Transfer Window Summer 2018

[Dodgyknees]

So if we are playing 3-5-2, where does Snodgrass fit in?

I love Snoddy, but it makes no sense. If we play a similar formation to last season, I'm all for it. Pray we don't play him at RWB.

[Brumerican]

7 minutes ago, Danny_Villaman84 said:

if transfer emergo is actually hit us, it is meant big mess and doom even other club allowed poacher our player and not allowed buy other player it is not fair really as FFP is destory football, original i back it to keep stop big club spent but they find other way to loop to make big spent more that small club which iireversed, it is sad. we got plenty money and back, and finanical are very very stable , only mess up is because we lost profit too much, which i blame is who allowed and Di matteo buy both Ross McC and S.hogan (i understand both fit system, hogan more yes and Ross McC might play as ACM in Di Matteo)  are waste our money, total both around 20 to 25 millions, it is might reason make use big loss money and diffcult sell Ross McC,. also Micha Richards too, and Use be Gabby as well, now he is off the book one more to rid it is M.Richards. 

if transfer emergo is active it is meant we got to look for sell players to lift this problem that go buy player but in these timetable deadline is impossible for us to buy transfer to replace what we lost.

[VILLAMARV]

 

[MachoFantastico]

Not sure if I believe that a transfer embargo as been in place, I just think we haven't been able to afford to bring any new faces in due to the awful financial situation the club was in. What's the usual PR tactic when under an embargo, I know in other leagues it's generally announced if one as been placed upon a team but I feel like a transfer embargo would have slipped out by now if we were really under one. 

Don't know a great deal about Ben Woodburn so can't really comment, much rather we helped develop our youth than another clubs talent. Guess at least this explains why the club still haven't announce the new keeper. 

[jackbauer24]

I hate the loan system, so whilst I see the very occasional benefit in it, if I had my way it'd be abolished. It'd stop big teams hoarding players and it'd mean teams invested in their own youth systems and developed their own players. Lower league teams would have better players because less youngsters would be happy sitting around as one of 50 plus Chelsea players so would ply their trade in lower leagues for longer. Domestic players would play more competitive football rather than reserve games.

On saying all the above though, it does exist and we must try to work within it and make it work to our benefit. So for the team we are I'd hope that we only loan players that make us instantly better. Snodgrass is that kind of player. If we take kids on loan all we're doing is either helping make them good to the benefit of the opposition (see Johnstone) or wasting a space in the team for a poor player when one of our youth players could have been used (see Onomah).

So in summary:

Loan System sucks. Only loan experienced instant fixes. Only buy players you can develop. Play your own youth.

[NoelVilla]

Wouldn't there be an embargo under the owner change and that's what he means? Many media seem to hate us and they would be all over that embargo so strange that we haven't heard it before.

[Mazrim]

Play our own youth as well as loan outstanding youngsters. Why one or the other? We dont have a good enough squad to get where we want. So loaning players that will make us good enough is correct for where we are now. They have to be the right players of course. No point holding Green back for some gobshite journeyman from a PL club who has never amounted to much. But complementing Green et al with some of the best young players seems like the right way to go.

We can pontificate about it in the Premier League.

[Jareth]

What position does Woodburn actually play?

[holteend1982]

1 hour ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

So tired of seeing this absolute tripe of a false narrative.

 

If Real Madrid now give a new manager 101 million to spend, and he finishes 5th.

He will have done a great job on a shoestring budget since they got 100 mill for Ronaldo and net spend was 1 mill yeah?

Where have I said he's done a great job? 

 

I'm saying becoming skint was not because of Bruce's transfers... Also comparing us to a real Madrid situation is stupid In itself, that team is set up and ready to win a title as it is. They do not need to invest in 8 or 9 players like we've had too in order to even compete in our division. You talk about been sick of seeing tripe yet respond with one of the most absurd comparisons I have seen in order to fit your "false narrative" of Bruce. 

[VILLAMARV]

In Woodburn's case he improves us massively imo.

Amazing first touch. Good dribbling. Scores goals for fun in the youth leagues etc. Likes a debut goal too. All things point towards a great career for him.

No one likes the loan system and the big clubs hoarding the good players but if this rumour is true I'm all excited about it. Walker-esque maybe in that we'll be lucky to get anything more than a year here and developing him for someone elses gain but we are where we are.

I'd rather we got him than one of our rivals lets put it that way.

2 minutes ago, Jareth said:

What position does Woodburn actually play?

Anywhere behind the striker. More wide than centrally. Either side

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

1 hour ago, NurembergVillan said:

Works in that example.  Not so much when the overall spend wasn't 100 million quid.

It really matters not how you lot wish to spin it.

If it was Newport County, and they had a squad stronger than 95 percent of their league, with higher wages, 2 years running, with a net spend of 2.5k, after recouping say 95k. Yet we're outplayed, performed and promoted by 6 other teams both years, the conclusion is the same.

In response to @praisedmambo and the others who are trying your harders to hold on to this nonsense.

I know for a fact you are not stupid enough nto not understand the extremely clear example/comparison that was being made.

No matter how minimal the example, or club, the ratio remains the same.

I really don't know what the need to get into the specifics or Real Madrid's squad/financial details are as if it is not public information.

Move goalposts as much as you want and the principle is the same.

Bruce had a better squad than pretty much the whole league, basically 2 years running and did not only have 2.5 million to spend, stop the absolute nonsense.

 

[holteend1982]

1 hour ago, Made In Aston said:

It's the wages that is the issue. When you buy experienced ex Premier league players you end up paying Premier league wages.Net spend could be zero, but if the players coming in are on a higher salary then those going out, you get into problems like we did. Plus we are currently paying lansbury, bree and hogan £25k+ per week to sit on the bench every game,which is not an efficient use of resources. 

There's no way bree is on 25k a week surely!? Hogan yes, overpaid but I think we all thought he was gonna be worth that when he signed, the other players on high contracts, Terry, jedi, whelan imo all proved useful. I think the main problem what hurt us would have been signing the likes of tish, mcormack (and his daft wages) whilst also having players like Richards and gabby on the books with Extortionate wages. 

[praisedmambo]

@JAMAICAN-VILLAN I think finishing 13th the season before is one thing that ruins what you're saying. There's plenty more too. Like our 'best squad in the league' being one that had just been relegated with almost one of the worst points totals in history. You seem quite angry, not sure why. 

As for our previous league position and your real Madrid analogy...what you're saying makes no sense. You're comparing a team that finished 3rd, full of superstars spending one million going down two places to fifth to us, a team with wasters, spending two million and going up nine places from 13th to 4th, which is what happened in reality. Maybe it's just your choice of analogy that makes such little sense. 

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

12 minutes ago, praisedmambo said:

@JAMAICAN-VILLAN I think finishing 13th the season before is one thing that ruins what you're saying. There's plenty more too. Like our 'best squad in the league' being one that had just been relegated with almost one of the worst points totals in history. You seem quite angry, not sure why. 

As for our previous league position and your real Madrid analogy...what you're saying makes no sense. You're comparing a team that finished 3rd, full of superstars spending one million going down two places to fifth to us, a team with wasters, spending two million and going up nine places from 13th to 4th, which is what happened in reality. Maybe it's just your choice of analogy that makes such little sense. 

Quote

If it was Newport County, and they had a squad stronger than 95 percent of their league, with higher wages, 2 years running, with a net spend of 2.5k, after recouping say 95k. Yet we're outplayed, performed and promoted by 6 other teams both years, the conclusion is the same.

Conveniently missed that part above or?

"You seem quite angry, not sure why"

Because the "He only spent 2.5 mill" is blatant FAKE NEWS and spin bordering the highest levels of government and media corruption which keeps being regurgitated.

Some of the players he signed wages alone blow that out of the water, and you know it!

i am genuinely baffled how people can say that with a straight face and conscience.

Edited July 29, 2018 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN

[Tommo_b]

1 hour ago, macandally said:

It’s that type of thinking that is loading us up with 30 somethings, stopping us having a longer term plan  and holding back the development of our u23s.

Yes those players are out there, they may not have the experience but do not under estimate hunger.

Yea but if we sign crap youngsters then we aren’t ever going to get promoted either, I’m sure there’s many hungry young players out there, but how many are going to be as talented as Snodgrass?

You’d rather gamble 60k a week on youngsters who might never reach the standard required just because they are young and hungry?

I’m sure every club in professional football wants young players with ability, but you also have to consider if your a manager you are not afforded time to gamble on the hope a youngster might come good. 

I’d rather pepper our squad with experience so the younger players can learn from them, look at the effect John Terry had on Grealish, without Terry would Grealish have changed his ways? 

[dukes]

2 hours ago, Fowlersrs said:

Time to start scrutinizing Getsifute 

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/gestifute/beraterfirma/berater/413#

I can't copy an image from here but it's essentially a list of all players under Mendes Gestifute player agency 

 

Looking at that list, I expect to see Nelson Oliveira rock up at B6 this week. Which wouldn't be the worst striker we could sign.

 

I'd love to see a loan for Wallace from Lazio (CD), but I think thats out of the question as he's been getting game time there.

[alreadyexists]

2 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Conveniently missed that part above or?

"You seem quite angry, not sure why"

Because the "He only spent 2.5 mill" is blatant FAKE NEWS and spin bordering the highest levels of government and media corruption which keeps being regurgitated.

i am genuinely baffled how people can say that with a straight face and conscience.

Having a difference of opinion isn’t Fake News. I think the £2.5m net spend is a fact as far as I know, (sales minus purchases?)... how you choose or interpret that is based on opinion but that doesn’t make it corruption. 

It’s not really important though in my opinion, and I would venture that it doesn’t change anyone else’s mind either; it’s either a stick to beat Bruce with or it’s a string to his bow, but that’s based on pre-existing attitudes towards to him as a manager. 

I’m not arguing, it just my ha’penth worth.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

4 minutes ago, alreadyexists said:

Having a difference of opinion isn’t Fake News. I think the £2.5m net spend is a fact as far as I know, (sales minus purchases?)... how you choose or interpret that is based on opinion but that doesn’t make it corruption. 

It’s not really important though in my opinion, and I would venture that it doesn’t change anyone else’s mind either; it’s either a stick to beat Bruce with or it’s a string to his bow, but that’s based on pre-existing attitudes towards to him as a manager. 

I’m not arguing, it just my ha’penth worth.

It's exactly that, with the obvious one being to praise him for doing a better job than all the other clubs in the league with a measly "2•5 mill budget"

Context is everything, and the context is PURPOSELY manipulated to suit an agenda.

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

So tired of seeing this absolute tripe of a false narrative.

 

If Real Madrid now give a new manager 101 million to spend, and he finishes 5th.

He will have done a great job on a shoestring budget since they got 100 mill for Ronaldo and net spend was 1 mill yeah?

How is it tripe of a false narrative? The previous poster said Bruce’s way left us in financial turmoil. A £2.5m net spend does not leave a club in financial turmoil. The implication is (not at all surprisingly) entirely wrong. 

[praisedmambo]

32 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Conveniently missed that part above or?

"You seem quite angry, not sure why"

Because the "He only spent 2.5 mill" is blatant FAKE NEWS and spin bordering the highest levels of government and media corruption which keeps being regurgitated.

Some of the players he signed wages alone blow that out of the water, and you know it!

i am genuinely baffled how people can say that with a straight face and conscience.

I agree that the 2.5million doesn't show the whole picture with regards to loan fees/or wages, but I don't think anyone really knows the deal there.

But you ignored plenty: Two years ago we got relegated and were awful, no matter how high the wages were or how expensive the players were. When Bruce came in we were in the relegation zone and despite all the money we spunked away under RDM, we still looked awful. Our CM was truly abysmal, for example, and our GK, and our defence. If you believe reports we've also reduced the wage bill by £20 odd million, we took that relegated, awful, badly balanced team and had a massive negative investment in wages and still went from 13th to 4th. You're ignoring that too.

We did spend about £20million in the January before though. Unfortunately we were pretty wasteful, which I'm sure we agree with. We have made a lot of money back on a lot of players though too, which I think is what you were getting at with the Real Madrid thing that didn't work. But we were truly shit.

But all in all, we were in a massive mess when we were relegated. We haven't actually spent that much net considering how bad we were. We had a massive improvement last year while apparently reducing wages. Personally I can't get angry at Bruce not getting the most out of costly players like Tshibola, RMC, Richards and Gollini. I am disappointed in further wasted money with Hogan and Lansbury but overall, the squad is much more resilient and improved hugely last year. It does count for something.

Anyway I think we're all just bored.

Edited July 29, 2018 by praisedmambo