am saying is that every sale -right down to that of Chambers- was presented as an inevitability, the soccerball equivalent of the invasion of the bodysnatchers.

 

Lets be clear: the point isn't hat we could have kept everyone; but the trickle didn't have to turn into a quasi-flood.

 

You're implicitly assuming that it was now or never in terms of the inflated fees that we commanded. Rubbish: with the possible exception of Lallana, the value of those players would have held up just fine. Not to worry: your response is that they have been replaced with players of equal or better ability. A complete leap of faith that will take something pretty outstanding to come true.

 

Either way, and more important IMO, the succession planning was a shambles. Had replacements been lined up, we might have been able to avoid the image of a club in crisis, albeit one that was cash-rich. Not only did this make it difficult to attract better players, forcing us to look further down our wishlist; but also enabled other clubs to hold us to ransom. The time lost from our back-to-front planning was also inflationary in that sides like Hull wanted to be compensated for losing players days before the start of the season.

 

All the mockery and self-congratulation over the asset-stripping-that-never-was is a red herring -it was only ever a bizarre, minority position. Of course, it is understandable. It serves a purpose -it usefully deflects attention from being wrong on the points of substance.

 

Credible media reports stating that we were going to sell Schneiderlin and Rodriguez? Or media speculation whipped up by an hysterical press, aided by agents trying to hawk their players, or rumours put about in an effort to destabilise the club by those with an agenda? There are any number of conspiracy theories that have as much validity, i.e. very little, without evidence to substantiate them.

 

I didn't assume that it was now or never in terms of the inflated fees. That is an assumption that you have made on my behalf. The value of those players was undoubtedly inflated by two obvious factors, which were timely. Firstly, they had played in the World Cup and were tapped up by the likes of Gerrard. Secondly, as in all business, the laws of supply and demand came into force, where several top clubs were after most of those players.

 

You're another one who doesn't comprehend what I said about players who left having been replaced. I explained it all to Batman, but you don't appear to have read it. Nowhere have I said that those players have been replaced by players of equal or better ability. What I said was that club must have thought that they were replaceable with equivalent players. I have also said that players have been brought in to replace those who left, on paper they appeared good enough, but only time will tell. I have always added caveats to those opinions.

 

The debate about whether players could have been lined up in anticipation of those players leaving has been done to death already. We held out for vastly inflated prices when selling, so naturally had to expect to be treated the same but at a lower level, because generally the top clubs weren't after the same players, or if they were, they wouldn't go to us instead on Man Utd anyway, would they?

 

Who's right on points of substance which are expressed as personal opinons? Or is it only their own opinion that they are right?

[Bwanamakubwa]

Actually we haven't. We had a very small squad at the end of last season, and this was primary reason why we had a poor spell mid-season which dropped us down from top 4 to 8th. 8 players have left since the end of last season (Shaw, Lallana, Lambert, Lovren, Chambers, Osvaldo, Guly and Sharp). We have brought in 7 (Forster, Bertrand, Pelle, Tadic, Taidir, Long, Gardos). We have ****ed off Boruc by putting Fraser as #1. So we are still one or two short of where we were and we all know we were short anyway. So how have we enlarged the squad?

Valid point. I'd hope the new guys eclipse the contribution of osvaldo, guly and sharp. Add two more as is suggested and the regular match day squad is enlarged

[Wes Tender]

Actually we haven't. We had a very small squad at the end of last season, and this was primary reason why we had a poor spell mid-season which dropped us down from top 4 to 8th. 8 players have left since the end of last season (Shaw, Lallana, Lambert, Lovren, Chambers, Osvaldo, Guly and Sharp). We have brought in 7 (Forster, Bertrand, Pelle, Tadic, Taidir, Long, Gardos). We have ****ed off Boruc by putting Fraser as #1. So we are still one or two short of where we were and we all know we were short anyway. So how have we enlarged the squad?

 

There are some of the youngsters promoted to the squad. Whether they are ready and good enough to make the team sheet, is up to Koeman to decide. But it is a fair list and some have already played, including Reed, Isgrove and Gallagher, then there is also Targett, Stephens, McQueen. It is easy to denigrate the youngsters before they play, but maybe there might be the surprise in store that their predecessors brought when they first played in the first team. I suspect that Osvaldo, Guly and Sharp won't be missed that much. We dropped down last year notably through the injuries to Boruc and Wanyama. I do hope that Boruc remains here, but on the face of it we have adequate midfield cover. It depends on who we bring in next before 1st September before we can make a more accurate assessment.

[CB Fry]

Credible media reports stating that we were going to sell Schneiderlin and Rodriguez? Or media speculation whipped up by an hysterical press, aided by agents trying to hawk their players, or rumours put about in an effort to destabilise the club by those with an agenda? There are any number of conspiracy theories that have as much validity, i.e. very little, without evidence to substantiate them.

 

You're another one who doesn't comprehend what I said about players who left having been replaced. I explained it all to Batman, but you don't appear to have read it. Nowhere have I said that those players have been replaced by players of equal or better ability. What I said was that club must have thought that they were replaceable with equivalent players. I have also said that players have been brought in to replace those who left, on paper they appeared good enough, but only time will tell. I have always added caveats to those opinions.

 

You said Lallana was replaceable in the same way that Liverpool could replace high profile total failure Andy Carroll. Doesn't say much for your opinion of what we've lost, does it?

 

And if you think the enquiries for Morgan and Jay Rod were made up by the press then god help us. I think you said the same when the reports linking Shaw with Man U came up. In fact, I know you did. And, guess what, it wasn't all made up by nasty-wasty journalists with an agenda, was it?

[shurlock]

Credible media reports stating that we were going to sell Schneiderlin and Rodriguez? Or media speculation whipped up by an hysterical press, aided by agents trying to hawk their players, or rumours put about in an effort to destabilise the club by those with an agenda? There are any number of conspiracy theories that have as much validity, i.e. very little, without evidence to substantiate them.

 

I didn't assume that it was now or never in terms of the inflated fees. That is an assumption that you have made on my behalf. The value of those players was undoubtedly inflated by two obvious factors, which were timely. Firstly, they had played in the World Cup and were tapped up by the likes of Gerrard. Secondly, as in all business, the laws of supply and demand came into force, where several top clubs were after most of those players.

 

You're another one who doesn't comprehend what I said about players who left having been replaced. I explained it all to Batman, but you don't appear to have read it. Nowhere have I said that those players have been replaced by players of equal or better ability. What I said was that club must have thought that they were replaceable with equivalent players. I have also said that players have been brought in to replace those who left, on paper they appeared good enough, but only time will tell. I have always added caveats to those opinions.

 

The debate about whether players could have been lined up in anticipation of those players leaving has been done to death already. We held out for vastly inflated prices when selling, so naturally had to expect to be treated the same but at a lower level, because generally the top clubs weren't after the same players, or if they were, they wouldn't go to us instead on Man Utd anyway, would they?

 

Who's right on points of substance which are expressed as personal opinons? Or is it only their own opinion that they are right?

 

The reports of Jrod and Morgan possibly leaving came from Simon Peach and the BBC IIRC - so as far as reports/speculation go, they're a pretty safe pair of hands.

 

The game isn't played on paper -am happy to bet that the majority of the players we signed or loaned don't have better seasons than the ones we replaced (I'll even give you Osvaldo). That's two players who made the PFA team of the year for starters -of course, should Bertrand do the unlikely, he probably won't be here next season. Also wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that Gardos has a less impressive season than Chambers at CB - never mind Lovren.

 

The debate may have been done to death; but you still don't understand it. Just because we sold players for a premium doesn't mean we couldn't have played our hand more smartly. Even in a crazy market, there is a big difference between having some money and sitting on nearly a £100m cashpile and clubs knowing you have to replace half your side as a matter of necessity.

 

You also fail to address the fact that selling players in the manner we did possibly made it harder to secure our top targets -or in your cryptic words, bring in 'equivalent players'. All the money in the world makes f**k all difference if the club is perceived as going in the wrong direction. Hopefully, that perception is beginning to change; but things could have been handled so much better.

Edited 21 August, 2014 by shurlock

[Batman]

since january Wes, you have been saying the press have been stirring the pot about the likes of shaw, lovren, pochettino leaving the club

 

guess what.....

[Wes Tender]

The reports of Jrod and Morgan leaving came from Simon Peach and the BBC IIRC - so as far as reports go, they're a pretty safe pair of hands.

 

The game isn't played on paper -am happy to bet that the majority of the players we signed or loaned don't have better seasons than the ones we replaced (I'll even give you Osvaldo). That's two players who made the PFA team of the year for starters -of course, should Bertrand do the unlikely, he probably won't be here next season. Also wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that Gardos has a less impressive season than Chambers at CB - never mind Lovren.

 

The debate may have been done to death; but you still don't understand it. Just because we sold players for a premium doesn't mean we couldn't have played our hand more smartly. There is a big difference between having some money and sitting on nearly £100m cashpile and clubs knowing you have to replace half your side as a matter of necessity.

 

You also fail to address the fact that selling players in the manner we did possibly made it harder to secure our top targets -and bring in 'equivalent players'. All the money in the world makes f**k all difference if the club is perceived as going in the wrong direction. Hopefully, that perception is beginning to change; but things could have been handled so much better.

 

All in your own humble opinion. Neither JRod or Schneiderlin have left as yet and if they don't before the window closes, then whether there was substance in the reports or not becomes largely irrelevant. Also just opinion, is whether the club could have approached the way that the players left any differently. You might believe that you understand that it could be, but as you are not privvy to inside information that guided the board's actions, then you are not really in a position to decide. As I say, this has been debated before at length and I'm inclined to think that there were points made then that explained quite well how it might not have been possible to have bought players before ours were sold. The transfer market just isn't that simple. Unless one knows which players were on our list, then it cannot even be claimed that we had to buy lesser players than were originally targetted. For example, all this specualtion that we wished to buy Gonzales has proven to be totally groundless apparently.

 

But I'm sure that the club have taken note of your expertise in how they could have done so much better with your help and that the next time, they will be paying you the substantial amounts of money as a consultant that your expertise should command.

[saintbob40]

I'm not sure why, nearly 20 years after the Bosman ruling, people still see people leaving their contracts for nothing as an "embarrassment". Players will see out their contract and move for free if they can because the "buying" club usually funnels the money they saved on the transfer straight into the player's contract or signing on fee, and the club flogging them for a fraction of their value 6 months beforehand is often counterproductive in terms of how remaining players see their value to the "dumping" club - the "sensitive" squad management probably leaned too far towards the players under Cortese, but you can't really argue that he looked after the fringe players and respected their contracts despite the lack of benefit they were bringing to the First XI, and that was either profligacy with someone else's money or a calculated act to keep everyone happy.

 

Players get enough crap for leaving DURING a contract, why the fuss when they go when they don't have one any more?

 

To be 100% clear- An embarrassment to the club not the player. Sunderland have been contemplating their own navel for the last few months at their own bad business on Jack Colback. Went on a free when they could have got £4 million for him the summer before. Firm bids of 5 million from Leicester and Swansea for Cork so interesting to see what Les Reed does now.