Summer Transfer Window 2017/18 - Rumours & Signings

[BaZ87]

Ofc im not trolling however i guess i should have taken some time to see who supports who. Even tho in new strongly disagree that the thread should be specific to clubs that people support, as there will be massive transfers outwith the big english clubs that many a football fan i/Would be interested in. Moves like morata to juve last year and vidal to munich etc even gervinho to china is relevant to many?

Please dont tell me this thread is essentially the epl transfer rumour thread.

Anyways my apologies, after 2 years i finally noticed outside pcs the forum has sections that interest me and thought i would join in

I've read your post a couple of times and I'm still not 100% sure what you're saying/asking. All transfer talk is kept in this thread, whether that be somebody moving to China or Liverpool signing a Southampton player. There are a few individual threads for certain big clubs and Arsenal but there's to be no transfer talk in those.

And Shami is a dirty Manc. Sorry we were just having a bit of fun.

 

[BaZ87]

I don't want Aubameyang anyway.

 

[BaZ87]

No wind up, all transfer talk goes in here. And as I said, Shami is a dirty Manc so yes, he was referring to Utd.

edit: No need to apologise.

 

[BaZ87]

Didn't expect this so quickly:

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...elsea-transfer-jose-mourinho?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[BaZ87]

It depends on what you're expecting. Is Matic a great footballer or a good long-term signing for Utd? No. Mourinho doesn't care about that though. He wants players that can perform specific duties and do that today, he doesn't care about tomorrow.

Matic is limited as midfielders go but he brings the qualities Mourinho wants. He's massive which is always a big plus for Mourinho, he'll do his defensive work and keep it simple on the ball. Anything beyond that is nothing more than a bonus to Mourinho.

 

[BaZ87]

Pogba, Bailly, Lindelof were all 23 or under when they were bought. This comment is unfair, yes he likes quick fixes but no, he does not neglect the future.

Why's it unfair? Just because a player is under 23 it doesn't mean he was bought with the future in mind. Each of those players you mention have been signed to go straight into the first 11 (the today), just like pretty much every other signing Mourinho has made. I can't recall many occasions Mourinho has signed a player that hasn't been ready from day 1 and developed him. I can however think of several times he's signed ageing players as quick fixes though.

Mourinho doesn't care that Matic is about to turn 29, his focus always has been on the present and Matic has at least 3 good years in him. In 3 years he probably won't be at Utd so won't need to worry about replacing him but if by some miracle he still is, he'll happily just spend another £40,50,60m on somebody else to come straight into the side.

essentially he will do what he is being bought for and tbf there are not that many players in the DMF position with his qualities and reasonably priced as well

Reasonably priced is subjective but yea. Mourinho won't care about his limitations as long as he can do what Mourinho wants him to do. It's no different with Fellaini.

 

[BaZ87]

Duncan Castles nonsense.

It's not about youth or age of the player. Mourinho's only concern is today. The point regarding the 23 year old's Mourinho has signed was simply that he doesn't care whether they're 23 or 33 as long as they can play today. Mourinho does not care about tomorrow, never has and never will. How many players has he let go over the years that have gone on to be superstars simply because they were no use to him there and then? How many players has Mourinho ever brought through from youth team into the first team? And by first team I don't mean making a few sub appearances when it doesn't matter and they never feature again. Again, contrast that by the number of ageing players he's signed (often at the expense of giving a young player a chance) to come in and do a job for 12 months?

And as has been pointed out before, the teenage minutes stats is somewhat misleading seeing as Rashford was already in the first team prior to Mourinho arriving and for the most part Mourinho played him out of position for his defensive work in that role.

 

[BaZ87]

Not that many. How many teams hold onto super promising players for years without them getting really regular first team football. If you are are top young player you won't be happy playing bit parts in a handful of games in a season. Teams like Bayern and Barca can play their youngsters a bit more because half the games in a season are completely pointless and they could probably win them with their reserves. The PL is another matter. Stick a team of reserves out against any team in the PL and they will probably get beaten. The top teams have a first XI full of star players so you are either playing because you are good enough already, the game is already won or someone is injured.

My main issue with people giving Mourinho stick is that apparently he is the only one who does any of these things. All the stats point to the fact that Mourinho isn't as bad as pretty much any of the other top managers with regards to these issues and yet he is the one who is always pinned up as the example.

And that's the issue, he won't develop a player. If they're no use to him today then they get binned off. Mourinho's focus is on the 1, 2, 3 years he's at a club, beyond that counts for **** to him.

The stats show nothing other than Mourinho inherited a fairly young side and played 1 particularly young player that was already established in the first team squad prior to him arriving - the stats don't show that he was played out of position for most of those game though. Again, how often has Mourinho actually brought through a young promising player and turned him into a first team player? I'm struggling to think of any. How many have Klopp, Guardiola, Poch or Wenger brought through (I can't comment on Conte)? It's far easier to think of examples of them doing so. And the reverse, how many incredibly talented youngsters have these managers binned off compared to Mourinho? If selling Shaw or Martial allowed Mourinho to get somebody in that he believed would do a better job in the short-term do you believe he'd think twice about letting them go? Whether that's the right or wrong decision depends on the objectives of the club (see below).

I don't see what I say about Mourinho as being a criticism and I've often been defensive of him from other posters on here. It's a description of the manager he is. Certain managers build sides and entire clubs. Other managers are short-term managers brought in for short-term results. Mourinho's record shows that he's the best of his type of manager (a short-term/quick fix/cheque book manager) about but there are consequences of him and his style. Utd were well aware of this which is why it took as long as it did for them to offer him the job - if you don't remember, Mourinho practically stood in the middle of the OT pitch, dropped his pants, bent over and begged for it when he was the Real manager and Utd went for Moyes instead. After 3 poor years Utd decided that they had to concentrate on the short-term and why they went for Mourinho.

 

[BaZ87]

We have had a bid of 45m rejected for keita apparently also keita is not in there kit reveal and people are making a fuss about it. I still don't think this will happen I don't see us paying the 70m they want.

I have never seen him play so no idea if he is worth this hype

Really? Where's the talk of this bid come from because I can't find anything. The last reputable info I read was the Times reporting that we were preparing a bid worth up to £70 with various add-ons.

I can't say I've watched him regularly but the bits and pieces I've seen and listening to people that have seen him (and not kids on twitter talking bs) he's basically a hybrid between Kante and Lallana - defensively he gets around the pitch breaking everything up, presses the life out of the opposition but on the ball he's technically excellent, great close control and gets forward much how Lallana was for us in that midfield role last season.

 

[BaZ87]

All on twitter nothing from any one reputable though, tbf times etc they all just guess mostly i dont think no one gets it 100% correct, until we announce it any one can say what they wish and some one will think its right and it will get respun by all news agency's

Of course nobody gets things 100% correct and certain newspapers/journo's do just make things up but with certainly journalists (Paul Joyce who I was referring to for example) you know it's got some kind of foundation behind it - they'd received some sort of info to base the story on, whether that be from a club or agent. Not sure that applies to kids on twitter though.

 

[BaZ87]

You have to take into account that he's unwanted by Mourinho, therefore Utd should be reasonable with their demands and not ask for too much money. Right Frank?

 

[BaZ87]

I was only joking Frank.

 

[BaZ87]

I promise. I have to admit my fragile brain can't understand half of Frank's last post.

 

[BaZ87]

According to transfermarkt - 7 games as centre forward (just 1 goal) and 31 games on the left.

 

[BaZ87]

California/Miami or Liverpool? Which would you choose?

If I was as pasty as Rooney, Liverpool.

 

[BaZ87]

Just to put these fees into a bit of perspective - accounting for football inflation, Ferdinand's move to Utd in 2002 is the equivalent of over £130m today. £75m on Lukaku today is the same as around £17m in 2002.

 

[BaZ87]

Raiola often uses Jim White as his mouthpiece.

I saw that article and its complete BS. Thats not using monetary inflation as its basis, I assume its using average player cost or total PL spend or some other stupid metric to get that figure. The PL is vastly more wealthy than it ever was in the past and where United had lots of money to spend in the past, every team has huge amounts to spend now.

When United signed Ferdinand for £30m it was a lot of money but no one really said "**** me that ridiculous". The transfer fees now routinely get that response. Can you imagine any player apart from Messi going for £130m currently? Thats €150m.

What? I honestly have no idea what your criticism of the formula is.

You do realise that Utd's turnover in 2002 was just £175m. £30m was over 17% of Utd's turnover. Utd last season turned over around £570 - £75m will be around 13% of turnover. Whichever way you want to look at it, £75m on Lukaku is a lot less than £30m on Ferdinand in 2002.

edit: The formula is far from perfect and you can get your odd anomaly but as a general rule and to give you a rough idea of inflation in football it's very useful.

And while of course everybody has more money now (that's the inflation I mentioned), Utd are actually more richer than the rest (as a whole) now than in 2002.

 

[BaZ87]

Lukaku a safe bet score the goals that Zlatan scored last season so from that perspective he's a good signing for Utd. The challenge for Utd now is to add to what they had last season not just match it because that wasn't enough.

Ummmm no, the highest transfer ever was for circa £89 mil. Rio Ferdinand a defender would not be signed for £130 mil. Nowhere near.

Have you completely misunderstood the point of the post? Read my first post - a group of statto's have created a formula to inflate historical transfer fees into the price they would have been today. Spending £10m in 1999 was a hell of a lot more than spending £10m today for instance.

 

[BaZ87]

It's called a logic check. I fully understand the flawed principle you are using to adjust past transfer prices but no matter what you say, the fact that you think Rio would go for £130 mil today is laughable.

I didn't say he would go for £130m today. I said spending £30m on him in 2002 is the same as £130m today as that's the rate in which transfer prices have increased.

 

[BaZ87]

I give up

That sounds like a good idea seeing as you seemingly don't understand the point that's been made.

Again, I'm not saying somebody would pay £130m for Ferdinand today. I've said that the rate in which transfer fees have increased, £30m in 2002 was the same as £130m today. Even if you don't like the formula that's been created and you look purely at transfer fees as a percentage of a clubs turnover, the £30m in 2002 as a % of turnover would equal around £100m today.