The Old Man of Storr wrote:
Sell - Hernandez , Byram , Obiang , Antonio [ when fit ] , Hugill , Oxford , Cullen ,Kouyate , Masuaku , Reid and Snodgrass .
But don't sell Arnautovic . We can do without all the above but we can't do without Marko .
But surely then we'd have to buy an additional midfielder and left back as well as a striker on top of the other strengthening we're doing...
And if we're committing money before any of these players are sold... we're making a big assumption that other teams are actually going to want them.
I see the “net spend” stuff is back - personally I blame Sky and their need to reduce everything to a sound bite/headline. If we buy £75m worth of players this summer our spend this summer will not be £75m, you can pretty much guarantee that anything up to half of it will come from monies earnt in subsequent years.
It is getting the right players not net spend that matters - what was Leicester’s net spend to win the title or Burnley’s to get to 7th last season? I am not advocating these players but in fantasy world we could have added Buffon, Fredericks, Wilshere and Ballotelli for zero transfer fee so for Sky that is zero net spend but it would actually cost quite a lot when various signing fees, agents fees etc are taken into account.
Gsbgsb wrote: It is getting the right players not net spend that matters - what was Leicester’s net spend to win the title or Burnley’s to get to 7th last season?
Net spend shows an investment in the playing squad which we haven’t seen in recent years!
A higher net spend would usually result in higher fees being paid for players which usually results in it being less of a gamble and a touch more guaranteed quality ... of which we haven’t seen in recent years either
So explain Burnley or why Palace have had several struggling years? Explain why Everton struggled start of last year?
We will have to disagree.
In fantasy land we could have paid £175m or whatever it was for Neymar - yes we would have been better but still a poor team overall with a huge net spend. It is the right player(s) irrespective of if they cost £5m or £25m that matters. I agree you increase the chance of a player succeeding the more you spend but plenty of expensive players have failed, plenty of cheap ones succeeded. Getting the scouting right and players playing the right system is as important if not more so for me.
It largely correlates to investment in the squad, not just from a financial perspective but improving the playing squad generally.
Better players are generally contracted for longer and cost more money.
It's not really rocket science.
That's not to say it should be the only yard stick, but for a club that is purportedly trying to reach the 'next level' - it should be smashed window after window....and it isn't....and we're consequently underachieving.
so one of them may or may not have said 75 million. And it may have come with the word 'probably'.
I'd still like to see where it was said, but assuming it's true - did they actually say NET spend? If they didn't then why are we all assuming it?
It's not about spend and it's not about individuals. It's about the team. If this window ends and our team looks better than it did last year (which isn't a particularly difficult task for any manager) then I'll be happy. That's what I'll judge it on. Every ITK so far has agreed that Pellegrini has full say on the ins and the outs. If that's true and Arnie goes, then it will be with the blessing of Pellegrini. We've been complaining for the last 2 seasons about the manager not having control of transfers. Can't have it both ways.
I generally agree that net spend shows some sort of intent.
That said, I'd rather see 6 great players come in for £20m net, than 4 average ones for £80m net. Fredericks wouldn't be a better player if he'd cost £15m. Arnautovic wouldn't be worse had he been on a Bosman.
bobd_uk wrote:
That said, I'd rather see 6 great players come in for £20m net, than 4 average ones for £80m net. Fredericks wouldn't be a better player if he'd cost £15m. Arnautovic wouldn't be worse had he been on a Bosman.
But there's a reason why Arnie cost us £25 million and we could be about to get double that and Fredericks was free....
wizzo_66 wrote:But there's a reason why Arnie cost us £25 million and we could be about to get double that and Fredericks was free....
Speculate to accumulate...
The only reason is contract length. If Arnie ran down his contract with Stoke then he would have been free. If Fredericks hadn't let his contract run down with Fulham then he'd have cost £10-15m. They'd still be the same players - that is the point I'm making.
