The ‘Media Trying To Sell Our Players Again’ Thread

[ALC Fox]

Man Utd and the like will always have that lure compared to teams at a similar level. The thing is, their level is dropping. You'll still get some players who think they can be part of the turnaround to get them 'back where they belong', especially as they can still blow most teams out of the water when it comes to wages and bonuses. But the longer they're not competing, the more players will overlook them for teams who look more stable and more able to challenge for silverware (while also offering very good wages).

 

Nowadays most players would prefer Man City to Man Utd when for decades that wouldn't have been the case. Football changes and tides turn. Notice how most people who are saying these things about the big clubs are of a certain generation. It's all they've ever known, so saying that Man Utd will always attract players from Leicester is like saying the Pope is a Catholic to these people.

 

But look at all the clubs in the lower leagues who once were champions of England, or FA Cup winners, or European Cup winners ffs! Everything is variable.

 

Granted, the media spotlight, club revenue, etc., play more of a part than ever before. But clubs have fallen from grace before, and they will again.

 

To effectively say that the top of the division is a closed shop and all the other teams should just forget about being as big or as good as Man Utd is pouring cold water on the dreams of millions of fans up and down the country. Look at Fulham, Wigan, Bournemouth and their respective rises from the depths of league football to the top division (and down again in some cases). Football is cyclical and variable and wonderful.

 

Fifteen years ago the thought of Man City winning the Champions League was laughable, now it's the one trophy they're missing and most probably prioritising. It's a funny old game.

[Dahnsouff]

Agree with all you say @ALC Fox - its just that statistically, a player is more likely to win trophies and get picked for England (Assuming they are English of course) at one of "those" clubs. Is sh*t.

[Guest Markyblue]

To think the so called big 6 cant change is utter tripe. If spurs had a couple of bad years added to the cost of the stadium they could easily be in trouble, man city lose their oil money etc back in the thirties wolves were the team, other teams over the decades have been so called big 5/6 , Newcastle leeds Everton,  change can happen it will be gradual but possible.

[thegaffa]

All this is irrelevant, we won’t sell James Maddison in January or the summer.

 

Even then he will not be cheap so there are only a few clubs in the world who could afford our “don’t want to sell” valuation

 

we have a project that the manager has committed long term to, and we are on the cusp of being a regular top 6 club, that is run fantastically well.

 

The times are changing for the historically big clubs in England.

[Kuredufox]

I think the so called Big 6 are running scared of teams like us and Wolves

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, Koke said:

Who's up say United wont recover in a year or two

 

Anyone that understands football on any level and isn't just parroting the tabloids spoon feeding United fans what they want to hear. 

[Sly]

Just to add to what @ALC Fox states:

 

Most successful English club by decade: 

 

2010s: Manchester City

2000s: Manchester United

1990s: Manchester United

1980s: Liverpool

1970s: Liverpool

1960s: Tottenham

1950s: Wolves, Newcastle, Manchester United

1940s: Split around due to the war! 

1930s: Arsenal

1920s: Huddersfield

1910s: Aston Villa and Blackburn

1900s: Blackburn and Sheffield Wednesday

1890s: Aston Villa

1880s: Blackburn

1870s: The Wanderers

 

Cycles .......

 

 

 

 

[Sly]

The league has always had a big 4 or 6! It just changes.

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Koke said:

 

Kante left the reigning champions to join 10th place Chelsea. Granted they recovered but how was Kante to know that? 

 

Who's up say United wont recover in a year or two. Unfortunately they can keep throwing money at it until something works, and that's probably what Maguire thought - and what Maddison thinks as well.

Chelsea had won the league literally one season earlier. There are blips and then there are years of underperformance. They look like they are going to miss out on a top 4 finish for the 5th time in 7 years. Until they sort out the issues at the top this is going to keep happing. It's not a blip. 

[urban fox]

So according to the papers, apparently now the ban is lifted, Chelsea are prioritising a left back - Guesss who.

[Sianist]

Maddy won’t be sold January no matter how silly the money gets... next summer might happen if money is obscene, and the club feels they have a competent enough replacement (Barnes?)

[Chrysalis]

I think sky are wrong.

 

If I am a player that has everyone's attention.

 

There is Liverpool, Man City big clubs and two of the current best in English football.

 

Manchester United, big club, but in a mess.

 

I know as a player if I move to the latter I am probably stuck there unless I massively underperform so they want to sell me, as these clubs dont tout for each other's players as if they have a gentleman's agreement.

 

So if e.g. I want to join Liverpool I know I have a better chance if I stay at Leicester rather than joining Manchester United, that would be a reason to stay.

 

Sadly tho just about every player see's their end goal as Liverpool, or someone of similar ilk.  A few players might settle down and be content, but I think whilst players are young thats less likely, older players are more likely to be loyal.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, urban fox said:

So according to the papers, apparently now the ban is lifted, Chelsea are prioritising a left back - Guesss who.

Digne at Everton?

[Koke]

12 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Chelsea had won the league literally one season earlier. There are blips and then there are years of underperformance. They look like they are going to miss out on a top 4 finish for the 5th time in 7 years. Until they sort out the issues at the top this is going to keep happing. It's not a blip. 

 

Fair. But then theres also the small matter pf treble/quadruple their wages at United.

 

Look, I'm not saying any City players would walk immediately but I just wouldn't be surprised if in the summer or next United nicked our players. 

 

For us to withstand that we have to go on a Spurs like run of finishing top 4 consistently.

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Koke said:

 

Fair. But then theres also the small matter pf treble/quadruple their wages at United.

 

Look, I'm not saying any City players would walk immediately but I just wouldn't be surprised if in the summer or next United nicked our players. 

 

For us to withstand that we have to go on a Spurs like run of finishing top 4 consistently.

And spurs can’t sustain not paying their players big money - look at the problems they have in their squad now

 

For these guys it’s their career and they want to earn as much as possible whilst not just going to China .... if we get another season or two out of the younger ones then we’ve done well - the alternative is paying them 150k/week and we can’t afford that on several levels 

[ScubaBlue]

1 hour ago, thegaffa said:

All this is irrelevant, we won’t sell James Maddison in January or the summer.

 

Even then he will not be cheap so there are only a few clubs in the world who could afford our “don’t want to sell” valuation

 

we have a project that the manager has committed long term to, and we are on the cusp of being a regular top 6 club, that is run fantastically well.

 

The times are changing for the historically big clubs in England.

Totally agree!

 

At this moment in time, of course the traditional 'big clubs' will be able to offer something we cant. That mainly being more money and exposure. That can change in time though - as others have pointed out, Man City and Chelsea (even spurs to an extent) haven't always had the appeal they do now. Look at Aresnal. At one time they were one of the most attractive clubs in the country. Now they're fighting over a manager replacement with Everton (if reports are to be believed).

 

I think the recent article on Jonny Evans receiving a graded file on each game he'd played, before he signed, gives us a real insight to how thorough our club is. I'd imagine that every player (especially the young uns) are presented with a similar file and are also probably presented with the long term vision of the club.

 

When we signed Maddison (and others), it would have been pointed out to him that we want him to be part of that vision, long term. Sign for us (no buy out clause) because you want to be here long term, and it won't be easy to leave early. If you can't buy into that, this isnt the club for you! I Also think that the sales of Drinkwater, Mahrez and Maguire also send our players a strong message - if you do decide you want a move to a bigger club, it will only be on our terms! And for big money!

 

Madddison himself said in a post match interview recently "I think we should be thought of as a big club" (or something to that effect).

 

Maybe if our players are starting to think like that... we should too!

 

[Xen]

27 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

And spurs can’t sustain not paying their players big money - look at the problems they have in their squad now

 

For these guys it’s their career and they want to earn as much as possible whilst not just going to China .... if we get another season or two out of the younger ones then we’ve done well - the alternative is paying them 150k/week and we can’t afford that on several levels 

There's probably 5-6 players who could be pushing for those £150k weekly salaries. Assuming that right now they're on £50k (a very conservative estimate), that's an increase of about £5m per year each. So in total £30m, and probably up to £40-50m max once you include the entire squad.

 

CL money was roughly £70m according to the Mercury. So with a few consecutive seasons of success we'll have both the status and the means of keeping them, with cash left over. A sale like Maguire every couple of years makes that even more sustainable, and that's before we add in PL/TV money.

 

We're not going to go out and immediately give those players ridiculous contracts (after all, the only way is up in future negotiations) and we'll likely never hit the ultra-ridiculous wage structures like United has, but we can certainly be competitive enough that our players will at least think twice before jumping ship to an underperforming side that pays more. Spurs have done a decent job so far with an even more restrictive wage structure, after all, they've just failed to adapt over time - they could certainly afford to pay more (if they hadn't gone way over budget on the stadium).

Edited 12 December 2019 by Xen

[Guest BlueBrett]

1 hour ago, thegaffa said:

All this is irrelevant, we won’t sell James Maddison in January or the summer.

 

Even then he will not be cheap so there are only a few clubs in the world who could afford our “don’t want to sell” valuation

 

we have a project that the manager has committed long term to, and we are on the cusp of being a regular top 6 club, that is run fantastically well.

 

The times are changing for the historically big clubs in England.

It's not really irrelevant though unfortunately. The players' perceptions do matter and player power is still a thing. If someone wants to force a move they can. See Mahrez 

[st albans fox]

21 minutes ago, Xen said:

There's probably 5-6 players who could be pushing for those £150k weekly salaries. Assuming that right now they're on £50k (a very conservative estimate), that's an increase of about £5m per year each. So in total £30m, and probably up to £40-50m max once you include the entire squad.

 

CL money was roughly £70m according to the Mercury. So with a few consecutive seasons of success we'll have both the status and the means of keeping them, with cash left over. A sale like Maguire every couple of years makes that even more sustainable, and that's before we add in PL/TV money.

 

We're not going to go out and immediately give those players ridiculous contracts (after all, the only way is up in future negotiations) and we'll likely never hit the ultra-ridiculous wage structures like United has, but we can certainly be competitive enough that our players will at least think twice before jumping ship to an underperforming side that pays more. Spurs have done a decent job so far with an even more restrictive wage structure, after all, they've just failed to adapt over time - they could certainly afford to pay more (if they hadn't gone way over budget on the stadium).

Agree totally but I’m not sure thats the direction the hierarchy are headed in here ... seeing as we have player assets to sell I can’t see where the big risk is but commercial prudence isn’t something I’m too good on .......

[Sianist]

31 minutes ago, Xen said:

Spurs have done a decent job so far with an even more restrictive wage structure, after all, they've just failed to adapt over time - they could certainly afford to pay more (if they hadn't gone way over budget on the stadium).

 

IMHO Spurs failure is not as much due to their low wages compared with who they like to compare with in terms of weightclass, but rather their unwillingness to sell players (Eriksen, Vertonghen,  Alderweireld) that have expressed they want to leave for new experiences, without demanding absolutely silly money for them which makes no-one willing to pay

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Koke said:

 

Fair. But then theres also the small matter pf treble/quadruple their wages at United.

 

Look, I'm not saying any City players would walk immediately but I just wouldn't be surprised if in the summer or next United nicked our players. 

 

For us to withstand that we have to go on a Spurs like run of finishing top 4 consistently.

So could several clubs, IMO if a player has any brains at all they look at them and be cautious about jumping too quickly. If the aim is to win things, then there are other clubs better placed who would likely also be interested.

[Gubbins]

I think a lot will depend on how big a gloryhunter United fan Maddison was as a kid. If it was more cos Beckham was there then he may well not push for it in the hopes of a move to Man C or the scousers a year or 2 down the line. There's also the fact that as flush with cash as man utd are they wil still have a budget. Will they really wanna pay 120/150m for Maddison especially as they must realise now we proper did them with the Maguire fee and that there is surely better value out there. 

[don_danbury]

2 hours ago, urban fox said:

So according to the papers, apparently now the ban is lifted, Chelsea are prioritising a left back - Guesss who.

paul konchesky supposedly 

[KingsX]

A statement you see over and over again on Red Café is “why does every player we buy immediately turn to shit”.  The majority peak in their performance just before they move to Man U -- because its management is chaotic and not football-oriented.  It’s set up to maximize financial resources; the human resources on the pitch are just thrown out there as brand names.

 

I don’t think you can have this discussion without recognizing that fact.  Players will certainly consider it -- agents have recently been quoted saying so.  A more mercenary type of player will go anyway.  Others may wait for a move more suitable to them.

[HankMarvin]

Maddison would be under a hell of a lot more scrutiny and pressure there.

Look at Pogba and more recently Maguire.

Hardly covered himself in glory since leaving.

Years gone by it would’ve made sense, but why you would want to leave young team mates you are all playing so well under a gifted manager it just doesn’t make sense.

 

unless they offer him 2 times his potential new deal, on the sly through Maguire and he is a greedy little fooker.