Paulo Dybala

Status
Not open for further replies.
septic said:
of course they would help the team, what u on about?
Click to expand...

LennonNL said:
How would 2 world class talents not help the team?
Click to expand...

Of course they would help the team - even an average league 2 player will in terms of squad numbers -, but in this case they will help our game a lot better but won't solve half of our problems.
There is absolutely no justification in spending a gross £200m+ -probably our full budget - on two hyper-similar players. Although their game is different, but don't let getting two world class players just for the sake of that blind you from the fact they are both left-footed dimunitive forward-AM hybrid whose first thought is to put the ball in the net - which is not the top problem.
Sure they will definitely improve the team, but when you consider the fact they won't solve a lot of our problems, then you have to think twice.
A link between midfield and attack and creativity simultaneously, width and attacking impetus from the left full back and right wing. Sure they will solve a bit or full fold of the former, but no chance of the latter two.
Futhermore, there will be an inevitable shoe-horn, a 90m square peg in a round hole and even worse, a 150m player playing in a position that will make him look like a glorified Juan Mata.
All in all, won't be a great move. Don't get me wrong, they will improve the team, but not to the extent that price should.
 
No chance.

He would cost north of £150m propbably.

I have doubt that we are willing to go to the new asking price for the top calibre of players.

We should have bought Neymar if we were willing to spend this sort of money.
 
Trizy said:
I don't think signing Dybala is completely outrageous. We're in bed with Raiola so stranger things happened.

The only problem is, regardless of how good he is, will he fit us and improve us? Probably not.
Click to expand...

A massive upgrade on Mata and Miki? Of course that improves us.
 
Mcking said:
Of course they would help the team - even an average league 2 player will in terms of squad numbers -, but in this case they will help our game a lot better but won't solve half of our problems.
There is absolutely no justification in spending a gross £200m+ -probably our full budget - on two hyper-similar players. Although their game is different, but don't let getting two world class players just for the sake of that blind you from the fact they are both left-footed dimunitive forward-AM hybrid whose first thought is to put the ball in the net - which is not the top problem.
Sure they will definitely improve the team, but when you consider the fact they won't solve a lot of our problems, then you have to think twice.
A link between midfield and attack and creativity simultaneously, width and attacking impetus from the left full back and right wing. Sure they will solve a bit or full fold of the former, but no chance of the latter two.
Futhermore, there will be an inevitable shoe-horn, a 90m square peg in a round hole and even worse, a 150m player playing in a position that will make him look like a glorified Juan Mata.
All in all, won't be a great move. Don't get me wrong, they will improve the team, but not to the extent that price should.
Click to expand...

It would most likely be a great move. He would bring more goals, general quality and more points. We also need another world class CM to anchor with Matic and Pog but that does not mean we pass on an attacking player who can lift the dimension of the attack and be in the side for many seasons.
 
We Will not match his asking price, We are not a club with unlimited funds. We have to use our kitty to upgrade other areas too so i dont think we can afford to spend that much on a single player.

It will be griezmann.
 
Icemav said:
It would most likely be a great move. He would bring more goals, general quality and more points. We also need another world class CM to anchor with Matic and Pog but that does not mean we pass on an attacking player who can lift the dimension of the attack and be in the side for many seasons.
Click to expand...
Did you read the posts I was replying to?
 
prtk0811 said:
We Will not match his asking price, We are not a club with unlimited funds. We have to use our kitty to upgrade other areas too so i dont think we can afford to spend that much on a single player.

It will be griezmann.
Click to expand...

If we are playing the budget game then we shouldn't be spending £90M on a player that doesn't address any of the issues in this team.
 
Devil may care said:
If we are playing the budget game then we shouldn't be spending £90M on a player that doesn't address any of the issues in this team.
Click to expand...

I think that you are both right. He's correct we have a limited budget and can't spend our entire transfer budget on one player whilst leaving holes in the rest of the squad. You are right that spending 90m on a player that we don't really need and will have to shoehorn into the team is also not the wisest decision. We should try to buy some quality players in the 30m to 50m range and supplement them with some free transfers and sell some of the deadwood and reinvest those funds in the squad. It is sad that the richest club in the world can't splash the cash and buy the best players in the world but that's the reality of being owned by the Glazers.
 
He's what we need tbh. We don't have that positionless (relatively speaking) final third player that can open up a defense with skill, explosion and creativity. Miki was supposed to be that but he hasn't done it consistently enough.
 
Dybala would be an amazing buy. Should have bought him before he joined Juve, because the price he'll cost now will be insane.Even then, I would like us to poke our nose in and see whether a deal can be done. Raiola likes us. We have done business with Juve as well. It's just the price which will have to be negotiated.

However, if I am realistic, I think he will go to Madrid or Barcelona, more likely Madrid seeing as they missed out on Mbappe and with them seemingly fed up of Bale's injury record.
 
Ijazz17 said:
Dybala would be an amazing buy. Should have bought him before he joined Juve, because the price he'll cost now will be insane.Even then, I would like us to poke our nose in and see whether a deal can be done. Raiola likes us. We have done business with Juve as well. It's just the price which will have to be negotiated.

However, if I am realistic, I think he will go to Madrid or Barcelona, more likely Madrid seeing as they missed out on Mbappe and with them seemingly fed up of Bale's injury record.
Click to expand...

I would be really angry if United were so stupid as to pay Real Madrid 90m for Bale and they then use the money to buy Dybala. If we buy Bale I would probably turn on Jose!
 
What's stopping City from signing him? He'd suit their style much better than our own.

If I'm being honest, if City win the league in the same fashion they have done until now, players will be licking their lips to be linked with them.

And as for City, they look like they'll back Pep at all cost. They have no club budget, they'll spend what ever FFP will allow them to. Probably 150m+.
 
Trizy said:
What's stopping City from signing him? He'd suit their style much better than our own.

If I'm being honest, if City win the league in the same fashion they have done until now, players will be licking their lips to be linked with them.

And as for City, they look like they'll back Pep at all cost. They have no club budget, they'll spend what ever FFP will allow them to. Probably 150m+.
Click to expand...
Dybala is a luxury city don't need right now.
 
poacher said:
I think that you are both right. He's correct we have a limited budget and can't spend our entire transfer budget on one player whilst leaving holes in the rest of the squad. You are right that spending 90m on a player that we don't really need and will have to shoehorn into the team is also not the wisest decision. We should try to buy some quality players in the 30m to 50m range and supplement them with some free transfers and sell some of the deadwood and reinvest those funds in the squad. It is sad that the richest club in the world can't splash the cash and buy the best players in the world but that's the reality of being owned by the Glazers.
Click to expand...

You think City and PSG could afford best players as if they have unlimited funds? That's not true, they can't splash out money on whatever they like, they have to respect FFP so do we.
 
deafepl said:
You think City and PSG could afford best players as if they have unlimited funds? That's not true, they can't splash out money on whatever they like, they have to respect FFP so do we.
Click to expand...
It's easier for clubs like PSG and Man City to circumvent FFP though.
 
Ijazz17 said:
It's easier for clubs like PSG and Man City to circumvent FFP though.
Click to expand...

Not really, FFP forced PSG to sell players or find a way to get 80m to meet the requirement regarding of their revenue. United are the only club that one of the easiest clubs to circumvent FFP. We don't have a problem with FFP cos our revenue without player sales is much bigger than Barcelona by 100m and and City by 100-200m.
 
deafepl said:
You think City and PSG could afford best players as if they have unlimited funds? That's not true, they can't splash out money on whatever they like, they have to respect FFP so do we.
Click to expand...

Come on we all know that FFP rules are a joke. The owners can't directly pump funds to cover losses but it is possible for a distantly related business to undertake sponsorships and advertising etc at greater than market rates. Where there is a will there is a way to creatively circumvent the FFP rules. Man City and PSG have gone from being trash clubs to be being European Elites in the last decade through massive investment from their owners either directly or through questionable revenue streams whereas we have had leeches sucking out over a billion from our coffers. Arsenal and Liverpool have also been handicapped by terrible American shareholders.
 
Sunny Jim said:
Ever been to Dubai airport? They don't need golden walls and that but somehow they have it.
Click to expand...
No I have not been to Dubai. But from what I've observed, city's transfer businesses are pretty much in Guardiola's control and he is not from Dubai. :wenger:
All the signings he's made has been absolutely spot-on, based on need and necessity for his system rather than just signing big names for the sake of it.
 
poacher said:
Come on we all know that FFP rules are a joke. The owners can't directly pump funds to cover losses but it is possible for a distantly related business to undertake sponsorships and advertising etc at greater than market rates. Where there is a will there is a way to creatively circumvent the FFP rules. Man City and PSG have gone from being trash clubs to be being European Elites in the last decade through massive investment from their owners either directly or through questionable revenue streams whereas we have had leeches sucking out over a billion from our coffers. Arsenal and Liverpool have also been handicapped by terrible American shareholders.
Click to expand...

So pity that you believe a story that media are feeding you.
 
deafepl said:
Not really, FFP forced PSG to sell players or find a way to get 80m to meet the requirement regarding of their revenue. United are the only club that one of the easiest clubs to circumvent FFP. We don't have a problem with FFP cos our revenue without player sales is much bigger than Barcelona by 100m and and City by 100-200m.
Click to expand...
That wasn't my point. They can come with that kind of money by signing a sponsorship with a company nobody has even heard of probably a Shell company of the qatari owners. FFP is not about curbing a club's spending ability but more about preventing a club from going under. In that regard, it should be relatively easy for them to find a loophole in the FFP rules. They've already done it by amortizing Neymar's 222m Release clause and Mbappe's "Loan" deal.
 
Trizy said:
Either was Silva or Sanchez, yet they signed 1 and nearly signed the other. The latter will probably sign January.
Click to expand...
v
They actually did need Silva as there were doubts over Sterling and Sane was yet to start performing as he's done this season.
They had the chance to sign Sanchez last summer, but pulled the plug the last minute; and that was in August before their attack actually clicked. There's no reason why they would be back for him in January especially with the form their attack is right now. They would probably be back for him next summer if he doesn't sign a new contract since he will be available for free.
There's not much comparison between city chasing a free Sanchez and a 150m Dybala.
 
Ijazz17 said:
That wasn't my point. They can come with that kind of money by signing a sponsorship with a company nobody has even heard of probably a Shell company of the qatari owners. FFP is not about curbing a club's spending ability but more about preventing a club from going under. In that regard, it should be relatively easy for them to find a loophole in the FFP rules. They've already done it by amortizing Neymar's 222m Release clause and Mbappe's "Loan" deal.
Click to expand...

FFP updated new policy that sponsorship must be legitimate. PSG comply successfully with the FFP because of the net spending, their net spending is 170m compared to our net spending 150m. PSG knew they have to comply the with FFP, they can't do if they brought mpabppe outright for 160m now, they only brought him on a loan deal with an option to buy outright next summer for 160m.

FFP has affected Chelsea, City and PSG more than us which limited their net spending in term of ratio to their revenue. FFP turned Chelsea into selling the club to fund player's wage and transfer spending. If you look at their operating revenue ratio to you would know it's not good for them and is in bad financially but as long as the club don't spend more than what they earn, it is ok. City, Chelsea and PSG both have 1-5m cash left after operating annually and we have 70-100m left. A better example if we were backed by the Qataris owner instead of PSG, we could spend 300m easily in net spending and comply with the FFP rules.

Anytime there's a loophole in FFP rules, they'll update new rule.
 
Rumors in Turin say he will be a galactico next Summer for a fee north of €150m
 
Would be really poor from Woodward if Dybala is Madrid bound and we would get Bale as a 'unwanted reject' per se.

We still need that link and spark of magic from midfield to attack, it looked as if Mkhi was going to step up to the plate but he has been poor the last month or so.

Griezmann or Dybala both could play centrally and would fit easily into the Agent Pogba and co clique.
 
I thought Perez refuses to sign a Raiola player?
This seems to be Madrids pattern over the last few years. Get linked with a Galatico mid season, can't get the fee down so the manager tells us about how much faith he has in Isco etc.
 
cyberman said:
I thought Perez refuses to sign a Raiola player?
This seems to be Madrids pattern over the last few years. Get linked with a Galatico mid season, can't get the fee down so the manager tells us about how much faith he has in Isco etc.
Click to expand...

Dybala is not a Raiola-player.
 
deafepl said:
Not really, FFP forced PSG to sell players or find a way to get 80m to meet the requirement regarding of their revenue. United are the only club that one of the easiest clubs to circumvent FFP. We don't have a problem with FFP cos our revenue without player sales is much bigger than Barcelona by 100m and and City by 100-200m.
Click to expand...

You're talking utter rubbish so stop digging.

FFP is a farce and PSG/City are the primary beneficiaries.
 
@Nedved
Ah that makes sense, I have no idea why his opinion is given so much authority that it warranted a title change though
 
deafepl said:
FFP updated new policy that sponsorship must be legitimate. PSG comply successfully with the FFP because of the net spending, their net spending is 170m compared to our net spending 150m. PSG knew they have to comply the with FFP, they can't do if they brought mpabppe outright for 160m now, they only brought him on a loan deal with an option to buy outright next summer for 160m.

FFP has affected Chelsea, City and PSG more than us which limited their net spending in term of ratio to their revenue. FFP turned Chelsea into selling the club to fund player's wage and transfer spending. If you look at their operating revenue ratio to you would know it's not good for them and is in bad financially but as long as the club don't spend more than what they earn, it is ok. City, Chelsea and PSG both have 1-5m cash left after operating annually and we have 70-100m left. A better example if we were backed by the Qataris owner instead of PSG, we could spend 300m easily in net spending and comply with the FFP rules.

Anytime there's a loophole in FFP rules, they'll update new rule.
Click to expand...

I can't say much about those numbers you posted, but even if PSG need to find the reported 80m (And that has so far only been reported by one source so far), the marketing pull that Neymar has is bound to bring in a few legit sponsors. Not to mention there are reports that PSG are trying to renogotiate a deal with Nike which will almost quadruple in value. Then of course, there is the Champions League money which PSG will get, provided they advance far enough, which in theory they should. If you factor in all that, even if you remove any possibility of them bending the rules, PSG should still be comfortable enough to avoid any FFP penalties. At worst, they have to sell maybe one or two players.

But anyways, all of this is way off topic. Clubs will always find a way around these rules. It's a pretty common theme in most sports. Yes, of course UEFA will react, but by then, there will be another workaround. I anyways doubt PSG will be interested in Dybala. Man City maybe. He would be an upgrade on Sterling. Still think he's Madrid bound though. Just seems one of those inevitable things.
 
Ijazz17 said:
I can't say much about those numbers you posted, but even if PSG need to find the reported 80m (And that has so far only been reported by one source so far), the marketing pull that Neymar has is bound to bring in a few legit sponsors. Not to mention there are reports that PSG are trying to renogotiate a deal with Nike which will almost quadruple in value. Then of course, there is the Champions League money which PSG will get, provided they advance far enough, which in theory they should. If you factor in all that, even if you remove any possibility of them bending the rules, PSG should still be comfortable enough to avoid any FFP penalties. At worst, they have to sell maybe one or two players.

But anyways, all of this is way off topic. Clubs will always find a way around these rules. It's a pretty common theme in most sports. Yes, of course UEFA will react, but by then, there will be another workaround. I anyways doubt PSG will be interested in Dybala. Man City maybe. He would be an upgrade on Sterling. Still think he's Madrid bound though. Just seems one of those inevitable things.
Click to expand...

Agreed with everything you said.

Since Monaco is likely to be out of the champions league groups stages, PSG could probably be entitled to take large shares of French market pool depending on their performance, more they go further in the champions league, more money they make. Also If they get knocked out in a round of 16 (unlikely), it could have a serious impact on their financials.
 
poacher said:
I think that you are both right. He's correct we have a limited budget and can't spend our entire transfer budget on one player whilst leaving holes in the rest of the squad. You are right that spending 90m on a player that we don't really need and will have to shoehorn into the team is also not the wisest decision. We should try to buy some quality players in the 30m to 50m range and supplement them with some free transfers and sell some of the deadwood and reinvest those funds in the squad. It is sad that the richest club in the world can't splash the cash and buy the best players in the world but that's the reality of being owned by the Glazers.
Click to expand...

A lot will depend on whether Jose thinks we need as much as most of us on the Caf feel we do, he may well be thinking just 2 signings in the summer, if so then Dybala would be an option.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.