Discussion in 'Transfer Forum' started by K2K, Jan 26, 2019.
Don’t be using logic fella, it doesn’t fit the narrative and gets them all hot under the collar
Yep, that's the guy. A guy who has mainly played LW all his career and whoscored.com lists crossing as one of his weaknesses was somehow, according to moupurists, going to come in a solve our RW issues and provide all the crosses for Lukaku to score from, thus bringing us to glory. Or something like that. Bullet well and truly dodged.
His reply was so silly that I couldn't even bother to reply though... How does saying '50% of profits' alarm people into thinking it's about taking 50% of the revenue?
Also, I'd be very interested to know how paying a dividend to shareholders instead of investing more in the club is actually a good thing?
The money is there for transfers, I don’t think we can dispute that
Other than that I don’t really care where the money goes, it’s their club/business. On the whole, compared to other owners they’ve done fine.
The entire subject bores me to death especially when it keeps being brought up by the same people in random threads
I mean, our previous manager resorted to putting public pressure on the club to make more funds available for two(!) years straight... Those funds never came though.
Our owners put in a couple of hundred million of their own money in an asset that's now worth billions, and of course they still own a massive part of it. It's been brilliant business for them. But instead of making sure we invest the maximum amount possible in the squad or even the stadium in these times where results have been mediocre, they've been taking out even more money.
If you think that equates to our owners 'having done fine' I don't know what to say. Same with saying 'compared to other owners'. Like who, Chelsea's owner? Or City's owners? Or Liverpool's owners? I don't think so.
On a less serious note, I wouldn't want to bore you to an actual death or anything, so apologies for derailing this thread!
My views on Perisic are primarily based on his form in International tournaments for Croatia and I largely liked what I saw.
So,I could see Jose's wants for the player especially with the signing of Lukaku.
What I wasn't particularly fond of was the idea that Martial would've likely been shipped off in the process,permanently or on loan.
The reported fee for Perisic was also far too inflated,especially for his age.I cant blame Inter for that because he was a important figure for them,more so where the ability of star quality in their team ,at that particular time, was lacking.
But the fact that Jose had no back-up plan to Perisic just illustrated his shortsightedness and his lack of versatility in the transfer market.
If Arsenal were offering €35m guaranteed after 6 months this would make sense.
Why would Inter loan for 6 months with no buy obligation though? Surely just do the transfer and Arsenal pay in the summer or put mandatory purchase option in the loan deal?
Not really getting it, no club going to loan a first team player for 6 months surely, leave them wide open for other players to do the same in future?
I look forward to seeing him in the PL, even if it's with Arsenal. I know nothing about him outside of the World Cup and he was brilliant for Croatia.
Separate names with a comma.