Re: Football Chat Thread : Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:07 pm  

The seal dribbler is/was Kerlon.

Re: Football Chat Thread : Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:39 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

Cahill's 3/4 years younger than Jagielka, and, whilst Jagielka is better now, Cahill has more potential, for me.

I disagree, I don't think he'll offer much more than Jags except obviously playing longer because he's younger. I still Jags is better, much better.

Roddy B wrote:

£15m is overpricing a player, think about it, he's 29 and he's never played in the tampons league. You've got to remember, Jagielka is a centre half, their prices are always generally cheaper than attacking players, don't ask why, it's just the way it is. Realistically, Jagielka isn't worth over £10m, so asking for just under £15m is an inflated price IMO. Jagielka's price will only go down as father time catches up on him. Moyes has to be sensible and realize he could probably find another good defender (when you take his record with defenders into account) for a much cheaper price.

I think you're putting to much emphasis on his age and his lack of CL experience, a lot of players don't have a lot of experience either but they cope and Jagielka would too. Yes, centre halves do go cheaper but that doesn't mean we should under value our best players. Jags is widely expected to be out next captain and still have 4-6 years in him easily, so maybe just taking the money and running isn't the best option. He's struck up a cracking partnership with Distin and I wouldn't want to see it broken. I think realistically Jags is worth £8-£10m but why shouldn't we increase that by a good few million like other clubs do.

Roddy B wrote:

Everton have to be realistic about their plans. They're a club that rely solely on transfer income, if they're getting £15m for a player who's 30 in a year, then they have to ask themselves if they'll get any more than that or if it's time to cash in.

I know that all to well mate but say we sell Jags for £10m we'd have to spend at least half of that replacing him so why bother, there's no point in selling for an amount like that. Say we sell for £15-£18m then we could by one or two if not more players. As for the last sentence why should we cash in at all? we also need some stability especially at the back so I'd rather Jags saw his career out at the club, as captain, anyway.

Re: Football Chat Thread : Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:48 pm  

Karlos13 wrote:

Liverpool to reduce the MUFC away allocation to 1950 due to persistant standing.

Don't seem to have taken title number 19 very well down in mersyside.

I'll think you'll find that Liverpool FC have been advised to do this by the GSAG. It isn't because of persistent standing either, it's because of the blocking of gangways which stops the stewards forom doing their jobs. As of yet Liverpool FC haven't made a decision and it isn't even the clubs decision to make, it's the councils. But hey, half a story (well, a quarter if we're honest) is better than none.

Re: Football Chat Thread : Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:54 pm  

keithcun wrote:

I'll think you'll find that Liverpool FC have been advised to do this by the GSAG. It isn't because of persistent standing either, it's because of the blocking of gangways which stops the stewards forom doing their jobs. As of yet Liverpool FC haven't made a decision and it isn't even the clubs decision to make, it's the councils. But hey, half a story (well, a quarter if we're honest) is better than none.

He didn't actually say Liverpool FC were to blame either

Re: Football Chat Thread : Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:45 am  

Dan_FC wrote:

I disagree, I don't think he'll offer much more than Jags except obviously playing longer because he's younger. I still Jags is better, much better.

Matter of opinion, but I feel Cahill is just short of a bit more experience. Good speed, decent on the ball, strong, good in the air, etc.

Dan_FC wrote:

I think you're putting to much emphasis on his age and his lack of CL experience, a lot of players don't have a lot of experience either but they cope and Jagielka would too. Yes, centre halves do go cheaper but that doesn't mean we should under value our best players. Jags is widely expected to be out next captain and still have 4-6 years in him easily, so maybe just taking the money and running isn't the best option. He's struck up a cracking partnership with Distin and I wouldn't want to see it broken. I think realistically Jags is worth £8-£10m but why shouldn't we increase that by a good few million like other clubs do.

I'm putting emphasis on it because they're big factors. If Wenger pays £18m for Jagielka, next summer aged 30, he'll be worth £10m (inflated), the year after £7m and the year after that nearer to nothing. If Wenger signed Cahill, he could get the best part of 10 years from him, with Jagielka, it's the best part of 5 or 6 years from him. Age is one of the biggest determining factors of any transfers. If Lescott was 29 was Sparky lost the plot, he would have gone for half of that fee. It's just the way things work.

Jagielka's biggest factors in determining his fee, from an Everton standpoint, are his importance to the side and his overall ability. He's a good player, not world class, but a good player, whilst he could probably be deemed a key player at Everton. For that reason, a player who's probably worth £10m goes up to about £14m-£15m. Everton don't need to sell, but, at the same time, in the back of theirs and Moyes' mind, they'll know Jags' fee will only go down, and Moyes seems to get the 'selling at the right time' thing right most times. If Moyes got £15m for Jags, he could invest that throughout the squad more, IMO. (If he gets it to invest that is)

Re: Football Chat Thread : Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:40 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

Matter of opinion, but I feel Cahill is just short of a bit more experience. Good speed, decent on the ball, strong, good in the air, etc.

I think Jags offers all those qualities too, Wenger would get 6 years out of Jags too.

Roddy B wrote:

I'm putting emphasis on it because they're big factors. If Wenger pays £18m for Jagielka, next summer aged 30, he'll be worth £10m (inflated), the year after £7m and the year after that nearer to nothing. If Wenger signed Cahill, he could get the best part of 10 years from him, with Jagielka, it's the best part of 5 or 6 years from him. Age is one of the biggest determining factors of any transfers. If Lescott was 29 was Sparky lost the plot, he would have gone for half of that fee. It's just the way things work.

I don't see how you can predict future prices on a players age though, I can see what you mean that their value will drop the older they get but to actually put figures out there and say he'll be worth so much means nothing. It'll mainly depend on how he's playing at the time. It is a big factor but the way you mention it in previous posts it's as if it's the main factor in a transfer.

Roddy B wrote:

Jagielka's biggest factors in determining his fee, from an Everton standpoint, are his importance to the side and his overall ability. He's a good player, not world class, but a good player, whilst he could probably be deemed a key player at Everton. For that reason, a player who's probably worth £10m goes up to about £14m-£15m. Everton don't need to sell, but, at the same time, in the back of theirs and Moyes' mind, they'll know Jags' fee will only go down, and Moyes seems to get the 'selling at the right time' thing right most times. If Moyes got £15m for Jags, he could invest that throughout the squad more, IMO. (If he gets it to invest that is)

I think we're on the same page here because my last paragraph in my post last night said more or less the same thing, firstly you were saying we should sell for £10m now you're saying £15m - make your mind up I don't think Jags will be sold because they way you're looking at it is as if he's going to leave the club eventually so sell now while his price is as high as it'll be but I don't think Jags will go, he could see his career out here if he wants too - he'd be captain within 2 years when Neville goes and would more or less be guaranteed a run in the first team until he retires so there's no need to sell but orignally you said we should sell at £10m but we'd need to spend at least half of that if not more replacing him so it's pointless because it leaves no money to bring anyone else in, however, should that price rise to £15m-£18m it may be worth listening too, replace Jags and then bring other players in too but otherwise I can't see Moyes not considering it.

If he's going to sell to reinvest he'd be better off selling Rodwell, I don't want him to go, but we'd probably get at least £20m if not more which could really strengthen out finances.

Re: Football Chat Thread : Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:01 pm  

Dan, I never said you should sell at £10m. Read the post properly:

Roddy B wrote:

That's not a bad fee for a 29 year old defender with no CL experience. Consider Porto got E22m for Bruno Alves - a superior player with greater experience - then the fee sort of makes sense. Throw in a bit of English premium and Jagielka will probably go for a bit less than £15m (if Everton aren't in dreamland that is).

I said £10m isn't a bad fee, which it isn't, but some were reacting as though Arsenal were light years away from his true value. I was arguing that asking for £15m would be inflated because his truer value is near to £10m, purely because of his age and experience, two of the biggest factors determining a fee after form and ability.

Re: Football Chat Thread : Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:14 pm  

Loving Hadjuk Split's banner, 'Against modern football'. Take that Guardiola.

Re: Football Chat Thread : Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:11 pm  

Catalancs wrote:

In effect it's a season long loan then. Ireally hope the lad gets some proper minutes. Coming on for the last 15 minutes when you're side is sitting back on a 3-0 lead won't do any forward favours.

Did ask you was this a loan deal on 22nd June. I won't re-quote your answer to save embarrassment for you

Re: Football Chat Thread : Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:41 pm  

Cartman wrote:

Did ask you was this a loan deal on 22nd June. I won't re-quote your answer to save embarrassment for you

I think someone said that Marcotti bloke stated it was a loan deal. It isn't but it resembles one. Have a great Sunday