Super Super Quality Transfer Speculation & Shit

[Niall_Quinn]

You could also argue that spending that extra million or two on Alonso or Mata could have made quite a difference. It works both ways.

And I have argued we should have spent the money on Alonso - a tried and tested pro who didn't want the earth and everything on it just to turn up. He's a pro, Hazard may be a pro one day but he wants all the trappings immediately and whichever clubs lands him, more fool them. Can you imagine bringing some trumped up kid in on more money than RvP? How would that help us? Hazard is aptly named. Give me Dempsey and a couple of other solid pros any day. Besides, the minute we spunk £32mill on one player you can guarantee a season long injury.

[Özim]

And I have argued we should have spent the money on Alonso - a tried and tested pro who didn't want the earth and everything on it just to turn up. He's a pro, Hazard may be a pro one day but he wants all the trappings immediately and whichever clubs lands him, more fool them. Can you imagine bringing some trumped up kid in on more money than RvP? How would that help us? Hazard is aptly named. Give me Dempsey and a couple of other solid pros any day. Besides, the minute we spunk £32mill on one player you can guarantee a season long injury.

Both Alonso and Mata are top top players and a level ahead of almost every player we have.

Had we pushed the boat out and signed them we'd be a lot better side for it, trouble is we never do.

[Niall_Quinn]

I wasn't necessarily suggesting Hazard, there are other examples that exist, they won't be 10 million but at the same time we could afford them if we chose to...sadly we seem hung up on signing players for as little moneyt as possible and have no interest in up and coming potential stars or players who can make the difference.

In addition if we were a more attractive proposition in terms of playing style, team sheet and perceived ambition (i.e signing players that people actually know and can see potential with), players might see us as a team on the way up and may well want to be part of the setup. If you can't pay huge wages you have to have something else on offer, as far as I can see we offer very little.

Fact is, the chavs and city get first pick. Their billionaire owners dictate this. Then we get to scrap it out with the normal clubs for what's left. Doesn't mean we can't pick up decent players, we could, and doesn't mean we aren't tight-fisted bastards, because we are. But refusing to play silly twats like city in the transfer market isn't a bad thing. Our ****ish board demanding profits in the transfer window is the real problem. But you can hardly accuse the ****s of lacking ambition - they are ruthlessly ambitious bastards as far as I can see. On a personal level at least, not sure they give a fuck about the club as such.

[Unai Tea]

It's not just money I'm afraid, if it was we'd have never signed Pires of Campbell back in the day when up against Barca and Real. Players look for teams who show ambition and want to be the best, they also look at teams who have top players to play alongside (just like they did when Henry was about), in addition style of play counts....to put it down to money alone is narrowmindedness...there are other factors or else everyone would choose Man City.

As for Spurs in a head to head for a player I'm pretty sure they are the more attractive proposition with their style of play and perceived ambition (Van der Vaarts, Bale, Modric etc), they spend money on recognisable players whereas we tend to stick to buying relative unknowns. I've heard many times over the last year or two how a player would love to play for them.

It is money. Plain and simple. The more of it you spend, the better you get. That's you're own bloody argument. You think Tevez and Aguero, as you mentioned, are free? If you can pay to have them in your side then you stand a better chance at winning and thereby attracting players, who keep you at the top. That's your argument, and it's sound, but it requires money. It all comes back to that.

You talk about Henry and Pires and Campbell, those were all great buys and basically on the cheap. Those three couldn't buy you half a hazard these days. But that was in a day when all we had to compete against was Man Utd. There were no mega £££ teams around. We were a top proposition then, now not so much. Why? Money.

And Tottenham, seriously? THey buy Van de vaart, modric and bale and are a team who spend on recognisable players unlike us? That's utterly disingenious. Never mind the fact that most of our best buys were 'nobodies' who became 'recognisable' for us. But yeah, to name a few comparables:
-Arshavin
-Vermaelen
-Rosicky
-Ramsey
-Ox

All very much in the same mould.

[Grebbo]

You could also argue that spending that extra million or two on Alonso or Mata could have made quite a difference. It works both ways.

You're assuming Alonso would have chosen us over Real Madrid. Highly unlikely.

Same with Mata and Chelsea.

Is this Vertonghen any good? If so why are Spurs the only club in for him?

[Grebbo]

The thing with hazard is it's hard to judge how good he is as the French league is clearly dog shit.

Why don't we seem to sign excellent French players anymore? They seem to have all gone to the North East of England instead.

[Unai Tea]

You're assuming Alonso would have chosen us over Real Madrid. Highly unlikely.

Same with Mata and Chelsea.

Is this Vertonghen any good? If so why are Spurs the only club in for him?

I think Spurs are his favourite club because they have no centre backs and he's more or less gauranteed to start, week in and week out. If we didn't have Murderbagger and Koscielny, we'd have been his favourite club.

He'd have been nice as another CB as part of a competition and as a insurance policy at DM and LB. But he probably knew that.

[Özim]

The Newcastle guy Ben Arfa is excellent to be honest, we should have signed him.

[Özim]

It is money. Plain and simple. The more of it you spend, the better you get. That's you're own bloody argument. You think Tevez and Aguero, as you mentioned, are free? If you can pay to have them in your side then you stand a better chance at winning and thereby attracting players, who keep you at the top. That's your argument, and it's sound, but it requires money. It all comes back to that.

You talk about Henry and Pires and Campbell, those were all great buys and basically on the cheap. Those three couldn't buy you half a hazard these days. But that was in a day when all we had to compete against was Man Utd. There were no mega £££ teams around. We were a top proposition then, now not so much. Why? Money.

And Tottenham, seriously? THey buy Van de vaart, modric and bale and are a team who spend on recognisable players unlike us? That's utterly disingenious. Never mind the fact that most of our best buys were 'nobodies' who became 'recognisable' for us. But yeah, to name a few comparables:
-Arshavin
-Vermaelen
-Rosicky
-Ramsey
-Ox

All very much in the same mould.

Not in the sense you seem to be referring, yes they will cost more but it's not purely about money or they'd always go to the highest bidder.

If you have nothing to offer, then yes it is about money, if however you have other things, for example a top manager with a history of success, recent successes as a club, some top players and a history of spending when it's needed (eg Man Utd) you can attract anyone.

[Özim]

I think Spurs are his favourite club because they have no centre backs and he's more or less gauranteed to start, week in and week out. If we didn't have Murderbagger and Koscielny, we'd have been his favourite club.

He'd have been nice as another CB as part of a competition and as a insurance policy at DM and LB. But he probably knew that.

The only players who think we're their favourite clubs are basically nobodies these days, a far cry from 6-7 years ago when most top players would have loved to play for us.