• Current Donation Goals

Harvz

Transfer Talk Topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

This is football finance blog stuff gone mad. I don't know what the figures were (and neither do you), but we most likely paid some sort of fee to get him and some or all of his wages. Maybe just one of those, for all we know the fee is precisely for covering wages. And we paid it for the time he was here, not the season after as well.

That's what we laid out, not some crazed algebraic projection.

I wonder if, perhaps, a loan deal for Higuain was made because buying a better player outright wasn't doable? Rather than loaning Higuain got in the way of buying a better player? I know which of the two seems the more likely to me.

(Higuain was pretty crap overall)

Exactly this. Morata needed to go and we needed a replacement in January. Higuain didn't pull up any trees but he was solid.

Rather than panic buy a third/fourth choice target we signed him on a short term deal and were able to reassess in the summer. Unfortunately we had the transfer ban so the big striker signing had to be delayed for a year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Willian Dollar Baby said:

Exactly this. Morata needed to go and we needed a replacement in January. Higuain didn't pull up any trees but he was solid.

Rather than panic buy a third/fourth choice target we signed him on a short term deal and were able to reassess in the summer. Unfortunately we had the transfer ban so the big striker signing had to be delayed for a year. 

I must have missed the big striker signing we did last summer...

Unless you mean the left-inside forward we purchased in Werner? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2021 at 2:15 PM, thevelourfog said:

This is football finance blog stuff gone mad. I don't know what the figures were (and neither do you), but we most likely paid some sort of fee to get him and some or all of his wages. Maybe just one of those, for all we know the fee is precisely for covering wages. And we paid it for the time he was here, not the season after as well.

That's what we laid out, not some crazed algebraic projection.

I wonder if, perhaps, a loan deal for Higuain was made because buying a better player outright wasn't doable? Rather than loaning Higuain got in the way of buying a better player? I know which of the two seems the more likely to me.

(Higuain was pretty crap overall)

Whats the projection here? We did need a striker, who we would have bought in 19-20 if there was not a Ban. Timo was bought this season. I thought it was a pretty known thing that we were in for a striker, specially given that a deal for morata had already been struck with ATM, thus freeing up the wage and amortization space in our budget.

As for his fee and wages, it was reported by most tabloids that we were paying a fee + all his wages, which made sense. I would find it exceptional if our board were able to pull off Juve paying for his wages when we had loaned out morata and had only giroud on our roster and also knowing a fact that sarri wanted Higuain. 

"And we paid it for the time he was here, not the season after as well." True, 19-20 was the only season we did not have to pay that money. 18-19 we had Morata on the roster, replaced by higuain, and this season with Werner. I am sure given the reality of a transfer ban in front of the board, they would have preferred for buying a striker and covering their bases for the 19-20 season (ala Pulisic), rather than loaning someone and risking losing him. Hence, its seems obvious to me, that sarri might have wanted higuain permanently and the board settled for a loan move with a buy-option along with an extension option. Also, we had a great year financially DESPITE of covid. I am sure, that board would have been aware of our Financial projections under normal circumstances before hand, and would have wanted to buy a striker before the ban rather than go blind into the next season with just Giroud and Tammy. Irrespective, if it were not for Sarri, we would probably have had a half decent striker.

 

(Higuain was pretty crap overall) - Agree a 100%

Edited by didierforever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, didierforever said:

Whats the projection here? We did need a striker, who we would have bought in 19-20 if there was not a Ban ...

As for his fee and wages, it was reported by most tabloids that we were paying a fee + all his wages, which made sense .

Snipped down to save repetition ...

The projection was all the amortisation chat. Higuain was a short term loan. Whatever we paid to get him here and whatever we paid him was our outlay. That's all. The rest is bookkeeping, and Higuain had nowt to do with 19/20's bookkeeping.

As for what we paid ... I say neither of us know, you say stuff was widely reported in the tabloids. I think that means we agree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, The_Ghost said:

I must have missed the big striker signing we did last summer...

Unless you mean the left-inside forward we purchased in Werner? ;) 

Yeah, I wish people would stop saying Werner is a CF. He is either a False 9 or LWF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, King Kante said:

Yeah, I wish people would stop saying Werner is a CF. He is either a False 9 or LWF. 

He is definitely not a false 9 and never heard of a LWF.

he's a striker, spent the vast majority of his career playing there and scored shed loads of goals, really can't get my head around people still arguing this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
7 minutes ago, Martin1905 said:

He is definitely not a false 9 and never heard of a LWF.

he's a striker, spent the vast majority of his career playing there and scored shed loads of goals, really can't get my head around people still arguing this.

 

 

He is a striker. I think people struggle to call him a CF though as that brings up an image of a 6' 2" sh1thouse. 

Striker is probably a more general description than CF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ham said:

He is a striker. I think people struggle to call him a CF though as that brings up an image of a 6' 2" sh1thouse. 

Striker is probably a more general description than CF. 

Yeah maybe but does that even really exist in the modern game?

Striker or centre forward is all much of muchness to me, he has played the vast majority of his career through the middle not as a LWF, whatever that is, or a left inside forward. 

Played through the middle, mostly in a 2 but to me a player that plays through the middle is a cf or striker, whatever you want to call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martin1905 said:

He is definitely not a false 9 and never heard of a LWF.

he's a striker, spent the vast majority of his career playing there and scored shed loads of goals, really can't get my head around people still arguing this.

 

 

He's a left-sided inside forward. That's where he played the majority of games for Leipzig. 

That's where he wil be used by Tuchel more often than not and probably why he has decided to play with a Christmas tree formation from midfield up to attacking mids and striker. The reason he played as a striker yesterday probably had more to do with Liverpools high line and press and the fact that Tammy is injured and Giroud not the best fit against Liverpool. 

Is it a coincidence that a german manager plays Timo in the left-inside forward channel? No, it is not imo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

He's a left-sided inside forward. That's where he played the majority of games for Leipzig. 

No he didn't 

 

Edited by Martin1905

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now