[Football] "why can't we sign tried and tested Premier League footballers"

Weststander said:

With some players doing just that, it does happen. Dunk could’ve moved a year or two back for a large pay rise, yet he stayed at his hometown club, taking home circa £1.4m a year. In the past the likes Gerrard (to Chelsea) and Giggs (to the continent) were courted, where they could’ve enriched themselves far more, but they stayed where they were happy and still became rich beyond the dreams of almost everyone.

Click to expand...

rogersix said:

whilst angling for a substantial pay hike no doubt

Click to expand...

rogersix said:

whilst angling for a substantial pay hike no doubt

Click to expand...

Guy Fawkes said:

The 6 clubs with a far greater income than the rest, (sponsorship and merchandise sales, etc)
The 6 clubs with a larger fanbase, European competition incomes
The top 6 with a far greater appeal to bring in the very top players in the world from other larger clubs elsewhere abroad and also from the rest of the pl, meaning they are much more willing to sign for them for prestige reasons and not joining just to pick up a big fat pay cheque

The rest have to take into account the risk of relegation, and how 'going for it' could have serious implications should they then get relegated with all these expensive players on the books, meaning they have little or no chance of keeping afloat without significant losses funded by the owner (which then breaks FFP) and jeopardises the future of the club.

Plenty of examples of clubs that didn't necessarily overspend, or overspend by that much who have been relegated and ended up in severe financial difficulties (Coventry, Bolton, Leeds, Southampton, Pompey, etc....) Given our history, is that really a path we want to risk, especially as we are already heavily indebted to one man as it is to get where we are and to then want him to gamble a further significant amount of money (to meet your expectations and had a vastly higher wage bill) is crazy imo. Especially given how much we owe already, and that adding it to makes it even harder to help find a new owner should the need ever arise (as they have to take on that debt too)

Click to expand...

Lindfield by the Pond said:

Anyone remember when there was a top 2? ManUre and Arse.
Then there was a top 3 when Chelski got some Russian money. ManUre, Arse, and Chelski
Then there was a top 4 when ManUre got noisy neighbours and some Arab oil money. ManUre, Arse, Chelski and Citeh.
Then there was a top 5 when the Scousers finally got organised with some soccerball. ManUre, Arse, Chelski, Citeh, and Dodgey Reds
Currently there is now a top 6, now Spuds have finally got a team playing (not sure how long it will last?).

When will there be a big 7? A big 20? Pundits are already talking about teams trying to get that 7th spot. Give it a couple of years before there is a big 7.

Click to expand...

Weststander said:

Everton have been throwing £100m’s at it under Moshiri, over £400m spent on transfer fees alone. Much of it wasted under a succession of managers and transfer gurus.

Click to expand...

GT49er said:

Quite possibly they (or more likely their agents) did. But they were still in a position where they could afford to turn down the offer of more money, and make their decisions based on other factors.

Click to expand...

Stat Brother said:

Leicester have just spent another £40,000,000

Click to expand...

Weststander said:

Leicester must have a Thai money tree, that somehow simultaneously complies with FFP. Their club income is only a relatively small step above the Albion’s, yet they’re able to spend £40m on a player (with wages to match), in contrast to our £17m tops.

LCFC:
View attachment 112594

BHAFC:
View attachment 112596

Click to expand...

Lindfield by the Pond said:

Anyone remember when there was a top 2? ManUre and Arse.
Then there was a top 3 when Chelski got some Russian money. ManUre, Arse, and Chelski
Then there was a top 4 when ManUre got noisy neighbours and some Arab oil money. ManUre, Arse, Chelski and Citeh.
Then there was a top 5 when the Scousers finally got organised with some soccerball. ManUre, Arse, Chelski, Citeh, and Dodgey Reds
Currently there is now a top 6, now Spuds have finally got a team playing (not sure how long it will last?).

When will there be a big 7? A big 20? Pundits are already talking about teams trying to get that 7th spot. Give it a couple of years before there is a big 7.

Click to expand...

rogersix said:

they instruct their agents;
and they stay where they are,(family etc), and get more money

Click to expand...

Beanstalk said:

The reality is that it's not just money but a clear strategy that has helped divide these teams. Man U and Arsenal with their long-term managers in big Weng and Fergie, Chelsea got some money but most importantly José who has his own style (especially in his first spell), City then brought in Txiki Begiristain from Barca with the long term aim of replicating that, Liverpool brought in Klopp who they'd been trying to get for years and finally, Spurs who have had both the stability and the transfer nous to implement a moneyball system effectively under Poch.

Ultimately, cash helps but what matters more is strategic stability. Under this idea, I would argue that it is more likely that Chelsea will drop out of the top 6 (transfer ban, stalling stadium rebuild, 245 managers in 3 years, Roman's visa) and it will become a top 5 again, than it become a top 7.

Click to expand...

Weststander said:

.... and no Eden Hazard.

Click to expand...

Stat Brother said:

Leicester have just spent another £40,000,000

Click to expand...

The_Viper said:

I'd have been delighted with us signing Tielemans for 40 million tbh

Click to expand...