• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Rafa. He's still not happy

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. 1 is Gary Rowell said:
Generally, maybe. But not when you're getting £30m for sissoko as part of that. He had a few good games at the euros and his value increased considerably. Unfortunately for you lot FSW has bought average players and now has to actaully manage
Click to expand...

What was he supposed to buy in the Championship? A team full of internationals?
 

Brian Griffin said:
What an absolute spenk.

It has been proven beyond doubt that historically it's not the clubs who spend the most who win the most.

Success is driven by your wage bill. Teams that pay the most in salaries have won the most historically - not teams who pay the most for players.

I appreciate the irony of a Sunderland fan writing this.

Educate yourself, read Soccernomics. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Soccernomics-Simon-Kuper/dp/0007457847
Click to expand...

We should just give everyone a massive pay rise then.
 
What A Waster said:
When he took over Newcastle were close to doing a Leeds. Freddy Shepherd was running the club in to the ground, yet Ashley came in and steadied the ship. Debt was £75m when Ashley took over. Now the club's debt to Ashley is £130m. How many other clubs are running on an even keel? Think only 2 or 3 were in the red in the last list of premier league financial results. How many other managers would be allowed to overhaul the squad the way he did last summer? Even this window, hes still been allowed to bring in players. Why shouldnt he be expected to ship out a load of the players purposefully bought for promotion to fund new ones? 16 have left 6 have came in.
Click to expand...

While it is enjoyable to laugh at the mags, this bit to me out of the thread highlights what is wrong with football and seems to be getting steadily worse. Clubs like use (before Moyes) and the Mags now are paying around £10-£15m mark on players who are very average and often these are gambles. Either bring them in from abroad or rescue players from the reserves of big teams, like we did with Johnson and Rodwell. For that money we got a complete failure and in AJ a player that would turn it on 1 in 4 games. In buying and paying these average players clubs are running at a loss. Occasionally a club will do what the Mags did and unearth a number of gems from abroad, but then their supply dried up and down they went. Look at the utter crap we have both bought that might have looked reasonable on paper but useless on a pitch.

Meanwhile, Sky subscriptions goes up, shirt prices go up, ticket prices are still very high and very average players just get richer. I'd love to know exactly how much money has been spent in the last 12 months in the top two tiers on paying people like Rodwell and Colback to do virtually nothing. Across 44 clubs the figure will be well into the hundreds of millions region.

What is the alternative? Well spend loads more on players obviously. Pay £30m+ on players that are playing regularly for other teams who you know can do a job. Run up even more debt, but watch out. If it does not quite work out, or the player takes a huff, you are at serious risk of administration.

It feels like this is just not sustainable, but it has kept rumbling on this way for years.
 
DaveH said:
While it is enjoyable to laugh at the mags, this bit to me out of the thread highlights what is wrong with football and seems to be getting steadily worse. Clubs like use (before Moyes) and the Mags now are paying around £10-£15m mark on players who are very average and often these are gambles. Either bring them in from abroad or rescue players from the reserves of big teams, like we did with Johnson and Rodwell. For that money we got a complete failure and in AJ a player that would turn it on 1 in 4 games. In buying and paying these average players clubs are running at a loss. Occasionally a club will do what the Mags did and unearth a number of gems from abroad, but then their supply dried up and down they went. Look at the utter crap we have both bought that might have looked reasonable on paper but useless on a pitch.

Meanwhile, Sky subscriptions goes up, shirt prices go up, ticket prices are still very high and very average players just get richer. I'd love to know exactly how much money has been spent in the last 12 months in the top two tiers on paying people like Rodwell and Colback to do virtually nothing. Across 44 clubs the figure will be well into the hundreds of millions region.

What is the alternative? Well spend loads more on players obviously. Pay £30m+ on players that are playing regularly for other teams who you know can do a job. Run up even more debt, but watch out. If it does not quite work out, or the player takes a huff, you are at serious risk of administration.

It feels like this is just not sustainable, but it has kept rumbling on this way for years.
Click to expand...
Clubs such as palace spending £30m on benteke, now £26m on sakho. It's a joke, if approx 5% less was spent on transfers and wages, everyone could attend for a tenner adults and a fiver kids. It won't happen though
 
stephen cartwright said:
Clubs such as palace spending £30m on benteke, now £26m on sakho. It's a joke, if approx 5% less was spent on transfers and wages, everyone could attend for a tenner adults and a fiver kids. It won't happen though
Click to expand...

Other countries aren't even following suit they're ripping the piss out of us whilst we pour cash into their leagues by overspending on their players whilst they get to watch all of our matches for next to nowt. It's why I'll never have Sky.
 
Brian Griffin said:
What have they won like?

A small (relative to the league) salaries for all players bar Kane.



Of course the Mags - you're a Newcastle fan.

By your logic if you spend more than make you're on to a good thing.

I highlighted the flaw in your argument.
Click to expand...

That isn't my logic, it's just one on a number of ingredients required. It certainly reaps more rewards on the pitch than the reverse, spending less than what you sell for.

Father Jack Hackett said:
:lol: the negative net spend was mainly due to the Anelka and Henry deals. Having said net spend is a downgrade, I'll ask again, was that deal one?
Click to expand...

In the short term, yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top