Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
LestaLad

Tete

By LestaLad, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

Ian S

Ian S

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Dames said:

That is being backed - we aren't in a financial position to spend more than we make every season. We've made money from a sale and the majority of it has gone straight back into the first team.

 

The net spend argument doesn't count. He's been given money to spend, over 300m since he joined the club and we are worse off than when he joined. 

Thought it was £220m

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ClaphamFox

ClaphamFox

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Dames said:

That is being backed - we aren't in a financial position to spend more than we make every season. We've made money from a sale and the majority of it has gone straight back into the first team.

 

The net spend argument doesn't count. He's been given money to spend, over 300m since he joined the club and we are worse off than when he joined. 

There are differing views on the importance of net spend vs total spend, but to dismiss net spend entirely by just saying it 'doesn't count' is plain daft. Since Rodgers arrived we've kept net spend low by selling defenders at high prices - Maguire, Chilwell and Fofana. And surprise, surprise - we've struggled in defence for some time now. It is true we've splashed out on the likes of Tielemans, Perez, Daka, Castagne, Soumare and Vestergaard, but focusing on the spending and ignoring the sales provides a very lopsided picture. Yes, Rodgers has been allowed to spend, but only because we've sold key players whose departures have weakened us. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UHDrive

UHDrive

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

I think that's it. The owners announced a few years ago that they wanted to club to be self sufficient and I guess that's where we are.

Its a sad situation but imo you're spot on. I assume on that basis that it will take these situations and where we are in the table for Top to fly over, take a loan out and in a way panic buy despite the players coming in looking better scouted than the previous few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
desertfox2

desertfox2

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

I think it’s clear there’s been a breakdown somewhere in the club between Rodgers and the backroom staff. But the question is why is he still here? Surely the club would put themselves into a position where they can’t remove Brendan without significant financial losses…… any other manager at any other club would have been axed ages ago. 
 

Or, they they all genuinely believe that no one else can do the job? 
 

To some degree I don’t blame them not giving him funding…. His transfer record is hideous. 

His transfer record is hideous. He shouldn't be anywhere near a transfer. It's really strange as Puel was great at signing players but a hideous coach and Rodgers is a much better coach than Puel but hideous in the transfer market. It's a recurring theme for us unfortunately. We have someone come in as a manager and do a fantastic job on the back of inheriting a very high quality team to manager they then do really well with the quality players that they have inherited (Ranieri, Puel) and then use their success to justify seizing control over transfers and mess up our recruitment. which takes years to rectify as it's so hard to shift the deadwood. I hope this transfer does go through and Souttar but can't believe that we don't seem to be pursuing a GK or giving Iversen a chance. We could sign both players and have a decent side but without a decent GK we are still lacking. It's vital we sort that out. The other thing with the transfer business is who handed out all of the big contracts that has left us stuck with so much deadwood we can't shift? Even if Rodgers was more involved with transfers then he wouldn't have been negotiating contracts so whoever that is, likely Rudkin, has a lot to answer for too.   

 

Edit: Lafont is the GK we should be all over. He will be the next French number 1, solves our problem right away and will probably make us crazy money in a few years time when one of the massive clubs wants him. It's a no brainer if we can get him in. 

Edited by desertfox2
Tete, Souttar, lafont
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

There are differing views on the importance of net spend vs total spend, but to dismiss net spend entirely by just saying it 'doesn't count' is plain daft. Since Rodgers arrived we've kept net spend low by selling defenders at high prices - Maguire, Chilwell and Fofana. And surprise, surprise - we've struggled in defence for some time now. It is true we've splashed out on the likes of Tielemans, Perez, Daka, Castagne, Soumare and Vestergaard, but focusing on the spending and ignoring the sales provides a very lopsided picture. Yes, Rodgers has been allowed to spend, but only because we've sold key players whose departures have weakened us. 

We IMPROVED defensively after selling Maguire, and managed to finish 5th AFTER selling Chilwell. Our biggest issue has been injuries and not sales, by some considerable distance.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
ALC Fox

ALC Fox

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

In terms of net spend and FFP, is it worth considering that we should temporarily not worry about UEFA's FFP rules and adhere more to the Premier League's more lenient FFP rules?

 

Temporarily spend a bit more this month to guarantee survival as we're not going to be bothering European places this season and probably next season. Then rebuild in the summer by offloading a lot of the higher earners and rebuilding under a new manager.

 

I'm sure it's a lot more complex than that. Relegation would force a reset anyway but nobody wants to lose out on the money that Premier League football brings.

 

Just seems a sensible thing to consider to more or less not worry about UEFA for now.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Torten

Torten

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
9 minutes ago, ALC Fox said:

In terms of net spend and FFP, is it worth considering that we should temporarily not worry about UEFA's FFP rules and adhere more to the Premier League's more lenient FFP rules?

 

Temporarily spend a bit more this month to guarantee survival as we're not going to be bothering European places this season and probably next season. Then rebuild in the summer by offloading a lot of the higher earners and rebuilding under a new manager.

 

I'm sure it's a lot more complex than that. Relegation would force a reset anyway but nobody wants to lose out on the money that Premier League football brings.

 

Just seems a sensible thing to consider to more or less not worry about UEFA for now.

With our luck we’d spend the money, accidentally win the FA Cup and get sued by UEFA next year 

  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain...

Captain...

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pliskin said:

What about the highest net spend we’ve ever had in the summer following the FA cup win? Is that not being backed?

He has been backed heavily in the past, right now we are not splashing the cash and haven't since that window.

 

Jan 22 - nobody,

 

Summer 22 Faes and Smithies in, Fofana and Kasper plus a few loans out and Lookman returned. That's one huge transfer fee and quite a bit of wages freed up. 

 

You cannot say right now that he is being backed financially.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
An Sionnach

An Sionnach

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Captain... said:

He has been backed heavily in the past, right now we are not splashing the cash and haven't since that window.

 

Jan 22 - nobody,

 

Summer 22 Faes and Smithies in, Fofana and Kasper plus a few loans out and Lookman returned. That's one huge transfer fee and quite a bit of wages freed up. 

 

You cannot say right now that he is being backed financially.

 

 

Transfers are usually financed on the never never. The Fofana fee will be payed over a period. Why do people think fees are always paid up front? Football is a business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KFS

KFS

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

Steve Howey is currently covering this subject on SSN lol 

He’s very eagle eyed tbf. Once we went to get a picture with him after final game of the season. My mate was dressed as a banana and Stevo said he saw him in the stands lol 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedSoxUK

RedSoxUK

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dames said:

That is being backed - we aren't in a financial position to spend more than we make every season. We've made money from a sale and the majority of it has gone straight back into the first team.

 

The net spend argument doesn't count. He's been given money to spend, over 300m since he joined the club and we are worse off than when he joined. 

213m over 8 windows, 26m a time let's say, it barely gets you one squad player when we should be buying some up and comers and also first team player improvements. It absolutely isn't being backed compared to other teams (top 6 and or pushing top 6) and the net spend which is absolutely relevant as it shows TWO top CBs leaving, a top LB, a rotational LW, can also add in a captain GK, and for what... None were "replaced" with quality,  statistically, even positionally. It's straight up tightness of the owners not to improve on the pitch basically with fingers crossed hoping Ward, Bertrand, no one, Faes and Soyuncu will just do. Well it hasn't.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...