C/O
Old school. Doesn’t do analytics.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2018
- Messages
- 4,079
- Likes
- 4,773
I would imagine they are saying those teams are pretty much the Yankees or Dodgers of soccer.
It just seems like they are some kids playing Football Manager and they are always trying to buy the next flavor of the month. It also doesn’t seem like many of the moves are very tactful. They’ve always been known for just buying up players and loaning out - it’s why I didn’t think it was a good move for Pulisic.Because it’s an early potential deal when we’re not in the January window?
Or because it’s a 60M potential signing after just spending a ton in the summer?
It just seems like they are some kids playing Football Manager and they are always trying to buy the next flavor of the month. It also doesn’t seem like many of the moves are very tactful. They’ve always been known for just buying up players and loaning out - it’s why I didn’t think it was a good move for Pulisic.
Curious, how exactly do you think Liverpool, United, Barca, Madrid, became big clubs back in the day?Did they actually turn a legitimate profit, or did Etihad just sponsor the stadium/kit to some absurd tune to make the club look profitable for FFP purposes? Not being snarky, it’s a genuine question.
I get this point but every major team does this. If we truly want what you’re explaining above, we all better drop our clubs and become Ajax, Sporting, and Monaco fans. Very few instances occur where these young kids become stars at the major clubs in England and Spain.It just seems like they are some kids playing Football Manager and they are always trying to buy the next flavor of the month. It also doesn’t seem like many of the moves are very tactful. They’ve always been known for just buying up players and loaning out - it’s why I didn’t think it was a good move for Pulisic.
I disagree. LFC a major club and look at their net spend compared to City/PSG.I get this point but every major team does this. If we truly want what you’re explaining above, we all better drop our clubs and become Ajax, Sporting, and Monaco fans. Very few instances occur where these young kids become stars at the major clubs in England and Spain.
My point isn't so much with Nkunku specifically, its that Chelsea in my opinion need a true striker. Nkunku to me is a similar player (positionally speaking) to Pulisic, Havertz, Sterling, etc. It just seemed to me, especially in this past window, that they were throwing around money just for the sake of throwing it around and the moves seemed more like going after the hot commodity vs true fit with club.I mean from a tactical standpoint, I can’t really tell you for sure as I’m still learning Potters system and I don’t watch much Bundesliga but what i do know is Nkunku is very tactically flexible and is talented. Can play attacking midfield all the way to striker. That type of player I would imagine would do really well with Potter. So I would probably disagree with the tactful part.
As far as the loan army, that was a Roman philosophy. Loans will still be used to get young players time and minutes just like every other club but the days of buying players and end up loaning them out year after year are over.
In the case of Liverpool and United, not by having hundreds of millions worth of losses underwritten by sovereign wealth for a decade and a half.Curious, how exactly do you think Liverpool, United, Barca, Madrid, became big clubs back in the day?