Player Watch Player Watch: Pedro Porro

[double0]

What are you harping on about? You've forgotten the point you were even making and now arguing about something else. Best to agree to disagree because you'll end up just arguing with yourself mate

OK mate. You quoted me about credible source. In case you've forgotten.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Yes, in terms of FFP. Worth noting that, although we have a lot of room with FFP, given the negotiations going on right now we would presumably want to keep our FFP status as clean as possible as it’s a huge positive for us.

In terms of keeping our heads above water for FFP, people also seem quick to forget that we have a substantial fee left to pay for Kulusevski this summer, just to retain the quality we currently have. Also, quick to forget how much we spent on making Romero permanent last the summer (on top of a record fee for Richarlison).

We have three first team players on loan (Kulusevski, Lenglet & ), plus Moura leaving on a free transfer. That's four signings required (either loan deal made permanent or someone else signed in their place), with only the limited funds we (hopefully) secure from cut price deals for Winks, Lo Celso & Ndombele to offset this. I'd guess that transfer activity will leave us with a deficit of at least £50m. If we sell any current squad players, we need additional signings to replace them, so their transfer fees won't be offsetting the aforementioned signings.

 

[Yid-ol]

No I'm not, why wasn't it agreed weeks ago? If we were willing to spend that money then why spend all month going back and forth? When you let it run this late there's always a chance the selling club decides to move the goalposts. We make it hard on ourselves because it drags on and leaves no time left to get another. Most deals we work on are exactly like this one and why we always fall short of completing the team.

Selling club wanted to keep him till after cup final? It's not always as simple as saying I want x player now!

 

[bc205]

No I'm not, why wasn't it agreed weeks ago? If we were willing to spend that money then why spend all month going back and forth? When you let it run this late there's always a chance the selling club decides to move the goalposts. We make it hard on ourselves because it drags on and leaves no time left to get another. Most deals we work on are exactly like this one and why we always fall short of completing the team.

Lets be honest, neither of us has a clue about all the ins and outs of transfers. There are any number of reasons why this transfer could have dragged on. You're just making lots of assumptions and blaming the club for everything. All you're doing is looking for any reason possible to have a moan.

 

[DFF]

As I said, going by some itk at the start, we had limited funds due to still having too many players on the books on silly wages.

 

[Athenspur]

Didn't Arsenal get where they are after their big money signings failed like Pepe? After high earners like Aubameyang left etc...?
How did spending big money work out for United?

City have only spent over £50mil fee on a player like 2 or 3 times, with Grealish of all players being their most expensive and he's still not an all round success.

Looking at the fee's isn't the point and shouldn't be. It's buying the right players for the team at the right time. Case in point with Arsenal, Zinchenko and Jesus both £50mil or less and have clicked.
You look at us, of late our best bits of business are Kulu, Bentancur and Romero. All under £50mil each.

So yes, some of the other top 6 clubs spend this money 'no problem'. But that doesn't mean it works or we should necessarily adopt that approach as it's not a guarantee or close to one, especially when players who haven't even played one full season in a top flight are being quoted for 70mil.

This. Plus, the madness of spending 60 million on Richarlison was always going back to bite us one way or another.

 

[joelstinton14]

I've defended his role here today on this deal but in all honesty this wouldn't shock me in the slightest.

Not having a pop at you mental, but this guy is genuinely one of, if not the worst spurs related account on Twitter. Creeps into my feed from time to time and even in the Poch years etc he never had anything positive to say. Ever. I don’t know how people can be constantly angry.

 

[Trotter]

Who knows but I'm gunna trust every credible source saying they changed the terms over some random guy on SC talking about his own guesses as if they are fact

Every credible source ?
Sources In Portugal (no doubt briefed by Sporting) says we have reneged on the agreement made over weekend.
Sources in UK (briefed by club) say Sporting changed goalposts, just repeated by all others.
It is just a he says she says situation at moment.
This is all about the discounting/factoring on the finance, and either party could be responsible for that, Sporting say Spurs said they were paying and have reneged, Spurs saying we won’t, we will pay per our usual terms not up front. If Sporting don’t get the terms of the release clause, which they won’t as things stand, they are well within their rights to tell us to fuck off.

 

[Cel]

In terms of keeping our heads above water for FFP, people also seem quick to forget that we have a substantial fee left to pay for Kulusevski this summer, just to retain the quality we currently have. Also, quick to forget how much we spent on making Romero permanent last the summer (on top of a record fee for Richarlison).

We have three first team players on loan (Kulusevski, Lenglet & ), plus Moura leaving on a free transfer. That's four signings required (either loan deal made permanent or someone else signed in their place), with only the limited funds we (hopefully) secure from cut price deals for Winks, Lo Celso & Ndombele to offset this. I'd guess that transfer activity will leave us with a deficit of at least £50m. If we sell any current squad players, we need additional signings to replace them, so their transfer fees won't be offsetting the aforementioned signings.

Can add Lloris on the leaving on a free list most likely too.

 

[Yid-ol]

Thanks, but that doesn't show what we have to spend.

Yes we have low wage to turn over, but we also have probably a good chunk going to pay for the stadium also.

 

[Dazzazzad]

We must be the only club to inject 150m in to the club on top of transfer budget and spend less. Disgraceful. There is no defending it what ever way you slice it.

As another poster calculated, our net spend in the last 4 years is up 10x compared to the prior 4 years.

 

[double0]

I don't remember much of his transfer. Just that it was a long term signing than a one now for Conte.

Was there issue with it or not?

Seriously.

 

[mil1lion]

Didn't Arsenal get where they are after their big money signings failed like Pepe? After high earners like Aubameyang left etc...?
How did spending big money work out for United?

City have only spent over £50mil fee on a player like 2 or 3 times, with Grealish of all players being their most expensive and he's still not an all round success.

Looking at the fee's isn't the point and shouldn't be. It's buying the right players for the team at the right time. Case in point with Arsenal, Zinchenko and Jesus both £50mil or less and have clicked.
You look at us, of late our best bits of business are Kulu, Bentancur and Romero. All under £50mil each.

So yes, some of the other top 6 clubs spend this money 'no problem'. But that doesn't mean it works or we should necessarily adopt that approach as it's not a guarantee or close to one, especially when players who haven't even played one full season in a top flight are being quoted for 70mil.

The point is that arsenal take a risk by spending big money. Now look at them? They've spent big and backed their manager so now it's working out. Utd have started to do the same for Ten Haag and already look far better. No point mentioning City because they're at a different stage to us. They already have a great squad so only need the odd big signing now. They've spent about a billion on their squad though. We're far from them so need to spend more to get to that level and then we can do that. Conte said himself that once we get to that point then we only need 1 or 2 big money signings. We won't even make 1 big money signing now and we still have much to build. Yes we can make great deals too but you have to push the boat out on others. We did it on Romero but how often does it happen? Even then it's a loan to buy. All the top clubs spend big money on important players even when they get great deals as well.

 

[spurs mental]

Not having a pop at you mental, but this guy is genuinely one of, if not the worst spurs related account on Twitter. Creeps into my feed from time to time and even in the Poch years etc he never had anything positive to say. Ever. I don’t know how people can be constantly angry.

Oh I know what hes like unfortunately, he was just RTd on my timeline today and it made me chuckle.

 

[Cel]

As another poster calculated, our net spend in the last 4 years is up 10x compared to the prior 4 years.

Our recent issues have been in how well it's spent, not whether the funds have been made available to do so. And tbh, last couple of windows have been OK since Paratici came in.

 

[Freddie]

It would have been closer to 68million because of the additional tax liability. Is Porro a player worth overspending on by so much?

Really? Where have you got this figure from?

 

[Trix]

In terms of keeping our heads above water for FFP, people also seem quick to forget that we have a substantial fee left to pay for Kulusevski this summer, just to retain the quality we currently have. Also, quick to forget how much we spent on making Romero permanent last the summer (on top of a record fee for Richarlison).

We have three first team players on loan (Kulusevski, Lenglet & ), plus Moura leaving on a free transfer. That's four signings required (either loan deal made permanent or someone else signed in their place), with only the limited funds we (hopefully) secure from cut price deals for Winks, Lo Celso & Ndombele to offset this. I'd guess that transfer activity will leave us with a deficit of at least £50m. If we sell any current squad players, we need additional signings to replace them, so their transfer fees won't be offsetting the aforementioned signings.

This is correct but at the same time we didn't spend any money when we signed them. It's all well and good saying well we have to pay x amount this year ignoring we've paid out nothing or very small amounts in previous windows. I haven't looked into it but as for all the financials doing the rounds regarding how much we've spent compared to Arsenal for instance do they show those players as being signed for the money we are going to pay? or are they not included at all?

 

[H-SF]

Not having a pop at you mental, but this guy is genuinely one of, if not the worst spurs related account on Twitter. Creeps into my feed from time to time and even in the Poch years etc he never had anything positive to say. Ever. I don’t know how people can be constantly angry.

Yep. I'd like new owners but can't help but despise twitter accounts like this that present themselves as the leaders of the ENICOUT movement as they are genuinely just irrational and make up lies to fuel their own agendas.

 

[mil1lion]

Selling club wanted to keep him till after cup final? It's not always as simple as saying I want x player now!

They hadn't even played the semis while we started talking let alone the final

 

[EastLondonYid]

We're all having a party
We're all having a party
We're all having a parteee.






When Pedro Porro signs.