• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Ross Barkley

I wonder how much negotiation we've done with Barkley himself? For example, we could say to him 'for every £1m less than £30m which we pay for you, we'll give you £500k'....give him the incentive to stir things up...
 
AdamB said:
I wonder how much negotiation we've done with Barkley himself? For example, we could say to him 'for every £1m less than £30m which we pay for you, we'll give you £500k'....give him the incentive to stir things up...
Click to expand...

I doubt that there have been any conversations like that. It doesn't sound like the way that Levy does business and it would be bad for us if it got out.
 
milo said:
I think that it is crazy money for a player who is good but not great and who will have no resale value in a couple of years.
Click to expand...
I have to agree, even in this crazy market

I do like Siggy. He is a good technical player but my abiding memory of him was he was very easy to dispossess. A little too lightweight and didn't have the all around game to make up for it. In his defense he was often played out of his favoured position. Good but not good enough.
 
Out for 6 weeks with a torn hamstring...

Does that end our interest for now?

January cut-price deal could also be an option.
 
milo said:
I doubt that there have been any conversations like that. It doesn't sound like the way that Levy does business and it would be bad for us if it got out.
Click to expand...
It would constitute an illegal approach for a player. That being said it is quite conceivable that we have told Barkley's agent that we are prepared to execute a £50 million package for Barkley over 5 years. He can then be left to do the maths....
 
milo said:
I think that it is crazy money for a player who is good but not great and who will have no resale value in a couple of years.
Click to expand...

I don't know why people are getting so excersised about transfer fees. It's not our money. But it is the market. We need to get used to it. Plenty of players have recently been bought at what seems "crazy money" but there has been a paradigm shift in the market and this is the new reality for now. We have to accept it and even Levy seems to now - if some of his reported recent bids are to be believed. For example, earlier in the window, before Sessignon had signed his Fulham contract, if we had gone in this hard then, he would in all probability been our player now.

We recently received 50million for a 27 year old full back who, according to Linaker, "can't cross a ball". Where is Walker's sell on value? While I think we can safely leave it to Levy not to expose the club to financial ruin, he must compete in this marketplace awash with money if we are to secure the quality players we need to take us forward. 5 or even 10 million extra is not going to ruin us. If it is the difference between Poch getting the tools he needs to finish the job, or not, then it is a false economy. We have already banked about 65-70million this window and have TV money and our reward for coming second to spend.

If we don't adequately strengthen our squad and have a poor season as a result, then we risk the break up of a fantastic team on the verge of great things. Now is the time to invest for the future. Let Levy worry about the fees. He is in the best position to judge our financial state - not us fans.
 
Pirate55 said:
I don't know why people are getting so excersised about transfer fees. It's not our money. But it is the market. We need to get used to it. Plenty of players have recently been bought at what seems "crazy money" but there has been a paradigm shift in the market and this is the new reality for now. We have to accept it and even Levy seems to now - if some of his reported recent bids are to be believed. For example, earlier in the window, before Sessignon had signed his Fulham contract, if we had gone in this hard then, he would in all probability been our player now.

We recently received 50million for a 27 year old full back who, according to Linaker, "can't cross a ball". Where is Walker's sell on value? While I think we can safely leave it to Levy not to expose the club to financial ruin, he must compete in this marketplace awash with money if we are to secure the quality players we need to take us forward. 5 or even 10 million extra is not going to ruin us. If it is the difference between Poch getting the tools he needs to finish the job, or not, then it is a false economy. We have already banked about 65-70million this window and have TV money and our reward for coming second to spend.

If we don't adequately strengthen our squad and have a poor season as a result, then we risk the break up of a fantastic team on the verge of great things. Now is the time to invest for the future. Let Levy worry about the fees. He is in the best position to judge our financial state - not us fans.
Click to expand...
People care about fees because money wasted by the club hurts the team. What's the true cost of expensive flops like Rebrov, Bentley and (so far) Sissoko in terms of the footballing results of the club? We'll never know, but given the narrow margins involved the cost is likely significant.

There's also the opportunity cost. What could £30m have been spent on last season instead of Sissoko? How could that player we didn't sign instead of Sissoko have helped us on the pitch last season? Or how convoys could two potential £15m players have looked to us?

You talk about trusting Levy. I think that particular part of your post is better aimed at those who just want us to spend, and spend earlier, and spend on more players rather than those who try to voice concern about the fee of a potential target.
 
Finney Is Back said:
It would constitute an illegal approach for a player. That being said it is quite conceivable that we have told Barkley's agent that we are prepared to execute a £50 million package for Barkley over 5 years. He can then be left to do the maths....
Click to expand...

Would it? I thought we'd already been given permission to talk to Barkley about terms, in the same way which we've apparently agreed personal terms with Sanchez, despite the fee to the club not having been agreed in either case. Can't see that it would be an illegal approach, unless I'm missing something
 
AdamB said:
Would it? I thought we'd already been given permission to talk to Barkley about terms, in the same way which we've apparently agreed personal terms with Sanchez, despite the fee to the club not having been agreed in either case. Can't see that it would be an illegal approach, unless I'm missing something
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of us being given permission to talk to Barkley. Where did you see that?
 
the dza said:
I guess in the meantime, he still provides a good option to cover/compete with Eriksen and Dele whilst also filling in for Dembele for the games he needs to rest for. It's all speculation anyway, we have to sign the guy first.
Click to expand...
Possibly. Is he the best option in the market for that role is the question imo.

I would rather see Winks fill in for Dembele personally.
milo said:
I think that the immediate role he would play is being an upgrade on Sissoko.
Click to expand...
Sissoko mainly plays on the right for us though. Not a position I've seen Barkley in I must admit, but not one I see him as particularly suited for.

Part of why I don't quite get this transfer, should it happen. His best role so far is the #10 role Alli fills for us so brilliantly. For that role we have Eriksen too. Two players clearly better there than Barkley at this point. Someone more natural in the wide roles would make more sense to me. Allowing Eriksen to move centrally to cover for Alli if needed, whilst providing natural competition and cover for Son and Lamela. The competition and cover it was claimed Sissoko would bring, but so far hasn't delivered on.

Take the Saudi Sportswashing Machine game as an example. What was needed on our bench was never a #10. Son as the natural starter for Sissoko when fit, but what is then needed on the bench? Wide options...
 
braineclipse said:
Possibly. Is he the best option in the market for that role is the question imo.

I would rather see Winks fill in for Dembele personally.

Sissoko mainly plays on the right for us though. Not a position I've seen Barkley in I must admit, but not one I see him as particularly suited for.

Part of why I don't quite get this transfer, should it happen. His best role so far is the #10 role Alli fills for us so brilliantly. For that role we have Eriksen too. Two players clearly better there than Barkley at this point. Someone more natural in the wide roles would make more sense to me. Allowing Eriksen to move centrally to cover for Alli if needed, whilst providing natural competition and cover for Son and Lamela. The competition and cover it was claimed Sissoko would bring, but so far hasn't delivered on.

Take the Saudi Sportswashing Machine game as an example. What was needed on our bench was never a #10. Son as the natural starter for Sissoko when fit, but what is then needed on the bench? Wide options...
Click to expand...
I still think Barkley's attributes lend themselves to him becoming more of a Dembele type player over time.

The problem is where he fits in our team until then. As you've stated, we have at least two players significantly better than him in his current position.
 
scaramanga said:
I still think Barkley's attributes lend themselves to him becoming more of a Dembele type player over time.

The problem is where he fits in our team until then. As you've stated, we have at least two players significantly better than him in his current position.
Click to expand...
Quite possible. And if Pochettino sees him as an exceptional talent for that job I'm all for it.
 
I think given Poch's recent quotes about signing some players to boost competition, Sissoko may have served a purpose to that end. No doubt we would have loved him to perform better, and it would have been great if he added a really direct option, but he also never really had a run. And he did play in some big wins for us - City at home for example.

But the other benefit is that it may have helped players like Alli and Son really kick on knowing Poch would be all too willing to give a big signing a chance to prove his worth if they slipped. In reality, Sissoko added no more than GKN would have, but his reputation and fee may have served as a motivation for players competing for his spot to keep him out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back