grasshopper
9:22 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
Its a sad thing steve but our owners only like doing deals on free transfers and loan deals. It seems they are not confident in our scouting (especially from the managers side) and just try to minimise risk. The problem is they palm off loans as showing ambition and we are achieving all these great things, but then u realise they havent spent any real money on these players really except a small fee and wages. I think palace have had a better window then us this year
|
hornchurchsteve
8:07 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
Thinking about 6 month loans, that's their ambition.
|
i-Ron
8:05 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
That reply was to Toms*
|
i-Ron
8:05 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
Yep, they clearly thought 20-25million would be what it would take and the transfer fees have gone through the roof all over europe and beyond our budget.
I think Bilic has chosen to go for squad depth and numbers rather than individuals too which hasn't helped.
|
camel-with-3-humps
8:04 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
I-Ron's numbers stack up. Plus you have the team wage cap.
The ambition is there. The crux of the issue is whether Slav has spent well.
It's a decent squad, we just need our players fit.
We must beat The Cherries or things could turn against us quickly. Nothing but a win will do.
|
Tomshardware
7:28 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
I think they shot themselves in the foot with all the 20 goal a season stuff and telling everyone we'd bid for this player and that player.
|
i-Ron
7:19 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
You really going at it hard here just because you are refusing to accept what Net Spend means! haha
|
DJH
7:09 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
i-Ron
You are not helping yourself let me explain how a club raises the resources that they spend is their business but they wanted a top striker and have bought Benteke which most pundits will say is exactly what they have.
For Palace they chose to sell a player to get their man this summer, at West Ham we chose to sell our ground and move to a new stadium but despite doing we have to date been unable to get our man this summer.
|
Buster
7:07 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
*Big if
|
Buster
7:07 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
OM son, do you not think 'if' he stays fit for the whole season then he'll be a massive asset?
But if I know, but I reckon he knows this season is last chance saloon.
|
One McAvennieeeeee
7:04 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
We simply have to pay Carroll off and get him away from this club now.
|
Buster
7:02 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
Everything alright here, KIA-Ron son?
|
i-Ron
7:00 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
"You keep going on about NET spend on transfer as it only the way to judge a clubs investment"
Palace couldn't afford Benteke until Bolasie left. Are you simple or something? FMOB
|
DJH
6:52 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
i-Ron 6:42 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
Why?
You keep going on about NET spend on transfer as it only the way to judge a clubs investment, take Palace, well take any other club this summer that has not had at least a £12m windfall in increased matchday revenue handed to them this summer, why not factor that in our spend as it as significant to our spending resources as Palace receiving £40m or whatever in transfer fees.
|
i-Ron
6:42 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
Haha - blew me away that post DJH. Blinding logic that!!
|
DJH
6:29 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
Palace have spent more, Net spend is merely an indication of how much money a club have had to resource to fund their overall spending, obviously we have had to date find more but doesn't alter the fact that Palace have spent more on transfers as it stands.
I do get kind of get of confused why Net spend is somehow used as the main barometer of how impressive a clubs transfer dealings are when surely the only real measurement is whether at end of the window a club's first XI and squad are stronger as a result of it?
Looking at our first XI I don't feel we have improved it at all but squad wise we have, though despite spending £40m+ we still have a couple of obvious weaknesses within it so that would suggest more was needed to be spent or what we had has not been spent wisely.
|
i-Ron
6:06 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
I forgot to add Alex McCarthy to Southampton £2m
So their net spend is under £10m
West Ham's is £35m and we are waiting to find out how much we pay for Fletcher.
Bigger and better squad too.
|
Mart O
6:03 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
Ag !
|
Hermit Road
5:51 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
Iron
Oh, and Palace have spent more because they spent more, look at your last post for details.
|
Hermit Road
5:50 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
How many of those improve our first eleven? How many of Palace's signings improve theirs?
|
i-Ron
5:48 Sat Aug 20
Re: Sullivan & Gold - Where's the ambition?
|
I dunno how Palace spent more...
In: Townsend £13m, Benteke £27m, Tomkins £10m, Mandanda free= £50m
Out: 10 players (Bolasie £25m Gayle £10 Jedinak £4m = £39m
Net Spend around: £11m
West Ham 9 players
Ayew £20, Lanzini £10m, Calleri Tore loans £7m, Masuaku £6m, Martinez £2.5m, Feghouli Harvard
Plus tribunal/compo for Man Utd for Fletcher to come
Total £45.5m
Out: 10 players = £10m
Net spend 35.5m
We've got a better squad too
|
| 
