terry-h
1:42 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
Sven 1:30
The net bugger all transfer spend is all part of the Sullivan and Gold families master plan.
The TV money will come in handy for their high overheads. Gold's daughters are high maintenance and David jr and Jack still have uni fees to pay. It's only fair don't you think.
|
AKA ERNIE
1:45 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
16m is at least 5m short when you look at today's fees
They want to 20m for berthing who hasn't played for a yr
|
Sven Roeder
1:57 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
terry
The Sullivan boys completing university degrees could be a 20 year project methinks
You may be on to something
|
swindon hammer
2:04 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
The fee is more likely 10 million down payment and the rest will be due on goals & appearances.
|
stoneman
2:10 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
Moan moan moan
Have some faith you knicker wetters
|
Grumpster
2:27 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
I think it's excellent business of we are able to get a top striker in afterwards.
Think a lot have sakho as being a better player than he is, as basically he came in to replace Carlton Cole and it wasn't exactly hard to be more prolific than him.
Also, if he was so good, better teams than west brom would be after him.
|
Steven P
2:48 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
What does it matter what our net spend is? Surely it only matters what players we bring in?
|
collyrob
2:58 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
Get rid of Valencia as well and throw all that money in for chicharito
|
Alex V
3:35 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
>>> What does it matter what our net spend is? Surely it only matters what players we bring in?
What players we can bring in is a direct result of our net spend.
|
nychammer
3:49 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
That's some potential strike partnership at WBA if they can keep sakho fit and in form. That first season with us he was immense, what a shame it didn't work out. Hope whoever we get in will be a worthy replacement.
|
Steven P
3:50 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
Do what V?
|
Steven P
3:52 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
That makes no sense what so ever? So if Messi was on a free, our net spend is zero so that makes Messi a bad player?
|
VirginiaHam
4:25 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
Getting GBP16m for a sulky, injury prone forward we don't want has to be good business, surely.
We had to pay another sulk, Amalfitano to leave.
|
Alex V
4:41 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
Steven P 3:52 Sun Jul 31
Sadly Messi is not on a free, whether you think he's a good or bad player. And frees invariably cost a lot more in hidden costs. So how much we have to spend and how we spend it is very very important, and directly affects the players we can bring in.
|
Swiss.
4:58 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
I think the real question here is should he have been the 2nd choice behind Carroll? If no he would have stayed.
|
Steven P
5:08 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
So you're doing your usual and trying to be controversial and clever at the same time and completely missing the point.
It does not matter what our net spend is. It only matters what players we bring in. Which is what I said. There is nothing you can say to disagree with that. What you are basically saying is our net spend relates to how much money we have to spend,
Which is pretty obvious and comes across as trying to say something for the sake of it.
Anyway you can argue with yourself as I'm off out for lunch and a couple of a couple of beers.
|
IlfordArmy
5:11 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
as I'm off out for lunch
thank fuck for that you boring old cunt
|
Private Dancer
5:16 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
He's worth a couple of tracksuits IMO, not a chance this is 16 mil up front, but anything is good. Can pretty much guarantee that he will do fuck all there. Great news anyway.
|
Joey Nutmeg
5:28 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
Fingers crossed the mardy git passes a medical. 10 mill plus is decent.
|
Alex V
5:30 Sun Jul 31
Re: Sakho
|
Steven P 5:08 Sun Jul 31
As I said, what we can spend and what players we bring in are inextricably linked. You could say "it doesn't matter how much I have to spend in my pocket, it only matter the beers that I drink at my pub lunch", but really it does matter, because you can't have the second without the first.
I do understand - it's an attitude intended to excuse one from thinking about the actual issues of the transfer window. I think it's acceptable to just ignore the financial part of it, but that doesn't make it any more true.
|
| 
