comment by Sem (U9729)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 50 seconds ago
What happened to the really good Brazilian players? Like the flair players of yesteryear who used to blow you away with their skill and talent. You still get some good ones but generally they turn out to be Richarlison or Fred.
Maybe I've got it wrong and it just seemed this way when I was younger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly what you've done there is what I would place him..
...in the same bracket as fred
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah they're not exactly the sort of players that come to mind when you think about Brazil and football. They're more like your standard British player.
Wonder if Brazilians take the pisss out of these players by trying to make them sound English, like we do about our own when we try to make them sound Brazilian - Richard Lowson
If spurs smash 50-60 mill off their budget on him then that kinda puts the idea of them catching City and Liverpool to bed š sort of thing I'd expect from United.
I just can't see it. Limited funds, and had to twist Levys arm to get them, then bring in an Everton striker for a silly fee? I don't buy it tbh.
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
You could get someone to play the same role for a third of the price
---
Someone proven in the PL who's actually pretty good? I think you're struggling tbh. Of course there's always cheaper options from abroad but they're more risky. Hate him or rate him, you know exactly what you're getting with Richarlison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think 60m for richarlison is about as risky as terrier for 20m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure how you're working that out? In terms of an investment sure. But on the pitch, the risk with a Terrier is that they do a Soldado or a Janssen and just straight up flop. You've got basically 0 chance of that happening with a proven player like Richarlison.
But yeah 60m definitely seems like overpaying. Everton should be grateful to get their money back. Maybe they're still mad about Dele
I don't think the difference between playing in the premier league and not affects the chance of flopping to such a degree that it makes sense to spend an extra 40m on someone
Especially when that player is only going to play about 2000 minutes a season for us in all competitions
I'm not getting your maths, though. If you've got 40m extra and it's going to buy what you need, what's the point on saving it and buying something cheaper for the sake of it that doesn't do what you need? Then you have to go and buy the first thing you needed anyway, only now there's idiot tax and a cheaper thing you have to get rid of somehow.
I reckon any rotation option will get 20-25 games
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm not getting your maths, though. If you've got 40m extra and it's going to buy what you need, what's the point on saving it and buying something cheaper for the sake of it that doesn't do what you need? Then you have to go and buy the first thing you needed anyway, only now there's idiot tax and a cheaper thing you have to get rid of somehow.
I reckon any rotation option will get 20-25 games
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because that money can be used elsewhere. Because one will lose us less money if they flop. I just don't believe in always buying the most expensive option because you can
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 4 minutes ago
I don't think the difference between playing in the premier league and not affects the chance of flopping to such a degree that it makes sense to spend an extra 40m on someone
Especially when that player is only going to play about 2000 minutes a season for us in all competitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially when he says that he has a 0% chance of failure at spur's, just cos hes played in the PL already. Football doesn't work like that at all. There is always a risk he won't fit in or work out like intended. Playing well at one team in the league is no guarantee at all the transfer works. I don't get that logic at all.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
It's not about buying the most expensive because you can.. obviously that's silly. That's the Ed Woodward strategy. It's buying the right player even if they are a bit overpriced, because you know it'll improve the team.
Back to the maths, you can't tell me the chances of Richarlison flopping is anything like a young player from another league like Terrier.
Though of course, yes. The money isn't endless and we do still need a midfielder or two. Fair enough
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 4 minutes ago
I don't think the difference between playing in the premier league and not affects the chance of flopping to such a degree that it makes sense to spend an extra 40m on someone
Especially when that player is only going to play about 2000 minutes a season for us in all competitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially when he says that he has a 0% chance of failure at spur's, just cos hes played in the PL already. Football doesn't work like that at all. There is always a risk he won't fit in or work out like intended. Playing well at one team in the league is no guarantee at all the transfer works. I don't get that logic at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said basically 0 chance of him flopping. He's already settled in the country and the league and performs regularly. Of course the transfer might not work out but it's not going to be like an Ndombele situation or Sancho, where they looked great in another league but whoops it doesn't translate
I suppose I should probably assume the amount of money we want to spend on this position implies that we plan to rotate more
Players playing in the same league are more likely to keep performing consistently in that league than players who've never played in that league before. Make sense? No? Ok
Chris
What the stats between him & Raphinha? Same age, same nationality, same price
I'm ok with this, he is PL proven, the right age, can play anywhere across the front, will provide the shiethousery we have missed since Coco left and has potential under the right coach.
Conte must believe he can get the best from him and I'd rather spend big on a player already proven in the PL, than an unproven player in the PL from abroad.
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Players playing in the same league are more likely to keep performing consistently in that league than players who've never played in that league before. Make sense? No? Ok
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see what you are getting at bit just feel it's value is overplayed. Look at Sanchez at Arsenal. Tearing it up. Goes to united and can barely tie his shoes together. Torres too. Plenty of players that have had much more success have still flopped hard transferring from clubs in the same league.
With all the strengthening spurs need I just don't see how this is good value or makes sense. Price tag just seems bonkers. That lazio mf is being touted about for like 30-40 mill when he was closer to 100 before and I just think $ would be spent better on so many other deals.
Raphinha at Leeds in the PL
0.43 non penalty goals + assists per 90
0.50 non penalty xG + xA per 90
Richarlison at Everton in the PL
0.41 non penalty goals + assists per 90
0.39 non penalty xG + xA per 90
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 4 minutes ago
Raphinha at Leeds in the PL
0.43 non penalty goals + assists per 90
0.50 non penalty xG + xA per 90
Richarlison at Everton in the PL
0.41 non penalty goals + assists per 90
0.39 non penalty xG + xA per 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So pretty similar
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Players playing in the same league are more likely to keep performing consistently in that league than players who've never played in that league before. Make sense? No? Ok
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see what you are getting at bit just feel it's value is overplayed. Look at Sanchez at Arsenal. Tearing it up. Goes to united and can barely tie his shoes together. Torres too. Plenty of players that have had much more success have still flopped hard transferring from clubs in the same league.
With all the strengthening spurs need I just don't see how this is good value or makes sense. Price tag just seems bonkers. That lazio mf is being touted about for like 30-40 mill when he was closer to 100 before and I just think $ would be spent better on so many other deals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough yeah I get that. Though I think the comparison is a bit unfair, here. Terrier is 20 I believe, only had one good season so he (and players like that) are a punt for a variety of reasons. Though PL proven might be overplayed, as you point out, being settled in the country is a big factor also.
I would say the examples you gave are kind of outliers, though. Typically transfers between PL clubs turn out as you expect on the most part.
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Players playing in the same league are more likely to keep performing consistently in that league than players who've never played in that league before. Make sense? No? Ok
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see what you are getting at bit just feel it's value is overplayed. Look at Sanchez at Arsenal. Tearing it up. Goes to united and can barely tie his shoes together. Torres too. Plenty of players that have had much more success have still flopped hard transferring from clubs in the same league.
With all the strengthening spurs need I just don't see how this is good value or makes sense. Price tag just seems bonkers. That lazio mf is being touted about for like 30-40 mill when he was closer to 100 before and I just think $ would be spent better on so many other deals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough yeah I get that. Though I think the comparison is a bit unfair, here. Terrier is 20 I believe, only had one good season so he (and players like that) are a punt for a variety of reasons. Though PL proven might be overplayed, as you point out, being settled in the country is a big factor also.
I would say the examples you gave are kind of outliers, though. Typically transfers between PL clubs turn out as you expect on the most part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a bit biased too cos I hate Richarilson and think spurs should def spend that $ on Savic at Lazio. They're the sort of deals I'd call a bargain. Good scouting should say if someone fits the system/country, in most instances. Quality like he has is what spurs need in mf I feel.
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Players playing in the same league are more likely to keep performing consistently in that league than players who've never played in that league before. Make sense? No? Ok
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see what you are getting at bit just feel it's value is overplayed. Look at Sanchez at Arsenal. Tearing it up. Goes to united and can barely tie his shoes together. Torres too. Plenty of players that have had much more success have still flopped hard transferring from clubs in the same league.
With all the strengthening spurs need I just don't see how this is good value or makes sense. Price tag just seems bonkers. That lazio mf is being touted about for like 30-40 mill when he was closer to 100 before and I just think $ would be spent better on so many other deals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough yeah I get that. Though I think the comparison is a bit unfair, here. Terrier is 20 I believe, only had one good season so he (and players like that) are a punt for a variety of reasons. Though PL proven might be overplayed, as you point out, being settled in the country is a big factor also.
I would say the examples you gave are kind of outliers, though. Typically transfers between PL clubs turn out as you expect on the most part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a bit biased too cos I hate Richarilson and think spurs should def spend that $ on Savic at Lazio. They're the sort of deals I'd call a bargain. Good scouting should say if someone fits the system/country, in most instances. Quality like he has is what spurs need in mf I feel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. I don't think spending 60m on a forward precludes us from buying a 40m midfielder, though. I'm not suggesting Levy has lost his mind but it's reasonable to assume we're going to spend North of £100m net this summer with an easy 50m coming in.
I think Richarlison is a quality player. Versatile across the front three. Genuine Kane cover as well as Son/kulu.
Would personally be happy with this.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
When you buy a player for £50+ or even less I have read it is very rare the buying club pays all the money upfront.
Take Romero for instance. We paid £11m for loan fee then £40m for the perm fee but that £40m will be paid over the length of his contract when it is a done deal. Not in one go.
If anyone thinks Levy ( the tightest mother fooker) is going to pay a transfer fee in one go then surely they are mistaken?!
I think this Richardlison story has been put out there on purpose. Something doesn't feel right about it.
Sign in if you want to comment
Richarlison
Page 3 of 5
posted on 11/6/22
comment by Sem (U9729)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 50 seconds ago
What happened to the really good Brazilian players? Like the flair players of yesteryear who used to blow you away with their skill and talent. You still get some good ones but generally they turn out to be Richarlison or Fred.
Maybe I've got it wrong and it just seemed this way when I was younger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly what you've done there is what I would place him..
...in the same bracket as fred
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah they're not exactly the sort of players that come to mind when you think about Brazil and football. They're more like your standard British player.
Wonder if Brazilians take the pisss out of these players by trying to make them sound English, like we do about our own when we try to make them sound Brazilian - Richard Lowson
posted on 11/6/22
If spurs smash 50-60 mill off their budget on him then that kinda puts the idea of them catching City and Liverpool to bed š sort of thing I'd expect from United.
I just can't see it. Limited funds, and had to twist Levys arm to get them, then bring in an Everton striker for a silly fee? I don't buy it tbh.
posted on 11/6/22
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
You could get someone to play the same role for a third of the price
---
Someone proven in the PL who's actually pretty good? I think you're struggling tbh. Of course there's always cheaper options from abroad but they're more risky. Hate him or rate him, you know exactly what you're getting with Richarlison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think 60m for richarlison is about as risky as terrier for 20m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure how you're working that out? In terms of an investment sure. But on the pitch, the risk with a Terrier is that they do a Soldado or a Janssen and just straight up flop. You've got basically 0 chance of that happening with a proven player like Richarlison.
posted on 11/6/22
But yeah 60m definitely seems like overpaying. Everton should be grateful to get their money back. Maybe they're still mad about Dele
posted on 11/6/22
I don't think the difference between playing in the premier league and not affects the chance of flopping to such a degree that it makes sense to spend an extra 40m on someone
Especially when that player is only going to play about 2000 minutes a season for us in all competitions
posted on 11/6/22
I'm not getting your maths, though. If you've got 40m extra and it's going to buy what you need, what's the point on saving it and buying something cheaper for the sake of it that doesn't do what you need? Then you have to go and buy the first thing you needed anyway, only now there's idiot tax and a cheaper thing you have to get rid of somehow.
I reckon any rotation option will get 20-25 games
posted on 11/6/22
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm not getting your maths, though. If you've got 40m extra and it's going to buy what you need, what's the point on saving it and buying something cheaper for the sake of it that doesn't do what you need? Then you have to go and buy the first thing you needed anyway, only now there's idiot tax and a cheaper thing you have to get rid of somehow.
I reckon any rotation option will get 20-25 games
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because that money can be used elsewhere. Because one will lose us less money if they flop. I just don't believe in always buying the most expensive option because you can
posted on 11/6/22
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 4 minutes ago
I don't think the difference between playing in the premier league and not affects the chance of flopping to such a degree that it makes sense to spend an extra 40m on someone
Especially when that player is only going to play about 2000 minutes a season for us in all competitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially when he says that he has a 0% chance of failure at spur's, just cos hes played in the PL already. Football doesn't work like that at all. There is always a risk he won't fit in or work out like intended. Playing well at one team in the league is no guarantee at all the transfer works. I don't get that logic at all.
posted on 11/6/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/6/22
It's not about buying the most expensive because you can.. obviously that's silly. That's the Ed Woodward strategy. It's buying the right player even if they are a bit overpriced, because you know it'll improve the team.
Back to the maths, you can't tell me the chances of Richarlison flopping is anything like a young player from another league like Terrier.
Though of course, yes. The money isn't endless and we do still need a midfielder or two. Fair enough
posted on 11/6/22
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 4 minutes ago
I don't think the difference between playing in the premier league and not affects the chance of flopping to such a degree that it makes sense to spend an extra 40m on someone
Especially when that player is only going to play about 2000 minutes a season for us in all competitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially when he says that he has a 0% chance of failure at spur's, just cos hes played in the PL already. Football doesn't work like that at all. There is always a risk he won't fit in or work out like intended. Playing well at one team in the league is no guarantee at all the transfer works. I don't get that logic at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said basically 0 chance of him flopping. He's already settled in the country and the league and performs regularly. Of course the transfer might not work out but it's not going to be like an Ndombele situation or Sancho, where they looked great in another league but whoops it doesn't translate
posted on 11/6/22
I suppose I should probably assume the amount of money we want to spend on this position implies that we plan to rotate more
posted on 11/6/22
Players playing in the same league are more likely to keep performing consistently in that league than players who've never played in that league before. Make sense? No? Ok
posted on 11/6/22
Chris
What the stats between him & Raphinha? Same age, same nationality, same price
posted on 11/6/22
I'm ok with this, he is PL proven, the right age, can play anywhere across the front, will provide the shiethousery we have missed since Coco left and has potential under the right coach.
Conte must believe he can get the best from him and I'd rather spend big on a player already proven in the PL, than an unproven player in the PL from abroad.
posted on 11/6/22
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Players playing in the same league are more likely to keep performing consistently in that league than players who've never played in that league before. Make sense? No? Ok
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see what you are getting at bit just feel it's value is overplayed. Look at Sanchez at Arsenal. Tearing it up. Goes to united and can barely tie his shoes together. Torres too. Plenty of players that have had much more success have still flopped hard transferring from clubs in the same league.
With all the strengthening spurs need I just don't see how this is good value or makes sense. Price tag just seems bonkers. That lazio mf is being touted about for like 30-40 mill when he was closer to 100 before and I just think $ would be spent better on so many other deals.
posted on 11/6/22
Raphinha at Leeds in the PL
0.43 non penalty goals + assists per 90
0.50 non penalty xG + xA per 90
Richarlison at Everton in the PL
0.41 non penalty goals + assists per 90
0.39 non penalty xG + xA per 90
posted on 11/6/22
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 4 minutes ago
Raphinha at Leeds in the PL
0.43 non penalty goals + assists per 90
0.50 non penalty xG + xA per 90
Richarlison at Everton in the PL
0.41 non penalty goals + assists per 90
0.39 non penalty xG + xA per 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So pretty similar
posted on 11/6/22
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Players playing in the same league are more likely to keep performing consistently in that league than players who've never played in that league before. Make sense? No? Ok
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see what you are getting at bit just feel it's value is overplayed. Look at Sanchez at Arsenal. Tearing it up. Goes to united and can barely tie his shoes together. Torres too. Plenty of players that have had much more success have still flopped hard transferring from clubs in the same league.
With all the strengthening spurs need I just don't see how this is good value or makes sense. Price tag just seems bonkers. That lazio mf is being touted about for like 30-40 mill when he was closer to 100 before and I just think $ would be spent better on so many other deals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough yeah I get that. Though I think the comparison is a bit unfair, here. Terrier is 20 I believe, only had one good season so he (and players like that) are a punt for a variety of reasons. Though PL proven might be overplayed, as you point out, being settled in the country is a big factor also.
I would say the examples you gave are kind of outliers, though. Typically transfers between PL clubs turn out as you expect on the most part.
posted on 11/6/22
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Players playing in the same league are more likely to keep performing consistently in that league than players who've never played in that league before. Make sense? No? Ok
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see what you are getting at bit just feel it's value is overplayed. Look at Sanchez at Arsenal. Tearing it up. Goes to united and can barely tie his shoes together. Torres too. Plenty of players that have had much more success have still flopped hard transferring from clubs in the same league.
With all the strengthening spurs need I just don't see how this is good value or makes sense. Price tag just seems bonkers. That lazio mf is being touted about for like 30-40 mill when he was closer to 100 before and I just think $ would be spent better on so many other deals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough yeah I get that. Though I think the comparison is a bit unfair, here. Terrier is 20 I believe, only had one good season so he (and players like that) are a punt for a variety of reasons. Though PL proven might be overplayed, as you point out, being settled in the country is a big factor also.
I would say the examples you gave are kind of outliers, though. Typically transfers between PL clubs turn out as you expect on the most part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a bit biased too cos I hate Richarilson and think spurs should def spend that $ on Savic at Lazio. They're the sort of deals I'd call a bargain. Good scouting should say if someone fits the system/country, in most instances. Quality like he has is what spurs need in mf I feel.
posted on 11/6/22
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Players playing in the same league are more likely to keep performing consistently in that league than players who've never played in that league before. Make sense? No? Ok
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see what you are getting at bit just feel it's value is overplayed. Look at Sanchez at Arsenal. Tearing it up. Goes to united and can barely tie his shoes together. Torres too. Plenty of players that have had much more success have still flopped hard transferring from clubs in the same league.
With all the strengthening spurs need I just don't see how this is good value or makes sense. Price tag just seems bonkers. That lazio mf is being touted about for like 30-40 mill when he was closer to 100 before and I just think $ would be spent better on so many other deals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough yeah I get that. Though I think the comparison is a bit unfair, here. Terrier is 20 I believe, only had one good season so he (and players like that) are a punt for a variety of reasons. Though PL proven might be overplayed, as you point out, being settled in the country is a big factor also.
I would say the examples you gave are kind of outliers, though. Typically transfers between PL clubs turn out as you expect on the most part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a bit biased too cos I hate Richarilson and think spurs should def spend that $ on Savic at Lazio. They're the sort of deals I'd call a bargain. Good scouting should say if someone fits the system/country, in most instances. Quality like he has is what spurs need in mf I feel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. I don't think spending 60m on a forward precludes us from buying a 40m midfielder, though. I'm not suggesting Levy has lost his mind but it's reasonable to assume we're going to spend North of £100m net this summer with an easy 50m coming in.
posted on 11/6/22
I think Richarlison is a quality player. Versatile across the front three. Genuine Kane cover as well as Son/kulu.
Would personally be happy with this.
posted on 11/6/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/6/22
When you buy a player for £50+ or even less I have read it is very rare the buying club pays all the money upfront.
Take Romero for instance. We paid £11m for loan fee then £40m for the perm fee but that £40m will be paid over the length of his contract when it is a done deal. Not in one go.
If anyone thinks Levy ( the tightest mother fooker) is going to pay a transfer fee in one go then surely they are mistaken?!
posted on 11/6/22
I think this Richardlison story has been put out there on purpose. Something doesn't feel right about it.
Page 3 of 5