| The last time 11:01 - Aug 5 with 7946 views | TheAlpineShrew |
Who were the last team we went behind against before coming back to win? |  | | |  |
| The last time on 12:07 - Aug 6 with 1064 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| The last time on 12:00 - Aug 6 by E20Jack |
Then if you believe that, you have just proved that the initial point was nonsense - the one I am correctly dismantling. |
Which point is this please? |  | | |
| The last time on 12:10 - Aug 6 with 1058 views | E20Jack |
| The last time on 12:07 - Aug 6 by 34dfgdf54 |
Which point is this please? |
The point that clubs aren’t queuing up to sign Clucas meaning he isn’t good.
If you are going to bore the forum with your particular brand of inane bludgeoning on any sensible discussion, then at least try to keep up Risca. |  |
| |
| The last time on 12:14 - Aug 6 with 1047 views | jack247 |
| The last time on 11:53 - Aug 6 by E20Jack |
You clearly aren’t understanding the point I am making.
It is being suggested that Clucas is not a good player because clubs aren’t lining up to sign him.
That notion should be consistent whether Swansea is the club involved or not.
Hence the Gylfi and Llorente point. Players that they would certainly never be able to shift for close to what they purchased for, yet they are still lauded. |
I think it’s more being suggested that Clucas is worth nowhere near what we paid for him last year. Clubs would be falling over themselves to sign him if we let him go for say £3m.
Gylfi and Llorente are both easily still worth what we paid for them, they more than retained their value while they were here.
Everton and Spurs paid over the odds for them IMO, particularly Gylfi and they had very little chance of retaining that value. Just like we did with Clucas. | | | |
| The last time on 12:15 - Aug 6 with 1044 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| The last time on 12:10 - Aug 6 by E20Jack |
The point that clubs aren’t queuing up to sign Clucas meaning he isn’t good.
If you are going to bore the forum with your particular brand of inane bludgeoning on any sensible discussion, then at least try to keep up Risca. |
The two in question doubled in valuation while being here.
Clucas will not. He will be lucky to halve. | | | |
| The last time on 12:17 - Aug 6 with 1039 views | E20Jack |
| The last time on 12:14 - Aug 6 by jack247 |
I think it’s more being suggested that Clucas is worth nowhere near what we paid for him last year. Clubs would be falling over themselves to sign him if we let him go for say £3m.
Gylfi and Llorente are both easily still worth what we paid for them, they more than retained their value while they were here.
Everton and Spurs paid over the odds for them IMO, particularly Gylfi and they had very little chance of retaining that value. Just like we did with Clucas. |
Eh? That wasn’t the point at all and never has been, that is a fresh point you have introduced now.
point to me where that was being suggested here. | |
| |
| The last time on 12:19 - Aug 6 with 1029 views | E20Jack |
| The last time on 12:15 - Aug 6 by 34dfgdf54 |
The two in question doubled in valuation while being here.
Clucas will not. He will be lucky to halve. |
Irrelevant, Clucas more than doubled his value too at the time we signed him from Hull.
You are talking about Gylfi and Clucas in the present day. Unless you are now saying they are both rubbish?
Clubs certainly are not falling over themselves to sign him and certainly not anywhere near what he was purchased at. Same for Llorente.
So if that makes Clucas rubbish, it makes them rubbish too - by default.
Make your mind up what your point is. [Post edited 6 Aug 2018 12:22]
| |
| |
| The last time on 12:22 - Aug 6 with 1024 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| The last time on 12:17 - Aug 6 by E20Jack |
Eh? That wasn’t the point at all and never has been, that is a fresh point you have introduced now.
point to me where that was being suggested here. |
So hang on, you genuinely believe if Everton were actively trying to get rid of Siggy, which we are with Clucas otherwise we wouldn't be accepting bids halve what we paid for him, there wouldn't be a whole host of clubs trying to acquire his services? | | | |
| The last time on 12:24 - Aug 6 with 1021 views | E20Jack |
| The last time on 12:22 - Aug 6 by 34dfgdf54 |
So hang on, you genuinely believe if Everton were actively trying to get rid of Siggy, which we are with Clucas otherwise we wouldn't be accepting bids halve what we paid for him, there wouldn't be a whole host of clubs trying to acquire his services? |
Again irrelevant.
Unless it is your belief that if they decide to sell they will have clubs curing up to buy him for £45m.
Do you? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The last time on 12:29 - Aug 6 with 1011 views | jack247 |
| The last time on 12:17 - Aug 6 by E20Jack |
Eh? That wasn’t the point at all and never has been, that is a fresh point you have introduced now.
point to me where that was being suggested here. |
You mean the bit about his value?
Clubs aren’t queuing up to buy him, because they aren’t prepared to pay what we want for him. I don’t think it’s much of a leap of faith to assume our asking price is significantly lower than the price we paid for him.
Or have you taken people saying clubs aren’t queuing up to buy him as meaning there wouldn’t be any demand for him regardless of cost? | | | |
| The last time on 12:29 - Aug 6 with 1008 views | Phil_S |
| The last time on 12:24 - Aug 6 by E20Jack |
Again irrelevant.
Unless it is your belief that if they decide to sell they will have clubs curing up to buy him for £45m.
Do you? |
They didn't pay £45m for him. NOwhere near |  | | |
| The last time on 12:33 - Aug 6 with 993 views | E20Jack |
| The last time on 12:29 - Aug 6 by jack247 |
You mean the bit about his value?
Clubs aren’t queuing up to buy him, because they aren’t prepared to pay what we want for him. I don’t think it’s much of a leap of faith to assume our asking price is significantly lower than the price we paid for him.
Or have you taken people saying clubs aren’t queuing up to buy him as meaning there wouldn’t be any demand for him regardless of cost? |
You are losing me now.
I stated that we beat Arsenal 3-1 with Clucas scoring a brace and said “good old Clucas”.
The reply was “that’s why clubs are queuing up for him then” suggesting he isn’t actually very good.
I stated that clubs aren’t queuing up for players constantly lauded as amazing on here either, you can’t have differing rules for players depending on the point you are trying to make.
If the barometer for a good player is having clubs queuing up to sign them at the value paid, then let’s be consistent with that.... yet it only seems to be applied when it suits.
So that point needs a bit more honing before it becomes even the slightest bit worthy of standing. | |
| |
| The last time on 12:38 - Aug 6 with 984 views | E20Jack |
| The last time on 12:29 - Aug 6 by Phil_S |
They didn't pay £45m for him. NOwhere near |
£38m then.
Point remains. | |
| |
| The last time on 12:38 - Aug 6 with 984 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| The last time on 12:33 - Aug 6 by E20Jack |
You are losing me now.
I stated that we beat Arsenal 3-1 with Clucas scoring a brace and said “good old Clucas”.
The reply was “that’s why clubs are queuing up for him then” suggesting he isn’t actually very good.
I stated that clubs aren’t queuing up for players constantly lauded as amazing on here either, you can’t have differing rules for players depending on the point you are trying to make.
If the barometer for a good player is having clubs queuing up to sign them at the value paid, then let’s be consistent with that.... yet it only seems to be applied when it suits.
So that point needs a bit more honing before it becomes even the slightest bit worthy of standing. |
Can you show me where I have said he isn't very good?
I don't think he was worth anywhere near the money we paid for him, and I stand by that, and actually it shows as he's available on a big cut price and no ones biting as of yet. | | | |
| The last time on 12:42 - Aug 6 with 978 views | jack247 |
| The last time on 12:33 - Aug 6 by E20Jack |
You are losing me now.
I stated that we beat Arsenal 3-1 with Clucas scoring a brace and said “good old Clucas”.
The reply was “that’s why clubs are queuing up for him then” suggesting he isn’t actually very good.
I stated that clubs aren’t queuing up for players constantly lauded as amazing on here either, you can’t have differing rules for players depending on the point you are trying to make.
If the barometer for a good player is having clubs queuing up to sign them at the value paid, then let’s be consistent with that.... yet it only seems to be applied when it suits.
So that point needs a bit more honing before it becomes even the slightest bit worthy of standing. |
That was his best game by far and to be fair he was phenomenal. Clubs probably would be queuing up to sign him if he had a few more games like that.
You’re far from a stupid man and I haven’t lost you at all. You understand what I’m saying and can see it’s relevant.
The same would apply to Gylfi and Llorente. Clubs would be queuing up to sign all three of them if the asking price was dropped enough. It’s basic supply and demand.
If the sky article is to be believed, we agreed a fee of £8m. Clubs aren’t falling over themselves to sign him at that price. Drop it low enough (which we may end up doing) and they will.
He isn’t rubbish, he’s just nowhere near as good as he should be for the price we paid for him. Again, same can be said for the other two at the price we sold them. | | | |
| The last time on 12:44 - Aug 6 with 974 views | E20Jack |
| The last time on 12:38 - Aug 6 by 34dfgdf54 |
Can you show me where I have said he isn't very good?
I don't think he was worth anywhere near the money we paid for him, and I stand by that, and actually it shows as he's available on a big cut price and no ones biting as of yet. |
Ah good, so you agree with me that he’s a good player then. Great.
We have no idea of his worth, his Swansea story is still continuing. If he plays a key part in getting up promoted and earning us a return to a £110m windfall and his value rising in the process then he will be.
If not then, then he wasn’t. But I don’t think anyone thought he was, just that he would have more chance of retaining value than a similar foreign counterpart. | |
| |
| The last time on 12:50 - Aug 6 with 957 views | E20Jack |
| The last time on 12:42 - Aug 6 by jack247 |
That was his best game by far and to be fair he was phenomenal. Clubs probably would be queuing up to sign him if he had a few more games like that.
You’re far from a stupid man and I haven’t lost you at all. You understand what I’m saying and can see it’s relevant.
The same would apply to Gylfi and Llorente. Clubs would be queuing up to sign all three of them if the asking price was dropped enough. It’s basic supply and demand.
If the sky article is to be believed, we agreed a fee of £8m. Clubs aren’t falling over themselves to sign him at that price. Drop it low enough (which we may end up doing) and they will.
He isn’t rubbish, he’s just nowhere near as good as he should be for the price we paid for him. Again, same can be said for the other two at the price we sold them. |
You have lost me in terms of relevance to the debate we were having that you then entered. They seem like completely different conversations passed off as the same.
Is Neymar worth £200m? Probably not. Is Pogba worth £100m? No.
I don’t think value paid has any affect on a players ability. Expectation levels maybe. But a good player is a good player regardless of transfer fee.
Clucas is a good player - as are the players above regardless if they are worth what was paid for them, not their problem. | |
| |
| The last time on 12:52 - Aug 6 with 954 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| The last time on 12:44 - Aug 6 by E20Jack |
Ah good, so you agree with me that he’s a good player then. Great.
We have no idea of his worth, his Swansea story is still continuing. If he plays a key part in getting up promoted and earning us a return to a £110m windfall and his value rising in the process then he will be.
If not then, then he wasn’t. But I don’t think anyone thought he was, just that he would have more chance of retaining value than a similar foreign counterpart. |
Familiar foreign counterpart, being, say Mesa, both coming from a lower end top level side in their respective countries, one being sold at less of a cut price than his English counterpart.
You are literally, always wrong. | | | |
| The last time on 12:53 - Aug 6 with 949 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| The last time on 12:50 - Aug 6 by E20Jack |
You have lost me in terms of relevance to the debate we were having that you then entered. They seem like completely different conversations passed off as the same.
Is Neymar worth £200m? Probably not. Is Pogba worth £100m? No.
I don’t think value paid has any affect on a players ability. Expectation levels maybe. But a good player is a good player regardless of transfer fee.
Clucas is a good player - as are the players above regardless if they are worth what was paid for them, not their problem. |
Again, Neymar and Pogba probably both paid for their fees in worldwide shirt sales, so yeah, they probably are worth the money.
Edit - Pogba shirts - £190m, in the first three weeks he signed. [Post edited 6 Aug 2018 12:54]
| | | |
| The last time on 12:54 - Aug 6 with 943 views | E20Jack |
| The last time on 12:52 - Aug 6 by 34dfgdf54 |
Familiar foreign counterpart, being, say Mesa, both coming from a lower end top level side in their respective countries, one being sold at less of a cut price than his English counterpart.
You are literally, always wrong. |
Mesa signed for €12.5m.
Sold for €6m.
Clucas signed for £14.75.
Bid accepted for £8m.
Think you need a new calculator. [Post edited 6 Aug 2018 13:30]
| |
| |
| The last time on 12:57 - Aug 6 with 932 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| The last time on 12:54 - Aug 6 by E20Jack |
Mesa signed for €12.5m.
Sold for €6m.
Clucas signed for £14.75.
Bid accepted for £8m.
Think you need a new calculator. [Post edited 6 Aug 2018 13:30]
|
Mesa - Bought for £11m - Sold for £8m = £3m
Clucas - £15m (approx) - £8m = £7m
I think you need to heed your own advice. | | | |
| The last time on 12:58 - Aug 6 with 932 views | E20Jack |
| The last time on 12:53 - Aug 6 by 34dfgdf54 |
Again, Neymar and Pogba probably both paid for their fees in worldwide shirt sales, so yeah, they probably are worth the money.
Edit - Pogba shirts - £190m, in the first three weeks he signed. [Post edited 6 Aug 2018 12:54]
|
Those stats are nonsense, as always.
1) It is not £190m of new revenue, it is £190m of shirts that get bought anyway, they just happened to choose Pogba on the back as the lettering instead of Rooney.
2) it is not £190m to the club. The vast majority of short sales go the manufacturer. The club retains a fraction, making their money from sponsorship. | |
| |
| The last time on 12:59 - Aug 6 with 930 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| The last time on 12:58 - Aug 6 by E20Jack |
Those stats are nonsense, as always.
1) It is not £190m of new revenue, it is £190m of shirts that get bought anyway, they just happened to choose Pogba on the back as the lettering instead of Rooney.
2) it is not £190m to the club. The vast majority of short sales go the manufacturer. The club retains a fraction, making their money from sponsorship. |
You don't know f*ck all fella. As always. | | | |
| The last time on 13:04 - Aug 6 with 917 views | E20Jack |
| The last time on 12:59 - Aug 6 by 34dfgdf54 |
You don't know f*ck all fella. As always. |
Aye Man United profited to the tune of an extra £190m in the bank in extra shirt sales didn’t they.
Ffs man  | |
| |
| The last time on 13:06 - Aug 6 with 915 views | 34dfgdf54 |
Doesn't look like it, as the same source says we sold Siggy for £45m, and as Phil says, it was nowhere near. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
