PDA

View Full Version : Supposedly after we sign Aubameyang there will no funds left for transfers



Tony C
01-22-2018, 02:38 AM
FFP rules

No new centrehalf or DM.

Try making sense of that won :shrug:

Peter
01-22-2018, 10:09 AM
FFP rules

No new centrehalf or DM.

Try making sense of that won :shrug:

Which would leave us having spent virtually nothing net over two transfer windows and having no more money to spend.

Doesnt really make a lot of sense, especially as we were apparently about to hand over 90 million odd in the summer for Lemar....

I think we re talking about the difference between not making any further signings and not having the money to do so.

He was never going to go shopping for midfielders and defenders in January.

SWv2
01-22-2018, 10:12 AM
Which would leave us having spent virtually nothing net over two transfer windows and having no more money to spend.

Doesnt really make a lot of sense, especially as we were apparently about to hand over 90 million odd in the summer for Lemar....

I think we re talking about the difference between not making any further signings and not having the money to do so.

He was never going to go shopping for midfielders and defenders in January.

£60m of which was coming from City.

Anyhow, Elneny waltzed around the Emirates on Saturday like a midfield maestro and we have more defenders than you could shake a stick at, they perhaps just need to be organised a little better.

Billy Goat Sverige
01-22-2018, 10:12 AM
Which would leave us having spent virtually nothing net over two transfer windows and having no more money to spend.

Doesnt really make a lot of sense, especially as we were apparently about to hand over 90 million odd in the summer for Lemar....

I think we re talking about the difference between not making any further signings and not having the money to do so.

He was never going to go shopping for midfielders and defenders in January.

There’s also wage bill restrictions now which mean you’re somewhat limited in increasing your wage bill without getting rid of ****e in the squad. We’ve got rid off a few 100k a week earners and brought in 200k a week earners.

Ash
01-22-2018, 10:22 AM
There’s also wage bill restrictions now which mean you’re somewhat limited in increasing your wage bill without getting rid of ****e in the squad. We’ve got rid off a few 100k a week earners and brought in 200k a week earners.

While Man Utd get rid of a 200kpw earner and brought in a 400kpw.

Luis Anaconda
01-22-2018, 10:29 AM
While Man Utd get rid of a 200kpw earner and brought in a 400kpw.

And Pogba will want his wages bumped up to match Sanchez (and will soon be Mino Raiola's only player at his favourite cash cow*)




*apart from Lukaku :homer:

SWv2
01-22-2018, 10:35 AM
And Pogba will want his wages bumped up to match Sanchez (and will soon be Mino Raiola's only player at his favourite cash cow*)


*apart from Lukaku :homer:

If he doesn’t already have a contracted clause to enforce it.

Can’t believe they are paying him so much tbh. Strikes me that the rise of and general love-in for their close neighbours is getting to them.

IUFG
01-22-2018, 10:41 AM
Strikes me that the rise of and general love-in for their close neighbours is getting to them.

The only reason Manchester City are not hated like Chelsea is because their success pisses Manchester United right off, imo

Ash
01-22-2018, 10:48 AM
The only reason Manchester City are not hated like Chelsea is because their success pisses Manchester United right off, imo

:nod:

Another decade or two of this will doubtless see them transferring into the hate column but for now they are by fairly broad consent the least worst option to dominate the league.

SWv2
01-22-2018, 10:51 AM
The only reason Manchester City are not hated like Chelsea is because their success pisses Manchester United right off, imo

Chelsea were always despised as a club and fan base, they would have then further annoyed Arsenal supporters because of their London identity. Then there was Mourinho. It was easy to hate them. Then you think of John Terry and others. Do people still hate Conte’s Chelsea or did people hate Ancelloti’s Chelsea? I am struggling to even think who their other recent managers were. Even from the most basic football viewpoint you can’t really recall a Chelsea side of the past decade who were enjoyable to watch play.

I don’t know anybody that hates City in such a way, even United supporters hate Liverpool more than them.

Their money and/or use of it doesn’t bother me a jot.

Ash
01-22-2018, 11:00 AM
Chelsea were always despised as a club and fan base, they would have then further annoyed Arsenal supporters because of their London identity. Then there was Mourinho. It was easy to hate them. Then you think of John Terry and others. Do people still hate Conte’s Chelsea or did people hate Ancelloti’s Chelsea? I am struggling to even think who their other recent managers were. Even from the most basic football viewpoint you can’t really recall a Chelsea side of the past decade who were enjoyable to watch play.

I don’t know anybody that hates City in such a way, even United supporters hate Liverpool more than them.

Their money and/or use of it doesn’t bother me a jot.

When your workplace and local pubs are full of young City fans in ten years time sneering at you for supporting a shít club you might not look on their infinite wealth with quite as much good grace.

Agree with you about Chelsea though.

SWv2
01-22-2018, 11:18 AM
When your workplace and local pubs are full of young City fans in ten years time sneering at you for supporting a shít club you might not look on their infinite wealth with quite as much good grace.

Agree with you about Chelsea though.

Genuinely does not bother me A. There is always clubs richer than others.

They have loads of money and choose as a football club / business to spend it with relative abandon. We also have loads of money and choose a more careful path.

Chelsea’s spending has never specifically annoyed me. It is near impossible to keep track of to be honest. Before their rise to power we would see Man United year after year blow others out of the water in this way. I get the whole they earned their money whereas the others didn’t but I don’t tend to get overly bogged down in this side of the game.

We have never been the biggest spenders in the League, nor have we really been consistently top boys in the league either. I don’t expect or demand us to be either of those. I am perfectly cool with that.

Ash
01-22-2018, 11:24 AM
They have loads of money and choose as a football club / business to spend it with relative abandon. We also have loads of money and choose a more careful path.


They have the wealth of an oil-rich Arab state from an ownership which sees the club as a toy to spend all that money on. We have the revenue which we can generate from football. We do not also have the wealth of an oil state which we just choose not to spend. There is no comparison.

SWv2
01-22-2018, 11:28 AM
They have the wealth of an oil-rich Arab state from an ownership which sees the club as a toy to spend all that money on. We have the revenue which we can generate from football. We do not also have the wealth of an oil state which we just choose not to spend. There is no comparison.

I wasn't necessarily comparing as I know they are different, I was just setting down the two positions.

:shrug: