Topic: Sportsbet.io's English Premier League Football Pool Discussion Thread - page 29. (Read 140060 times)

Man City doesn't need the money, Yeah. Is having the money not a better business move than a player who wants more than the club can afford to provide, it will only lead to further toxicity like the case of Joao Cancelo after the World Cup, with the way things were heading Alvarez mind seemed to be made up, and I don't think City can afford him more minutes than he's already getting, for a player that started 23 premier league games last season, according Man City website, he played in 54 games, and started in 39 of them in all competitions. He had the most games played in than any other Man City player last season, also had the most games started in than any other Man City attacker other than Foden and Haaland. I understand this doesn't translate into his level of importance for the club, but I think he's being considered a part of their imminent transition given the departure of Gundogan last season, De Bruyne almost left this season and is probably playing his final season with the club too, Alvarez look pretty much like the next in line to be a focal part of the face of the club imo, perhaps the club could have had better dialogue, I just don't think Alvarez camp was in for it, I mean as a player that young, he's won it all too in terms of trophies right ? aside for personal accolades which I think he would stand a better chance too away from City as an individual.

Stats source: https://www.mancity.com/news/mens/season-overview-julian-alvarez-63853709#:~:text=Alvarez%20finished%20the%20season%20with,19%20goals%20and%2013%20assists.

City didn't want to sell, it was Alvarez decision to find stability somewhere else, being a bench player for both club and country must be really hard, he saw what Palmer became after leaving his comfort zone. There were not too many options for him BTW. PSG are behaving broke these days and do not longer want to invest like fools, they've learnt their lessons.

Gallagher sale was long overdue but getting Samu for £35m feels.like we sold Gallagher for nothing. The Samu guy was so bad that ATM had to send him away on loan, that's the guy we're getting. Lol

Financially - selling Alvarez is a great deal. But does City need the money?
I would have kept him, he played a lot and played great last season. If I was Alvarez and was looking for a place to settle, Atletico would be really low on the list.

Weird transfer from all angles.

@igebotz - theres a silver lining for you there - you're getting rid of Gallagher.

The most annoying part is that we have to wait till they get Alvarez and be 100 percent sure he's their player before letting their flop to us, we're waiting on the line with our £35m. We see mediocre, the owners sees investments.


I'm sure it's more to do with his relationship with Pep than playing time( listening to his last interview) but....

Getting more playing time is one thing; playing in your favourite position is another, and as long as Halaand is on the team, he will never be able to claim the top position. He'll always be in his shadow; it must be difficult for a top striker like him to not know where he fits in the team, as he's picked at random whenever Pep wants... At his age, he needs stability. He will get that at ATM.

Now Manchester city needs to replace him before league resumes -  can't see anyone on their list right now.

It is just weird to make the move after his most capped season. He played more Premier league matches than any City player last season, accounting for injuries to Debruyne and Halland it was still a very promising season. Debruyne likely leaves next year, leaving a gap in the team with little signings this window. It seemed the most logical season to be motivated to stay.

He probably wanted certainty on his place in the squad and position as well. Will be interesting to see his stats with A. Madrid this season.

- Jay -

Yeah, you guys are signing another mediocre youngster on another 6 year deal. Almost like the goal is breeding players not playing football 

Pep never guarantees minutes to the players and Alvarez got sick and tired of waiting to be a star for the club and decide to try his luck elsewhere. Too bad, I think he would get more and more minutes on KDB place at least.

I am really puzzled at Manchester City's reluctance in the transfer market, I would have thought the plan was to keep the squad as it is and build on that with the youngsters, but players have gotten older and now they sell Alvarez who featured in more matches for them last season than almost everyone else in the team.

Great ROI on Alvarez, their net spend will be much lower now. All the talk of using money to win the league will have to get silenced some more, not that I ever agreed with it.

- Jay -

It might appear so, but I don't count my chickens. Nunez still has to start (haha). But yes, am glad he's finally sorted out under Slot. He may not have to play our biggest games but if he does an Origi I'll be pleased.


Already did, and today paid also for CLS63, the result of a sidebet I lost to him in BSFL. The miserable cycle of sidebetting.

Julian Alvarez going to ATM for €95m oh God how did they manage to pull that out? Julian Alvarez is good but he's a €65-70m max player. Sad we're watching Alvarez and Gallagher go to ATM while we're getting their bum Samu Omorodion for £35m. No more Osimhen then ... I hate this football club right now... No single ambition

That is what the free market gets you.

Do you remember how it was in Yugoslavia? Players couldn't leave our local league before they were 28 years old.
Something like that will never happen again but some limits should be in place. Or mandatory contracts that club that had player in their ranks for more than 4 years or whatever get a percentage of each subsequent transfer.

It further divides the gap between the rich and the poor. There's no real way to protect young players, and these top clubs poach youngsters that are 15-16 years old, even younger.
Then they cannot give them playing time, so they loan them out.

A player from, let's say, Preston is a huge potential in 14-yo categories. Preston has no way to keep him, although they had him since he was 5 years old. Let's say Arsenal got him, the case goes to tribunal, Preston gets pennies (few million tops).
Otherwise, the player would have played for Preston aged 16. Now he's in Arsenal, he can't, so he goes to 3 loans until he's 21 years old. After that he almost always gets sold for profit and his base club gets nothing.

The system is shitty and needs to be changed, otherwise let's just speed it all up and have no money limit Superleagues.

Yes it's within the law, and most of these 100s of loan armys actually had a better career away from Stanford Bridge (KDB, Salah..... More) through loan, and all that while some came back to play for us. We've been running a successful loan business, and most of our Academy actually made their way to the first team (reasons why Academy players from Arsenal and Manchester United keep coming because we know how to shape careers). Take a look at Omari Hutchinson, he's now an important and a first team player within a short time he left Arsenal to join us. We don't treat them like stocks, we build a career for them while getting returns on our investments.


Reasons we buy other clubs to help us grow some of our extra players. Building for the future is very important

Don't forget to sign up to the new pool for those who haven't already: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5504754



I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Football clubs tend to have a load of players on the books from an early age as many won't ever make the grade or be good enough for the first team. For every Messi and Ronaldo they manage to develop there are hundreds if not thousands who don't live up to expectations or get injured etc. They spend a lot on developing them so instead of just sitting on the bench or playing in the B-Team they go and get some real world experience and it's a good tester for the original club to see who's going to be good enough. 

What you are doing there should be banned from football.
Italian clubs do it too, they have 100 youth players on contracts that they send all over Europe and then resell them - you treat them like stocks, not like players.

Don't get me wrong - it's within the rules and you were smart to do it - but I'd let clubs register 30 players that can play in the season and the rest can play only junior leagues. It's crazy that some clubs have 70-80 registered players.

Kai in bracket ( more beer) 

Does it matter ? Doesn't take away the fact that we made the most money from Academy since 2015 more than any other club in England, we may be shit at many things but selling players for value is not one of them. What are you guys really good at BTW

How we got Omari Hutchinson from Arsenal for free and got £20m on sale with zero EPL start within 2 years should be studied.

I used Pepe as an example of a player we have bought for such an amount and sold for nothing. Contributed very little to the club too.

If you go by poor deals over the years we have had a couple, Havertz, Jesus and Partey are not on that list for me. Havertz is a key part of the football we played in the second half of last season, Jesus was decent in his first season before getting displayed and battling injury problems (I am looking forward to him this season). Partey has also battled injury.

Kai is not an academy player and I'm struggling to think of another name, other than Mount, you have sold for a similar amount or close.

- Jay -

Others are balancing their books with big sales, and no matter how you spin it, this does not look good for a club that claims to have one of the best Academy in England but hasn't been able to get anything close to 50 million on any of their players for more than two decades, something Chelsea does effortlessly even with our flops (Kai and Mount). You all spend more money on incomings than outgoings every summer, and I'm curious how you keep your books balanced. I want to know .....



I'd argue that we should give Harvetz one more season, not because we haven't seen enough, but simply to be fair. G. Jesus and Partey are total flops that no one talks about; Jesus may fool them with those unproductive dribbles. The fact that Palmer has more goal contribution in a single season than Jesus has in his entire Arsenal career in fewer game time should tell you everything you need to know. They'd be incredibly lucky to get anything over 35m for G. Jesus.


Carvalho could be the next big thing this season - no  more loan?

Friendlies mean absolutely cockshit. Carvalho playing up front, Salah in experimental, Slot better not be getting ideas into his bald head. We know very little about our actual capabilities.

I'll be happy if we get past 10 games with 6 dropped points, to be honest (a run that'll include United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Brighton). Anything more and I'll probably get overexcited though...

Incoming?

I'd argue Havertz is flopping, Jesus as well. Partey cost a lot without any real contribution.
If we're looking 10 years back, you had that one horror season in which you brought Auba, Lacazette and Mkhitaryan.

All clubs have bad deals, that's just how it goes. Arsenal recently has a lot of good ones, but it's also partially because they are spending a lot of money.

Clubs were always about the profit and never did anything for players, reason why we have so many B-tier players from 10-15 years ago currently facing bankruptcy or having to find a completely new career path to stay afloat. The players only just woke up to that and the clubs are doubling down. There is always an unrealistic expectation of loyalty from employers when none is offered to them.

You're focused on big sales, we are focused on balanced books, we haven't sold a top rated player in years, since Sanchez I think. There are easily 9 players in our squad currently who will be sold for that amount or higher.
You would not expect us to sell ESR for €50 million.

The one business deal we flopped in the last 10 years was Pepe.

- Jay -