# January Transfer 'Window'..



## MegaSteve (Jan 1, 2014)

With it being tight at the top and at the bottom of the prem could be an interesting few weeks on the transfer front...

Seems that everyone is in need of a "decent striker"....


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 1, 2014)

Chelsea after announcing losses of nearly Â£50mil this year go and spend more money on a new player !

Just highlights the problem I have with football these days and also shows how FFP is a farce


----------



## Karl102 (Jan 1, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Chelsea after announcing losses of nearly Â£50mil this year go and spend more money on a new player !

Just highlights the problem I have with football these days and also shows how FFP is a farce
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree.... Chelsea and City are two huge culprits in making a mockery of how much they can offer players in terms of wages, just to be bailed out by their money men. Here's a notion..... Only clubs that turn a profit should be allowed to purchase new players..... Discuss.....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 1, 2014)

I wouldn't get fussed about it - remember that those who sup with the devil should use a long spoon...


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jan 1, 2014)

I'm just hoping Southampton sign a decent keeper, even on loan till Boruc is back will do.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 1, 2014)

Let's face it, if the Banks applied the same rules to football clubs as they do to other SME's the transfer market would collapse overnight and the vast majority of clubs (in all divisions) would struggle to survive.

Just look at Bolton who yesterday announced Â£50 million losses & Â£168 million debt.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 1, 2014)

Karl102 said:



			Completely agree.... Chelsea and City are two huge culprits in making a mockery of how much they can offer players in terms of wages, just to be bailed out by their money men. Here's a notion..... Only clubs that turn a profit should be allowed to purchase new players..... Discuss.....
		
Click to expand...

In principle I wouldn't necessarily disagree.  The problem with it is that without the "new money" then we would be back to the same old 2/3 horse race that we had with the established "old money" clubs.  Neither is ideal.  This way it does at least provide some more interest domestically.

As far as FFP is concerned I don't see that it was ever going to work if the practices that certain foreign clubs are alleged to have been involved with are correct.  



Liverpoolphil said:



			Chelsea after announcing losses of nearly Â£50mil this year go and spend more money on a new player !

Just highlights the problem I have with football these days and also shows how FFP is a farce
		
Click to expand...

Yes but there are another 30 days in which to unload some players (and for the position Traore plays in I would hope that we will do) so we may yet end up reducing the deficit, that deal was agreed in principle back in October when the player turned 18, just ratified today as the window opened.  It may even be that this fee is already accounted for in the figures announced.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 1, 2014)

drive4show said:



			I'm just hoping Southampton sign a decent keeper, even on loan till Boruc is back will do.
		
Click to expand...

Not until tomorrow please, our forwards need all the help they can get!


----------



## Karl102 (Jan 1, 2014)

On another note it will be interesting to see how many of the premierships top clubs sell players to each other... My guess is not many... Would love to see Essien in a Utd shirt. Think he could do a good job!


----------



## bozza (Jan 1, 2014)

I know Hetinga is on his way to West Ham, they are taking over the last 6 months of his contract so we don't get a fee for him but it's saving us Â£60,000 a week in wages. 

I wouldn't be too worried if we didn't bring anyone in, maybe just a player or 2 to cover positions.


----------



## Andy808 (Jan 1, 2014)

I can't stand having the transfer windows at all especially the January window. It's overpriced with teams who are desperate to stay in the division they are in by putting a sticky plaster over an gaping wound.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 1, 2014)

the real and linked 'scandal' in respect of players is loans - where Chelsea (say) buy top players - as they do - regardless of FFP rules it seems  - and loan them or other 1st team squad players out to other teams who can take points off their challengers for top 4 or the title - whilst mandating that these same players must not play against Chelsea - I give you Lukaku et al.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 1, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			the real and linked 'scandal' in respect of players is loans - where Chelsea (say) buy top players - as they do - regardless of FFP rules it seems  - and loan them or other 1st team squad players out to other teams who can take points off their challengers for top 4 or the title - whilst mandating that these same players must not play against Chelsea - I give you Lukaku et al.
		
Click to expand...

It is not Chelsea who mandate that these players may not play against them. That is a restriction imposed by the League on all loan deals.


----------



## harpo_72 (Jan 1, 2014)

It does look interesting, Southampton look to be under pressure regarding their young stars. I really don't understand the football model that most teams are following, in that it seems few are willing to develop players. I think Arsenal will be buying some players of interest, where from, probably France! Man UTd would be wise to unload Young and look for someone a little more defensive in the midfield. There is talk about Liverpool buying a young striker ... But that's talk. Spurs, well they need to get a goal keeper instead of the clown they have and perhaps a fit central defender.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 1, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			It is not Chelsea who mandate that these players may not play against them. That is a restriction imposed by the League on all loan deals.
		
Click to expand...


Is it really imposed by the league ?

Thought its normally imposed by the club because I'm sure I remember one player scoring against his parent club whilst on loan


----------



## BTatHome (Jan 1, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Is it really imposed by the league ?

Thought its normally imposed by the club because I'm sure I remember one player scoring against his parent club whilst on loan
		
Click to expand...

The league rule was introduced to enforce the gentleman's agreement that previously existed between many clubs (but not all).


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 1, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			In principle I wouldn't necessarily disagree.  The problem with it is that without the "new money" then we would be back to the same old 2/3 horse race that we had with the established "old money" clubs.  Neither is ideal.  This way it does at least provide some more interest domestically.

As far as FFP is concerned I don't see that it was ever going to work if the practices that certain foreign clubs are alleged to have been involved with are correct.  



Yes but there are another 30 days in which to unload some players (and for the position Traore plays in I would hope that we will do) so we may yet end up reducing the deficit, that deal was agreed in principle back in October when the player turned 18, just ratified today as the window opened.  It may even be that this fee is already accounted for in the figures announced.
		
Click to expand...

His fee can't be accounted in last years figures as no deal can conclude including payments until the window opened.

Clubs IMO shouldn't be able to live on such loses - it's not right 

It's making football less sustainable - it's great for the clubs with the oil Billionares but other clubs don't have sugar daddies to bail them out or pay the losses off 

All clubs should only be able to spend the money they have made themselves - clubs shouldn't be able to run at losses


----------



## Beezerk (Jan 1, 2014)

MegaSteve said:



			Seems that everyone is in need of a "decent striker"....
		
Click to expand...

Liverpool need some decent defenders don't they?
Can't see them keeping up a title charge without bolstering at the back.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 1, 2014)

Beezerk said:



			Liverpool need some decent defenders don't they?
Can't see them keeping up a title charge without bolstering at the back.
		
Click to expand...


Spent Â£25mil in the summer on CB's - think we need a midfield enforcer and possibly a left back


----------



## Beezerk (Jan 1, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Spent Â£25mil in the summer on CB's - think we need a midfield enforcer and possibly a left back
		
Click to expand...

Mmmm.
Possibly a season too early for you lot this year. Shame, we need more teams to break the hold of the current top 4.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 1, 2014)

Talk of Balotelli coming to Chelsea. Hope so.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jan 1, 2014)

Could do with Fulham scrapping most of the current lot and starting the rebuild ready for life in the championship next year


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jan 1, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			Not until tomorrow please, our forwards need all the help they can get! 

Click to expand...

Oh dear, you're not needing any extra help at the moment..... 0-2


----------



## LUFC 1972 (Jan 1, 2014)

I really hope Leeds buy a striker in the transfer market and off load Matt Smith  to a first / second division team where he might be a ok player... danger is we could lose McCormack and then our season is over....


----------



## Fish (Jan 1, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			All clubs should only be able to spend the money they have made themselves - clubs shouldn't be able to run at losses
		
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous statement, do businesses not run and make losses year after year, BUT, slowly, reduce those losses over a long term plan because they may make nett profits, or break even at times or, even increase the losses as they purchase more assets during that plan, and, as long as all those assets are greater than their losses, they are not running insolvent!  

Football is a business, annual figures to a large degree, especially 50m mean squat in the grand scale of things, take a look at their balance sheet, that's all that matters.  

The sale of Mata & Essien this month could wipe that 50m straight out.


----------



## harpo_72 (Jan 1, 2014)

Fish said:



			What a ridiculous statement, do businesses not run and make losses year after year, BUT, slowly, reduce those losses over a long term plan because they may make nett profits, or break even at times or, even increase the losses as they purchase more assets during that plan, and, as long as all those assets are greater than their losses, they are not running insolvent!  

Football is a business, annual figures to a large degree, especially 50m mean squat in the grand scale of things, take a look at their balance sheet, that's all that matters.  

The sale of Mata & Essien this month could wipe that 50m straight out.
		
Click to expand...

True in part but an asset really is only worth what someone will pay for it, it's a fictional number. So yes look at assets but they don't mean your a wealthy club, a wealthy club is cash rich, meaning it can access its money .... Also remember the financial melt down was based on fictional assets and perceived values, so suggesting that some one is wealthy because they have valued some asset ( or overly valued it) actually makes them a dangerous business and one that may have bigger problems


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 1, 2014)

Fish said:



			What a ridiculous statement, do businesses not run and make losses year after year, BUT, slowly, reduce those losses over a long term plan because they may make nett profits, or break even at times or, even increase the losses as they purchase more assets during that plan, and, as long as all those assets are greater than their losses, they are not running insolvent!  

Football is a business, annual figures to a large degree, especially 50m mean squat in the grand scale of things, take a look at their balance sheet, that's all that matters.  

The sale of Mata & Essien this month could wipe that 50m straight out.
		
Click to expand...

It's not ridiculous at all - it's to try and curb the spend spend spend beyond means culture that is in football

It's great that you have a billionaire that wipes out your debts from his personal pocket but what about all the other clubs without the others when they spend to try and keep up and gain ground - they can't sustain it. 

Football is a sport - it's not a business but it's turning that way.

Teams should only be able to spend what they make - and until that happens things will get worse and clubs will spend beyond their means and go out of business.


----------



## BTatHome (Jan 1, 2014)

Problem is that if you implement such a rule in that way then you simply stop any sort of competition for many many years as few clubs have cash reserves and so they would be at a disadvantage .... and nobody wants to see  the sort of Red bull domination in football that f1 has at the moment. It'd be dull and would probably lead to many clubs disappearing down the leagues.


----------



## Fish (Jan 1, 2014)

harpo_72 said:



			True in part but an asset really is only worth what someone will pay for it, it's a fictional number. So yes look at assets but they don't mean your a wealthy club, a wealthy club is cash rich, meaning it can access its money .... Also remember the financial melt down was based on fictional assets and perceived values, so suggesting that some one is wealthy because they have valued some asset ( or overly valued it) actually makes them a dangerous business and one that may have bigger problems
		
Click to expand...

I understand that. 

My point was for those hanging on to the point of losing or running at a loss of 50m when in fact, only 8 premiership clubs made an operating profit for that same trading year!  Chelsea is valued 3rd highest by Forbes with Arsenal & Man Utd above them.  OK some 'soft loans' can be made by rich owners, no different to me investing in my own business, but that isn't just for the table toppers like Chelsea, Newcastle and even QPR are the biggest instigators of soft loans during that same trading period, but, the difference is Chelsea can return those figures very easily and quickly with broadcasting revenue or commercial revenue and Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd contributed to over half the total of attendance revenue of the whole premiership for that year!

In the football money league as produced by Deloitte, Chelsea are 6th in the world with only Man Utd & Arsenal just above them, this is a measurement of Matchday, Broadcasting & Commercial revenue.    I think Chelsea is stronger in those indicators with 32% matchday, 41% Broadcasting and 27% Commercial against Arsenal who's same figures are 42% matchday, 38% broadcasting & 20% Commercial. Personally I think that's a dangerous set of figures for Arsenal, if the crowds slowed down, the major revenue stops coming in and gets replaced with what?

Everyone is on a witch hunt for Chelsea, but were far more stable than most other premiership clubs, with or without Roman because if he went, were that attractive a business proposition, someone else would simply step in.


----------



## Fish (Jan 1, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Teams should only be able to spend what they make - and until that happens things will get worse and clubs will spend beyond their means and go out of business.
		
Click to expand...

If your talking about operating profit, then only 8 premiership teams would have spent anything in that trading year and 2 of those had parachute payments!


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Jan 1, 2014)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Could do with Fulham scrapping most of the current lot and starting the rebuild ready for life in the championship next year
		
Click to expand...

Oh ye of little faith 

I'm just hoping we sign someone who is fit enough to last 90 minutes and isn't nearly as old as me


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 1, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			Talk of Balotelli coming to Chelsea. Hope so.
		
Click to expand...

Really?  Wouldn't want the amount of baggage he brings personally, I'd also wonder where it leaves Lukaku who I would like to see as part of the first team set-up next season.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 1, 2014)

drive4show said:



			Oh dear, you're not needing any extra help at the moment..... 0-2  

Click to expand...

At least you kept 11 players on the field despite Oscar's shameful antics.  :angry: Full marks to Atkinson, card was thoroughly deserved.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 1, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			Really?  Wouldn't want the amount of baggage he brings personally, I'd also wonder where it leaves Lukaku who I would like to see as part of the first team set-up next season.
		
Click to expand...

Might just be paper talk. Good player but is he worth the hassle? Agree with you on Lukaku,can they get him back this transfer window?


----------



## JCW (Jan 1, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			the real and linked 'scandal' in respect of players is loans - where Chelsea (say) buy top players - as they do - regardless of FFP rules it seems  - and loan them or other 1st team squad players out to other teams who can take points off their challengers for top 4 or the title - whilst mandating that these same players must not play against Chelsea - I give you Lukaku et al.
		
Click to expand...

very good point , Chelsea and man c buy players just so the other clubs cant have the player they need , If club B needs a right winger and a great one is on the market then Chelsea or man c will buy this player and then stick him in the 2nd team or loan him out , this way it stops club B from being a threat to them , its a good business decision , money is not the problem coz the Russian or the arab just pulls out a few quid to for them to make it possible ...............EYF


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 1, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			Might just be paper talk. Good player but is he worth the hassle? Agree with you on Lukaku,can they get him back this transfer window?
		
Click to expand...

Don't believe so, might be a possibility if we had a rash of injuries but I'm not entirely sure how the loans work (beyond he definitely can't play against us).  I'd prefer to see Torres given a longer run with the three behind instructed to look for him earlier, so playing more to his natural game, than have Balotelli.


----------



## JCW (Jan 1, 2014)

Fish said:



			If your talking about operating profit, then only 8 premiership teams would have spent anything in that trading year and 2 of those had parachute payments!
		
Click to expand...

Chelski has one rich owner who keeps them , Arsenal have 2 such owners but the club does not get any funds from them , if they did they blow both chelski and man c out off the water and all the other clubs will only get players that don't go to these clubs , lets face it , if you was given silly money you take it and then worry about if you going to play or not , easy money is easy money


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 1, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			the real and linked 'scandal' in respect of players is loans - where Chelsea (say) buy top players - as they do - regardless of FFP rules it seems  - and loan them or other 1st team squad players out to other teams who can take points off their challengers for top 4 or the title - whilst mandating that these same players must not play against Chelsea - I give you Lukaku et al.
		
Click to expand...




JCW said:



			very good point , Chelsea and man c buy players just so the other clubs cant have the player they need , If club B needs a right winger and a great one is on the market then Chelsea or man c will buy this player and then stick him in the 2nd team or loan him out , this way it stops club B from being a threat to them , its a good business decision , money is not the problem coz the Russian or the arab just pulls out a few quid to for them to make it possible ...............EYF
		
Click to expand...

Completely and conveniently overlooking the fact that is the player that signs for the club.  If the player doesn't want to go then he doesn't have to sign.

Clubs don't sign players simply to stop other clubs buying them, the squad limit takes care of that.  They do sign young talent who they think will make the grade in the future, then loan them out to other clubs so that they get the playing time they need to develop, rather than have them vegetating in the reserves.


----------



## Fish (Jan 1, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			Might just be paper talk. Good player but is he worth the hassle? Agree with you on Lukaku,can they get him back this transfer window?
		
Click to expand...

I'd place Eliaquim Mangala, Edinson Cavani, Stevan Jovetic and even Wayne Rooney as stronger targets before Balotelli. Lukaku was a huge error on Jose's part, he should have let Ba go instead, but when he (Lukaku) returns, he'll be a mini Drogba, or better!


----------



## Fish (Jan 1, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			Clubs don't sign players simply to stop other clubs buying them, the squad limit takes care of that.  They do sign young talent who they think will make the grade in the future, then loan them out to other clubs so that they get the playing time they need to develop, rather than have them vegetating in the reserves.
		
Click to expand...

and this helps clubs who don't have the money to buy them but can support their wages, so its a win win scenario for all concerned.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 1, 2014)

Fish said:



			I'd place Eliaquim Mangala, Edinson Cavani, Stevan Jovetic and even Wayne Rooney as stronger targets before Balotelli. Lukaku was a huge error on Jose's part, he should have let Ba go instead, but when he (Lukaku) returns, he'll be a mini Drogba, or better!
		
Click to expand...

I think he would have stayed if Arsenal hadn't pulled out of the Ba deal; we had 4 strikers, we needed to offload 1 and the only offer we had was for Lukaku.  May yet work out for the best as he will have the opportunity to prove himself at Everton that he never would have had with us this year.


----------



## fundy (Jan 1, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



*I think he would have stayed if Arsenal hadn't pulled out of the Ba deal*; we had 4 strikers, we needed to offload 1 and the only offer we had was for Lukaku.  May yet work out for the best as he will have the opportunity to prove himself at Everton that he never would have had with us this year.
		
Click to expand...

Mourinho not Arsenal pulled the plug on that deal, totally down to Mourinho that Ba not Lukaku at Chelsea this yr. Basically was typical Mourinho playing games, dragged it out until the end when he never had any intention of allowing Ba to go to a rival (not sure why Arsenal thought otherwise really). He claimed it was because the signing of Ozil made Arsenal title contenders


----------



## JCW (Jan 1, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			Completely and conveniently overlooking the fact that is the player that signs for the club.  If the player doesn't want to go then he doesn't have to sign.

Clubs don't sign players simply to stop other clubs buying them, the squad limit takes care of that.  They do sign young talent who they think will make the grade in the future, then loan them out to other clubs so that they get the playing time they need to develop, rather than have them vegetating in the reserves.
		
Click to expand...

If you was a top player and A club come in for you at Â£100 k a week and chelski and man c come in with Â£200 k you going to go to the 1ook club , as for squads , u can be at a club and not be in the 25 man squad but then the other club has not got you either , my point is if you are a business would you buy goods then stick it in the store room , no you would not , but if you already got plenty then you make sure the guy down the road cant get any because your money no object Russian/arab mate has just given you the money to kill off your competition ...........that's what they do , the banks do it just like the supermarkets only in a different way , they buy big and sell cheap so the corner shop is not able to compete and the banks fix rates ..........that's life


----------



## JCW (Jan 1, 2014)

fundy said:



			Mourinho not Arsenal pulled the plug on that deal, totally down to Mourinho that Ba not Lukaku at Chelsea this yr. Basically was typical Mourinho playing games, dragged it out until the end when he never had any intention of allowing Ba to go to a rival (not sure why Arsenal thought otherwise really). He claimed it was because the signing of Ozil made Arsenal title contenders
		
Click to expand...

correct , coz the Russian could pay ba`s wages even if he became the club waiter , but arsenal were not having him and it wen right down to the last min that arsenal had no time to get anyone else , games within games


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 1, 2014)

JCW said:



			If you was a top player and A club come in for you at Â£100 k a week and chelski and man c come in with Â£200 k you going to go to the 1ook club , as for squads , u can be at a club and not be in the 25 man squad but then the other club has not got you either , my point is if you are a business would you buy goods then stick it in the store room , no you would not , but if you already got plenty then you make sure the guy down the road cant get any because your money no object Russian/arab mate has just given you the money to kill off your competition ...........that's what they do , the banks do it just like the supermarkets only in a different way , they buy big and sell cheap so the corner shop is not able to compete and the banks fix rates ..........that's life
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't alter the fact that the player is the final arbiter of where he goes.  You blame the clubs yet it is the player that signs on the dotted line.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 1, 2014)

fundy said:



			Mourinho not Arsenal pulled the plug on that deal, totally down to Mourinho that Ba not Lukaku at Chelsea this yr. Basically was typical Mourinho playing games, dragged it out until the end when he never had any intention of allowing Ba to go to a rival (not sure why Arsenal thought otherwise really). He claimed it was because the signing of Ozil made Arsenal title contenders
		
Click to expand...

The original version of events was that Chelsea wanted Â£3 million, Arsenal were only prepared to pay Â£1.5 so that was why it collapsed, although I wouldn't put the other version of events past Mourinho.  As for not being prepared to loan a player to a rival, how does that sit with the Victor Moses loan to Liverpool?


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 1, 2014)

For most clubs, running at profits and losses do not matter IMO. It is big business nowadays and like all big businesses they run at losses sometimes. The only time it becomes a problem is when that clubs assets do not outweigh that loss. Look at the top teams, any of those could make Â£50M this month just by off loading a couple of players. 

The big problem I see is the lower end clubs because they do not have the assets in the way of players if they needed a large amount of cash to balance the books. If they want to move up the league they need to spend money, but unless they get a sugar daddy like Man City did then they will have to borrow which means running at a loss. Dangerous game to play though, look at Leeds.


----------



## fundy (Jan 2, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			The original version of events was that Chelsea wanted Â£3 million, Arsenal were only prepared to pay Â£1.5 so that was why it collapsed, although I wouldn't put the other version of events past Mourinho.  As for not being prepared to loan a player to a rival, how does that sit with the Victor Moses loan to Liverpool?
		
Click to expand...

Mourinho/Chelsea admitted it was them that pulled the plug a few days later, fee had been agreed for 12 mths loan at 2m


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 2, 2014)

Jose pulled the plug on the Ba deal after Arsenal signed Ozil as he said it made them title contenders.


----------



## Crazyface (Jan 2, 2014)

Karl102 said:



			Completely agree.... Chelsea and City are two huge culprits in making a mockery of how much they can offer players in terms of wages, just to be bailed out by their money men. Here's a notion..... Only clubs that turn a profit should be allowed to purchase new players..... Discuss.....
		
Click to expand...

Both these teams are just doing what is allowed. The whole thing is based around money now and is deadly dull. Only four teams in with a shout of winning the title at the beginning of any given season. It's all about getting into Europe anyway. If fans don't like what Chelsea and City are doing it's their own fault for alllowing it to happen. They go and watch and pay for Sky. I've given up on it all, England included, and am only kept in touch as my lad and footie daft grandson are Liverpool fans and he keeps me informed of thier latest efforts. I actually have to offer up a wry smile as Chelsea were a team I supported when very young but switched to City at about the age of 8. Now I don't care about it all, they both are the richest teams in the league. Also I'm enjoying Utd fans whining on that City are ruining it all now that they are sh one t.


----------



## One Planer (Jan 2, 2014)

Fish said:



			I'd place Eliaquim Mangala, Edinson Cavani, Stevan Jovetic and even Wayne Rooney as stronger targets before Balotelli. Lukaku was a huge error on Jose's part, he should have let Ba go instead, *but when he (Lukaku) returns, he'll be a mini Drogba, or better!*

Click to expand...

"If" he comes back.


----------



## chrisd (Jan 2, 2014)

Fish said:



			but when he (Lukaku) returns, he'll be a mini Drogba, or better!
		
Click to expand...



Not from what I saw when he played at our place Fish! He looked like the miniest Drogba you could imagine!


----------



## Paperboy (Jan 2, 2014)

drive4show said:



			I'm just hoping Southampton sign a decent keeper, even on loan till Boruc is back will do.
		
Click to expand...

Think you missed a trick when Jack Butland went to stoke last year. Up and coming goalkeeeper, some off my Saints fans scoffed at the idea. Que sera as they say.


----------



## Iain.faulkner (Jan 2, 2014)

I'm pretty happy with how City are looking at the moment, hope we don't go out and spend stupid money on players we don't need.

There's a few players I'd like to see shipped out, Lescott & Garcia for example, with a new centre back purchased if Lescott were to go. If we got rid of Garcia though, I'd love us to bring in Nigel De Jong again, who was infinitely better than Garcia when he was with us....but I doubt this will happen.


----------



## cookelad (Jan 2, 2014)

Obviously we need a decent out-and-out striker, I just hope we don't sign Berbasloth as has been rumoured this morning, might as well save the Â£2m and extend Bendtner's contract!


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 2, 2014)

drive4show said:



			I'm just hoping Southampton sign a decent keeper, even on loan till Boruc is back will do.
		
Click to expand...

Heard Caeser on loan, would love that idea!


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 2, 2014)

Fish said:



			What a ridiculous statement, do businesses not run and make losses year after year, BUT, slowly, reduce those losses over a long term plan because they may make nett profits, or break even at times or, even increase the losses as they purchase more assets during that plan, and, as long as all those assets are greater than their losses, they are not running insolvent!  

Football is a business, annual figures to a large degree, especially 50m mean squat in the grand scale of things, take a look at their balance sheet, that's all that matters.  

The sale of Mata & Essien this month could wipe that 50m straight out.
		
Click to expand...

They lost Â£50m up yo June, how much did they spend in autumn??

and they'll get nothing for Essen. Maybe Â£25m for Mata. Clearly a quality player, but they will take a lower offer or he'll rot in reserves.......


----------



## Liverbirdie (Jan 4, 2014)

Fish said:



			and this helps clubs who don't have the money to buy them but can support their wages, so its a win win scenario for all concerned.
		
Click to expand...

Except the other teams in Belgium. Dont Chelsea have six players at one Belgian club?

Hardly fair on the rest of the Belgian league. I know Man U used to (or still do) have a tie up with Royal Antwerp, but there are failings in the loan market as far as I'm concerned when it gets to this level. What is to stop Chelsea or City buying 5 world class strikers and loaning them out to all but the top end of their rivals, who can play and score against all of their other rivals, but not themselves. Nothing, I presume. I think Chelsea have been surprised that Liverpool have nearly matched them up to now, despite Moses's worse efforts.

Imagine if they had loaned Lukaku to Liverpool and Moses to Everton. If Liverpool were 8 points clear of Chelsea by now, could they just as easy pull the plug on the deal, half way through the season.


----------



## bladeplayer (Jan 4, 2014)

As far as i know our Lukaku deal is for the season mate so they cant have him back even if they wanted him, not sure if pool would have set it up the same ...  think pool have surprised quiet a few to be honest .

bout 2 players from having BIG chance of winning it id say


----------



## Liverbirdie (Jan 4, 2014)

bladeplayer said:



			As far as i know our Lukaku deal is for the season mate so they cant have him back even if they wanted him, not sure if pool would have set it up the same ...  think pool have surprised quiet a few to be honest .

bout 2 players from having BIG chance of winning it id say
		
Click to expand...

Pele and Maradona are both retired now, though.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 4, 2014)

Liverbirdie said:



			Except the other teams in Belgium. Dont Chelsea have six players at one Belgian club?

Hardly fair on the rest of the Belgian league. I know Man U used to (or still do) have a tie up with Royal Antwerp, but there are failings in the loan market as far as I'm concerned when it gets to this level. *What is to stop Chelsea or City buying 5 world class strikers and loaning them out to all but the top end of their rivals, who can play and score against all of their other rivals, but not themselves. Nothing, I presume. *I think Chelsea have been surprised that Liverpool have nearly matched them up to now, despite Moses's worse efforts.

Imagine if they had loaned Lukaku to Liverpool and Moses to Everton. If Liverpool were 8 points clear of Chelsea by now, could they just as easy pull the plug on the deal, half way through the season.
		
Click to expand...

No we don't; it's actually 5 players at Vitesse Arnhem, one of whom only went in this window, so for the bulk of the season it's been 4 rather than 6 players there.  The Belgian League don't seem to have an issue with it, nor UEFA, and if we are going to develop youth players this way surely it makes sense that they play together.  As for the bolded section;

Oussama Assaidi.  Liverpool asset.  On loan at Stoke City.  Scored the winner against Chelsea.  

So, no problem with Liverpool ACTUALLY loaning out a striker to someone who isn't one of their top end rivals, so playing and scoring against their rivals but not against Liverpool, but you are concerned that Chelsea and Man City MIGHT do what Liverpool have actually done.  Really?


----------



## Liverbirdie (Jan 4, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			No we don't; it's actually 5 players at Vitesse Arnhem, one of whom only went in this window, so for the bulk of the season it's been 4 rather than 6 players there.  The Belgian League don't seem to have an issue with it, nor UEFA, and if we are going to develop youth players this way surely it makes sense that they play together.  As for the bolded section;

Oussama Assaidi.  Liverpool asset.  On loan at Stoke City.  Scored the winner against Chelsea.  

So, no problem with Liverpool ACTUALLY loaning out a striker to someone who isn't one of their top end rivals, so playing and scoring against their rivals but not against Liverpool, but you are concerned that Chelsea and Man City MIGHT do what Liverpool have actually done.  Really?   

Click to expand...

I do actually. I dont think players should be allowed to be loaned to other clubs either in the same division, or the same country. That way it takes all of the machinations out of it.

The bolded section - just an obvious example of what could potentially happen if left unchecked. I also think that it is wrong that one club can use another foreign club as a "partner" club. It makes a mockery of the Belgian league. Do you not, or are you only interested in what is good for CFC and not the interests of the game as a whole?


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 4, 2014)

Arsenal have a big tie in with Beveren in the Belgian league, so I guess they just accept that they are a feeder league for the bigger leagues in Europe.


----------



## LanDog (Jan 4, 2014)

As a United fan I really hope we sign a couple in the window. The problem with January is that there's not always the necessary talent available at the correct price. 

I could see someone like Cabaye coming in, possibly Matic from Benfica (the kinda player the Fellaini was supposed to be) Koke from Atletico is a real prospect, another from Atletico, Arda Turan would be able to do great things at United. Iker Muniain from Bilbao is a tremendous talent.
And Luke Shaw, he's fantastic right now and is only gonna get better 
But on the whole, we need 2 CM's, a winger and a replacement for Evra


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 4, 2014)

LanDog said:



			As a United fan I really hope we sign a couple in the window. The problem with January is that there's not always the necessary talent available at the correct price. 

I could see someone like Cabaye coming in, possibly Matic from Benfica (the kinda player the Fellaini was supposed to be) Koke from Atletico is a real prospect, another from Atletico, Arda Turan would be able to do great things at United. Iker Muniain from Bilbao is a tremendous talent.
And Luke Shaw, he's fantastic right now and is only gonna get better 
But on the whole, we need 2 CM's, a winger and a replacement for Evra
		
Click to expand...


Think Shaw is a nonstarter. Doesn't want to leave and is a Chelsea fan. He'll replace cole soon enough Fellaininis just a big lump Everton utilised well. But he's never gonna start up top ahead of Rooney or Rvp. Think UTD need quality wingers or a complete system rethink.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 4, 2014)

Liverbirdie said:



			I do actually. I dont think players should be allowed to be loaned to other clubs either in the same division, or the same country. That way it takes all of the machinations out of it.

The bolded section - just an obvious example of what could potentially happen if left unchecked. I also think that it is wrong that one club can use another foreign club as a "partner" club. It makes a mockery of the Belgian league. Do you not, or are you only interested in what is good for CFC and not the interests of the game as a whole?
		
Click to expand...

I would prefer to see players loaned to foreign teams or other leagues within the parent club's country so that these incidents don't occur, I just find it somewhat amusing that your example points the finger at two clubs who might do it whilst your own actually has done it but you let that one slide past (bit like Mignolet and Eto'o the other week then).

My primary interest as a Chelsea fan is in Chelsea, but I also realise that if what is good for Chelsea isn't good for the game then in the long term it isn't good for Chelsea.  However if UEFA and the Belgian League are happy with the arrangement then I don't necessarily think there is the same level of problem with the loan that you do.

As for feeder clubs I presume you weren't happy with this then;

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fcs-deal-belgian-club-3434467


----------



## Liverbirdie (Jan 4, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			I would prefer to see players loaned to foreign teams or other leagues within the parent club's country so that these incidents don't occur, I just find it somewhat amusing that your example points the finger at two clubs who might do it whilst your own actually has done it but you let that one slide past (bit like Mignolet and Eto'o the other week then).

My primary interest as a Chelsea fan is in Chelsea, but I also realise that if what is good for Chelsea isn't good for the game then in the long term it isn't good for Chelsea.  However if UEFA and the Belgian League are happy with the arrangement then I don't necessarily think there is the same level of problem with the loan that you do.

As for feeder clubs I presume you weren't happy with this then;

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fcs-deal-belgian-club-3434467

Click to expand...

Bloody Belgians, the're just like a two-bit whore. No I'm not happy about it,although I've not seen any evidence of this partnership, they probably just send us chocolates for xmas, them no-good varmints. Right enough of the cowboy talk.

I just think that if the loan system is left unchecked, it is open to abuse, especially by the richer clubs.We may one day be in this bracket again (not anytime soon) and I would hate it if we stock-piled players (we did, but with youth, rather than senior players, under Benitez). I also don't think it is right in the same division, albeit Lukaku to Everton or Assaidi to Stoke. I also think that no more than two players should be able to go to the same club from the same club.

UEFA should be taking a closer look at the whole system and start putting safeguards in.

Separately, can we have Bertrand for Â£5 mill, we need a good left back, unless you want to try a loan deal first with a view to buy............


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 4, 2014)

Liverbirdie said:



			Bloody Belgians, the're just like a two-bit whore. No I'm not happy about it,although I've not seen any evidence of this partnership, they probably just send us chocolates for xmas, them no-good varmints. Right enough of the cowboy talk.

I just think that if the loan system is left unchecked, it is open to abuse, especially by the richer clubs.We may one day be in this bracket again (not anytime soon) and I would hate it if we stock-piled players (we did, but with youth, rather than senior players, under Benitez). I also don't think it is right in the same division, albeit Lukaku to Everton or Assaidi to Stoke. I also think that no more than two players should be able to go to the same club from the same club.

UEFA should be taking a closer look at the whole system and start putting safeguards in.

Separately, can we have Bertrand for Â£5 mill, we need a good left back, unless you want to try a loan deal first with a view to buy............

Click to expand...

I understand your concerns about the loan system, I just don't see it as a realistic possibility as I don't think that decent strikers will be happy to be bought by one club to be farmed off to another as a "secret agent" for the parent club; much as they are greedy sods, they also want the glory.  I would also rather see a total limit on loan players than a per club limit if they are to be limited, but I remain unconvinced of the necessity.

Just to correct one error in your post; you appear to have typed "Bertrand" and "good left back" in the same sentence.....  Seriously, I like him as a left sided midfielder, but I'm not convinced about him as the last line of defence.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Jan 4, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			I understand your concerns about the loan system, I just don't see it as a realistic possibility as I don't think that decent strikers will be happy to be bought by one club to be farmed off to another as a "secret agent" for the parent club; much as they are greedy sods, they also want the glory.  I would also rather see a total limit on loan players than a per club limit if they are to be limited, but I remain unconvinced of the necessity.

Just to correct one error in your post; you appear to have typed "Bertrand" and "good left back" in the same sentence.....  Seriously, I like him as a left sided midfielder, but I'm not convinced about him as the last line of defence.
		
Click to expand...

I don't see how a total loans thing would work, unless you applied it as a maximum per club (either in or out).

Ok 4 mill for left winger Bertrand then. Cissokho isn't pulling uo trees, thank god he's only a loanee.....unconvinced on Enrique,also.


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 4, 2014)

What the rich clubs look to be doing in my eyes is buying any remotely prospective youngster to stop others buying him on the off chance he does turn out to be special. But he is not yet up to scratch so they then ship him off to another club and leave him there for a couple of years to see how he develops. To me it is just a way that enables the richer clubs to get first choice of future stars. 

So the likes of Man City and Chelsea can do this as they do have the funds that they can use to buy up Â£30M of young unproven talent. Clubs like Liverpool etc are not that rich that they can tie up that sort of money on the off chance that it works.


----------



## Fish (Jan 5, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			What the rich clubs look to be doing in my eyes is buying any remotely prospective youngster to stop others buying him on the off chance he does turn out to be special. But he is not yet up to scratch so they then ship him off to another club and leave him there for a couple of years to see how he develops. To me it is just a way that enables the richer clubs to get first choice of future stars. 

So the likes of Man City and Chelsea can do this as they do have the funds that they can use to buy up Â£30M of young unproven talent. Clubs like Liverpool etc are not that rich that they can tie up that sort of money on the off chance that it works.
		
Click to expand...

This has/had been done for years well before the 'rich clubs' you elude to.


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 5, 2014)

Fish said:



			This has/had been done for years well before the 'rich clubs' you elude to.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe, but not to the extent of clubs having the likes of Mata or Jevatic etc kicking their heels in the reserves......


----------



## Fish (Jan 5, 2014)

Papas1982 said:



			Maybe, but not to the extent of clubs having the likes of Mata or Jevatic etc kicking their heels in the reserves......
		
Click to expand...

They weren't bought as youngsters to develop or in the same vein were discussing were they, they just don't suit the new, or should I say return of Jose and what he wants players to do. As such they have only just become surplus to a degree and will be offloaded to finance new deals, if we decide to go into the market that is :mmm:


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 5, 2014)

Fish said:



			They weren't bought as youngsters to develop or in the same vein were discussing were they, they just don't suit the new, or should I say return of Jose and what he wants players to do. As such they have only just become surplus to a degree and will be offloaded to finance new deals, if we decide to go into the market that is :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

_So the likes of Man City and Chelsea can do this as they do have the funds that they can use to buy up *Â£30M of young unproven talent*. Clubs like Liverpool etc are not that rich that they can tie up that sort of money on the off chance that it works.
_
That pretty much covers Jovetic, and if not Mata then Schurle/de bruyne.

The discussion started talking about clubs stock piling players to keep them out of clutches of rivals, their age isnt relevant. They're still being used to the same effect. Jose has already said he wont sell him to a rival, which is his prerogative. But Mata has no future at Chelsea and is basically just being kept away from any club that could hurt them.

But, If hey're not good enough example then as has already been shown there are plenty of other that could be listed. At many big clubs. Unfortunately, if you're a sugar daddy club you are gonna have these accusations made against you. As although it happened in the past, it was done using a clubs own money. But, to be fair its a business stratefy they want to take so thats up to them. I'm sure it happens in other businesses. I just personally think that the whole structure of footy could do with a change. But that wont happen as clubs are too powerful. These financial guidelines are pointless. Clubs owners are still allowed to invest certain amounts whilst also accruing certain levels of debt.


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 5, 2014)

Fish said:



			This has/had been done for years well before the 'rich clubs' you elude to.
		
Click to expand...

You did not see players of the standard you do now struggling to get a game at their club. This is not a direct dig at any one specific club as there are so many out there doing it. But when you look at the reserve team at some of these clubs it is beyond belief. Chelsea and man city could probably push for a champions league position with their 2nd eleven.


----------



## Fish (Jan 5, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			You did not see players of the standard you do now struggling to get a game at their club. This is not a direct dig at any one specific club as there are so many out there doing it. But when you look at the reserve team at some of these clubs it is beyond belief. Chelsea and man city could probably push for a champions league position with their 2nd eleven.
		
Click to expand...

There are a lot of myths surrounding all this, Chelsea's current numbered squad is only 26 players, as an example, when Man Utd dominated the early 90's, theirs were similar between 24-27.

Current submitted Arsenal squad numbers are 44, Man Utd 42, L'pool 37 and Man City's is 57! Even Swansea have 45. These are the initial squad/shirt numbers that have to be submitted in August for the 2013/14 season, there will be the odd player in & out here and their due to the transfer market ending September, but only a couple of anomalies. By comparison Chelsea's playing squad number of 26 is rather small, isn't it, especially when Villa, Cardiff, Palace, I could go on, have many more, so, we have a smaller amount of 'quality players' to rotate as and when required rather than a huge amount of players that may never get a run out! Where's the 'stock piling'?

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...ier-league-squad-numbers-seasons-2013-14.html


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 5, 2014)

Those numbers can be looked at 2 ways, I would suggest that most of the other teams have higher numbers for 2 reasons. 1 they include their youth players who qualify under the home grown rule and, secondly Chelsea either don't have any or have no faith in their youth system. Something chelsea can't do as they either don;t have enough or deem them not good enough. PLayers like Eachran for eaxmple, many chelsea fans i know wanted him to be given a chance recently ut he gets farmed out whilst you bring in more big name players. I'm sure if we looked at the total value of squads, your 'mere' 26 would value quite highly. 

Bonus of a night shift is the time for research, the 42 players listed for UTD includes the 3 players they have loaned out. Liverppol squad total of 37 listed with 7 pf those loaned out. Chelsea have a squad list of  26 including Moses who is loaned out, in addition to that they have a further 24 players loaned out, giving them a squad of 50. Not so small maybe. All figures can be manipulated to show what you want.


----------



## Fish (Jan 5, 2014)

Papas1982 said:



			Bonus of a night shift is the time for researcayers listed for UTD includes the 3 players they have loaned out. Liverppol squad total of 37 listed with 7 pf those loaned out. Chelsea have a squad list of  26 including Moses who is loaned out, in addition to that they have a further 24 players loaned out, giving them a squad of 50. Not so small maybe. All figures can be manipulated to show what you want.
		
Click to expand...

erm, I said that was the August submitted squad numbers and 'obviously' there was movement prior to the end of September!

Josh will come back a much stronger and better player rather than sitting on the bench only getting a bit part role currently.  I'd rather good talent like that be in a position to fight for a regular place, which he wasn't ready to do IMO. The same goes for young Sam Hutchinson and other youngsters on loan.


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 5, 2014)

Sorry fella, but I dont quite get your point? In one breathe you imply that Chelsea are in someway better than the teams you mentioned due to their small squads. And then when that's proven incorrect you say that it was only old data (making your point original point mute).


----------



## Fish (Jan 5, 2014)

Papas1982 said:



			Sorry fella, but I dont quite get your point? In one breathe you imply that Chelsea are in someway better than the teams you mentioned due to their small squads. And then when that's proven incorrect you say that it was only old data (making your point original point mute).
		
Click to expand...

I haven't implied anything and haven't been proved incorrect, I simply highlighted the fact of submitted squad numbers across certain clubs as of August as required by all clubs to do and clearly stated that their would be a couple of anomalies here and there due to the period being extended to September due to the transfer deadline being different!  You have attempted to push our squad up to 50 by using and adding our 24 loan players to our numbered squad, but make no allowance for the other clubs I've highlighted, who obviously have a certain amount of players also out on loan, don't they? Now that's manipulation :smirk:


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 5, 2014)

Fish said:



			I haven't implied anything and haven't been proved incorrect, I simply highlighted the fact of submitted squad numbers across certain clubs as of August as required by all clubs to do and clearly stated that their would be a couple of anomalies here and there due to the period being extended to September due to the transfer deadline being different! You have attempted to push our squad up to 50 by using and adding our 24 loan players to our numbered squad, *but make no allowance for the other clubs I've highlighted, who obviously have a certain amount of players also out on loan, don't they*? Now that's manipulation :smirk:
		
Click to expand...

_Bonus of a night shift is the time for researcayers listed for UTD *includes the 3 players* they have loaned out. Liverppol squad total of 37 listed with *7 pf those loaned out*. Chelsea have a squad list of 26 including Moses who is loaned out, in addition to that they have a further 24 players loaned out, giving them a squad of 50. Not so small maybe. All figures can be manipulated to show what you want.
_

You alligned your squad to that of past champions saying you had a 'mere' 26 players. That to me is trying to make a point. Or why say it at all?
In case the above highlights aren't clear enough. 
UTD have  total squad 1st team/youth team of 42 players. That is *inclusive* of the players they have out on loan.
Liverpool's number is 37.
Yours would be 50 using same criteria.
Thats no maniuplation. That is true numbers. As to the one other team you mentione that i didn't look into. City have named a first team of 25 players. There large number is including all their youth players that they can include due to them being home grown. Something that chelsea cant do as so many of them are foreign.
Having checked your litle list of all squads, it looks to me that all squads are either on the large side to due listing all squads or 26 ish due to only naming a 1st team squad with no youth reserve.

If you would care to explain what exactly i have manipulated i'm all ears.


----------



## Fish (Jan 5, 2014)

Papas1982 said:



			UTD have  total squad 1st team/youth team of 42 players. That is *inclusive* of the players they have out on loan.
		
Click to expand...

45 actually



Papas1982 said:



			Liverpool's number is 37.
		
Click to expand...

44 actually



Papas1982 said:



			As to the one other team you mentione that i didn't look into. City have named a first team of 25 players. There large number is including all their youth players that they can include due to them being home grown. *Something that chelsea cant do as so many of them are foreign.*

Click to expand...

I've just looked at these so-called home grown players in their (Man City's) youth and in some of the other clubs mentioned and I can count the 'home grown' ones on 1 hand at times! 

From our 20 under 21's, 11 of them are 'home grown' and 9 of our 12 Academy players are all home grown again, so your infatuation of us having so many foreign players and not being able to list our home grown youth is based on what? These youngsters don't have squad numbers and don't need them, I'm sure their are many like this amongst the other teams I've mentioned but the _fact_ remains, 20 of our 32 academy/youth players are home grown.

Also, 1/3rd of our loan players are home grown also.


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 5, 2014)

Do you know what inclusive means? That means that liverpool listed 37 players, 7 of that 37 are out on loan. Meaning a total of 37 players. Not 37 + 7. 37. Same for UTD 42, 3 of them loaned out. Meaning 42.

City's players may not be called smith, brown or jones  but they still have 63% home grown 17/27 and 83% 20/24 of their academy. The point is this. Depending how you (i meananybody, not just your good self) wish to manipulate numbers chelsea can be made to have a squad ranging from 26 - probably 65 if you include loanees and youth. Just as city could be made to have only 25 if you* wished.

As for your home grown. I would hardly suggest having 55% home grown players in your youth team as something to counter a claim that you have foreign players. I would expect your academy to be 100% homegrown to be honest as a lot of countries academys try to restrict players leaving until they reach a certain age. 4/26 foreign in UTDS youth players kinda makes a mockery of yours in my opinion. 

Again, if you could explain what i've maniupluated, then go ahead. All my stats i've given direct comparisons to other teams to show true info.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Jan 5, 2014)

The high squad numbers are slightly moot. It's what make up the squad that is important.

How many of them would actually be used in a premier league game, unless a huge raft of injuries? Some would not even be used in the early rounds of the Carling cup. They are kids in most squads.

It would be more interesting to see what the transfer values (in) of the top likely to be used 25 players would be. That is where the alarming difference would be. Would Liverpool's be 200 Mill, would City/Chelsea be Â£4-500 mill? That is what the kicker is.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 5, 2014)

How many world class players have come from the youth academy of Arsenal,Chelsea,utd,Liverpool,City,spurs in the last 10yr? 
Not many I'd guess.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Jan 5, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			How many world class players have come from the youth academy of Arsenal,Chelsea,utd,Liverpool,City,spurs in the last 10yr? 
Not many I'd guess.
		
Click to expand...

None I can think of off the top of my head, probably a good few in the 10 years before that. Terry, Beckham, Scholes, Gerrard, Fowler, Owen, some would say Carragher, some wouldn't.Possibly a few more also.

Due to the increased squad sizes of the last 10 years and the influx of more foreign youth players is possibly stymieing them, or a lack of technique in an increasingly technical English game is another reason. how many world class players from Ireland and Scotland have come to the EPL in the last 10 years, which was a traditional breeding ground for the previous century?


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 5, 2014)

Yeah their was quite a few around the time you mentioned. Just doesn't seem to happen now. 
I'd definitely say Carragher,he'd get into any current Prem team if he was 10yr younger.

Maybe Jack Wilshere?


----------



## Liverbirdie (Jan 5, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			Yeah their was quite a few around the time you mentioned. Just doesn't seem to happen now. 
I'd definitely say Carragher,he'd get into any current Prem team if he was 10yr younger.

Maybe Jack Wilshere?
		
Click to expand...

I'd say Carragher was a world class defender for 2-3 years of his career, but not a world class footballer. To me there is a difference.

I think Wilshere will be, but not just yet. Possibly Joe hart in another 2-3 years if he puts this loss of form behind him, and as he matures.

I dont think Raheem sterling will be, but watch out for another coming through just behind him called Jordan Ibe - he looks fearsome at 17.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 5, 2014)

Papas1982 said:



			Those numbers can be looked at 2 ways, I would suggest that most of the other teams have higher numbers for 2 reasons. 1 they include their youth players who qualify under the home grown rule and, secondly Chelsea either don't have any or have no faith in their youth system. Something chelsea can't do as they either don;t have enough or deem them not good enough. PLayers like Eachran for eaxmple, many chelsea fans i know wanted him to be given a chance recently ut he gets farmed out whilst you bring in more big name players. I'm sure if we looked at the total value of squads, your 'mere' 26 would value quite highly. 

Bonus of a night shift is the time for research, the 42 players listed for UTD includes the 3 players they have loaned out. Liverppol squad total of 37 listed with 7 pf those loaned out. Chelsea have a squad list of  26 including Moses who is loaned out, *in addition to that they have a further 24 players loaned out,* giving them a squad of 50. Not so small maybe. All figures can be manipulated to show what you want.
		
Click to expand...

Could you name them please, as my source is only showing 17 further players out on loan?


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 5, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			Could you name them please, as my source is only showing 17 further players out on loan?
		
Click to expand...

Not sure there's a better source than your own website. 
http://www.chelseafc.com/on-loan-players

In case that doesn't work. You just go to you official site, look at Saudis and there's a list of them online. 

Getting rather tedious now though going over something that wasn't even my main point.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 5, 2014)

Liverbirdie said:



			I'd say Carragher was a world class defender for 2-3 years of his career, but not a world class footballer. To me there is a difference.

I think Wilshere will be, but not just yet. Possibly Joe hart in another 2-3 years if he puts this loss of form behind him, and as he matures.

I dont think Raheem sterling will be, but watch out for another coming through just behind him called Jordan Ibe - he looks fearsome at 17.
		
Click to expand...

Id say if your a world class defender that makes you a world class player. Maldini is surely one of the best players of all time. Obviously totally different to Ronaldo or Zidane.


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 5, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			Id say if your a world class defender that makes you a world class player. Maldini is surely one of the best players of all time. Obviously totally different to Ronaldo or Zidane.
		
Click to expand...

I think car ragged was a very good defender. And the fans loved him. But for me there has to be a certain mental attitude with it too. I don't like the fact he quit England as he didn't like the competition. If you're only the 3rd best defender in your country (I'd probably say 4th behind King). I don't think you can be world class.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 5, 2014)

Papas1982 said:



			I think car ragged was a very good defender. And the fans loved him. But for me there has to be a certain mental attitude with it too. I don't like the fact he quit England as he didn't like the competition. If you're only the 3rd best defender in your country (I'd probably say 4th behind King). I don't think you can be world class.
		
Click to expand...

Carra was for 2-3 year period a top defender in European Football - better than Terry IMO in that period and I didnt blame him for quitting when Sven picked King ( who spent months and months being injured. ) 

Scholes also quit when Lampard was picked ahead of him and that didn't stop him being World Class

World class is a phrase that gets bandied around far too easily now and should only be used for possibly the top 5-10 in the world


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 5, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Carra was for 2-3 year period a top defender in European Football - better than Terry IMO in that period and I didnt blame him for quitting when Sven picked King ( who spent months and months being injured. ) 

Scholes also quit when Lampard was picked ahead of him and that didn't stop him being World Class

World class is a phrase that gets bandied around far too easily now and should only be used for possibly the top 5-10 in the world
		
Click to expand...

I never said the others were world class either. I would suggest the last world class players we have had are ferdinand til injuries, cole, Gerarrd and for a period of years Owen as an out and out finisher. 

Scholes was a top top player for 10 years. He didn't just have a hit few years like Carra who was dependable his whole career but for me never shone. Scholes also quit for for different reasons altogether as he was constantly played out of position and felt he didn't do left midfield justice. Not because of a paddy. Epitomised by him sticking to his guns and not coming back just coz he thought he'd get a game like Carra. I feel Carras pain about king being picked, but I still think a fit king was better than Carra. Se players are always over looked. I don't think you'll find a better example than Le Tiss.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 5, 2014)

Papas1982 said:



			I never said the others were world class either. I would suggest the last world class players we have had are ferdinand til injuries, cole, Gerarrd and for a period of years Owen as an out and out finisher. 

Scholes was a top top player for 10 years. He didn't just have a hit few years like Carra who was dependable his whole career but for me never shone. Scholes also quit for for different reasons altogether as he was constantly played out of position and felt he didn't do left midfield justice. Not because of a paddy. Epitomised by him sticking to his guns and not coming back just coz he thought he'd get a game like Carra. I feel Carras pain about king being picked, but I still think a fit king was better than Carra. Se players are always over looked. I don't think you'll find a better example than Le Tiss.
		
Click to expand...

Carra shone for us for a great amount of years - even going back to the 00/01 season when he played as a left back - under Rafa at CB he was outstanding and even last season he was great. He didn't have a "paddy" he just decided it wasn't worth him going away for internationals to sit on the bench when he could rest to save his energy for his club. 

Scholes quit because Lampard was picked ahead of him alongside Gerrard and Scholes was shifted sideways. He also decided to concentrate his efforts on his club 

Players quitting England to concentrate on their club football will always get a big thumbs up from me - I wished Gerrard did a while back.


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 5, 2014)

He may have shine for you, but that effectively means he shine for a team that during his 15 years at the club were only good side. Yes I know you won cups before that's all raised. But in the league he was part of a defence that wasn't good enough. I'm not saying he wasn't a very very good player. But for me, he was never world class. Neither was terry. For me they're both great British players who get stuck in and look great on camera. But lacked the class that would make them truly world class.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 5, 2014)

Papas1982 said:



			He may have shine for you, but that effectively means he shine for a team that during his 15 years at the club were only good side. Yes I know you won cups before that's all raised. But in the league he was part of a defence that wasn't good enough. I'm not saying he wasn't a very very good player. But for me, he was never world class. Neither was terry. For me they're both great British players who get stuck in and look great on camera. But lacked the class that would make them truly world class.
		
Click to expand...

He was part of a defence that statistically was a lot better than just "good" ( 3 out of 5 years we had the best record in the league ) and one of those cups was the biggest in the club football

Carra spend a 3-4 period having every top striker in his pocket at one stage. Can remember Henry turning him inside out but not many others. As someone has said earlier he was world class at defending during that period - he may not have looked good on the ball or a wonderful passer but as a defender there wasn't many better in Europe during that period. He may not have had world class skills but as pure defender he was top of the tree


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 5, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			He was part of a defence that statistically was a lot better than just "good" ( 3 out of 5 years we had the best record in the league ) and one of those cups was the biggest in the club football

Carra spend a 3-4 period having every top striker in his pocket at one stage. Can remember Henry turning him inside out but not many others. As someone has said earlier he was world class at defending during that period - he may not have looked good on the ball or a wonderful passer but as a defender there wasn't many better in Europe during that period. He may not have had world class skills but as pure defender he was top of the tree
		
Click to expand...

The cup wins are unimportant to me I'm afraid. Especially the big one you mention, Your defence didn't win you that one. Gerrard did, all they way back to his beauty in he groups. Much like maradonna won Argentina a world cup. For me having a world class period of 3-4 years dont make you a world class player. Much like right now Suarez in undoubtedly playing world class and in 18 months if he still is then he will rightly be one of the top players in the world. But for me, world class players sustain it their enitre careers, which the likes of Maldini, Gerrard, Cole, Ronaldo (either) and messi etc. I'm sure carra would have graced many a club side, but would he have been in a world 11 at any point. And for me, thats why he wasnt world class.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 5, 2014)

Papas1982 said:



			The cup wins are unimportant to me I'm afraid. Especially the big one you mention, Your defence didn't win you that one. Gerrard did, all they way back to his beauty in he groups. Much like maradonna won Argentina a world cup. For me having a world class period of 3-4 years dont make you a world class player. Much like right now Suarez in undoubtedly playing world class and in 18 months if he still is then he will rightly be one of the top players in the world. But for me, world class players sustain it their enitre careers, which the likes of Maldini, Gerrard, Cole, Ronaldo (either) and messi etc. I'm sure carra would have graced many a club side, but would he have been in a world 11 at any point. And for me, thats why he wasnt world class.
		
Click to expand...

The CL unimportant ? Really ? It's the Holy Grail of club football in Europe. 

 And if you think our defence didn't have a part to play then suggest you re watch the Juve away game when the defence was outstanding - plus Carras performance in the final especially extra time was outstanding. I never called Carra world class but for a 4 year period he was one of the best in Europe and proved it in the CL each week. 

And Suarez is already one of the top 3 in the world right now


----------



## drawboy (Jan 5, 2014)

I do not know anything about football, I'm from Leeds


----------



## Papas1982 (Jan 5, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The CL unimportant ? Really ? It's the Holy Grail of club football in Europe. 

 And if you think our defence didn't have a part to play then suggest you re watch the Juve away game when the defence was outstanding - plus Carras performance in the final especially extra time was outstanding. I never called Carra world class but for a 4 year period he was one of the best in Europe and proved it in the CL each week. 

And Suarez is already one of the top 3 in the world right now
		
Click to expand...

 Suarez is a clear 3rd for me, as RVP was last year. Messi and Ronaldo are still 1 and 2 for me. Just due to the fact that they have been doing it for years. That said, i'd rather we hadn't drawn Uruguay at the world cup.

As for Carra, I think its been a big discussion over nothing as we both thinks he was good just not world class. What i said originally. My point about the cups isn't that they aren't important to be won. Just that wining them has no bearing on how good a player is. Although its funny how the champions league is The holy grail here, yet you'd turn down a chance at it for the Fa cup? But hey thats a different post so lets just agree that Carra is a Liverpool legend and right now, England would be much better of with him in his pomp than what we have now.


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 5, 2014)

Papas1982 said:



			Not sure there's a better source than your own website. 
http://www.chelseafc.com/on-loan-players

Click to expand...

:rofl:

I would say say it is pretty reliable too


----------



## Coatsy79 (Jan 6, 2014)

I'm by no means a "football" guy but it always seems to me that football could do with a salary cap, like most North American sports

It promotes parity evens out the playing field a bit 

It might also promote teams to develop their own talent to be able to compete


----------



## Bucket92 (Jan 7, 2014)

Would be great if football had a "draft" system like American sports have, but it would be impossible really which is a shame


----------



## LanDog (Jan 7, 2014)

Bucket92 said:



			Would be great if football had a "draft" system like American sports have, but it would be impossible really which is a shame
		
Click to expand...


It would be impossible to implement now, and all leagues would have todo it Which would be impossible todo in Europe alone. All players would have to leave their respective clubs, be ranked and then allocated back out the better players would then go to league two teams!


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 7, 2014)

Coatsy79 said:



			I'm by no means a "football" guy but it always seems to me that football could do with a salary cap, like most North American sports

It promotes parity evens out the playing field a bit 

It might also promote teams to develop their own talent to be able to compete
		
Click to expand...

Have you seen how much money American footballers & basketball players earn?


----------



## chrisd (Jan 7, 2014)

On the subject of signing players to prevent other teams from getting them. My Crystal Palace do this with their forwards. We have starved the Conference of a few decent players in the last transfer window!


----------

