Jump to content

Recommended Posts

aquarius moon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Parkdrive Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > Not as far as I'm concerned. Who's going to

> give

> > them a run for their money? Certainly not

> Arsenal,

> > United, Liverpool or Chavs.

>

>

> Swansea.

You know what, that would be so refreshing for the Prem, but I can't see it

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> aquarius moon Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Alan Medic Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Did you watch it am?

> >

> >

> > Yes. Did you?

> I did and thought United played well enough to

> have won.

4 shots on target to each team, Monk deployed better tactics, Swansea scored more goals, their players performed far better than United counterparts and hence won the game. Time for LVG to spend the equivalent of a third world country's GDP to try and turn things round.

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> red devil Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > aquarius moon Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > > ETA: And I predicted 2-1! :)

> >

> Same here , wish I'd had a few quid on it now.



Me too.

Not quite half a billion though is it? That figure isn't the net spend either, which takes into account money received from sales. Yes Liverpool have spent a lot the past couple of summers, but they have also received a lot for Suarez and Stirling. I previously posted a link to this summer's current net spend table. So far Utd's net spend this summer is ?14.5m, although that's debatable as German papers reported that we bought Basti for ?6m, not the British press oft quoted ?14m. Add in the latest fee received for Evans and it's an actual profit. Of course that could all change in the next 36 hours...


NET SPENDS THIS SUMMER


1 Manchester City: ?66.5m


2 Newcastle: ?46m


3 Chelsea: ?29m


4 Crystal Palace: ?25.5m


5 Watford: ?24.5m


6 Leicester City: ?20m


7 Liverpool: ?19m


8 Bournemouth: ?18.5m


9 West Ham: ?16m


10 Manchester United: ?14.5m


11 Stoke: ?14m


12 Norwich: ?10m


13 Swansea: ?8.5m


14 Arsenal: ?8m


15 Sunderland: ?6.5m


16 Everton: ?5.5m


17 Aston Villa: ?4.5m


18 West Bromwich: ?3m


19 Southampton: -?12.5m


20 Tottenham: -?13m

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> United buy a 19 year old with potential for more

> than ?30M. Not sure that's what they need right

> now. Time will tell.


It's desperation, and when you're as desperate as LVG obviously is you pay way over the odds.

Didier Deschamps on Martial


"He's got a good combination of pace and power. He's a young player obviously, but he's got an interesting profile in an area where it's not easy to find players with both strength and speed.


"He's got good potential and I want to see how he does with the squad."



Lot of money for some potential, but hey, he might be a superstar...

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whilst flogging a decent player in Javier

> Hernandez. I don't get it.


Me neither. So far we've let RVP, Falcao and now Hernandez go, all No. 9s, with no direct replacement(s). Rooney is no No.9, he even wears No.10.


In wide positions we've offloaded Nani, and bought in Depay, happy with that. But now Martial comes in and Januzaj is going out on loan to Dortmund, i.e. we loan out one promising young wide player and buy another for ?36m. Genius.

Oh, and we could've had Pedro for ?15m less.


And despite all this, we still need a fooking No.9!...

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm really not surprised that Spurs are at the

> bottom of that table what with the new stadium to

> finance. I think that trend will continue for some

> years yet. More lean times for us I reckon.



Let's hope that's not the only table they are at the bottom off :)

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> United buy a 19 year old with potential for more

> than ?30M. Not sure that's what they need right

> now. Time will tell.


James Wilson, same age, came through the youth academy, so obviously LVG doesn't think he has potential? Even more mystifying Martial was offered to Spurs 7 weeks ago for 20 million euros, United now paying 36 mill, bargain, and not at all desperate or over the odds. And to think fans thought Moyes was clueless.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It gets even weirder, De Gea sold to Madrid for

> ?29m.

>

> So a top top keeper for ?7m less than a promising

> 19 year.

>

> Strange goings on.


We were never going to get De Gea's full market value because he was into the final year of his contract. I actually think we did well to get that much, with Navas coming the other way, surely an upgrade on Romero. An interesting Tweet from Sky's man in the know in Spain, Guilem Balague, was that LVG put a stop to Utd offering De Gea improved terms back in the Spring because he wanted Navas instead. Brave decision if true.


PD's latest gem has come from a Stan Collymore Tweet...nuff said.

It was reported back in June that Spurs had a ?19m offer turned down for Martial. I reckon Monaco had no intention of selling him whilst there was a chance they could qualify for the Champions League. That ended last week when they lost to Valencia. As well as Spurs, Chelsea had been sniffing around him too, so there might have been a bit of a bidding war that upped his price. With all the money that's going to be sloshing around in the PL next season, foreign clubs will keep on demanding these silly prices...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...