** Official ** Summer 2010 Transfer Thread - Signings, Sightings and Rumor's in Here

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arsenal are close to sealing a deal for Sevilla's Sebastien Squillaci after the Spanish side withdrew the French defender from a Champions League qualifier.
Full story: Daily Mirror

Not too sure what he is like but at least it's a CB.

1139: Fulham may agree to sell goalkeeper Mark Schwarzer to Arsenal in exchange for striker Carlos Vela and cash.
Full story: goal.com

That has to be a joke surely? Vela and cash for Schwarzer? They wouldnt even get a straight swap for Vela. Hopefully we get Given instead now. Only 10 days to go :(
 
drunkenmaster said:
Honestly Utd's spending up to the point before City starting spending, vs CIty's spending was embarassingly worse than City vs Utd now. City spent a ludicrously small sum up to that point.
Click to expand...
Well of course it was, you illiterate heem. Otherwise I wouldn't have used them in the comparison, would I?

Going "Man City have spent more in the last two years than Burton Albion have in the last eighteen (or hundred, or gazillion)!!! :eek:" is hardly going to be surprising, is it? Big team spends more than small team. World is not shocked, has no trouble sleeping at night, planet somehow manages not to spin off its axis into the sun.

Whereas the fact they've managed to catch up to by far the most prolific team since Murdoch begat the Premiership in two short years, was kind of the point.

Were you going somewhere with the rest of your chewy-toy-molesting blather?
 
Frimpong did his cruciate yesterday apparently, out for 6-9 months, do I date suggest playing him in a grueling preseason schedual for a young kid, then pushing him into a tournament with way too many games for a not fit young lad whose not done so before..... could maybe have had an effect, no, I don't dare suggest Wenger or his medical staff are retarded buffoons who continually overwork players untill they get injured.

Weebull said:
Well no, but then, football fees have risen way above inflation anyway, so I don't think that would aid much.
Click to expand...

I think its more a case of, if you adjusted the prices for say, if (making up numbers for people) Henry was would be a huge star and worth 25mil in 98, and he was the same age/regarded the same level of quality compared to everyone else available(ie he was one of the top 3 strikers in the world) that player now might go for 60million.

If you adjusted old prices to new on a similar scale you'd see City aren't really spending much more, just all in one go, same for Chelsea. But again, really don't care.
 
Azza said:
Anyone been watching SSN?

Since 2008/09 season teams chasing champions league qualification have spent a total of:

Man city - £380m
Spurs - £120m
Villa - £91m
Liverpool - £85m
Everton - £37.5m
Click to expand...



ahh but our balances don't look too bad:

Player transfer fees in and out

2008/2009 Money out = 102.3M
2008/2009 Money in = 68.75

2009/2010 Money out = 24.5M
2009/2010 Money in - 28.3M

2010/2011 Money out = 6M
2010/2011 Money in = 1M

Total Money out - Total money in = (34.75M)

That's not too bad to be honest

not sure how that compares against City.
 
drunkenmaster said:
I think its more a case of, if you adjusted the prices for say, if (making up numbers for people) Henry was would be a huge star and worth 25mil in 98, and he was the same age/regarded the same level of quality compared to everyone else available(ie he was one of the top 3 strikers in the world) that player now might go for 60million.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is exactly what I meant when said that. Well done again.
 
drunkenmaster said:
You do know that transfer fee's is what those numbers are, Pompie made a profit in transfer and still ended up 100mil + in debt.

The difference is Arsenal are highly profitable every year, we make around 30-40mil a year right now, on top of 30mil from transfers in the past4-5 years, thats tight, thats around 200mil in profits and we still won't replace Diaby.

Our owners are also pretty damn rich and not really requiring the money, though I have no real problem with it being run as a business. Other clubs are owned by a single person without billions in the bank, to ask them to simply spend millions because the team isn't great, is daft. Firstly if he bankrupts himself and puts the club in debt, what happens then?
Click to expand...

Wigan are £40 million in debt and considering we now have a team which is probably worth £40 million, you have to ask over 5 years was it worth it, yeah seem some great games but zero ambition.

I love how people hate city now because they have the money, just like everyone hated Chelsea and people forget United spending £30million on players every season when they had money, City are doing it the quick way.
 
Last edited:
cheets64 said:
I love how people hate city now because they have the money, just like everyone hated Chelsea and people forget United spending £30million on players every season when they had money, City are doing it the quick way.
Click to expand...


Ahh yes, the days when united spent 150 million in a transfer window, I remember them well. The british weather was glorious and summer seemed to last 9 months of the year. Oops, got a bit carried away for a minute there.

City are **** because they have spend over a billion since the club was taken over and have nothing to show for it apart from a rather large squad.

Chelsea built a team when they did this, united have won god know how much silverware over the years. Man city have just managed to inflate the transfer market and disappoint their fans.

Most people with half a brain cell realise that a football team is just that. A unit of players that are cohesive and become greater than the sum of their parts. At least the good ones are. Thats why you dont buy a new team every year.
 
cheets64 said:
I love how people hate city now because they have the money, just like everyone hated Chelsea and people forget United spending £30million on players every season when they had money, City are doing it the quick way.
Click to expand...

The only reason people give Chelsea and now City such stick is because they got their money from a rich owner coming into the game, whereas with Man utd (unless I'm mistaken) their money has come from football and winning trophies etc.

So the 30+ On Berbatov for example was a load of money, but it was money from football and he's going to a team with a rich history and are great currently.

With Man City and to a lesser extent Chelsea, when they bought their players, the players were seen as more mercenary because at the time they weren't the big elite clubs that the top players would go to.... unless they got paid a high high wage which the club could only afford because of the new owner
 
y2viks said:
The only reason people give Chelsea and now City such stick is because they got their money from a rich owner coming into the game, whereas with Man utd (unless I'm mistaken) their money has come from football and winning trophies etc.

So the 30+ On Berbatov for example was a load of money, but it was money from football and he's going to a team with a rich history and are great currently.

With Man City and to a lesser extent Chelsea, when they bought their players, the players were seen as more mercenary because at the time they weren't the big elite clubs that the top players would go to.... unless they got paid a high high wage which the club could only afford because of the new owner
Click to expand...

Yeah a lot of it came from that but not sure how much was debt money back then (Rio, Ruud, Veron) era but if City build a team and win the league for 10 years from this current team, would that be a bad thing while spending very little in those 10 years?
 
People's problem with Chelsea / City is that they're just buying history and their way to league titles.

Teams like United / Liverpool have built themselves up over decades and have a rich history.
 
cheets64 said:
Yeah a lot of it came from that but not sure how much was debt money back then (Rio, Ruud, Veron) era but if City build a team and win the league for 10 years from this current team, would that be a bad thing while spending very little in those 10 years?
Click to expand...

Not to City fans it wouldn't and with time, not so much spending in future seasons and some trophies, I think they'll end up as we think of Chelsea.

Not too sure on the financial details of Man U back in the day
 
Teams that have got success have always sustained it by investing - thus enabling them to get more. We did it in the 30s, Real Madrid in the 50s/60s, Liverpool in the 70s/80s and United in the 90s were able to out bid their competitors through these years. Then Chelsea, now Man City. It's nothing new, our model of sport allows teams to build such dynasties.

Bar United perhaps in the fifties those sides hadn't previously experienced a huge or comparative amount of success.

Spunj99 said:
Errm...chairman?
Click to expand...

matt0r said:
I'm guessing he's on about the chairman resigning yesterday or the day before.

edit: Doh .. beaten
Click to expand...

Weebull said:
What? Holloway's gone too? Why?
Click to expand...

I meant the Chairman yes, the BBC still had the story as 'breaking news' for some reason.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom