Jump to content

Other Clubs - Summer 2019

Lighthouse

By Lighthouse,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Chewy

Chewy

Posted
Posted
Valery

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Very unlikely this summer imho. That said, if he continues to develop this rapidly will likely be our next very large sale. Think he has a real future and could go for very big bucks next summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ashnats

ashnats

Posted
Posted
Sorry if this is on another page

This seems a bit of a funny one Trippier to Athletico Madrid

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/49022843

Then reading the article Rose left at home too, to explore other options for next season, he is one player I wouldn’t miss in the Premier League his regular impressions of feigning being taken out by a sniper in the floodlights that the officials flippin buy week in week out without recourse the sooner he sods off abroad the better.

That said in the Spurs game at SMS he collapsed like he had been kneecapped in both knees right in front of the lino with Valery 2 feet away going WTF as the linesman’s arm nearly fell off flagging for murder, got Romeu booked after an Oscar winning fall on the floor..........still revenge was served piping hot when the dopey bugger stepped over the ball in defence thinking it was going out unaware that Valery had snuck up behind him to scuff the ball home for 1-1!!

Odious little toad........still surprised at Trippier.

 

I wouldn't mind vincent janssen here - given a first team run, he's a good strong finisher. Think he is heading to Anderlecht though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ivan Katalinic's 'tache

Ivan Katalinic's 'tache

Posted
Posted

 

Indeed. Plus, as he currently isn't even signed on at a club, this draconian punishment stands at: man who doesn't have a football club can't play football for 2 weeks. I bet Sturridge cries himself to sleep at night...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Garrett

Saint Garrett

Posted
Posted
Very unlikely this summer imho. That said, if he continues to develop this rapidly will likely be our next very large sale. Think he has a real future and could go for very big bucks next summer.

 

Not quite sure why Glasgow is having a conversation with himself though tbf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chewy

Chewy

Posted
Posted
Not quite sure why Glasgow is having a conversation with himself though tbf.

 

Oh god I'm sorry, didn't check and I've quoted his vegetable incarnation. I try never to quote glasgow as a matter of principle, even though he's turned one of his versions into something vaguely intelligible. I'm sure come the start of the betting season all will revert to normal, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Faz

Faz

Posted
Posted
Or doing a Wolves?

 

Wolves bought more players and spent more than fulham last summer. But they don't get used as an example as they did well?

 

Wolves did well. That doesn’t counter the argument that spending big doesn’t guarantee success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TWar

TWar

Posted
Posted (edited)
Or doing a Wolves?

 

Wolves bought more players and spent more than fulham last summer. But they don't get used as an example as they did well?

 

Nonsense, Wolves brought in 10 players and spent £90m over the course of the 2018/19 season and Fulham brought in 15 players and spent £105m. Wolves also brought in £8m to Fulhams £4m (note for the purposes of this I am ignoring Afobe for wolves as they signed him for 10m and sold him for 12m in the same window). I don't know what the point is of just making up easily checkable facts.

Edited by TWar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Posted
Posted
Nonsense, Wolves brought in 10 players and spent £90m over the course of the 2018/19 season and Fulham brought in 15 players and spent £105m. Wolves also brought in £8m to Fulhams £4m (note for the purposes of this I am ignoring Afobe for wolves as they signed him for 10m and sold him for 12m in the same window). I don't know what the point is of just making up easily checkable facts.

 

Might be easier if you list the players signed by both and price they paid? As you seem to have some complicated inclusion/exclusion policy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TWar

TWar

Posted
Posted
Might be easier if you list the players signed by both and price they paid? As you seem to have some complicated inclusion/exclusion policy

 

Fulham:

 

Jean Michaël Seri OGC Nice OGC Nice £27.00m

André Zambo Anguissa Olympique Marseille Marseille £22.37m

Aleksandar Mitrovic Newcastle United Newcastle £22.23m

Alfie Mawson Swansea City Swansea £15.17m

Joe Bryan Bristol City Bristol City £6.03m

Fabri Besiktas JK Besiktas £5.40m

Maxime Le Marchand OGC Nice OGC Nice £3.60m

Ryan Babel Besiktas JK Besiktas £1.80m

Havard Nordtveit TSG 1899 Hoffenheim TSG Hoffenheim Loan

André Schürrle Borussia Dortmund Bor. Dortmund Loan

Lazar Markovic Liverpool FC Liverpool Free Transfer

Sergio Rico Sevilla FC Sevilla FC Loan

Luciano Vietto Atlético Madrid Atlético Madrid Loan

Calum Chambers Arsenal FC Arsenal Loan

Timothy Fosu-Mensah Manchester United Man Utd Loan

 

Total number : 15

Total spend £104.85m

 

Wolves:

Jonny Otto Atlético Madrid Atlético Madrid £18.45m

Adama Traoré Middlesbrough FC Middlesbrough £18.00m

Rui Patrício Sporting CP Sporting CP £16.20m

Diogo Jota Atlético Madrid Atlético Madrid £12.60m

Willy Boly FC Porto FC Porto £10.80m

Benik Afobe AFC Bournemouth Bournemouth £10.26m

João Moutinho AS Monaco Monaco £5.04m

Léo Bonatini Al-Hilal Riyadh Hilal £3.60m

Raúl Jiménez SL Benfica Benfica Loan

Rúben Vinagre AS Monaco Monaco £2.03m

Leander Dendoncker RSC Anderlecht RSC Anderlecht Loan

 

Total number: 11

Total cost: 101.3m

 

From wolves however I remove Afobe as he signed and then immediately left, which leaves

 

Total number: 10

Total cost: £90.04m

 

Sources:

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/wolverhampton-wanderers/alletransfers/verein/543

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-fulham/alletransfers/verein/931

 

Hope this wasn't too complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Posted
Posted (edited)

Jiménez and Dendoncker were both loans with a commitment to buy. Similar to Ings. Fulham had no agreements like this.

 

+ I said "bought" not loans. You've listed 7 Fulham loans in your 15

 

++ I said "last summer" and you've included players fulham got in January.

 

So as I said and stand by... Wolves "bought" more and spent more than fulham

 

Point is buying loads and spending lots doesn't guarantee failure or success.

 

Hope this isn't too complicated

 

Edited by Heisenberg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TWar

TWar

Posted
Posted
Jiménez and Dendoncker were both loans with a commitment to buy. Similar to Ings. Fulham had no agreements like this.

 

+ I said "bought" not loans. You've listed 7 Fulham loans in your 15

 

++ I said "last summer" and you've included players fulham got in January.

 

So as I said and stand by... Wolves "bought" more and spent more than fulham

 

Point is buying loads and spending lots doesn't guarantee failure or success.

 

Hope this isn't too complicated

 

 

Ok firstly loaned players still count as players that need integrating into the team, so when discussing bringing loads of players in loaning should absolutely count. Secondly, I didn't just include players Fulham brought in in Jan, I also included wolves. Fulham brought in 3 players in Jan, whereas Wolves brought in two. This doesn't change the fact that Wolves brought in many less players over the course of the season. Furthermore, Fulham spent only 1.8m on Babel and the other two were free in January. Wolves however spent 18.45m on Otto as well as a loan. Therefore, if we exclude January you just get even more wrong (stats for january signings - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/46728559).

 

Finally how can you possibly say Wolves spent more than Fulham. Even if you ignore all loans, ignore January (which, as I have said, weakens your argument rather than strengthens it) how in any way have Wolves spent more? That is just factually wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Ok firstly loaned players still count as players that need integrating into the team, so when discussing bringing loads of players in loaning should absolutely count. Secondly, I didn't just include players Fulham brought in in Jan, I also included wolves. Fulham brought in 3 players in Jan, whereas Wolves brought in two. This doesn't change the fact that Wolves brought in many less players over the course of the season. Furthermore, Fulham spent only 1.8m on Babel and the other two were free in January. Wolves however spent 18.45m on Otto as well as a loan. Therefore, if we exclude January you just get even more wrong (stats for january signings - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/46728559).

 

Finally how can you possibly say Wolves spent more than Fulham. Even if you ignore all loans, ignore January (which, as I have said, weakens your argument rather than strengthens it) how in any way have Wolves spent more? That is just factually wrong.

Feck this is boring reading. What does it matter to Saints future prospects what 2 clubs (1 in the championship) spent last season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TWar

TWar

Posted
Posted
Feck this is boring reading. What does it matter to Saints future prospects what 2 clubs (1 in the championship) spent last season?

 

It doesn't, it's just people state things that are just outright wrong on here quite often like "wolves outspent fulham" and I think it clogs up conversation. Will stop discussing it now though as I think I have made my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cabbage_Face

Cabbage_Face

Posted
Posted

We signed zero players in Jan, and we improved.

 

We only need to sign certain players to make us better.

 

We don’t/won’t do a wolves.

 

Wolves are owned in a very special way, and have special links to a certain “agent”.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
verlaine1979

verlaine1979

Posted
Posted
It doesn't, it's just people state things that are just outright wrong on here quite often like "wolves outspent fulham" and I think it clogs up conversation. Will stop discussing it now though as I think I have made my point.

 

Either way, Wolves bought 91% of a new first XI and did very well with it.

 

For a long time, received wisdom has been that anything more than 2-3 signings is proof of a team in turmoil who are bound for the drop. Wolves' example proves it means nothing of the sort. Well run teams recruit well and do well, regardless of how many players they sign. Poorly run teams recruit badly and do badly, whether they're buying 1 player or 10.

 

All this really means for Saints is that a number of supporters believe we need more than 2 signings, and would quite like the club to transition from being poorly run to being well run. It's really not that unreasonable a hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TWar

TWar

Posted
Posted
Either way, Wolves bought 91% of a new first XI and did very well with it.

 

For a long time, received wisdom has been that anything more than 2-3 signings is proof of a team in turmoil who are bound for the drop. Wolves' example proves it means nothing of the sort. Well run teams recruit well and do well, regardless of how many players they sign. Poorly run teams recruit badly and do badly, whether they're buying 1 player or 10.

 

All this really means for Saints is that a number of supporters believe we need more than 2 signings, and would quite like the club to transition from being poorly run to being well run. It's really not that unreasonable a hope.

Wolves in no way bought 91% percent of a new 11. Neves, Doherty, Coady, Bennett and saiss all played in the championship. I'd say just over half of there starting team were new. It's high but it's no where near 91%.

 

Also that is not the received wisdom at all. 5-7 transfers has always been pretty standard. Also, obviously newly promoted sides will sign more. There is a lot of misinformation on here regarding wolves.

 

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
verlaine1979

verlaine1979

Posted
Posted
Wolves in no way bought 91% percent of a new 11. Neves, Doherty, Coady, Bennett and saiss all played in the championship. I'd say just over half of there starting team were new. It's high but it's no where near 91%.

 

Also that is not the received wisdom at all. 5-7 transfers has always been pretty standard. Also, obviously newly promoted sides will sign more. There is a lot of misinformation on here regarding wolves.

 

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

 

My point wasn't that they replaced 91% of their first XI, just that this is what an additional 10 players represents.

 

Anyway, you just seem to be making it up at this point. Until Fulham and Wolves spent comparatively huge money on an unprecedented 10+ players each last season, it was the clubs recruiting 5/6 new players in the summer who were regarded as the doomed outliers unsettling their trusted squads.

 

Maybe you have a more subtle point, but at the moment it just sounds like you're saying Wolves did well because they limited themselves to only recruiting 10 players, while Fulham were fools for recruiting 15, and so it proved at the end of the season.

 

Thanks for that piercing insight, Captain Hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TWar

TWar

Posted
Posted (edited)
My point wasn't that they replaced 91% of their first XI, just that this is what an additional 10 players represents.

 

Anyway, you just seem to be making it up at this point. Until Fulham and Wolves spent comparatively huge money on an unprecedented 10+ players each last season, it was the clubs recruiting 5/6 new players in the summer who were regarded as the doomed outliers unsettling their trusted squads.

 

Maybe you have a more subtle point, but at the moment it just sounds like you're saying Wolves did well because they limited themselves to only recruiting 10 players, while Fulham were fools for recruiting 15, and so it proved at the end of the season.

 

Thanks for that piercing insight, Captain Hindsight.

 

That is not my point at all. I'm not making an over-arching point whatsoever, just correcting misinformation. Wolves did better because they signed better players and had a better core from the championship with Doherty and Neves being two of their best players.

 

You are trying to read in to what I am saying but all I am trying to get across is:

 

1) Wolves outspent Fulham

2) Wolves signed more players than Fulham

3) "Wolves bought 91% of a new first XI" (your one)

4) "For a long time, received wisdom has been that anything more than 2-3 signings is proof of a team in turmoil who are bound for the drop." (you again)

 

Are all absolutely wrong, and such stupid misinformation makes it hard to discuss things factually.

 

Also, as I haven't explained why the last one is nonsense pick a year at random and count the number of transfers in for each club. I'll pick 2007 and note that the average amount of transfers was around 6-7, the lowest was Blackburn with 3 and the highest was liverpool with 18. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember liverpool being "a team in turmoil who are bound for the drop". Pick a different year and see if you get a different result where the norm is 2-3 signings. (Source btw https://sportslens.com/summer-2007-premiership-transfers/)

 

Again, no overarching point, just sick of trying to have an informed conversation on here when people come on and post such easily disprovable stuff.

Edited by TWar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
That is not my point at all. I'm not making an over-arching point whatsoever, just correcting misinformation. Wolves did better because they signed better players and had a better core from the championship with Doherty and Neves being two of their best players.

 

You are trying to read in to what I am saying but all I am trying to get across is:

 

1) Wolves outspent Fulham

2) Wolves signed more players than Fulham

3) "Wolves bought 91% of a new first XI" (your one)

4) "For a long time, received wisdom has been that anything more than 2-3 signings is proof of a team in turmoil who are bound for the drop." (you again)

 

Are all absolutely wrong, and such stupid misinformation makes it hard to discuss things factually.

 

Also, as I haven't explained why the last one is nonsense pick a year at random and count the number of transfers in for each club. I'll pick 2007 and note that the average amount of transfers was 9, the lowest was Blackburn with 3 and the highest was liverpool with 18. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember liverpool being "a team in turmoil who are bound for the drop". Pick a different year and see if you get a different result where the norm is 2-3 signings. (Source btw https://sportslens.com/summer-2007-premiership-transfers/)

 

Again, no overarching point, just sick of trying to have an informed conversation on here when people come on and post such easily disprovable stuff.

 

Are you still banging on about this?! If you two want a tedious private debate about what other clubs have spent in the past, how about PM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
verlaine1979

verlaine1979

Posted
Posted
That is not my point at all. I'm not making an over-arching point whatsoever, just correcting misinformation. Wolves did better because they signed better players and had a better core from the championship with Doherty and Neves being two of their best players.

 

You are trying to read in to what I am saying but all I am trying to get across is:

 

1) Wolves outspent Fulham

2) Wolves signed more players than Fulham

3) "Wolves bought 91% of a new first XI" (your one)

4) "For a long time, received wisdom has been that anything more than 2-3 signings is proof of a team in turmoil who are bound for the drop." (you again)

 

Are all absolutely wrong, and such stupid misinformation makes it hard to discuss things factually.

 

Also, as I haven't explained why the last one is nonsense pick a year at random and count the number of transfers in for each club. I'll pick 2007 and note that the average amount of transfers was around 6-7, the lowest was Blackburn with 3 and the highest was liverpool with 18. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember liverpool being "a team in turmoil who are bound for the drop". Pick a different year and see if you get a different result where the norm is 2-3 signings. (Source btw https://sportslens.com/summer-2007-premiership-transfers/)

 

Again, no overarching point, just sick of trying to have an informed conversation on here when people come on and post such easily disprovable stuff.

 

You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you have trouble following an argument.

 

Why are we having this conversation in the first place? Because the reactionary response to asking for more signings is that someone always comes along and says: what, you mean recruit like Norwich/Middlesborough/Fulham/QPR?! To which an entirely reasonable and factual answer would now be - no, like Wolves.

 

The rest of what you've written is just sophistry. Fulham and Wolves spent almost exactly the same amount of money; ten players IS equivalent to '91% of a new first Xi', everything else on your list can be written off as rounding errors in debate that are irrelevant to the crux of the point articulated above.

 

To remind you: this entire conversation is the result of people arguing whether signing large numbers of players is inherently destabilising. If a significant number of posters didn't believe this to be the case, there'd be no need to have the discussion at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Plastic

Plastic

Posted
Posted (edited)
exactly. £15m on Hoedt is much better value :lol:

 

What an odd post. Why is that even a comparison?

Do you think we can spend 80 mil on a player, or do you think 80 mil for HM is a good deal?

Edited by Plastic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TWar

TWar

Posted
Posted
You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you have trouble following an argument.

 

Why are we having this conversation in the first place? Because the reactionary response to asking for more signings is that someone always comes along and says: what, you mean recruit like Norwich/Middlesborough/Fulham/QPR?! To which an entirely reasonable and factual answer would now be - no, like Wolves.

 

The rest of what you've written is just sophistry. Fulham and Wolves spent almost exactly the same amount of money; ten players IS equivalent to '91% of a new first Xi', everything else on your list can be written off as rounding errors in debate that are irrelevant to the crux of the point articulated above.

 

To remind you: this entire conversation is the result of people arguing whether signing large numbers of players is inherently destabilising. If a significant number of posters didn't believe this to be the case, there'd be no need to have the discussion at all.

Don't care about your argument, just saying your evidence is nonsense and wrong, which it is. Anyway as has been said no one else cares so if you have any further points pm me.

 

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tajjuk

tajjuk

Posted
Posted (edited)

The core of Wolves team still were there from the Championship (Doherty, Bennet, Boly, Coady, Ruddy, Gibbs-White all played a lot in the Championship and all but Ruddy made regular PL appearances) and the players they added included two very experienced and proven quality players in Rui Patricio and Jao Moutinho, who also being Portuguese would have fit in easily with the other multiple Portuguese players already there.

 

None of which really applies to Fulham or Villa, the core of those promotion winning teams was/is not really there, the players they signed were of more unknown quality than Wolves and they were signed from all over Europe so you didn't have the same common language or culture that Wolves have.

 

The Wolves first team is basically made up of UK and Ireland players (Doherty, Bennet, Coady, Gibbs-White, Ruddy) or Portuguese/Spanish speakers (Neves, Patricio, Jota, Jonny, Moutinho, Jimenez). Thus it is much easier to blend new signings into a team that has an existing core and that many of the players share the same language/culture.

 

They only have two players in the first team squad that are basically not UK & Ireland or Portugal/Spain/Mexico. (7 different nationalities represented if you count UK & Ireland as one)

 

Villa in comparison have 11 different nationalities, Fulham have 13 different nationalities represented.

 

So Aston Villa's transfer spree this summer has a lot more similarities with Fulham's last season than it does with Wolves and thus the hypothesis that they will 'do a Fulham' seems a fairly logical one.

Edited by tajjuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Garrett

Saint Garrett

Posted
Posted
https://www.footballinsider247.com/exclusive-bournemouth-in-advanced-talks-to-sign-huddersfield-midfielder/

 

Bmth going for Billing from Huddersfield. He was one of the few bright spots for them last year.

 

Do like the business Bournemouth do, and they use the Championship well.

 

Getting £35m for Mings and Mousset is great business as well.

 

Yeah - them selling Mousset for £9.5m and us trying to sell Boufal for €8m...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Baird of the land

Baird of the land

Posted
Posted
https://www.footballinsider247.com/exclusive-bournemouth-in-advanced-talks-to-sign-huddersfield-midfielder/

 

Bmth going for Billing from Huddersfield. He was one of the few bright spots for them last year.

 

Do like the business Bournemouth do, and they use the Championship well.

 

Getting £35m for Mings and Mousset is great business as well.

 

They have a tendency of giving large amounts of money to Liverpool in return for taking tripe. So at least we beat them in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tajjuk

tajjuk

Posted
Posted
https://www.footballinsider247.com/exclusive-bournemouth-in-advanced-talks-to-sign-huddersfield-midfielder/

 

Bmth going for Billing from Huddersfield. He was one of the few bright spots for them last year.

 

Do like the business Bournemouth do, and they use the Championship well.

 

Getting £35m for Mings and Mousset is great business as well.

 

They have paid like £35 million to Liverpool for Ibe and Solanke, so their business is not that good, plus they paid money to loan Clyne and their defence was terrible in the 2nd half of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...