Danny Posted August 4, 2021 Posted August 4, 2021 15 minutes ago, The Premier Steve's said: Transfer fees should be decided by a UEFA algorithm on market value, instead of the modern slavery of making someone stay at their employer because that employer didn't like what they got offered Someone been listening to old interviews of Sepp Blatter and Cristiano Ronaldo?
Administrator Batard Posted August 4, 2021 Administrator Posted August 4, 2021 If you are a rich club built by decades of success, run a certain way, with traditional values and another club all of a sudden gets a turbo boost and accelerates its growth, that’s going to be annoying. But you’re also part of the problem you complain about. The Champions League was created to increase, well money, and competition. And then when UEFA saw what was happening decided to impose silly FFP rules that didn’t truly focus on what was important, the clubs being able to survive, but financial FairPlay. It’s silly because football is a business, we have solvency II in the UK that asks companies to focus on being able to survive when times are hard so people don’t lose their jobs when the bad times hit but even then, business have the discretion to grow and speculate to accumulate. Football clubs are businesses. They’re global brands. The bigger clubs no longer serve just a local community, in fact you could argue they actively spend time trying to be part of much bigger communities in a bid to corner a market. Being annoyed about a club receiving money to buy new players where previously they couldn’t, or a club being brought into existence to compete in the Champions League is like being annoyed if people are eating food in an incorrect order at a buffet. Or someone spending money on booze instead of food. We don’t all have the same perceptions when it comes to risk vs reward. If you feel a club being able to buy players it previously couldn’t is unfair and goes against the grain, it’s not. It’s business.
Waylander Posted August 4, 2021 Posted August 4, 2021 3 hours ago, DeadLinesman said: Why would Spurs sell for £100m when he’s got a lengthy contract and Citeh just bid £100m for Grealish? They’d be fucking stupid. Grealish is another crazy price. On Kane, there is no doubt he was stupid signing a six year deal yet he has been their player of the season and premier golden boot winner several times. If you want to continue to attract good talent it does not look good if your star player is not attending training in an attempt to get a move. It's bad for all concerned except their rivals.
Inverted Posted August 4, 2021 Posted August 4, 2021 I think it's hard to value Kane because, despite his ungodly output, his injury record and the potential that his form could suddenly and permanently dip make him a risky signing nonetheless. From Spurs' perspective, they've learned to live with the occasional absences and him playing through injury, and he has become vital for them. So for Spurs he's borderline priceless, whereas for a team looking to buy, there are a few definite points you'd be looking to use to negotiate down his price.
Honey Honey Posted August 4, 2021 Posted August 4, 2021 He should have left 2 years ago but he mistakingly put all his hope on the Portuguese Pulis making Tottenham great. Now it's leave or hope the Portuguese Dyche turns Tottenham around.
Reluctant Striker Posted August 4, 2021 Posted August 4, 2021 5 hours ago, LFCMike said: Spurs will want much more than £100m and rightly so. It's the job of Kane's agent to ensure he can leave if the right opportunity comes along and that would have been a release clause when he signed his new contract 3 years ago. Yes, if someone has a thought in their mind they may potentially seriously consider a move to a rival in the same league, a release clause is the way to ensure that option can be taken up somewhat amicably. But via the same logic, are Spurs not within their right to deny that option? Knowing the implication & just not wanting to allow it? And yes, perhaps the 28 year old prolific goal scoring striker should be valued higher than the 25 year old talismanic creator. By 'or so' I did mean any more Spurs may negotiate on top of that. But in 3 years time if Grealish is a regular starter for Man City & England. While Kane is finally crocked near permanently. Looking a pale shadow of his former self. Grealish could look the better value. Grealish may well come from outside the elite bubble for some.. but Dwight Yorke started a Villa trend of feeding the top sides. That was continued by Barry, Milner & Young. I guess Grealish could possibly be the new Robinho.. but it is possible he's actually the better value. Could be looking at 6 seasons vs 2 or 3.
Devil Posted August 4, 2021 Posted August 4, 2021 5 hours ago, Batard said: If you are a rich club built by decades of success, run a certain way, with traditional values and another club all of a sudden gets a turbo boost and accelerates its growth, that’s going to be annoying. But you’re also part of the problem you complain about. The Champions League was created to increase, well money, and competition. And then when UEFA saw what was happening decided to impose silly FFP rules that didn’t truly focus on what was important, the clubs being able to survive, but financial FairPlay. It’s silly because football is a business, we have solvency II in the UK that asks companies to focus on being able to survive when times are hard so people don’t lose their jobs when the bad times hit but even then, business have the discretion to grow and speculate to accumulate. Football clubs are businesses. They’re global brands. The bigger clubs no longer serve just a local community, in fact you could argue they actively spend time trying to be part of much bigger communities in a bid to corner a market. Being annoyed about a club receiving money to buy new players where previously they couldn’t, or a club being brought into existence to compete in the Champions League is like being annoyed if people are eating food in an incorrect order at a buffet. Or someone spending money on booze instead of food. We don’t all have the same perceptions when it comes to risk vs reward. If you feel a club being able to buy players it previously couldn’t is unfair and goes against the grain, it’s not. It’s business. I don't agree with it from a sporting point of view, just like I didn't agree with us being potentially bought out by Sky back in the day. Let's leave it at that because people just think I'm being bitter when I'm thinking about the long term good of the sport in general.
Cicero Posted August 4, 2021 Posted August 4, 2021 If City buy Grealish and Kane , it will be 1 billion spent in 6 seasons by Pep.
Carnivore Chris Posted August 4, 2021 Posted August 4, 2021 2 hours ago, Devil said: I don't agree with it from a sporting point of view, just like I didn't agree with us being potentially bought out by Sky back in the day. Let's leave it at that because people just think I'm being bitter when I'm thinking about the long term good of the sport in general. Football is already dead anyway due to the Premier League. About 13 clubs are owned by rich foreigners(not to mention the TV deals, marketing, etc, about 80% of fans from around the world think it's the only league that exists) and it's made every other league redundant, especially now that covid has hit. They just buy out full leagues of talent every season and it will only get worse. Nevermind the future, the present is grim. It's already a dead sport. People talk about the European Super League but there is already a Super league(it's just based in one country rather than a continent) and the same people who buy into that are the ones who moan about a potential European Super league. There is literally no point in leagues like La Liga, the Bundesliga and the Serie A existing anymore and clubs from these leagues might as well form a new league so that football has 2 leagues rather than one. Football was bad enough when it only had 4/5 top leagues as it would have been nice to see leagues like the Brazilian and Argentine divisions, for example, grow. But now the sport has one league, which has become like the NBA of football.
Devil Posted August 4, 2021 Posted August 4, 2021 1 hour ago, Carnivore Chris said: Football is already dead anyway due to the Premier League. About 13 clubs are owned by rich foreigners(not to mention the TV deals, marketing, etc, about 80% of fans from around the world think it's the only league that exists) and it's made every other league redundant, especially now that covid has hit. They just buy out full leagues of talent every season and it will only get worse. Nevermind the future, the present is grim. It's already a dead sport. People talk about the European Super League but there is already a Super league(it's just based in one country rather than a continent) and the same people who buy into that are the ones who moan about a potential European Super league. There is literally no point in leagues like La Liga, the Bundesliga and the Serie A existing anymore and clubs from these leagues might as well form a new league so that football has 2 leagues rather than one. Football was bad enough when it only had 4/5 top leagues as it would have been nice to see leagues like the Brazilian and Argentine divisions, for example, grow. But now the sport has one league, which has become like the NBA of football. I agree the money involved in the Premier league is insane. I'm a fan from the 90s and 2000s where teams like Porto, PSG and Ajax were regular challengers for honours and the likes of Gothenberg were competitive. Champions league is now a closed shop between three leagues, it would take an incredible season now for an Italian side to win it. Sad thing is the gap is going to get bigger. Eventually City will be totally dominant across all competitions and the English sides will be in the next group of sides challenging. I don't see Barca, Bayern or Real falling away but other than those three I fail to see a side that can win it from the rest.
Waylander Posted August 4, 2021 Posted August 4, 2021 @Devil Rather than Italian don't you mean Dutch or Swedish?
Devil Posted August 4, 2021 Posted August 4, 2021 19 minutes ago, Waylander said: @Devil Rather than Italian don't you mean Dutch or Swedish? Dutch, Portuguese, Italy, Romania, Scottish All those nations have had previous winners, some multiple but its not likely they will any time soon. And yes I did mean the Italian teams, I don't think they are strong enough financially to compete at this time. Last Italian winners were Inter in 2010, Juve have made the final twice since but that's it. Considering there grip on the trophy in the past they've struggled for a long time.
Happy Blue Posted August 4, 2021 Posted August 4, 2021 If a player wants to leave City we show him the door, big clubs don't want players who don't what to be here
Happy Blue Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 Go on a golfing holiday Harry on tell they sell you
El Profesor Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 Why has City given up on signing Messi now that he's out of contract after making a huge efffort to bring him last year? He's basically the same player, the fact that he's a year older makes very little difference. I don't understand it.
Happy Blue Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 11 minutes ago, El Profesor said: Why has City given up on signing Messi now that he's out of contract after making a huge efffort to bring him last year? He's basically the same player, the fact that he's a year older makes very little difference. I don't understand it. We are watching don't worry if Barca cant afford to re-sign him i'm sure we will come in
El Profesor Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 Apparently, the Messi situation won't affect Kane this time around.
Dr. Gonzo Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 39 minutes ago, El Profesor said: Apparently, the Messi situation won't affect Kane this time around. That's mental tbh. If you have the chance to sign the best player in the world as a free agent, you probably should - regardless of whether you were unable to in the past.
El Profesor Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: That's mental tbh. If you have the chance to sign the best player in the world as a free agent, you probably should - regardless of whether you were unable to in the past. I agree. 1. It's Messi. The best player of his generation. 2. Even with the age difference, I would bet on Messi to be healthier than Kane.
Honey Honey Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 53 minutes ago, El Profesor said: 2. Even with the age difference, I would bet on Messi to be healthier than Kane. 14 years of performance enhancing drugs would give anyone an advantage
ScoRoss Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 On 02/08/2021 at 19:06, Storts said: Any trophy he wins at City is hollow in comparison to something he could win at Spurs. Seem this the other day and it summed it up perfectly I thought...
Happy Blue Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 So, if we get Kane Pep is basically the England manager Carson, Stones, Walker, Grealish, Sterling, Foden, Kane
Danny Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 7 hours ago, Happy Blue said: So, if we get Kane Pep is basically the England manager Carson, Stones, Walker, Grealish, Sterling, Foden, Kane The seasoning to a great bit of bait
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.