Gastón Ramírez-AM/LW-Bologna (30 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hust

Senior Member
Hustini
May 29, 2005
93,703
Stop being a baby Cam :p
The reason I quoted was because if that's the real reason these clubs don't want cash then all the more reason why we need better scouts.

I'd rather have a better scouting system than a shitty youth policy thats "we breed em you buy em".
 

Hust

Senior Member
Hustini
May 29, 2005
93,703
We spend money on youth projects yet pay much more for a player in addition to a good prospect for a player they barely paid for.

I will buy your seedless watermelon for 20 dollars that you bought for 3 because I couldn't find one of my own, but with that I'm giving you my hard earned porno collection hoping I can get the watermelon for 15 rather than your asking price of 20 dollars, even though my porno collection cost me 25 dollars to get.
 

IrishZebra

Western Imperialist
Jun 18, 2006
23,327
I think it's less straightforward than that. Smaller clubs have to do those deals through financial necessity. They are structured to achieve a certain level every year,sometimes they get a Ramirez and are able to improve 1 or 2 places before they make a big profit. If the cheap prospect fails, it's not big deal because the players are already there to achieve the goal. We can't do that because we don't have a squad capable of challenging for our goal, the Scudetto. That's why we have to pay big money, because our targets are higher and our threshold for failed signings lower, as evidenced by oour finishing 7th two years running.

Utd could afford to gamble on Chicharito because they have Rooney and Berba, we couldn't gamble on a Ramirez because we had a Pepe and Shartinez.
 

Hust

Senior Member
Hustini
May 29, 2005
93,703
And if gaston bombs like Martinez or Janet we will still be stuck with pepe and martinez. We could have a hell of a combo with gaston and pasquato.
 

Hust

Senior Member
Hustini
May 29, 2005
93,703
Yes but what I was saying was that we couldn't go for him when he was an unknown because it would represent a bigger risk than even Poope.
Add up the total transfer fees and salaries of amauri, Diego, iaquinta, pepe, Martinez, bonucci and motta then add up the fees of hamsik, pastore, llicic and Sanchez. Take the difference and that's how retarded this club is. Every single one of the players I mentioned is 10 times the players we have bought for a fraction of the cost yet you talk about "risk". They took risks and as a result will probably make 40+m off each while we keep trying to find someone to buy our "risk free" players.
 

IrishZebra

Western Imperialist
Jun 18, 2006
23,327
Napoli,Palermo,Udinese teams that can take risk because they only have to finish in or around the European places :blah:


We are shit at transfers though, no doubt.
 

IrishZebra

Western Imperialist
Jun 18, 2006
23,327
And who is playing in Europe this season?
Sanchez has gotten Udinese UCL, not turned them into an actual big club, do you see what I mean?

They buy a Sanchez and fail, it means little, they finish 9th instead of 4th, We buy a Diego that fails, we finish 7th instead of 1st. I guess what I'm saying is that it's all well an good to take a risk on n unknown where you have great players and depth but Top Clubs don't go out and buy a ramirez (before last year) if they have nobody in that Area. More often than not it doesn't come off.
 

Hust

Senior Member
Hustini
May 29, 2005
93,703
Sanchez has gotten Udinese UCL, not turned them into an actual big club, do you see what I mean?

They buy a Sanchez and fail, it means little, they finish 9th instead of 4th, We buy a Diego that fails, we finish 7th instead of 1st. I guess what I'm saying is that it's all well an good to take a risk on n unknown where you have great players and depth but Top Clubs don't go out and buy a ramirez (before last year) if they have nobody in that Area. More often than not it doesn't come off.
we took a risk on Sorensen and that worked out, can you imagine if we took more cheap risks like that?

Sorensen cost us 500k, yet bonucci cost us 15m. Last season Sorensen was superb for his age and fee. There was more risk in buying bonucci for 15m.
 

IrishZebra

Western Imperialist
Jun 18, 2006
23,327
we took a risk on Sorensen and that worked out, can you imagine if we took more cheap risks like that?

Sorensen cost us 500k, yet bonucci cost us 15m. Last season Sorensen was superb for his age and fee. There was more risk in buying bonucci for 15m.
20/20 hindsight, Sorenson over Bonucci 12 months ago would have looked utterly retarded.
 

KB824

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2003
31,789
no prob. I'm not against signing gaston but have a HUGE problem if it means sacrficing our youth without giving them a season minimum to shine.
that is where we disagree.

If Juve have the chance to get a player who is more talented, has a potential higher ceiling, and is also 2 years younger, then I am all for it. What I don't like is giving up youth players for those who are of the mediocre sort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 25)