Ivan Perisic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dion said:
That's not what was said though.
Click to expand...
Okay, let me rephrase then: he didn't just get a transfer budget and could buy whoever he wanted within that budget. There were other considerations he had to accept.
 
Siorac said:
Yes it was.


This is what Revan said and then what Moonwalker and Dion quoted.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you're misreading what he said (or you've never played football manager). Having £30m to spend as and where you see fit in football manager doesn't mean you can just ignore the wage bill. You don't get allocated £150m and decide how to distribute it between wages and transfer fees (although you do get a little bit of leeway to play with surplus).

What used to happen was SAF would be told how much he could spend on players and he could sign who he liked provided it didn't break the wage structure. This is how it works on FM.
 
Siorac said:
Yes it was.

This is what Revan said and then what Moonwalker and Dion quoted.
Click to expand...
I'm just trying to imagine someone reading this and agonising over - what it has to do with Ivan Perisic. Threads go off rails very quickly.

That tangent had to do with the claim that a specific budget which you can spend on whoever you want is a fiction from the world of Football manager, and we know, as it happens, from Fergie's first book, that that simply isn't true. @Dion already explained all this very succinctly.

This is a separate issue from the broader one, and my main point was that the whole "full backing" argument is nonsense upon stilts, because no manager ever had that. As you point out in the case of wages (and it's all true) he couldn't sign whoever he wanted and we missed out on some great players because of it. What's of real interest here to me, is the whole Dwight Yorke transfer which, not only points to a specific budget, but also a piece of Machiavellianism by Fergie who agreed to relinquish a part of the budget from the next fiscal year, in order to get more money sooner, and ultimately got his man. It's quite conceivable that something similar could have happened in January between Woodward and Mourinho back when we agreed to pay insane wages in a window where the manager previously claimed we would be doing no business (from my extremely unreliable memory). Maybe that proverbial chicken is coming home this window?

And then who said what, and who went back on his word (if anyone) is all conjecture (unlike the Football manager thread which you picked up).

The main point is, Mourinho can't be considered to have full backing, only in the event that the CEO is a goldfish, especially if he isn't very hands on with the finances, which he doesn't appear to be. He's much more like a bratty 6 year old, than an adolescent with an allowance (and a modicum of responsibility). He's also the only one in this whole affair that has a platform to constantly moan (well him and noodlehair).
 
I thought it was clear at the time that signing Sanchez then would mean a little less budget in this window. Or at least that’s how I took it at the time
 
bucky said:
I thought it was clear at the time that signing Sanchez then would mean a little less budget in this window. Or at least that’s how I took it at the time
Click to expand...

Why, when that was a straight swap?
 
golden_blunder said:
I thought it was clear at the time that signing Sanchez then would mean a little less budget in this window. Or at least that’s how I took it at the time
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's my understanding too. So then - if a player is not obtainable because of that "little less", and the manager throws a strop, is he going back on his word, or is he not getting "full backing"?
 
Moonwalker said:
Yeah, that's my understanding too. So then - if a player is not obtainable because of that "little less", and the manager throws a strop, is he going back on his word, or is he not getting "full backing"?
Click to expand...
It was in reference to signing an attacking player. He states since we signed an attacking player in January, we did not need to sign one in the summer window.
 
sherrinford said:
Why, when that was a straight swap?
Click to expand...
300k/week wages difference, which over the course of 4 years is around 60m. Add to it the signing on fee, agent bonus, and loyalty fee for Mkhitaryan and we are talking for at least 80m pounds difference between signing Sanchez and just keeping Mkhitaryan.
 
golden_blunder said:
I thought it was clear at the time that signing Sanchez then would mean a little less budget in this window. Or at least that’s how I took it at the time
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be. Jose missed out on Perisic at the start of that season you could count Sanchez as that signing. He should have the full backing to get what he needs this window.
 
Revan said:
300k/week wages difference, which over the course of 4 years is around 60m. Add to it the signing on fee, agent bonus, and loyalty fee for Mkhitaryan and we are talking for at least 80m pounds difference between signing Sanchez and just keeping Mkhitaryan.
Click to expand...
Our revenue to wages ratio is among the best in Europe so i doubt this is a problem.
Thats the equivalent of signing Fred and Delot and nobody is saying those signings hamstring us and that doesn't even include their wages on top of that.
Id say the overall cost of Fred would overtake Sanchez by contracts end.
Sanchez really isn't that expensive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.