**Summer Transfer Thread: News, Rumours and Speculation**

[Trusty]

It would certainly make things a lot more intresting, American sports have it bang on! Very really do you see one team dominate, and even there is it's only for a few years. Was it the Spurs that were the last team in 10 years to win 3 titles?

Edit: Lakers won 3 aswell.
Edit: Actually, what i just said is bull, http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html

Didnt realise it was the same few teams winning it.

 

[Weebull]

Cool, we are short of midfielders ( well players in general ) I've not heard much about this guy, don't suppose anyone else has either ?

Old post, but France (right midfielder, occasionally played as RB) isn't a bad player. Actually one of the four at Hull City who've played in all four divisions during their rise, but he's been a squad player for so long he's barely noticed by anyone.

Was a backup player even when City were in the Championship, so I can't see him being first choice for Wednesday either, but he's a solid, consistent player, who'll probably serve you fairly well.

 

[Richard_16v]

Nobody NEEDS more than 70k a month let alone a week!

Your average high earner may earn 70k-150k a year and manage to live a good life. Fair enough they have celeb status so maybe need more security etc than a company director but anything around 500k a year would be more than enough to live a good life on.

 

[Tummy]

Both in a weaker team offensively and defensively (no offense intended to Everton fans), I think they have a lot to offer. And to think some people laughed at me when I suggested that I'd rather have Benayoun in the team than Park. *cough* Tummy *cough*

I'd still have Park over Yossi

"he shoots, he scores, he'll eat your Labrador parrrrk ji sung ! "

I do like Arteta, I can't see where he'd fit in to the Manchester United team. I'm also sure he'd want to play almost week in week out, and I don't think he would get that at Manchester United.

 

[FrankJH]

I think a salary cap is years and years over due. No footballer needs more than £70k a week.

the legalities of a cap would be hard to prove here, let alone in the rest of Europe / the world

and if it isnt enforced everywhere its very hard if not impossible to work (simply because those clubs within the cap would be crippled compared to those outside the cap)

Not only that but with the tax laws here clubs already have one hand tied behind their backs so cant directly compete with RM / Barca or whoever at their respective level on wages either

edit - you also have to consider that majority of company directors are getting on in life (in the 50's or 60's before they get such elevated status), a tennis pro or footballer is on the downward spiral before they are out of their 30's and sometimes a lot earlier than that

 

[Tummy]

Old post, but France (right midfielder, occasionally played as RB) isn't a bad player. Actually one of the four at Hull City who've played in all four divisions during their rise, but he's been a squad player for so long he's barely noticed by anyone.

Was a backup player even when City were in the Championship, so I can't see him being first choice for Wednesday either, but he's a solid, consistent player, who'll probably serve you fairly well.

Thanks for that ! I've not seen or herd much about him so this has helped my worries

Brian Laws has a habit of getting the best out of players, (okay, not Jeffers) so with what you say, he might start a fair few games for us, as we are desperately short in the middle of the park.

Big thanks for the bit of information (Y)

 

[Tummy]

I think a salary cap is years and years over due. No footballer needs more than £70k a week.

A salary cap is never going to happen, not with clubs like Manchester City, and Chelsea.

A salary cap, would mean big trouble for the Premier League, I think that this league is described as "the best league in the world" because of the amount of money involved. Players come to England, because they know, this is where the money is. Sky pay Billions for the Premier League, they're not going to say that it's not the best in the world.

I don't think, and have never thought that the Premier league is the best in the world, I mean, lets say there was a salary cap of 50k per week in this country, then why would you play football in England ? why wouldn't you go to Spain or Italy where they would pay you more ? On top of which you get an amazing life style and to play football in amazing weather and in some amazing grounds.

I completely agree 100% on that players are paid too much, but who can blame them for trying to get as much as they can ? Wouldn't you in the same position ? A chance to secure your family for generations ?

Keep earning 10k a week, playing in a average side, or go be a bit part player at a big club, progress as a footballer and earn 80k a week ?

I don't blame the players. I blame the people who run the football clubs.

As for the Real Madrid are "spoiling" the transfer market, that is bull ****. Teams like Chelsea, Manchester City, or any "owned" football club is ruining the transfer market. Clubs that will pay, stupid amounts of money for average players and pay them top whack a week are ruining the transfer market, and have done for years.

/rant.

Sorry in advance

*edit for swearing.

 

[jakeke]

Nobody NEEDS more than 70k a month let alone a week!

Your average high earner may earn 70k-150k a year and manage to live a good life. Fair enough they have celeb status so maybe need more security etc than a company director but anything around 500k a year would be more than enough to live a good life on.

Hm they only work for about 10 years of their life really, and they're only going to get a big contract for about half of that. While I totally agree (and if I had my way the cap would be £20k a week) you have to take current wages into consideration and their working life, also that they are especially talented and dedicated humans.

 

[matt0r]

It's completely different. Man city/Chelsea are using 'oil money' which distorts the transfer markets. Real are probably using up their transfer budget for years to come this summer, and if the team doesn't deliver then the club could be in trouble. If it doesn't work out for City they will just replace the manager and spend another £150m next summer, that is if the owners don't get bored with it.

Well actually they're taking out private loans with local banks. There is no way those banks would let Madrid go down. Regardless of what they win the will reap the commercial benefits of signing the worlds most expensive player.

 

[manic111]

I don't blame the players. I blame the people who run the football clubs.

How is it the fault of those who run the clubs? The clubs with the best players win more, and earn more from TV revenue, marketing and gate receipts. If anything, it's the fault of the people who pay to watch football, either on TV or at the ground.

Football clubs, ultimately, get the vast majority of their income from us, whether it's through TV money, shirt sales, gate receipts, or almost anything else. If they want to earn more, they pay to get in better players.

The players are the reason that the public watch football. As such they deserve, and rightly request, their value to the club in wages. Clubs are the reason that people watch Sky Sports (or go to games); as such, they rightly get a heck of a lot of money from TV.

It is us who keep pumping money into football, and keeping the prices of players high; I don't see how we can complain about their wages in the slightest.

 

[Weebull]

How is it the fault of those who run the clubs? The clubs with the best players win more, and earn more from TV revenue, marketing and gate receipts. If anything, it's the fault of the people who pay to watch football, either on TV or at the ground.

Football clubs, ultimately, get the vast majority of their income from us, whether it's through TV money, shirt sales, gate receipts, or almost anything else. If they want to earn more, they pay to get in better players.

The players are the reason that the public watch football. As such they deserve, and rightly request, their value to the club in wages. Clubs are the reason that people watch Sky Sports (or go to games); as such, they rightly get a heck of a lot of money from TV.

It is us who keep pumping money into football, and keeping the prices of players high; I don't see how we can complain about their wages in the slightest.

That would be a fair point, were it not that it's the billionaire owners who are using their own funds, rather than those generated through club revenue, that are distorting the transfer market. Or the clubs who riskily mortgage off their own futures through big loans, in an attempt to keep up.

It's all very well to say we should only allow clubs to spend their own earnings, but then all that does is further consolidate the position of the Champions League teams, who will continue to make far more money than the teams below them.

 

[manic111]

Fair point; I'd like to think that most billionaire owners would still only pay players a reflection of how much they make the club, but Abramovich disproved that with his first couple of years at Chelsea!

 

[Gilly]

I do like Arteta, I can't see where he'd fit in to the Manchester United team. I'm also sure he'd want to play almost week in week out, and I don't think he would get that at Manchester United.

I do. Who would play in front of him? Carrick? Hargreaves (when fit)? Running out of better midfielders there...

 

[placeholder]

A salary cap would still mean the best teams getting the best players. The only reason City are signing the players they are is because they are prepared to pay more than anyone else.

If it was capped at £50k a week or whatever (ignoring the reasons why it wouldnt work) and a player had a choice between City and United or Liverpool then City would have no chance of getting said player cos they would go to the better team.

 

[Carefree Chris]

I do. Who would play in front of him? Carrick? Hargreaves (when fit)? Running out of better midfielders there...

I think Cahill and Arteta would play quite a bit at Man Utd, ahead of Scholes, Hargreaves and possibly Anderson. Carrick and Arteta would be a good partnership.

Fair point; I'd like to think that most billionaire owners would still only pay players a reflection of how much they make the club, but Abramovich disproved that with his first couple of years at Chelsea!

He and the club didn't think things through properly when he started - they have since learnt though (Shevchenko aside) and they now tend to spend within reason.

A salary cap, would mean big trouble for the Premier League, I think that this league is described as "the best league in the world" because of the amount of money involved. Players come to England, because they know, this is where the money is. Sky pay Billions for the Premier League, they're not going to say that it's not the best in the world.

I don't blame the players. I blame the people who run the football clubs.

Players do earn far too much, but that is supply and demand for you. Neither players nor clubs can be blamed, its just the way things work.

 

[JohnnyG]

He and the club didn't think things through properly when he started - they have since learnt though (Shevchenko aside) and they now tend to spend within reason.

Indeed, yet the media still link us with every half decent player available for an astronomical fee even though it's been obvious for a while that we're not as frivolous as before.
It was clear when we didn't get held to ransom by RM over Robinho that we had learnt a lesson, Robinho didn't want to go to Citeh and RM wouldn't sell to us unless we offered stupid money so we told them where to go, when RA took over he wouldv'e just opened the purse strings.
Kenyon said a while ago that the club will be going in a new direction this Summer and hopefully that means purchashing and playing youngsters, still wouldn't mind breaking the bank for Pato though

 

[Weebull]

A salary cap would still mean the best teams getting the best players. The only reason City are signing the players they are is because they are prepared to pay more than anyone else.

If it was capped at £50k a week or whatever (ignoring the reasons why it wouldnt work) and a player had a choice between City and United or Liverpool then City would have no chance of getting said player cos they would go to the better team.

But that's just it. The sugar daddies are the only way teams like City really have any chance of breaking the top four stranglehold at the moment. Without the sheer wads of cash from nowhere, they're otherwise competing against more prestigious teams, who earn tons more than them to boot.

The trouble is, what can you do? As said, if people are willing to watch the CL and the Premiership, then the telly companies are going to continue to buy the rights to show games for tons of money, and those clubs who receive the money are goign to continue to rub their hands with glee.

 

[Carefree Chris]

Indeed, yet the media still link us with every half decent player available for an astronomical fee even though it's been obvious for a while that we're not as frivolous as before.
It was clear when we didn't get held to ransom by RM over Robinho that we had learnt a lesson, Robinho didn't want to go to Citeh and RM wouldn't sell to us unless we offered stupid money so we told them where to go, when RA took over he wouldv'e just opened the purse strings.
Kenyon said a while ago that the club will be going in a new direction this Summer and hopefully that means purchashing and playing youngsters, still wouldn't mind breaking the bank for Pato though

The media will always do so, its in their interest to get as much attention as possible and to use the name of Chelsea with big transfers practically guarantees that.

 

[Phobia_mp3]

A salary cap would still mean the best teams getting the best players. The only reason City are signing the players they are is because they are prepared to pay more than anyone else.

If it was capped at £50k a week or whatever (ignoring the reasons why it wouldnt work) and a player had a choice between City and United or Liverpool then City would have no chance of getting said player cos they would go to the better team.

Also teams like City would offer a huge goal bonus for strikers, meaning they still pay them a lot more than other clubs could afford, it would be too flawed and I don't see it happening due to players refusing to take such a huge salary cut

 

[dannyjo22]

I think Cahill and Arteta would play quite a bit at Man Utd, ahead of Scholes, Hargreaves and possibly Anderson. Carrick and Arteta would be a good partnership..

Carrick and Cahill would be a better one. Cahill would be a decent replacement for the aging Scholes and he has a fitness level to keep getting in the box for 90 minutes to keep up with your forwards. Rooney could puch further forward and use cahill as a link between middle and forwards.

He would shine no matter where you played him, he plays where he's told and just gets on with the job.

He's the best team player we have had at everton for as long as I can remember.