Pepe...Already conceded his price is a top quality one. But given that we're paying over 5 years not 2 or 3, sorry you don't get to cite him as a "Big money buy" because taking five years to pay 72M when you're a billionaire, fits alot better with my cheapskate
Partey - Fecked around like a bunch of clowns all summer with LO-BALL OFFERS risking losing the player.Despite being lucky enough to have a buyout which meant we were getting him cheap anyway owner still didn't want to pay. Sacked loadsa staff for money, sold our form keeper for 20M and STILL didn't wanna cough up. Another bad example for you because the owner literally had to be FORCED by AM to pay the asking price that should have just been damn well paid the day the window opened.
Ozil - Out of favour (due to being lazy) big name, rotting on Real bench. Bought to appease fans after ke decided he didn't want to release enough of the about 200M AFC had in the bank at the time top pay for the STRIKER WE ACTUALLY NEEDED! Again, fits my narrative better than yours. For the sake of 15M at the time, we got lumbered with Ozil. Because ke DIDN'T WANNA PAY 50-60M FOR CAVANI.
Mustafi and XHAKA. Top CBs 50M+, Top DM 50M+ and how much does our lot get for transfer FEES? 70M. We need champagne transfer FEES and only get beer money. This isn't about the amount DJ, it's about how he's allowing?restricting it's spending. His unwillingness to pay both top prime player fee and wage is the problem. We could have bought in less players whom were way better if he was just willing to let the money be spent that way but he isn't.
Can't actually believe you are attempting to defend ke's spending policies after the uttter sh !t show of transfer windows we've seen over the years. This one in particular. Stop acting like you don't know we should have just damn well signed Partey straight away instead of trying to be cheap. Could well have beaten pool again if we had.
comment by WB2 (Emery'll Get Me Killed) (U8276)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
Can't actually believe you are attempting to defendke's spending policies after the uttter sh !t show of transfer windows we've seen over the years. This one in particular. Stop acting like you don't know we should have just damn well signed Partey straight away instead of trying to be cheap. Could well have beaten pool again if we had.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think Kroenke was doing the bidding?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
comment by WB2 (Emery'll Get Me Killed) (U8276)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
Can't actually believe you are attempting to defendke's spending policies after the uttter sh !t show of transfer windows we've seen over the years. This one in particular. Stop acting like you don't know we should have just damn well signed Partey straight away instead of trying to be cheap. Could well have beaten pool again if we had.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think Kroenke was doing the bidding?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No FGS. He's saying "You can have this much max," before anyone goes anywhere to bid. You can't buy a 50-60M CB, if you've only been cleared to spend 40M on the transfer.
We got two players who cost 35M because we needed to spend 100M to get the best players for us. But ke said "75M tops for both, make do." Squad full of mostly "Make do with less money." transfers. Yeah you can argue they could have gone 50/20 buying one top player. But there's no ke released ENOUGH funds to fill positions needed with top quality transfers. Because it didn't happen and has never happened. Even when the club actually had the money in the bank to do so itself. Like I said, that's how we ended up with Ozil. For the sake of 15 million quid ke cost us nearly 100, paying that useless git.
The actual figures tell a very different story to the one you are trying to tell.
We got two players who cost 35M because we needed to spend 100M to get the best players for us.
-----
Spent £100m that season 😂😂😂
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 7 hours, 55 minutes ago
comment by The Wonky Kronke (U16927)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 13 hours, 24 minutes ago
As its only PL its one game a week or 4 a month, thats £60 a month just to watch on tv, £10 an hour of action.
-----
Most of our games are on TV, it is only Leicester game that is ppv.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every game after Man U on 1st November is currently scheduled as a 3pm Saturday kick off. We dont know what games covered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I noticed this last week on Sky scheduling everything seems to be 3 oclock now you know why
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its just that they are only scheduling them for short periods during the pandemic. I'm expecting a few games on TV. If you think its bad for us, e have a few games on TV. Think about the fans of the less popular teams, they'll have to get a second job to pay.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 hours, 32 minutes ago
We got two players who cost 35M because we needed to spend 100M to get the best players for us.
-----
Spent £100m that season 😂😂😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOT on the transfer fees of those two players we didn't
Are you really that thick that you can't understand the concept of spending 100M on two players? You're laughing like you've proved a point, there were other players bought out of that 100M the point is for ke to have spent more money overall and 100M just on buying one CB and one MF. It's a general policy of never paying top fees and the numerous breakthrough youngsters and prime stars we've missed out on in transfer windows over the years, are testament to it. As is the squad rammed with 2nd rate players.
I mean do you really think negotiators sit there juust refusing to offer all these millions that ke is throwing at them to spend on players? And I'll just point out again the pathetic haggling like paupers over a player probably worth 60, that we were already getting for 45 and the owner STILL tried to lo-ball the hell out of the deal, almost losing the player entirely. Yeah big transfer spender
You what?
"We needed to spend £100m"
"We did"
"Rabble rabble rabble"
You really think Kroenke was all:
Hey guys, heres your budget. You cant spend it on just 2 players though, you need to sign Asano and Lucas Perez as well.
And, as said many times before, a well run football club will add to its transfer budget by selling unwanted players - something Arsenal struggle to do.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 20 minutes ago
You really think Kroenke was all:
Hey guys, heres your budget. You cant spend it on just 2 players though, you need to sign Asano and Lucas Perez as well.
And, as said many times before, a well run football club will add to its transfer budget by selling unwanted players - something Arsenal struggle to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because half the time they were already unwanted when we bought them, so only depreciated in value. And all I am saying is that we have always paid less in transfer fees, than was needed to get the quality players to fill key positions. And you damned well know we have so I don't know why you keep arguing as though we've bought stacks of 50M + players over the last 10 years.
Oh and the conversation goes more like...
"We need 140M to buy a top CB-50M, a top MF-50M and a couple half decent squad players 30-40M for both, not each."
"No there's <insert laundry list of excuses> so you're only getting 90-100M total. You'll have to make it work somehow."
And that's what leads to the choosing a Mustafi to get, instead of a VVD etc. Really not a difficult concept to grasp DJ. You say money has been badly spent, not disagreeing with that. Just telling why and how it's ended up badly spent for all the years ke had ultimate say over the purse strings.
Virgil van Dijk cost Saints £11m the around the same sort of time when we signed Mustafi and Mustafi was one of the most expensive defenders around on one of the highest wages for a CB in the world.
The facts just don't fit your narrative. A club that has one of the highest net spends and one of the highest wage bills is being held back by stinginess?
The best thing about alluding to VvDs move to Liverpool is they made a profit that summer
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 hours ago
The best thing about alluding to VvDs move to Liverpool is they made a profit that summer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the best thing about it is his price tag was 60 MILLION. Ya know what that ,means? That means when Klopp said "I need 60 mil, just for VVD." He WAS NOT told "Well you can only have 40.!" God you're thick
My God, you actually believe Kroenke tells them how much they can spend on one player
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 22 hours, 25 minutes ago
My God, you actually believe Kroenke tells them how much they can spend on one player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's one player they're asking for DJ, yes. I'm saying he restricts the budget in a way that means they're always SHORT of whatever they need to get the best players. However much money we SHOULD spend on transfer fees. He allocates them LESS.
What exactly is so difficult about always being allocated less money to spend on transfers than they asked for? FFS you've seen us not buy top players and as said you've just seen the debacle signing Partey. Incidentally there's another example of ke falling well short of the money needed for transfers. Because Arteta needed another 60 mil to get Aouar too. Got told to feck off though didn't he. By your "Big spender," who gives the team whatever it takes to get the transfers they need.
You've literally just watched ke prove my point this window but ya still chatting utter sh !t trying to pretend he's Roman or the Shiekh
Because Arteta needed another 60 mil to get Aouar too. Got told to feck off though didn't he.
====
No, he was told we have to sell some of the over-bloated squad first. We are already in a situation where we have 2 high earning players who won't be able to take part in the PL and EL.
====
you've just seen the debacle signing Partey.
======
Partey is a quality player.
You've literally just watched ke prove my point this window but ya still chatting utter sh !t trying to pretend he's Roman or the Shiekh
=====
We had a net spend of over £60m, adding to the already high wages at the same time. We also had to cut Mkhitaryan loose for no money.
We failed to sell any of Torreira, Guendouzi, Ozil, Sokratis, Mustafi, Kolasinac, Holding, Chambers and the others considered dead wood.
The issue clearly isn't about how much money is available.
Yeah I know he's quality, it's the manner of his signing which was the debacle. This is a player whom should have been done and dusted almost immediately as the window opened. He even fit ke's usual "I'll only pay under the odds," profile (due to a claus which had him 10-20mil under what he was probably worth). Yeah we got the player in the end but the whole thing was/is an embarrassment to a club this size.
It was getting rid of players that was the issue. Because Kroenke gives out too much in wages, the extravagant old fool.
We are paying a player almost £20m over the season and not even included him in our squad.
You dont think that is an issue?
The issue clearly isn't about how much money is available.
----------------------------
No. Like I've been trying to tell you for months now. It's about the money available FOR TRANSFER FEES. There is a distinct difference DJ.
If we'd stop trying to lo-ball every club we deal with and started paying top notch fees for top notch players. Then we'd have both a stronger team and players we could still get good fees in for, if they don't work out. Actually getting decent money back on players, we'd have a far healthier netspend.
We are the only top team who never makes decent money on any players, whilst simultaneously taking big losses on several. And it's our constantly being cheap in the transfer market for years, which is to blame for that. Our negotiators didn't go into meeting after meeting, lo-balling other clubs on the best players because they just felt like it. Nor because they had way more money that they could have offered but were just too dumb to increase their offer. They done it because it was was they had been TOLD TO do. The instruction to do it, ultimately comes from ke and the board.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 59 minutes ago
We are paying a player almost £20m over the season and not even included him in our squad.
You dont think that is an issue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owner's own fault. He shoulda feckin well paid for Cavani shouldn't he. For the sake of 10 mil then, the club's lost a crap tonne to now.
ke is one of a hundred people whom have between them made 300 billion dollars, this financial year. So forgive me if I don't feel bad about the chump change in comparison, that it'd cost him to get rid of Ozil. And expect him to use some of his cash to fix the squad problems caused by his own refusal to allocate a greater transfer fee budget.
No. Like I've been trying to tell you for months now. It's about the money available FOR TRANSFER FEES. There is a distinct difference DJ.
--------
That's your mistake, thinking wages don't affect transfer funds. Of course it is all the same budget. And transfers push up wages. There is not a complete separation of the two at all, they are strongly linked.
-----
And it's our constantly being cheap in the transfer market for years, which is to blame for that.
-----
That is clearly incorrect as we have overpaid for players for years.
Liverpool signed Suarez and Coutinho for less combined than we paid for Xhaka. Then they sold them for over £200m and paid for a new team. Doesn't fit your ideology very well does it?
Sign in if you want to comment
£15 PPV Matches
Page 2 of 2
posted on 11/10/20
Pepe...Already conceded his price is a top quality one. But given that we're paying over 5 years not 2 or 3, sorry you don't get to cite him as a "Big money buy" because taking five years to pay 72M when you're a billionaire, fits alot better with my cheapskate
Partey - Fecked around like a bunch of clowns all summer with LO-BALL OFFERS risking losing the player.Despite being lucky enough to have a buyout which meant we were getting him cheap anyway owner still didn't want to pay. Sacked loadsa staff for money, sold our form keeper for 20M and STILL didn't wanna cough up. Another bad example for you because the owner literally had to be FORCED by AM to pay the asking price that should have just been damn well paid the day the window opened.
Ozil - Out of favour (due to being lazy) big name, rotting on Real bench. Bought to appease fans after ke decided he didn't want to release enough of the about 200M AFC had in the bank at the time top pay for the STRIKER WE ACTUALLY NEEDED! Again, fits my narrative better than yours. For the sake of 15M at the time, we got lumbered with Ozil. Because ke DIDN'T WANNA PAY 50-60M FOR CAVANI.
Mustafi and XHAKA. Top CBs 50M+, Top DM 50M+ and how much does our lot get for transfer FEES? 70M. We need champagne transfer FEES and only get beer money. This isn't about the amount DJ, it's about how he's allowing?restricting it's spending. His unwillingness to pay both top prime player fee and wage is the problem. We could have bought in less players whom were way better if he was just willing to let the money be spent that way but he isn't.
posted on 11/10/20
Can't actually believe you are attempting to defend ke's spending policies after the uttter sh !t show of transfer windows we've seen over the years. This one in particular. Stop acting like you don't know we should have just damn well signed Partey straight away instead of trying to be cheap. Could well have beaten pool again if we had.
posted on 11/10/20
comment by WB2 (Emery'll Get Me Killed) (U8276)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
Can't actually believe you are attempting to defendke's spending policies after the uttter sh !t show of transfer windows we've seen over the years. This one in particular. Stop acting like you don't know we should have just damn well signed Partey straight away instead of trying to be cheap. Could well have beaten pool again if we had.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think Kroenke was doing the bidding?
posted on 11/10/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
comment by WB2 (Emery'll Get Me Killed) (U8276)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
Can't actually believe you are attempting to defendke's spending policies after the uttter sh !t show of transfer windows we've seen over the years. This one in particular. Stop acting like you don't know we should have just damn well signed Partey straight away instead of trying to be cheap. Could well have beaten pool again if we had.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think Kroenke was doing the bidding?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No FGS. He's saying "You can have this much max," before anyone goes anywhere to bid. You can't buy a 50-60M CB, if you've only been cleared to spend 40M on the transfer.
We got two players who cost 35M because we needed to spend 100M to get the best players for us. But ke said "75M tops for both, make do." Squad full of mostly "Make do with less money." transfers. Yeah you can argue they could have gone 50/20 buying one top player. But there's no ke released ENOUGH funds to fill positions needed with top quality transfers. Because it didn't happen and has never happened. Even when the club actually had the money in the bank to do so itself. Like I said, that's how we ended up with Ozil. For the sake of 15 million quid ke cost us nearly 100, paying that useless git.
posted on 11/10/20
The actual figures tell a very different story to the one you are trying to tell.
posted on 11/10/20
We got two players who cost 35M because we needed to spend 100M to get the best players for us.
-----
Spent £100m that season 😂😂😂
posted on 11/10/20
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 7 hours, 55 minutes ago
comment by The Wonky Kronke (U16927)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 13 hours, 24 minutes ago
As its only PL its one game a week or 4 a month, thats £60 a month just to watch on tv, £10 an hour of action.
-----
Most of our games are on TV, it is only Leicester game that is ppv.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every game after Man U on 1st November is currently scheduled as a 3pm Saturday kick off. We dont know what games covered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I noticed this last week on Sky scheduling everything seems to be 3 oclock now you know why
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its just that they are only scheduling them for short periods during the pandemic. I'm expecting a few games on TV. If you think its bad for us, e have a few games on TV. Think about the fans of the less popular teams, they'll have to get a second job to pay.
posted on 11/10/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 hours, 32 minutes ago
We got two players who cost 35M because we needed to spend 100M to get the best players for us.
-----
Spent £100m that season 😂😂😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOT on the transfer fees of those two players we didn't
Are you really that thick that you can't understand the concept of spending 100M on two players? You're laughing like you've proved a point, there were other players bought out of that 100M the point is for ke to have spent more money overall and 100M just on buying one CB and one MF. It's a general policy of never paying top fees and the numerous breakthrough youngsters and prime stars we've missed out on in transfer windows over the years, are testament to it. As is the squad rammed with 2nd rate players.
I mean do you really think negotiators sit there juust refusing to offer all these millions that ke is throwing at them to spend on players? And I'll just point out again the pathetic haggling like paupers over a player probably worth 60, that we were already getting for 45 and the owner STILL tried to lo-ball the hell out of the deal, almost losing the player entirely. Yeah big transfer spender
posted on 11/10/20
You what?
"We needed to spend £100m"
"We did"
"Rabble rabble rabble"
posted on 11/10/20
You really think Kroenke was all:
Hey guys, heres your budget. You cant spend it on just 2 players though, you need to sign Asano and Lucas Perez as well.
And, as said many times before, a well run football club will add to its transfer budget by selling unwanted players - something Arsenal struggle to do.
posted on 11/10/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 20 minutes ago
You really think Kroenke was all:
Hey guys, heres your budget. You cant spend it on just 2 players though, you need to sign Asano and Lucas Perez as well.
And, as said many times before, a well run football club will add to its transfer budget by selling unwanted players - something Arsenal struggle to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because half the time they were already unwanted when we bought them, so only depreciated in value. And all I am saying is that we have always paid less in transfer fees, than was needed to get the quality players to fill key positions. And you damned well know we have so I don't know why you keep arguing as though we've bought stacks of 50M + players over the last 10 years.
Oh and the conversation goes more like...
"We need 140M to buy a top CB-50M, a top MF-50M and a couple half decent squad players 30-40M for both, not each."
"No there's <insert laundry list of excuses> so you're only getting 90-100M total. You'll have to make it work somehow."
And that's what leads to the choosing a Mustafi to get, instead of a VVD etc. Really not a difficult concept to grasp DJ. You say money has been badly spent, not disagreeing with that. Just telling why and how it's ended up badly spent for all the years ke had ultimate say over the purse strings.
posted on 11/10/20
Virgil van Dijk cost Saints £11m the around the same sort of time when we signed Mustafi and Mustafi was one of the most expensive defenders around on one of the highest wages for a CB in the world.
The facts just don't fit your narrative. A club that has one of the highest net spends and one of the highest wage bills is being held back by stinginess?
posted on 11/10/20
The best thing about alluding to VvDs move to Liverpool is they made a profit that summer
posted on 12/10/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 hours ago
The best thing about alluding to VvDs move to Liverpool is they made a profit that summer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the best thing about it is his price tag was 60 MILLION. Ya know what that ,means? That means when Klopp said "I need 60 mil, just for VVD." He WAS NOT told "Well you can only have 40.!" God you're thick
posted on 12/10/20
My God, you actually believe Kroenke tells them how much they can spend on one player
posted on 13/10/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 22 hours, 25 minutes ago
My God, you actually believe Kroenke tells them how much they can spend on one player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's one player they're asking for DJ, yes. I'm saying he restricts the budget in a way that means they're always SHORT of whatever they need to get the best players. However much money we SHOULD spend on transfer fees. He allocates them LESS.
What exactly is so difficult about always being allocated less money to spend on transfers than they asked for? FFS you've seen us not buy top players and as said you've just seen the debacle signing Partey. Incidentally there's another example of ke falling well short of the money needed for transfers. Because Arteta needed another 60 mil to get Aouar too. Got told to feck off though didn't he. By your "Big spender," who gives the team whatever it takes to get the transfers they need.
You've literally just watched ke prove my point this window but ya still chatting utter sh !t trying to pretend he's Roman or the Shiekh
posted on 13/10/20
Because Arteta needed another 60 mil to get Aouar too. Got told to feck off though didn't he.
====
No, he was told we have to sell some of the over-bloated squad first. We are already in a situation where we have 2 high earning players who won't be able to take part in the PL and EL.
====
you've just seen the debacle signing Partey.
======
Partey is a quality player.
posted on 13/10/20
You've literally just watched ke prove my point this window but ya still chatting utter sh !t trying to pretend he's Roman or the Shiekh
=====
We had a net spend of over £60m, adding to the already high wages at the same time. We also had to cut Mkhitaryan loose for no money.
We failed to sell any of Torreira, Guendouzi, Ozil, Sokratis, Mustafi, Kolasinac, Holding, Chambers and the others considered dead wood.
The issue clearly isn't about how much money is available.
posted on 13/10/20
Yeah I know he's quality, it's the manner of his signing which was the debacle. This is a player whom should have been done and dusted almost immediately as the window opened. He even fit ke's usual "I'll only pay under the odds," profile (due to a claus which had him 10-20mil under what he was probably worth). Yeah we got the player in the end but the whole thing was/is an embarrassment to a club this size.
posted on 13/10/20
It was getting rid of players that was the issue. Because Kroenke gives out too much in wages, the extravagant old fool.
posted on 13/10/20
We are paying a player almost £20m over the season and not even included him in our squad.
You dont think that is an issue?
posted on 13/10/20
The issue clearly isn't about how much money is available.
----------------------------
No. Like I've been trying to tell you for months now. It's about the money available FOR TRANSFER FEES. There is a distinct difference DJ.
If we'd stop trying to lo-ball every club we deal with and started paying top notch fees for top notch players. Then we'd have both a stronger team and players we could still get good fees in for, if they don't work out. Actually getting decent money back on players, we'd have a far healthier netspend.
We are the only top team who never makes decent money on any players, whilst simultaneously taking big losses on several. And it's our constantly being cheap in the transfer market for years, which is to blame for that. Our negotiators didn't go into meeting after meeting, lo-balling other clubs on the best players because they just felt like it. Nor because they had way more money that they could have offered but were just too dumb to increase their offer. They done it because it was was they had been TOLD TO do. The instruction to do it, ultimately comes from ke and the board.
posted on 14/10/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 59 minutes ago
We are paying a player almost £20m over the season and not even included him in our squad.
You dont think that is an issue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owner's own fault. He shoulda feckin well paid for Cavani shouldn't he. For the sake of 10 mil then, the club's lost a crap tonne to now.
ke is one of a hundred people whom have between them made 300 billion dollars, this financial year. So forgive me if I don't feel bad about the chump change in comparison, that it'd cost him to get rid of Ozil. And expect him to use some of his cash to fix the squad problems caused by his own refusal to allocate a greater transfer fee budget.
posted on 14/10/20
No. Like I've been trying to tell you for months now. It's about the money available FOR TRANSFER FEES. There is a distinct difference DJ.
--------
That's your mistake, thinking wages don't affect transfer funds. Of course it is all the same budget. And transfers push up wages. There is not a complete separation of the two at all, they are strongly linked.
-----
And it's our constantly being cheap in the transfer market for years, which is to blame for that.
-----
That is clearly incorrect as we have overpaid for players for years.
Liverpool signed Suarez and Coutinho for less combined than we paid for Xhaka. Then they sold them for over £200m and paid for a new team. Doesn't fit your ideology very well does it?
Page 2 of 2