- May 21, 2007
- 10,424
- 37,192
Even still Mouts was dragged out over the deadline so the money never got spentMaybe he meant Dempsey!
Even still Mouts was dragged out over the deadline so the money never got spentMaybe he meant Dempsey!
Even still Mouts was dragged out over the deadline so the money never got spent
Eh? I was responding to someone saying we spent the money for him on Dembele, then someone else saying maybe he meant Dempsey, my point is both were signed before the Mouts deal collapsed so the money should still be availableDon't think Moutinho was PR stunt - as even Porto newspapers agreed that mistake was done at Porto's end . But had Levy given couple more millions, no reason why this would have dragged till 11PM
Don't think Moutinho was PR stunt - as even Porto newspapers agreed that mistake was done at Porto's end . But had Levy given couple more millions, no reason why this would have dragged till 11PM
All the stories were that Levy had paid up - both to Porto and increasing Moutinho's wages. Good player buit IMO a bad target at the price - not enough goalscoring.
But its pointless simply saying 'we should have signed that one extra player' - every fan believes just one more extra signing could have been possible. If all clubs got that 'one extra' signing it would probably all even out - and back to the situation we are in..
Fact is that in the last TW we did get in Lloris, Dembele and Vertonghem - players who have proved top class players in their first season.
Whilst signing Adebayor (a 30+ goals/assists player), nobody could have forseen the abysmal season he had - even the doom mongers saying he would have a bad 2nd season could npot have forseen the ghandful of goals/assists achived.
And who forecast Kaboul being out for the season and Sandro being out for half a season ?
And who forecast HR going AWOL for a couple of months the season before whilst an outplayed Chelsea lucking their way through games with Genoa (?), Barcelon and then Bayern to deny Spurs a CL place ?
Its not just down to transfers.
I didn't quite get this sentence, can you explain it to me BO.
Don't know why people bang on about transfer fee's when wages are the real expenditure.
To get a £20m or £30m player they would be on at least £100k a week,
thats just under £21m on a 4 year contract. Thats £40m - £50m on just one player.
Based on your example I'd say they are both real expenditures, in fact almost exactly the same amount. The difference being that the wages are effectively that sum in weekly installments over a four year time period rather than a lump sum. Levy always tries to pay transfer fees in installments for whatever reason (and you better believe there is a reason financially for him to do it that way) but even he hasn't yet convinced a club to take a transfer fee in weekly installments. So i'd say if the player was worth £21m and the wages also came to £21m, that the transfer fee is going to be the one with the bigger concern.
I think his point was that some people look at a £20m player as only £8m more than a £12m player, when the truth is the first player is probably on £100k/wk and the other may only be on £50k. Over a 4 year contract, the first player is actually £18m more expensive.
Don't know why people bang on about transfer fee's when wages are the real expenditure.
To get a £20m or £30m player they would be on at least £100k a week,
thats just under £21m on a 4 year contract. Thats £40m - £50m on just one player.
You'd rather a bentley rather than a lennon?
Just because you pay more for a player doesn't mean their better.