Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That’s who I said I would like. I haven’t a clue what Depay or Barca’s plans are in the next transfer window lol.
I don't want to labour the point but you've just provided figures that suggest only 3 other clubs in the league are paying anything like what we are to a third choice keeper and said that it's evidence that it's normal? Leaving aside that as i already said, I don't really care whether anyone else does when talking about the context of us saying we need to trim the wage bill, it seems to just highlight that the majority of clubs in our position are not paying a third choice keeper £30k a week. It's understandable for Chelsea and United to do it because they play more games and are expecting to win trophies. For us though? As I said in the first place, an awful decision.I agree in the sense it's not value for money but as I said it's the going rate for 2nd/3rd choice keepers unfortunately. Pattern across the league tends to be either low budgets who have two main keepers and one young keeper, or higher budgets were they have 3 main keepers. 30k is a bout right for Lossl in terms of the level we are at. I 100% agree with you, it's not value for money but every club in the league is set up this way as well barring a few who are either new entrants or the likes of Burnley who have always worked tight. I also take from you (i may be wrong in this assumption) that you would prefer to buy players to improve the first team, and have players drop down into that supporting role, ie... Buy a proper keeper, and have Pickford challenge as the back up.. To me that would always be the most logical way of doing it (up to when financial things come into play).
I've put it on a spreadsheet and I've found it quite interesting really. The waste of money united have each week as they continue to play 1 keeper (like every team can..) and are spending an unbelievable amount on two back ups. Absolutely crazy money. WHY they set up this way as clubs, I do not know. For me the natural thing would be to have two decent keepers and then a young keeper who can learn, be part of the squads, gain experience.
I know putting it on a sheet like this means i have to answer the following questions;
- Yes I am a sad person with plenty of time on his hands
- No I am not a virgin!
Looking at it, I imagine with Olsen he's quite low on wages so was an affordable loan/buy.
To summarise @Lanolin I do agree it's not value for money at all, but it seems to be a league wide thing for the most part.
I agree in the sense it's not value for money but as I said it's the going rate for 2nd/3rd choice keepers unfortunately. Pattern across the league tends to be either low budgets who have two main keepers and one young keeper, or higher budgets were they have 3 main keepers. 30k is a bout right for Lossl in terms of the level we are at. I 100% agree with you, it's not value for money but every club in the league is set up this way as well barring a few who are either new entrants or the likes of Burnley who have always worked tight. I also take from you (i may be wrong in this assumption) that you would prefer to buy players to improve the first team, and have players drop down into that supporting role, ie... Buy a proper keeper, and have Pickford challenge as the back up.. To me that would always be the most logical way of doing it (up to when financial things come into play).
I've put it on a spreadsheet and I've found it quite interesting really. The waste of money united have each week as they continue to play 1 keeper (like every team can..) and are spending an unbelievable amount on two back ups. Absolutely crazy money. WHY they set up this way as clubs, I do not know. For me the natural thing would be to have two decent keepers and then a young keeper who can learn, be part of the squads, gain experience.
I know putting it on a sheet like this means i have to answer the following questions;
- Yes I am a sad person with plenty of time on his hands
- No I am not a virgin!
Looking at it, I imagine with Olsen he's quite low on wages so was an affordable loan/buy.
To summarise @Lanolin I do agree it's not value for money at all, but it seems to be a league wide thing for the most part.
I agree in the sense it's not value for money but as I said it's the going rate for 2nd/3rd choice keepers unfortunately. Pattern across the league tends to be either low budgets who have two main keepers and one young keeper, or higher budgets were they have 3 main keepers. 30k is a bout right for Lossl in terms of the level we are at. I 100% agree with you, it's not value for money but every club in the league is set up this way as well barring a few who are either new entrants or the likes of Burnley who have always worked tight. I also take from you (i may be wrong in this assumption) that you would prefer to buy players to improve the first team, and have players drop down into that supporting role, ie... Buy a proper keeper, and have Pickford challenge as the back up.. To me that would always be the most logical way of doing it (up to when financial things come into play).
I've put it on a spreadsheet and I've found it quite interesting really. The waste of money united have each week as they continue to play 1 keeper (like every team can..) and are spending an unbelievable amount on two back ups. Absolutely crazy money. WHY they set up this way as clubs, I do not know. For me the natural thing would be to have two decent keepers and then a young keeper who can learn, be part of the squads, gain experience.
I know putting it on a sheet like this means i have to answer the following questions;
- Yes I am a sad person with plenty of time on his hands
- No I am not a virgin!
Looking at it, I imagine with Olsen he's quite low on wages so was an affordable loan/buy.
To summarise @Lanolin I do agree it's not value for money at all, but it seems to be a league wide thing for the most part.
I agree in the sense it's not value for money but as I said it's the going rate for 2nd/3rd choice keepers unfortunately. Pattern across the league tends to be either low budgets who have two main keepers and one young keeper, or higher budgets were they have 3 main keepers. 30k is a bout right for Lossl in terms of the level we are at. I 100% agree with you, it's not value for money but every club in the league is set up this way as well barring a few who are either new entrants or the likes of Burnley who have always worked tight. I also take from you (i may be wrong in this assumption) that you would prefer to buy players to improve the first team, and have players drop down into that supporting role, ie... Buy a proper keeper, and have Pickford challenge as the back up.. To me that would always be the most logical way of doing it (up to when financial things come into play).
I've put it on a spreadsheet and I've found it quite interesting really. The waste of money united have each week as they continue to play 1 keeper (like every team can..) and are spending an unbelievable amount on two back ups. Absolutely crazy money. WHY they set up this way as clubs, I do not know. For me the natural thing would be to have two decent keepers and then a young keeper who can learn, be part of the squads, gain experience.
I know putting it on a sheet like this means i have to answer the following questions;
- Yes I am a sad person with plenty of time on his hands
- No I am not a virgin!
Looking at it, I imagine with Olsen he's quite low on wages so was an affordable loan/buy.
To summarise @Lanolin I do agree it's not value for money at all, but it seems to be a league wide thing for the most part.
We need bullies and bellends at the mo even just short term. Imagine bringing him on rather than Tosun, you'd have more faith we'd be able to score even if he has put on some timber.
