** Official ** Summer 2010 Transfer Thread - Signings, Sightings and Rumor's in Here
- Thread starter Loki
- Start date
- Status
BBC Website said:
Admittedly those signings aren't really going to help them much in the Premier League though! They look more like strengthening for when they inevitably are back playing in the Championship in a year's time.
Last edited:
Admittedly those signings aren't really going to help them much in the Premier League though! They look more like strengthening for when they inevitably are back playing in the Championship in a year's time.
For a small club like Blackpool, I think that is the best way to approach it. They will be in a much stronger position this time next year, to then push up and go for promotion - And have a proper bash at staying up.
What you've claimed would imply that Liverpool's fortunes are more important to Murphy than Fulhams. If that was the case then he wouldn't be trying his best to beat Liverpool.
If you can back up these supposed interviews Murphy gave then fair enough but I suspect you can't because it's something you've made up to back up your completely random and ridiculous claim.
Of course Murphy, being an ex-Liverpool player will take extra pleasure in beating Utd but no different from most other ex-Liverpool players or ex-United players when the situation is reversed.
Yes after a sleep I can see things clearer. I think I was jut in a huff after losing Riccy, but he's been a brilliant player for us since he joined and if he wants to go and win the CL with JM again so be it. Still a Chelsea legend.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Phillipe Senderos is out for 9 months apparently. I really do feel sorry for him. Curse of the Arsenal drinking fountain I believe...
Indeed, there is a definite glitch in the matrix.
West Brom trying to sign Ngog on a permanent deal still. Catch 22 really, we need him but the benefits of him playing pretty much every game for West Brom would be good for us and the player. On the other hand, if Torres gets a knock then we literally only have Kuyt and Pacheco as back up.
Interesting to see what happens, judging by Di Matteo's statements this morning we haven't exactly come back with a categorical no to their interest.
Interesting to see what happens, judging by Di Matteo's statements this morning we haven't exactly come back with a categorical no to their interest.
Its a bit mad that you cant sign good players on £10,000 a week. If you asked pretty much anyone else in the country if they would work for that amount a week they would bite your hand off.
I assume footballers get that all year round? Half a mill a year isnt too shabby for someone who isnt at the top of their profession and probably wouldnt be doing so well in the real world.
I'm not one of these people that gets on a soapbox about player wages, it does seem a bit obscene when someone like Balotelli is reportedly after 180k a week, or those reports of just how much City will be paying Yaya Touré, but you can rationalise it a bit, when you consider how many millions of people worldwide are entertained by the exploits of footballers in the top leagues, the bottom line is it's a big business.
The problem for me is when the wages a club pays are disproportionate to its revenue, if Arsenal can afford to pay Fabregas £120k a week on the back of our profits from massively expensive match tickets then great.
If we were taking out debt and spending wildly above our means to do so, or had some oil baron signing a cheque, that's where things go sour.
It may well be the case that the clubs worse affected by the clubs like Man City or Chelsea (though Abramovich has been tightening the ship this year in all fairness) are the little teams like Blackpool and (I don't mean this as an insult) Portsmouth. These clubs can't compete on matchday revenue yet have the price of wages driven up indirectly by players who see their mates/ex-teammates on fat salaries at clubs backed by sugar daddies.
The problem for me is when the wages a club pays are disproportionate to its revenue, if Arsenal can afford to pay Fabregas £120k a week on the back of our profits from massively expensive match tickets then great.
If we were taking out debt and spending wildly above our means to do so, or had some oil baron signing a cheque, that's where things go sour.It may well be the case that the clubs worse affected by the clubs like Man City or Chelsea (though Abramovich has been tightening the ship this year in all fairness) are the little teams like Blackpool and (I don't mean this as an insult) Portsmouth. These clubs can't compete on matchday revenue yet have the price of wages driven up indirectly by players who see their mates/ex-teammates on fat salaries at clubs backed by sugar daddies.
I'm not one of these people that gets on a soapbox about player wages, it does seem a bit obscene when someone like Balotelli is reportedly after 180k a week, or those reports of just how much City will be paying Yaya Touré, but you can rationalise it a bit, when you consider how many millions of people worldwide are entertained by the exploits of footballers in the top leagues, the bottom line is it's a big business.
The problem for me is when the wages a club pays are disproportionate to its revenue, if Arsenal can afford to pay Fabregas £120k a week on the back of our profits from massively expensive match tickets then great.
It may well be the case that the clubs worse affected by the clubs like Man City or Chelsea (though Abramovich has been tightening the ship this year in all fairness) are the little teams like Blackpool and (I don't mean this as an insult) Portsmouth. These clubs can't compete on matchday revenue yet have the price of wages driven up indirectly by players who see their mates/ex-teammates on fat salaries at clubs backed by sugar daddies.
I know how and why they can pay so much for a players wages. Bankers wouldnt get massive bonuses if they didnt make a lot of money every year, that is how capitalist society works.
Football is a massively lucrative sport but I think that it is madness the wages they get. Put more of that money back into youth academies and other things.
Yaya toure is not worth half what he is paid every week. This is indeed where the problem lies. Clubs either artificially funding themselves or just spending money they have borrowed.
Man City are unlikely to ever get any sort of return on their spending over the last few years and if the owner ever decides enough is enough then they will be massively in the ****.
yeah this is it, there are self-sufficient clubs with sensible business models; Everton, Arsenal, Spurs, to name a few. I should also include Liverpool and United prior to their leveraged buyouts. However as soon as one club starts spending out of proportion, the knock-on effect is that they all have to start doing so to compete. I don't think it's fair to blame it all on Chelsea/Man City, even if they are the current perpetrators, as undoubtedly the trend was set before them. I think until FIFA/UEFA acts to introduce some sort of common sense rule, the situation is going to perpetuate itself. And as we've seen with their reluctance to even sort out goal-line technology, nothing is gonna happen soon.
Last edited:
- Status