CB Fry

...aaaaand the same old story. At least we didn't have the false hope of being in front.

Maybe a good thing to not be 1-0 up: at least we have to come out still trying to score, rather than shitting ourselves and shutting up shop (badly).

Well, if we play like ths twenty minutes for the rest of the season then we will be absolutely fine.

Ronnie Rosental time.

So a conscious decision to focus on high potential youth rather than experienced players for the first team. A conscious decision, a conscious strategy, a conscious concept. Glad you agree then.

I thought this was thread about our transfer business this summer. You two don't think we have consciously prioritised high-potential young players in our business this summer, then? Fair enough, I think we have and there's been articles and plenty of comments about it. Shame you don't agree.

You're comparing a season that has happened with one that has barely started. I was at the 1-0 win at Derby that season (basically the equivalent weekend to this) and people were buzzing that that team could do well. The concept is the same - let's go with kids, for financial reasons, and let's hope its enough. Execution is slightly different as different league different budget. Anyway I have no interest whatsoever in debating anything with you being that we will be no more than two posts away from your usual routine of your "I never said that I never said that I never said that I never said that" denials whenever anyone tries to (perfectly accurately) paraphrase anything you say. I can't be bothered with your horseshit again.

Staying in the Premier League is a bit different than finishing above the likes of Barnsley/Plymouth/Doncaster/Blackpool in the Championship.

The last time we had an experiment to intentionally play a team of young prospects it didn't end that well. I was unconvinced by last summers window despite universal acclaim on here about what great signings Diallo and Salisu were: they proceeded to do pretty much jack shit in the subsequent season. Maybe, one year on, they may step up. This summer, we look like we have replaced Ings well, and Livramento may be an absolute diamond. But I am not convinced we have resolved our issues in goal and through the spine of the team, especially central defence. This is as well as our issues with resilience/mental toughness. Both could have been resolved by spending our significant cash reserves on a decent front line CB. Instead we have just swelled the ranks of middling interchangeable CBs who are okay bordering on disastrous. I worry we are just a pound-shop version of late-period Wenger Arsenal. Lots of flattering to deceive prettiness and "faith" in gifted young players. But ultimately gutless losers when the pressure is on. Today will be a useful test.

Not sure about everyone else but my world top three players at the moment are 1. Messi 2. Ronaldo 3. Gary Cahill How about everyone else?

So basically we've got two years of this forum pissing and moaning about this buy back clause.

How do you know that Walcott is significantly better than Long in motivating/encouraging/supporting the young players? Why wouldn't/doesn't Long do that as well? Either way it's a pretty nebulous reason to give a player 2 years on seventy odd grand a week.

.....when his contract expires in '23 so just the two entire seasons to go.

Happy with the draw as it is fairly local to me so will probably go. Here's hoping we erase the memory of the last League Cup tie at Bramall Lane. Christ.

I heard it, but it was not much more than as you describe - he didn't elaborate, just something like "if he is still here" or "if he stays at the club" - was a bit odd.

Well, imagine the situation in reverse. We wouldn't be describing this lad as a "great kid with the right priorities and a great attitude" then, thats for sure. Not sure how true this "refused to join training" thing is, but it's not great behaviour for any player. Let's hope we don't see that side of him.

Yes it is slightly pushing it to claim that Mane was joining a club "able to get into Europe" - pretty much no one thought that back when he actually signed. Except maybe Koeman himself.

But we've made gains beyond just bringing in a fee on some of these players. There were significant "net" proceeds from selling Ings because we got a fee and we don't need to fund the salary and bonuses of Danny Ings any more. We don't have to pay him the (estimated) £90k a week that we put in the table, that was firm offer on a contract awaiting signature. So that's about £5m a year right there. Do you think Armstrong strolled in and trousered all that ? I reckon he's on half. So that's at another £2.5 million a year (£10m in four years) on top of the £30m fee. Huge "net" benefit. I wonder who has the higher agent fees, Danny Ings or this kid from the Championship. Who would have had the better bonus plan, Armstrong or the terms in the unsigned Ings deal? The "why don't people understand" routine is nice and cute but forever just looks at hidden cost, not hidden benefit. What about the savings we've made? Why do people "refuse to understand" that?

No, the figures for Leicester were just made up which why I wrote "whoever" and "etc etc". I don't remember what they actually got for Mahrez, it was something like £60m. Wasn't actually making specific point about a specific club. But If you did want to compare, Leicester generally net out as spending what they bring in, as measured in the usual way (fees in, fees spent) unencumbered by the agents costs and oh-but-its-all-in-installments stuff that on this forum we simply must assume. So in that area we are worse than Leicester. And on the pitch we are worse than Leicester because they finished fifth and won a Cup and are good and we are not.

If you ever tell someone how much you bought your house for, do you say the £350k that was your accepted offer, or do you go into chapter and verse about stamp duty and conveyancing costs and the cost of the bacon rolls you bought for the removal men? I think the point is that every other club takes it as read that those kind of additional costs exist. When you see the net spend analysis etc it is at the level of Leicester sold Mahrez for £60m and replaced him with Tielimans and whoever etc for £30m and £15m etc. Agents fees/bonuses etc never ever mentioned because its all the fucking same for all the clubs. We seem to be the only club in the Prem where we can bring in £30m for a striker but can only possibly spend £15m on a replacement and that’s it, or bring in £15m for a centre back and only possibly spend £7m on a replacement because agent fees and removalmen or whatever. Its not a hard concept.

If you pop back here in 2032 I'll be happy to explain it to you.

You can't change the rules because of how someone is doing it.

I think we’ll all look back on this as that time Dr Who starting pointlessly posting shit for his own hilarious amusement (oh, his aching sides) and then got banned.

Have you been in a coma?

Sensible substitution. Try and hold on to the point.