Alex V
12:09 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
>>> There is good reason for you being considered contrary Alex.
These are points I have consistently made over years. Too many years in fact.
>>> Of course Sullivan has a point that a free transfer costs the club more than 'no fees' involved. But if the PL class it as a free transfer which we agree they do, then Sullivan rattling on about the costs involved in a free, is being disingenuous with fans yet again.
But what the PL class it as is entirely irrelevant imo. What relevance does it have to this? Sullivan is saying that bosman deals have hidden costs - he's not disputing they are reported as free transfers, in fact that's his whole point!
>>> What is relevant is not that a free costs more than it sounds but that smaller clubs than WH spend more.
But as you just said, it isn't relevant to success.
If you look over any reasonable time period, WH have spent more than most other clubs. As endlessly discussed on here, they were 5th or 6th in spending over five years before this season, ahead of both Spurs and Liverpool at times. And not including any 'hidden fees'! We have overspent and underdelivered.
>>> The likes of you defending the absolute cunt of a man running WH very badly really takes some swallowing.
I am highly critical of him and I have been since 2010. I was critical of him for long stretches where he was broadly treated as a messiah-like figure on this forum, and I took a lot of shit for it. But I try to deal with facts where I can. What he says here is not wrong imo. I don't think it matters what he actually says anymore, as so many supporters have fixed a narrative in their heads and will simply defer to that whatever he says.
|
Willtell
11:55 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
There is good reason for you being considered contrary Alex.
Of course Sullivan has a point that a free transfer costs the club more than 'no fees' involved. But if the PL class it as a free transfer which we agree they do, then Sullivan rattling on about the costs involved in a free, is being disingenuous with fans yet again.
Total net spend is not particularly relevant to success as Tottenham and Liverpool with more sales than buys proves.
What is relevant is not that a free costs more than it sounds but that smaller clubs than WH spend more. It is a disgrace that we are competing at the level of clubs like Crystal Palace, Swansea, Huddersfield, Brighton, Watford and Bournemouth after being told by Sullivan that his business plan would have us with CL football last season.
Sullivan is trying to bullshit his way through failed transfer dealings and poor management choices with excuses to boost his own flagging image which was never very good anyway.
The likes of you defending the absolute cunt of a man running WH very badly really takes some swallowing.
|
Takashi Miike
11:48 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
*Karren*
:.)
|
Takashi Miike
11:48 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
Contrary Mary = Kareem Brady
|
Alex V
11:37 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
Willtell 10:49 Wed Apr 18
If the premier league do publish any total spend figures which can be authoritatively used to measure net spend, I have not seen them, so I can't really comment on what they do or don't contain. I basically think that you see these figures as far more official than they are.
>>> We all accept that a free transfer costs a lot more than 'free' suggests but that is a red herring.
It's really not. It's a fact that Sullivan is entitled to refer to. It's not a lie.
>>> Clubs are judged by a standard fee based headline price imo.
They are, I agree. Clubs will always be judged, rightly or wrongly, in the media. I really don't see what that has to do with it.
>>> Agents fees, wages and everything else is disregarded in comparative tables using the actual total price agreed imo.
Yes. The point being these are estimates, it's very hard to prove their accuracy. For some clubs they may be over-estimates, some under. These estimates are very easy to find but pretty much impossible to verify. We should use them as a general guide but not take them too seriously. And the way the media uses them tends to reflect that honestly - they use it as a bit of fun, not as a final judgement on what a club does.
Because, I re-iterate, a high net spend in one of these charts is not a measure of a club's health or a club's ambition or a club's transfer record. Because a high or low net spend does not reveal any of those things. It's a number that needs further interpretation, and the truth of what a club has done is in the detail.
|
Iron2010
10:53 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
claret on my shirt 8:33 Tue Apr 17
All this talk of unity but he just can't help himself.
Surely he should just say that we have made mistakes and clearly did not invest enough in the midfield this year. However, we look to have got away with it and will not let it happen again.
|
Iron2010
10:50 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
Alex V 6:06 Tue Apr 17
A fifty million profit tells me everything I need to know.
|
Willtell
10:49 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
Alex V 6:06
There must be a 'universal' method of rating transfers which we are not sure of because the Premier league publish a total spend per window which in turn gets used by the media. I suggest that is the sale figure which ignores agents fees and wages. Eg, £25m transfer fee is the sum. The selling club might only get £22m or the paying club might spend £28m depending on who hired the agent to arrange the deal.
In short. Sullivan is disgraceful serial liar and chief bullshitter. We all accept that a free transfer costs a lot more than 'free' suggests but that is a red herring. Clubs are judged by a standard fee based headline price imo. Agents fees, wages and everything else is disregarded in comparative tables using the actual total price agreed imo.
|
Rusta
1:34 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
Maybe we should have a march. Anyone thought of that before
|
dicksie3
10:43 Tue Apr 17
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
I'm so sick of these lying cheapskate idiot dickhead wanker owners.
They won't change their ways despite the Burnley debacle.
This time next year; we'll be saying the exact same things about them.
|
claypole
10:19 Tue Apr 17
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
Maybe there will be a change in the summer as that glove puppet jock on talksport has been given the nod to slate Brady.
|
White Pony
10:16 Tue Apr 17
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
Every word that comes out of Sullivan and Brady pisses me off. Absolutely detest them both.
|
13 Brentford Rd
10:03 Tue Apr 17
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
IT'S OKAY EVERYONE, SULLIVAN CLAIMS WE SPENT LOADSAMONEY. Not quite sure how much or on who though.......
Truth is our spending should be matching or above Everton's and Newcastle's, that is where we are in terms of club size, not fucking tin pot Stoke, WBA, Huddersfield, Bournemouth, Brighton Watford etc. etc., and below Crystal Palace!
Our squad is so weak and unbalanced we are now playing a left back at CB where we have no cover at all, and 3 midfielders who are either past it or shit with no cover. Sullivan is completely to blame. We do however have loads of strikers on the bench. Moyes doesn't like playing with strikers.
Sullivan had the chance to balance the squad up in January and just wasted the tiny amount he was prepared to spend on a loan we didn't need and a journeyman striker no one had heard of who we didn't need.Then got rid of 3 Centre backs one of whom could have solved the midfield issue too.
The evidence is right there.
He is absolutely fucking clueless!
|
13 Brentford Rd
9:23 Tue Apr 17
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
As I said it's carefully worded bollocks.
You can't kid a kidder!
|
Takashi Miike
8:48 Tue Apr 17
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
i hope they spend fuck all in the summer and they start getting grief again, they are scum who will never change
|
claret on my shirt
8:33 Tue Apr 17
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
They got away with the march etc and now he is beginning to feel a bit more confident again and starts to spout off his huge gob. He needs to go end of, everytime i hear him or read this kind of shit it just makes me more angry
|
RBshorty
8:23 Tue Apr 17
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
There are rich teams. Then there are poor teams. Then. There’s fifty feet of crap. Then there is us.!
|
Trevor B
6:44 Tue Apr 17
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
sullivan does have a slight point, that being that free transfers are never really free. signing bonus and agent's payment are usually far higher than with any normal transfer, personally i think these things should be taken into account across the board for all transfers which would then make things a lot easier to compare.
|
JustAFatKevinDavies
6:44 Tue Apr 17
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
talking of myths...
|
penners28
6:41 Tue Apr 17
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
ahhahah only our lot could try and include agents fees and wages in their "spending"
If that's the case then we'll still be well down the list if all clubs are going to be ranked on all the money they spend on a transfer.
|
cartis
6:40 Tue Apr 17
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth
|
goose 5:06 Tue Apr 17
Absolutley 100%
These cunts will never ever stop taking the fucking piss and need to be driven out.
The are proven liars and bullshitters,next season will be no different, their only mantra is to spend as little as possible in order to survive, even if it means taking a huge gamble like they have done this year.
The club has no future under these cunts whatsoever.
|
| 
