• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Transfers Summer Transfer Thread 2023! - Closed (Maybe)

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Rate this window out of 10

  • 1

  • 2

  • 3

  • 4

  • 5

  • 6

  • 7

  • 8

  • 9

  • 10

Results are only viewable after voting.
Airfixx said:
He was originally under a 60m clause anyway...... It's was Railoa's plan from day one to keep Haaland's worth wrapped up in wages and agent fees (the player end), rather than allow insane trf fees to spiral and lock him into any one club for too long........ Move to all the big clubs, scoop up all the extras and max out the value of Haaland as a commodity.

By the end of his career; expect to see RM & BM on his CV too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nope.


The rest of it yes, absolutely.
 
Airfixx said:
He was originally under a 60m clause anyway...... It's was Railoa's plan from day one to keep Haaland's worth wrapped up in wages and agent fees (the player end), rather than allow insane trf fees to spiral and lock him into any one club for too long........ Move to all the big clubs, scoop up all the extras and max out the value of Haaland as a commodity.

By the end of his career; expect to see RM & BM on his CV too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Rumours are he has some sort of release clause with City that would support this case.

Point being his transfer fee was 50m while the cost was probably 150m +. That's not reflected in the table
 
Airfixx said:
To a greater or lesser extent; every deal is subject to wages, agent fees and extras too.

(Can't remember when now; but not so long ago Man U were reported to have spent near 100m on agent fees alone in one year!)

.......Do the above figures include loan fees for all the respective clubs? ........Any other player-related financial quirks? I shan't pretend to know; but as is typical, once one start's pulling at the threads of any 'easy hit' set of figures; the complexity of the true picture renders them rather superficial (...Not unlike the whole "what window does x player get attributed to" crap-fest when it boils down to actual cashflow, rather than projected annual budgets).



Nah, you're getting that muddled... 50m was trf fee payable to BVB..... The rest of the money you're describing went down the same channel.

Yes, his agent set a low release clause with BVB that allowed Haaland the chance to max out his earning and retain max freedom of movement, but it was never a case of simply "whack it all into wages so the fee doesn't wreck Man Cs FFP from the trf fee end"..... That's just a convenient up-shot.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, the details are cloudy at best.

I guess we can all agree that the transfer didn't cost City 60m.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Point being his transfer fee was 50m while the cost was probably 150m +. That's not reflected in the table
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not in a net spend table, no.

But it does count toward FFP, so it's not some shady under the table thing.

City didn't sign Haaland because they had some unique riches to do so, City signed Haaland because Haaland chose City and Pep as the next step in his career, he and his representatives have managed his development to give him that freedom of choice all along.

He'd have never dreamed of going to a mess like PSG. Bottomless resources is only one piece of the superclub puzzle.
 
Richard Arlison said:
Imagine finding a way to spend worse than clowns like that?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No-one in world football gets less bang for their buck than the Chavs......

Lucky for them they had a £1.6bm conveniently wiped out to allow them to fuck shit up all over again under their new found Saudi slush fund.

Richard Arlison said:
You almost wouldn't believe it's possible.

But we still can't shift our deadwood.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Aside from the high profile, high cost duds already noted....

Phil Jones
Chris Smalling
Pogba
Lingard
Holding
Chambers
PEA
Sokratis
Mustafi
Bellerin
Kolasinac
Backayoko
Drinkwater
Barkley

Just a quick list off the top of my head of other bums/deadwood that outstayed their welcome and ended up leaving for free in recent seasons.
 
Airfixx said:
No-one in world football gets less bang for their buck than the Chavs......

Lucky for them they had a £1.6bm conveniently wiped out to allow them to fuck shit up all over again under their new found Saudi slush fund.



Aside from the high profile, high cost duds already noted....

Phil Jones
Chris Smalling
Pogba
Lingard
Holding
Chambers
PEA
Sokratis
Mustafi
Bellerin
Kolasinac
Backayoko
Drinkwater
Barkley

Just a quick list off the top of my head of other bums/deadwood that outstayed their welcome and ended up leaving for free in recent seasons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yet, they still managed to sign enough good ones to win the odd trophy.
 
Richard Arlison said:
If we did decide to play, how many years does he have on his contract?

I swear he extended last year?

Inter are meant to be a massive pain in the arse as well. Surely they would want 80m?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Contract until 2026

scored 21 league goals and 25 overall last year.

Transfermarkt has him at 85m euros...would likely cost more than that.

Is there a single Spurs fan in the world that thinks this is possible?
 
Richard Arlison said:
Contract until 2026

scored 21 league goals and 25 overall last year.

Transfermarkt has him at 85m euros...would likely cost more than that.

Is there a single Spurs fan in the world that thinks this is possible?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's weird I've seen him live for Inter seen him for Argentina seen play countless times in ECL and Seri A...not once has he ever impressed me. I know I know!
 
Airfixx said:
Everyone knows Qatar was a massively corrupt sham..... FIFA's (albeit pitiful) credibility couldn't sustain pulling the same stunt twice within 1 bidding cycle.

Saudi's need to at least project that there's a semblance of a footballing nation there; however, the WC would be more of a sports-wash than being part of the power-grab for the game itself as a commercial entity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Idk, the majority had no problems with Qatar and will have no problems with Saudi, let alone have issues with Fifa's ethics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top