** Summer Transfer Window 2011/12 Season Rumours/Signings **

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think this must be a record, it's not even July and I'm already sick of the transfer talk :( Wake me up when we sign someone else.
 
I always used to buy Young, Jones and De Gea anyway :p Prefer Hamsik or Pastore over Modric though...
I didn't buy Young, only just found out about Jones before I stopped playing FM11 and I did actually pay the minimum release fee for De Gea but I never actually signed him because I didn't make it to the next transfer window. :p

edit: on a serious RL-related note, I just don't get the hype over Bale at all.
Didn't he have a fantastic start to the season but went off as the season came to its conclusion? Now we've Young I can't see us needing Bale for the left wing. And if this Celtic LB is telling the truth about us wanting him then we don't need Bale for the left side at all. :p
 
I watched a few games and all he does is run, admittedly quite quickly, down the line and then cross badly if he isn't tackled by someone mildly competent?

I thought he was massively over hyped last season but in his defence had he been playing for a team with a striker that could head the ball his crosses would've produced 20+ assists with ease.

I'll have to take your word for it, I don't watch every Spurs game, I watch a few, but not each weekend, sometimes I watch the extended highlights on Sky Sports but that's about as far as that goes, not sure what his delivery was like.

2 games v Inter and the goal v Stoke is all i remember.

Funniest thing i remember was when Bale got schooled by Neville the game after Inter :cool:

Was that the volley he scored? Great finish. I think about the time Spurs were knocked out of the Champions League was the time all the Bale hype from the media died down.

arsenal to accept an offer of £37m leading to £42m for fabregas by the end of the week. you heard it here first.

And last probably too.
 
You talk as if there is a world full of the best talent easily available, Bale and Modric are top players who ANY club would struggle to replace with anything like the same quality.

Spurs have arguably played the transfer merry go round more than any club in the last 5 years, it doesn't ensure anything. You can't put a price on a settled team, that's what gets results, not signing the latest form player who most likely won't cut it.

IF Utd can play without Ronaldo and win, if Real can lose Figo, or Zidane, or the other Ronaldo, if Barca can lose Eto'o, or Ronaldinho, or Henry, or........ 50 others, Spurs can replace Modric and Bale who are NOT the best in the world in their position.

I was only saying 40mil for Bale because of other stupid rumours, he's maybe worth half that based on potential to improve, he's not worth that yet.

As for getting 20+ assists "easily" with better strikers, absolute rubbish, the number of times he hit it long or behind the goal massively outweighed the number of chances others fluffed putting in the net, and every other winger has the same situation.

As for City and 40mil ruining financial fair play, unless they find a way to cheat but be within the rules, they will not, in a million years qualify in 3 years, it will not happen. By the end of next season they'll have, what 30-40% higher wages than Utd, with a tiny portion of the income. Utd bring in 100mil a year from their stadium, as do Arsenal, both of them are struggling, City bring in sub 30mil IIRC, and bring in less than both the others commercially. So City only have to smash Arsenal and Utd to pieces in income to massively outspend them on wages, it will, unquestionably take "bending" the rules, or a new stadium thats comparable in capacity to Utd, and be finished in sub 3 years....... not going to happen.

Either way, 40mil wouldn't matter in the slightest.
 
As for City and 40mil ruining financial fair play, unless they find a way to cheat but be within the rules, they will not, in a million years qualify in 3 years, it will not happen. By the end of next season they'll have, what 30-40% higher wages than Utd, with a tiny portion of the income. Utd bring in 100mil a year from their stadium, as do Arsenal, both of them are struggling, City bring in sub 30mil IIRC, and bring in less than both the others commercially. So City only have to smash Arsenal and Utd to pieces in income to massively outspend them on wages, it will, unquestionably take "bending" the rules, or a new stadium thats comparable in capacity to Utd, and be finished in sub 3 years....... not going to happen.

Either way, 40mil wouldn't matter in the slightest.

Well we are going to be within the rules.

We will bring in a lot more these next few years through trophies, sponsorship etc so that will go up.

A new stadium? we can just add about 20k to what we have now. Don't need a brand new stadium.....

Why would it not.

So lets say a company is losing 100m a year. They have to make a profit in the next few years so they go spend 40m on eg a piece of machinery that is not better than what they have and isn't something that can generate income is a good move?

Spending 40m is another 40m you have to make? how does it not matter?
 
Well we are going to be within the rules.

We will bring in a lot more these next few years through trophies, sponsorship etc so that will go up.

A new stadium? we can just add about 20k to what we have now. Don't need a brand new stadium.....

Why would it not.

So lets say a company is losing 100m a year. They have to make a profit in the next few years so they go spend 40m on eg a piece of machinery that is not better than what they have and isn't something that can generate income is a good move?

Spending 40m is another 40m you have to make? how does it not matter?

A. does winning the Carling Cup generate that much income?

B. 'just add 20k' is hardly a casual improvement

C. I think the 'just 40m' was in terms of the fact that you're so far up **** creek that 'only 40m more' is nothing.
 
New players, especially big name signings will generate income through shirt sales and such.
Bale wont.
Players like Rooney, Messi, Ronaldo, Villa, Xavi, Iniesta, Sneijder etc do.
Bale would not.
A. does winning the Carling Cup generate that much income?

B. 'just add 20k' is hardly a casual improvement

C. I think the 'just 40m' was in terms of the fact that you're so far up **** creek that 'only 40m more' is nothing.
Don't know, and we won't be worried about that little cup anyways.

?, It is possible though, quite easily really when compared with other grounds.

Well were not so of course it would make a difference.

city don't get full revenues from their stadium do they? I thought they split it 50/50 with the council/
Pretty sure we pay a flat fee. So they don't get more for the Champions League games etc
 
So City are going to turn around a £100m+ loss (likely to be more as of last season) through increased prize money and commercial deals? Ok :o
 
So City are going to turn around a £100m+ loss (likely to be more as of last season) through increased prize money and commercial deals? Ok :o
Will go a lot towards it.

We are not going to be barred from playing the Champions League so this debate is pretty irrelevant.
 
A. does winning the Carling Cup generate that much income?

B. 'just add 20k' is hardly a casual improvement

C. I think the 'just 40m' was in terms of the fact that you're so far up **** creek that 'only 40m more' is nothing.

I cant remember where it was but there was a webpage widely quoted either early this year or late last year on here that had about 15 or so steps as to how City could generate enough cash to not have any issue (a lot related to Chelsea as well from what I recall)

Not sure what their shirt sponsorship deal is like (ie how many years it still has to run - but even this could have CL clause in it to ramp it up £5-10m a season or something). A new (long term) deal could be worth £100m's - considering who we are talking about is it that inconcievable that they couldnt do a 15 year deal for £250m or something (not unlike the Nike /kit one Utd are trying to negotiate for £350m if the press are to be believed due in 2 years time or so)


edit - the other thing is I seem to recall that the way the calculation is made can be interpreted several different ways / isnt so clear cut as to what UEFA mean.


In other news - a few sites are reporting that Nani is claiming that he didnt play in the CL final because of fatigue. A player who didnt play in majority of the run in (last 8 to 10 games) couldnt start the bigest game of the season because he was tired!!!!

I know fatigue is a bit more than just being tired, but surely something is up there?

While branding an existing stadium isnt preferable (ie its always best branding before the stadium actually exists, like The Emirates) , City could still get a decent sponsorship for that.
 
Last edited:
http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-manchester-city-could-break-even.html

Is a good article as to how we can pass the rules, and that is just one man and a website.

I am sure HRH, Khaldoon and Cook have got the world's best people working on it.

No person spends the amount of money HRH has spent only to be banned from the elite competition in Europe. Especially not a person who has made billions for himself and Abu Dhabi effectively.


Thanks for clearing that up Sepp.
Michel ;)
 
http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-manchester-city-could-break-even.html

Is a good article as to how we can pass the rules, and that is just one man and a website.

I am sure HRH, Khaldoon and Cook have got the world's best people working on it.

No person spends the amount of money HRH has spent only to be banned from the elite competition in Europe. Especially not a person who has made billions for himself and Abu Dhabi effectively.

Michel ;)

You can look at it that way, or you can look at it from another direction. Man City were bought before the financial fair play rules came into play I thought. Another problem is that you would always have had the choice when he took over to do it very gradually to make sure that you complied with the regulations, or to spend big and worry about that later.

The first option would mean that you wouldn't be in a position to worry about the champions league for 3-4 years at least. Second option means you get in the champions league faster, attract better players because of the increased reputation and make more money. You may fall foul of the fair play rules but if you can cut the spending down and offload a few players you would be fine after a couple of years.

At any rate, it should be interesting to see what happens as all of this is speculation for a while to come.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom