January Transfer Window 2014

First topic message reminder :

I'm gonna open this up now as I contemplate watching the shower of poop I'm about to watch.

What strong rumours have we heard? What do teams need? Where do you think the money will be spent?

I shall start you off with rumours surrounding Lambert maybe considering West Ham and similarly West Ham going to Spurs cap in hand to request a loan of Defoe or Adebayor (sources not so tight haha)

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Annoyed about Jelavic, West Ham fans turned their nose up at him but I reckon there is a real clinical player still in there and he'll score more goals in a crap team than would be expected.

While this lot talk nonsense about flukes, let's talk transfers.

Agree, Jelavic would of been a good addition. He's not amazing but he can score goals in this league & he's certainly superior to Maiga & Cole. If Carroll is returning, not sure why you need a player like Traore.

We are not confused SoCal we just disagree. And if you think going out in the semi in 1990 on pens to the eventual champs isn't showing form that they could have won then I don't know what is.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Annoyed about Jelavic, West Ham fans turned their nose up at him but I reckon there is a real clinical player still in there and he'll score more goals in a crap team than would be expected.

Yep me and you both. I reckon all fans of the bottom teams would have wanted him. But fair play to hull. They have got him due to there current standing.

Duty281 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:You guys are confused because you think I said England didn't deserve their 66 title, never said such a thing. But if it was not a fluke name another major tournament before or since they have done that well in? That is not England's normal level, never has been, even when top flight English football was all British. So it is pretty silly to blame lack of national team success to the influx of foreign players which is where this argument started. Fine if it was not a fluke lets call it a one off, a golden generation that is not reflective of what the three lions generally produce.

England and Britain are not the same thing, dear boy.

No kidding, I know that. Again this conversation arose because foreign born players in top flight English football were blamed for lack of national team success. The reason I said british was that the English league has always had Welsh, and scottish players in it. When your league was mainly English and or English and Uk based you weren't winning or getting to finals of major tournaments. So it is pretty silly to blame the failings of the 3 lions on foreign born EPL players.

Yeah Jelavic just needs an arm round him, and some confidence then you got yourself a goalscorer.

5.25 million is a fair whack though

mystiroakey wrote:We are not confused SoCal we just disagree. And if you think going out in the semi in 1990 on pens to the eventual champs isn't showing form that they could have won then I don't know what is.

1. England's national team is not a first tier power that should expect winning world cups and Euros

2. 66 was a deserving win but not England's usual level hence why they never produced it before or since and where the term fluke comes from

3. South Korea also got to a world cup semi they were still far from winning so one semi 24 years ago is hardly convincing

4. England is a good footballing nation but very clearly not a favorite for major tournaments and this has nothing to do with foreign players in top flight english football, because when top flight english football was mainly english and a few other uk area players you weren't burning it up in international tournaments.

.



It wasn't a fluke and you asked for am example of when they showed winning form. This was a winning form example. Lost on pens to the winners. This is nothing like your Korea example.

I gave you that example. You can argue all day it doesn't change the truth.

And I have no idea what the rest of your argument is about. I am not disputing it( foreign players in the pl)

South Korea's run was also so blatantly fixed...

socal1976 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:We are not confused SoCal we just disagree. And if you think going out in the semi in 1990 on pens to the eventual champs isn't showing form that they could have won then I don't know what is.

1. England's national team is not a first tier power that should expect  winning world cups and Euros

Why not? After all, there's a fair few English players that regularly play for some of England's, therefore Europe's, and therefore the World's, top clubs.

mystiroakey wrote:It wasn't a fluke and you asked for am example of when they showed winning form. This was a winning form example. Lost on pens to the winners. This is nothing like your Korea example.

I gave you that example. You can argue all day it doesn't change the truth

Ok it was not a fluke, lets call it a one off as a compromise position. But to me its basically the same difference. 66 was a rare perfect storm, if it was not a fluke win then you guys maybe would at least get to the final of a major tournament since. Again any team that the USA is unbeaten against in world cups is not a super power. I'd rather play England in the world cup than Ghana.

You have hardly played England in the finals. That's nonsense mate.

You can't base data on a couple of games.

mystiroakey wrote:.



It wasn't a fluke and you asked for am example of when they showed winning form. This was a winning form example. Lost on pens to the winners. This is nothing like your Korea example.

I gave you that example. You can argue all day it doesn't change the truth.

And I have no idea what the rest of your argument is about. I am not disputing it( foreign players in the pl)

That is where this whole argument generated, mystiroakey, Hammersmith claimed that foreign players in EPL was a key reason for the failings of the national team. I said that the 3 lions weren't burning it up when the league was full of English and other british players and then that is when you all virtually joined hands and began singing "Rule Britannia" for me.

I agree with you on that. But that isn't my argument with you.

Us English love football. It's a passion to us. It's in the blood. It's our game . We arnt as good as we would like to be. Most of us accept that today. but talks about us being lucky in the lpast isn't going to wash with any of us.  We couldn't accept it even if it was true..

It's like us telling you that you were lucky winning the ice hockey Olympics - but then imagine it was your no.1 sport

mystiroakey wrote:You have hardly played England in the finals. That's nonsense mate.

You can't base data on a couple of games.

I know I am just winding you guys up a bit, I will admit it. It is very rare for us Americans to be able to talk smack about football to anyone other than mexico so forgive me for having a little fun with you.

socal1976 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:It wasn't a fluke and you asked for am example of when they showed winning form. This was a winning form example. Lost on pens to the winners. This is nothing like your Korea example.

I gave you that example. You can argue all day it doesn't change the truth

Ok it was not a fluke, lets call it a one off as a compromise position. But to me its basically the same difference. 66 was a rare perfect storm, if it was not a fluke win then you guys maybe would at least get to the final of a major tournament since. Again any team that the USA is unbeaten against in world cups is not a super power. I'd rather play England in the world cup than Ghana.

To me, to you, to you, to me.

New Zealand drew with Italy in the last World Cup. Starting to get it now. Italy is also not a super power. Thanks.

mystiroakey wrote:I agree with you on that. But that isn't my argument with you.

Us English love football. It's a passion to us. It's in the blood. It's our game . We arnt as good as we would like to be. Most of us accept that today. but talks about us being lucky in the lpast isn't going to wash with any of us.  We couldn't accept it even if it was true..

It's like us telling you that you were lucky winning the ice hockey Olympics - but then imagine it was your no.1 sport

If we played the Russians back then 100 times they probably beat us 92 times, I have no problem in saying it was a fluke win, a longshot, and a one off. The long nature of the odds makes it all the more special that it did happen. The russians got a disputed and fluke win against us in 1972 in basketball in the olympics, well they basically cheated us out of that one.

Was it true that you played a load of youngsters in that Olympics and no big stars..

I wonder how England would get on if we approached a cup that way?

FreekShow wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:It wasn't a fluke and you asked for am example of when they showed winning form. This was a winning form example. Lost on pens to the winners. This is nothing like your Korea example.

I gave you that example. You can argue all day it doesn't change the truth

Ok it was not a fluke, lets call it a one off as a compromise position. But to me its basically the same difference. 66 was a rare perfect storm, if it was not a fluke win then you guys maybe would at least get to the final of a major tournament since. Again any team that the USA is unbeaten against in world cups is not a super power. I'd rather play England in the world cup than Ghana.

To me, to you, to you, to me.

New Zealand drew with Italy in the last World Cup. Starting to get it now. Italy is also not a super power. Thanks.

I don't get the point your making with this post, honestly could you clarify? US record against England in world cups 1-0-1.

mystiroakey wrote:Was it true that you played a load of youngsters in that Olympics and no big stars..

I wonder how England would get on if we approached a cup that way?

Dubious officiating in 72, the US did not use any professional player till 1988, all of our gold medals and defeats prior to that was with college kids that is how far ahead our basketball team was that we played basically our under 22s in the olympics. Since playing our NBA players we never lose although the Europeans have really trimmed the gap lately and produce a lot of good NBA players as does South America.

socal1976 wrote:

FreekShow wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:It wasn't a fluke and you asked for am example of when they showed winning form. This was a winning form example. Lost on pens to the winners. This is nothing like your Korea example.

I gave you that example. You can argue all day it doesn't change the truth

Ok it was not a fluke, lets call it a one off as a compromise position. But to me its basically the same difference. 66 was a rare perfect storm, if it was not a fluke win then you guys maybe would at least get to the final of a major tournament since. Again any team that the USA is unbeaten against in world cups is not a super power. I'd rather play England in the world cup than Ghana.

To me, to you, to you, to me.

New Zealand drew with Italy in the last World Cup. Starting to get it now. Italy is also not a super power. Thanks.

I don't get the point your making with this post, honestly could you clarify? US record against England in world cups 1-0-1.

It's not difficult really. You are using USA's results against England in WC's to discredit us yet you fail to recognise any other teams shortcomings.

Are Italy a super power in your mind?

Jelavic would be a good signing for the right price, but like Olly said £5.25 million is a lot for a struggling striker, might have been worth seeing if they could get him on loan first and sign him in the summer.

He can score goals at this level but so can Danny Graham.

Olly wrote:Yeah Jelavic just needs an arm round him, and some confidence then you got yourself a goalscorer.

5.25 million is a fair whack though

More than I thought but then he's probably a better goalscorer than anything they've got, that run of one touch finishing was sensational

FreekShow wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

FreekShow wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:It wasn't a fluke and you asked for am example of when they showed winning form. This was a winning form example. Lost on pens to the winners. This is nothing like your Korea example.

I gave you that example. You can argue all day it doesn't change the truth

Ok it was not a fluke, lets call it a one off as a compromise position. But to me its basically the same difference. 66 was a rare perfect storm, if it was not a fluke win then you guys maybe would at least get to the final of a major tournament since. Again any team that the USA is unbeaten against in world cups is not a super power. I'd rather play England in the world cup than Ghana.

To me, to you, to you, to me.

New Zealand drew with Italy in the last World Cup. Starting to get it now. Italy is also not a super power. Thanks.

I don't get the point your making with this post, honestly could you clarify? US record against England in world cups 1-0-1.

It's not difficult really. You are using USA's results against England in WC's to discredit us yet you fail to recognise any other teams shortcomings.

Are Italy a super power in your mind?

Yes did New Zealand get 4 out of a possible 6 points against Italy in the WC? If not then the situation is really not analogous, where is that second positive New Zealand result against the Azzuri?

PS discredit is a bit harsh, more like having some fun with you guys and the fact that the US is unbeaten against the Lions in world cups, its alright though you guys do have a winning record against us in friendlies.

John wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Annoyed about Jelavic, West Ham fans turned their nose up at him but I reckon there is a real clinical player still in there and he'll score more goals in a crap team than would be expected.

While this lot talk nonsense about flukes, let's talk transfers.

Agree, Jelavic would of been a good addition. He's not amazing but he can score goals in this league & he's certainly superior to Maiga & Cole. If Carroll is returning, not sure why you need a player like Traore.

Two things I'd guess. One being how long does he stay fit? And the other being our need for goals is so evident that we may use two on occasion. 6ft 4 of Carroll and 6ft 8 of Traore is gonna cause issues. I also think "why the hell not?" cos hes so damn good its hard to turn down the chance.

The USA is basically a continent so you can't really compare England to USA. A better comparison would be England against an average state of the USA, or comparing Europe to the USA. The EU project was partly a response to counter the USA economic influence on global trade.

It cannot be both deserved and a fluke, they have opposing meanings.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Olly wrote:Yeah Jelavic just needs an arm round him, and some confidence then you got yourself a goalscorer.

5.25 million is a fair whack though

More than I thought but then he's probably a better goalscorer than anything they've got, that run of one touch finishing was sensational

Indeed there is a clinical finisher in their somewhere, although there was once one in Papiss Cisse too

Also Hull meant to be interested in Shane Long for 6 million.

Nore Staat wrote:The USA is basically a continent so you can't really compare England to USA. A better comparison would be England against an average state of the USA, or comparing Europe to the USA. The EU project was partly a response to counter the USA economic influence on global trade.

I know in world cup hierachy it goes Ghana, the USA, then the lions in that order.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It cannot be both deserved and a fluke, they have opposing meanings.

Fine I stand corrected it was not a fluke it was one off.

Excellent signing for Hull getting Jelavic. He'll get a few goals for them no doubt.

Paying a bit much for Long, he's hit and miss. Should get more goals than he does really.

socal1976 wrote:

FreekShow wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

FreekShow wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:It wasn't a fluke and you asked for am example of when they showed winning form. This was a winning form example. Lost on pens to the winners. This is nothing like your Korea example.

I gave you that example. You can argue all day it doesn't change the truth

Ok it was not a fluke, lets call it a one off as a compromise position. But to me its basically the same difference. 66 was a rare perfect storm, if it was not a fluke win then you guys maybe would at least get to the final of a major tournament since. Again any team that the USA is unbeaten against in world cups is not a super power. I'd rather play England in the world cup than Ghana.

To me, to you, to you, to me.

New Zealand drew with Italy in the last World Cup. Starting to get it now. Italy is also not a super power. Thanks.

I don't get the point your making with this post, honestly could you clarify? US record against England in world cups 1-0-1.

It's not difficult really. You are using USA's results against England in WC's to discredit us yet you fail to recognise any other teams shortcomings.

Are Italy a super power in your mind?

Yes did New Zealand get 4 out of a possible 6 points against Italy in the WC? If not then the situation is really not analogous, where is that second positive New Zealand result against the Azzuri?

PS discredit is a bit harsh, more like having some fun with you guys and the fact that the US is unbeaten against the Lions in world cups, its alright though you guys do have a winning record against us in friendlies.

Either that or you are/and have been getting ripped to shreds by knowledgable football fans that have and always will blow you out the water?

And you have discredited and dismissed England's World Cup victory as a fluke. You wouldn't be the first but at least admit it bearing in mind you've spent the last umpteen hours trying to convince folk.

Ok you win not a fluke but a one off, same difference. As I said you guys can be proud of your national team but please don't try to blame foreign players for why they don't win and get to the finals of major tournaments.

socal1976 wrote:Ok you win not a fluke but a one off, same difference. As I said you guys can be proud of your national team but please don't try to blame foreign players for why they don't win and get to the finals of major tournaments.

  

One for the boys.

Fair play   

socal1976 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:The USA is basically a continent so you can't really compare England to USA.  A better comparison would be England against an average state of the USA, or comparing Europe to the USA.  The EU project was partly a response to counter the USA economic influence on global trade.

I know in world cup hierachy it goes Ghana, the USA, then the lions in that order.

Okay this is the last I'll say on this matter as it is too much of an off topic.  Football is the English national sport.  "Soccer" is a minority sport amongst USA men ... so that is the reason the USA (a continent) & English men football teams are comparable (England currently ranked 13, USA ranked 14).  

However, in terms of the women - the USA are way way ahead (USA ranked 1, England ranked 11). There have been 6 women's world cups: USA have won twice, runners-up once, and third three times.  England have never made it to a semi-final.  England have only qualified three times.   Women's sport in the UK receives hardly any funding or interest.

FreekShow wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Ok you win not a fluke but a one off, same difference. As I said you guys can be proud of your national team but please don't try to blame foreign players for why they don't win and get to the finals of major tournaments.

  

One for the boys.

Fair play   

Thanks freek, I don't want to be disrespectful but I do feel you guys wind yourself up for disappointment by overselling your lions. Still no one can take away the 66 victory which was well deserved.

It will be interesting to see what Moyes does in the transfer market - he has to bring in players worthy to wear the Man Utd shirt. The consensus on his only signing, Fellaini, is that he is not of the required quality. Which makes one wonder whether Moyes is able to build a team capable of challenging at the very top level.

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:The USA is basically a continent so you can't really compare England to USA.  A better comparison would be England against an average state of the USA, or comparing Europe to the USA.  The EU project was partly a response to counter the USA economic influence on global trade.

I know in world cup hierachy it goes Ghana, the USA, then the lions in that order.

Okay this is the last I'll say on this matter as it is too much of an off topic.  Football is the English national sport.  "Soccer" is a minority sport amongst USA men ... so that is the reason the USA (a continent) & English men football teams are comparable (England currently ranked 13, USA ranked 14).  

However, in terms of the women - the USA are way way ahead (USA ranked 1, England ranked 11). There have been 6 women's world cups: USA have won twice, runners-up once, and third three times.  England have never made it to a semi-final.  England have only qualified three times.   Women's sport in the UK receives hardly any funding or interest.

unfortunately football is a minority sport here and will be probably forever, would be great if the US cared about football and competed at the highest level as far as our men are concerned.

socal1976 wrote:... Thanks freek, I don't want to be disrespectful but I do feel you guys wind yourself up for disappointment by overselling your lions. Still no one can take away the 66 victory which was well deserved.

Apart from goal-line technology. Russian linesmen are now firmly part of the British culture.

We're being linked with Garay again, newspaper rumours saying a deal is close but would be done in the Summer

Also being linked with a £23m bid for Gundogan...would Dortmund sell him that cheap?? I don't think they would

In other clubs news

Hull are eyeing Shane Long to partner new signing Jelavic

Fulham eyeing West Ham duo Mo Diame and Ravel Morrison, with the latter especially keen to join up with Mulensteen again

Arsenal are reportedly looking at one of three players attacking midfielders Yoann Gourcuff, 27, of Lyon and Juventus's Sebastian Giovinco, 26 and are interested in Roma striker Mattia Destro, 22, according to reports in Italy.

Chelsea are vying with Inter Milan for Kurt Zouma

Sunderland manager Gus Poyet has revealed a deal is "very close" to sign Argentine centre-half Santiago Vergini, 25, from Newell's Old Boys

No if you are not Bayern they wont sell.

Dortmund have stockholm syndrome. Bayern is its captive

socal1976 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Was it true that you played a load of youngsters in that Olympics and no big stars..

I wonder how England would get on if we approached a cup that way?

Dubious officiating in 72, the US did not use any professional player till 1988, all of our gold medals and defeats prior to that was with college kids that is how far ahead our basketball team was that we played basically our under 22s in the olympics. Since playing our NBA players we never lose although the Europeans have really trimmed the gap lately and produce a lot of good NBA players as does South America.

*cough* athens *cough* *cough* athens!

I was actually talking about the Ice hockey game 1980, but anyway!

Vidic is declining rapidly & Italy will suit his ability nowadays & lack of speed. Garay seems to be heavily linked again, I would expect a deal to go through in the summer. He's already 27.

Gundogan for £23m? Contract runs until summer 2015, therefore Dortmund don't need to sell until the summer at the earliest. He's also injured, not played hardly this season & would not make an immediate impact.

id still snap your hand of even despite all that john, hasnt he got a pretty low release clause or is that rues? plus think dortmund have been burnt on letting players contracts get to close to the finish recently!

Agree, United need to show some balls & muscle now. Go big & go hard. Reus has the release clause I think & Gundogan is not even playing for Dortmund because of injury & wants to leave. I'd bang £30m on Reus + offer Kagawa & I'd offer £25m for Gundogan & see what happens.

Still not convinced Garay is the best option at 27 though.

Is this 200m war chest united have BS or truth?

We will see.

i reckon we have a fair bit, other than RVP we haven't really spent big over the last few years despite massively increasing our income through sponsorship deals.

also if were thinking of getting rid of rio, giggs, vidic, anderson, and a lot of talk of rooney going theres nearly 1 million a week of wages saved!

We're going to be saving almost £50mil a year on wages with the amount of players who will be leaving. On top of that we'll recoup a decent chunk from selling the deadwood. £200mil seems a bit steep but it must there or there abouts.

It's £200m over 18 months I believe.