Transfer fees

[SWP's back]

Stones will go the same way as Sterling. You can see it in the thread about him. So many people who can't just shut up and let the club deal with the money side. Need to tell the world that he's not worth X millions. It's fucking tiresome when the club's opinion on a player's worth is the ONLY opinion that matters. By all means people should discuss his potential as a player, but the tedious nature of this is all too familiar to Sterling last summer.

Sometimes our supporters do the work of the bastard rags in the media for them.

That's because we have fucking hundreds of wankers on here. Price of success. Sadly.

 

[SWP's back]

I cannot say for others who says £50mill is too high. For me it is to do with Stones and only Stones, not the fee. We can buy him form £200m for all I care as long as he solves our defensive problem. At the moment, Mangala's defensive stats are better than Stones, and there are defenders out there who have far better stats than Stones and wouldn't cost even half the £50m. My stand is that Everton is overestimating his price.

I don't think Pep is looking at defending stats alone. He's looking for someone that can play out from the back when teams are using a high press against so for Pep he may invaluable.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

The fee paid is the easiest point of attack for supporters and trolls when posting on forums, as it witnessed on every transfer thread. It isn't particularly relevant or valid imo but gives a starting point for the criticism which usually attaches to the post.

Very few of us know the true details ( itk's on Bluemoon possibly excepted ) and the only people who really matter are the people effecting the deals on behalf of the club , which is exactly how it should be.

But without the " we're paying too much " , " he's fucking crap and not worth £500 million a week " experts , what would these forums consist of ?

 

[Cobwebcat]

It's not your money...the most brain dead argument on Bluemoon. What has that got to do with anything?

City have a budget.

How that money is spent is as much as a topic of discussion as anything else. It's not that player A is crap its that we could get player B and C for the same money.

It's an opinion. It will only become pointless when we have no budget. Yes we don't know what the budget is but we do know there is one and that's the point.

 

[chesterguy]

It's not your money...the most brain dead argument on Bluemoon. What has that got to do with anything?

City have a budget.

How that money is spent is as much as a topic of discussion as anything else. It's not that player A is crap its that we could get player B and C for the same money.

It's an opinion. It will only become pointless when we have no budget. Yes we don't know what the budget is but we do know there is one and that's the point.

And those who are in control of that budget are obviously happy to pay the fees therefore it is irrelevent for discussion

The only thing we as fans should be concerned about is the skills of the players not their price tags

 

[Cobwebcat]

And those who are in control of that budget are obviously happy to pay the fees therefore it is irrelevent for discussion

The only thing we as fans should be concerned about is the skills of the players not their price tags

So if I believe player A is worth £60 million and that's what City are paying but I also believe we can get a great left back for £30 million and a great midfielder for £30 million instead (because I think we probably can't afford to get all three) I'm not allowed to say so because it's not my money?

That's like I'm not allowed to have an opinion about the stadium because I don't live there.

I can understand if all posters are bothered about is not overpaying for a player but then have no reason why but if a good alternative is put forward then that's fine in my book and worthy of a debate...it was forums are for.

It seems like some are over sensitive to talking about money because the press use it as a stick to beat us with and people see it as other blues joining in and making it worse. It doesn't have to be that way. Bollocks to the rag press we are all blues here (mostly!)

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

So if I believe player A is worth £60 million and that's what City are paying but I also believe we can get a great left back for £30 million and a great midfielder for £30 million instead (because I think we probably can't afford to get all three) I'm not allowed to say so because it's not my money?

That's like I'm not allowed to have an opinion about the stadium because I don't live there.

I can understand if all posters are bothered about is not overpaying for a player but then have no reason why but if a good alternative is put forward then that's fine in my book and worthy of a debate...it was forums are for.

It seems like some are over sensitive to talking about money because the press use it as a stick to beat us with and people see it as other blues joining in and making it worse. It doesn't have to be that way. Bollocks to the rag press we are all blues here (mostly!)

It's not that. Why not have an opinion on which player or position we need. It's when the price gets added to the argument.
If you think we need said player then why does his price come into it, as we have no say on that. His price is what the selling
club want and often the more expensive means that the selling club would rather not sell. But the price set is the amount
that would be too hard to turn down. The price is also determined by who is buying and with the PL new tv deal EVERY
PL club will have to pay full whack.

 

[cucumberman]

And those who are in control of that budget are obviously happy to pay the fees therefore it is irrelevent for discussion

The only thing we as fans should be concerned about is the skills of the players not their price tags

Would you agree to us parting £40m for Lescott though.
Head to head defensive wise, other than tackles, Lescott is on a par and at times better than Stones. Attack wise, Lescott has far superior stats.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Would you agree to us parting £40m for Lescott though.
Head to head defensive wise, other than tackles, Lescott is on a par and at times better than Stones. Attack wise, Lescott has far superior stats.

Would Pep have been happy to sign Lescott though is the question , surely ?

 

[cucumberman]

It's not your money...the most brain dead argument on Bluemoon. What has that got to do with anything?

City have a budget.

How that money is spent is as much as a topic of discussion as anything else. It's not that player A is crap its that we could get player B and C for the same money.

It's an opinion. It will only become pointless when we have no budget. Yes we don't know what the budget is but we do know there is one and that's the point.

Very much on point. It's not about money. I would gladly us overspent on 29 year old Bonucci for example to the extent of £70m or even more because we are signing proven quality who has a history of consistent performances.

i know that those in the club may have seen some things in Stones that a mere mortal like me may not comprehend, and I hope this is true. It's just difficult to defy the science behind it all

 

[cucumberman]

Would Pep have been happy to sign Lescott though is the question , surely ?

I dnot think he will, and judging from our reported lower offer of Stones in the past and this lengthening of this transfer, I don't think we are that jubilant of buying him for £50m either.

 

[chesterguy]

Surely the point is not whether anyone on this forum wants Player A or Player B the point is that our manager does and that should be what the discussion is about

Trying to compare Stones and Lescott is ludicrous. Pep, by all accounts, wants Stones therefore we can discuss the merits of Stones and how and if he would improve our squad but what is totally irrelevent is whether we pay £20m, £30m or £50m

Now if by paying £50m that would stop the purchase of other players that might be a discussion to be had but it isnt as the money men know who they want to get for the manager and they know what they want to pay and how much money they have got so as long as they are happy we should be too

 

[cucumberman]

Surely the point is not whether anyone on this forum wants Player A or Player B the point is that our manager does and that should be what the discussion is about

Trying to compare Stones and Lescott is ludicrous. Pep, by all accounts, wants Stones therefore we can discuss the merits of Stones and how and if he would improve our squad but what is totally irrelevent is whether we pay £20m, £30m or £50m

Now if by paying £50m that would stop the purchase of other players that might be a discussion to be had but it isnt as the money men know who they want to get for the manager and they know what they want to pay and how much money they have got so as long as they are happy we should be too

It's been discussed to death in the John Stones thread of which my contribution to it is that he has been error prone. This thread which is about transfer fees, rightly discusses about transfers fees and the justifications for and against it.

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

It's been discussed to death in the John Stones thread of which my contribution to it is that he has been error prone. This thread which is about transfer fees, rightly discusses about transfers fees and the justifications for and against it.

But the thread was started about people moaning about the cost, no ?

 

[chesterguy]

It's been discussed to death in the John Stones thread of which my contribution to it is that he has been error prone. This thread which is about transfer fees, rightly discusses about transfers fees and the justifications for and against it.

The justification for the fee is that the manager wants the player and we have to pay whatever the selling club will accept

 

[cucumberman]

But the thread was started about people moaning about the cost, no ?

And so it should be a discussion about the cost. Obviously some people moan about the cost for different reasons. Mine if it was considered a moan was that the deal is better if it were split into an initial fee and subsequent performance addon. I never said Stones will not be a £50m player. But we should be more shrewd, and I think the club has been so far, in asking a test drive of what we are buying, to see if the errors are attributed to everton's system as many believe it to be, or is an individual flaw that we need to address in a season, maybe two seasons, five seasons. We bought an almost £40m Mangala. We wasted the whole of last transfer window sorting out the deal and third party distractions. But here we are trying to get another CB because the one we valued at £40m last year is underperforming.

 

[cucumberman]

The justification for the fee is that the manager wants the player and we have to pay whatever the selling club will accept

Then what if Everton wants no less than £100m.

 

[chesterguy]

And so it should be a discussion about the cost. Obviously some people moan about the cost for different reasons. Mine if it was considered a moan was that the deal is better if it were split into an initial fee and subsequent performance addon. I never said Stones will not be a £50m player. But we should be more shrewd, and I think the club has been so far, in asking a test drive of what we are buying, to see if the errors are attributed to everton's system as many believe it to be, or is an individual flaw that we need to address in a season, maybe two seasons, five seasons. We bought an almost £40m Mangala. We wasted the whole of last transfer window sorting out the deal and third party distractions. But here we are trying to get another CB because the one we valued at £40m last year is underperforming.

How do you know that City dont structure there deals as you suggested?

What is shrewd? Pep says get me Stones so Everton say he will cost £50m do we say well some of our fans only think he is worth £20m so that is what we will offer. Everton say we couldnt give a f**k we want £50m. What do City do tell Pep he aint coming or do they pay the money?

 

[chesterguy]

Then what if Everton wants no less than £100m.

If Pep wants him and that is what he costs then we would have to pay it provided the money men say that is affordable

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

And so it should be a discussion about the cost. Obviously some people moan about the cost for different reasons. Mine if it was considered a moan was that the deal is better if it were split into an initial fee and subsequent performance addon. I never said Stones will not be a £50m player. But we should be more shrewd, and I think the club has been so far, in asking a test drive of what we are buying, to see if the errors are attributed to everton's system as many believe it to be, or is an individual flaw that we need to address in a season, maybe two seasons, five seasons. We bought an almost £40m Mangala. We wasted the whole of last transfer window sorting out the deal and third party distractions. But here we are trying to get another CB because the one we valued at £40m last year is underperforming.

I see what you're saying, but you're asking for a re structuring of transfers.
That ain't never going to happen. We have to pay what the selling clubs deem value.
I know we can negotiate/haggle on the price as much as we can. But that's it.
It like going into Asda and saying their bananas are well fucking dear. You know the answer,
well pay the price or you ain't getting them.