Page 3 of 3
Posted:
Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:05 amby bigmick
18 million for Bent does sound like a lot, but it is at least a barometer on the market and probably a wake-up call for the people who are deciding what our budget should be. I've said it before on here, Bent is a good player and I'm sure he'll do well in a west Ham side which judging by the signings will be aiming for the top eight at least, but that is a huge fee even though he is admittedly quite young.
If he is worth 18 million, and Curbishley obviously thinks he is, then 35 or so for Eto looks like pretty good value to me. Given that Man Utd already have Rooney (who is worth over 30 million of anyone's money), Chelsea Drogba and Arsenal Henri, we may in actual fact never have a better chance of going in big for a striker and actually getting him. Ultimately, wringing our hands and saying "feck me that's expensive" is all very well, but if that's the market then that's the market. It's Eto for me, lets cut the nonsense and go get him.
Posted:
Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:35 pmby shanks
over rated over priced i am glad we didnt sign him 
Posted:
Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:43 pmby LFC2007
According to Sky sports news Bent has turned down a move to West Ham.
Posted:
Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:47 pmby shadders
maypaxvobiscum wrote:its ok we have voronin. voronin is gonna score more goals then.......
urm....
....
shevchenko. yeah. trust me on this one.
voronin is W*nk
not good enough
Posted:
Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:00 pmby destro
Im going to follow a trend and base my opinion of Voronin on what i have seen on Youtube, hes pretty quick and a good finisher. I have a feeling a few people will be eating their words about him once the season starts.
Like i had to about Crouch 
Disclaimer- i do not work for Youtube so i can not guarantee that the videos i saw of him are actually him, i also do not endorse the use of Youtube videos to base the ability of players nor do i ( despite the number of times i mention them ) work for Youtube 
Posted:
Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:03 pmby crillylfc
seems as we wont get any 1 else we mite aswell waste all our money on him!!
Posted:
Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:13 amby GRAHAM01
stmichael wrote:And as for him going to West Ham for £18m on £80,000 a week. That club's going the way of Leeds if you ask me.
you couldn`t be more right about that, when you look at how west ham used to be the team that sales players for this sort of amount not buying them
look at who they have sold and how much they have made from them there youth policy was outstanding but it seems to have all gone? not sure why?
but paying that sort of money on one player for a team that could go down this coming season is some thing that puts them in that leeds bracket imo
Posted:
Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:21 pmby LFC2007
The Leeds scenario was completely different, they didn't have a billionaire backer, if West Ham's Billionaire backer left IMMEDIATELY then I would foresee some financial hardship - but nowhere near the Leeds Utd scale. West Ham get a full house each week, they have the potential to be a very wealthy club. Their youth system hasn't gone, there are plenty of prospects at West Ham, Noble, Ferdinand - good young players.
Posted:
Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:49 pmby Ace Ventura
LFC2007 wrote:The Leeds scenario was completely different, they didn't have a billionaire backer, if West Ham's Billionaire backer left IMMEDIATELY then I would foresee some financial hardship - but nowhere near the Leeds Utd scale. West Ham get a full house each week, they have the potential to be a very wealthy club. Their youth system hasn't gone, there are plenty of prospects at West Ham, Noble, Ferdinand - good young players.
Only the part about the billionaire backer seperates the two, the rest of your post would apply to Leeds as well.
Full house every week, they were at the time, and did most of the first season they went down. Leeds are a massive one city club with far more potential than West Ham.
There youth system still produced Lennon, Carson and probably others that i cant remember and there are a couple that Chelsea have poached that Bates is/was trying to sue over.
If Magnusson sold up then they could be in a very awkward predicament, but at the moment why would he ?
Posted:
Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:08 pmby LFC2007
Ace Ventura wrote:LFC2007 wrote:The Leeds scenario was completely different, they didn't have a billionaire backer, if West Ham's Billionaire backer left IMMEDIATELY then I would foresee some financial hardship - but nowhere near the Leeds Utd scale. West Ham get a full house each week, they have the potential to be a very wealthy club. Their youth system hasn't gone, there are plenty of prospects at West Ham, Noble, Ferdinand - good young players.
Only the part about the billionaire backer seperates the two, the rest of your post would apply to Leeds as well.
Full house every week, they were at the time, and did most of the first season they went down. Leeds are a massive one city club with far more potential than West Ham.
There youth system still produced Lennon, Carson and probably others that i cant remember and there are a couple that Chelsea have poached that Bates is/was trying to sue over.
If Magnusson sold up then they could be in a very awkward predicament, but at the moment why would he ?
Magnusson is not the Billionaire backer, Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson is. Magnusson heads the consortium.
I am well aware about Leeds Utd support and their youth system. I was pointing West Ham's potential out as a reason they can avoid the Leeds Utd scenario, i.e. the potential to earn enough revenue to cover their increasing costs is there - more so since they have a billionaire backer and London generally offers a greater capacity to earn more.
The Leeds Utd crisis was gradual over 3 or 4 seasons, it was caused not only by signing players, but by an attitude of being profligate that riddled their finances.
They didn't have the Billionaire backer to balance the books in the immediate short term, at West Ham they are able to do so whilst at the same time working to increase revenues so they can continue with the same wage structure and transfer spending in future.
If the backer backed out immediately they would surely have to cut back on wages, but they are nowhere near the Leeds Scenario. If they continued to spend big on wages over 3 years and didn't increase their revenue to match then that would leave them with longer term problems, but as of now they are a million miles away from the Leeds scenario. It is not the club spending - it's the cash from the new owners.
Posted:
Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:04 pmby Ace Ventura
LFC2007 wrote:Ace Ventura wrote:LFC2007 wrote:The Leeds scenario was completely different, they didn't have a billionaire backer, if West Ham's Billionaire backer left IMMEDIATELY then I would foresee some financial hardship - but nowhere near the Leeds Utd scale. West Ham get a full house each week, they have the potential to be a very wealthy club. Their youth system hasn't gone, there are plenty of prospects at West Ham, Noble, Ferdinand - good young players.
Only the part about the billionaire backer seperates the two, the rest of your post would apply to Leeds as well.
Full house every week, they were at the time, and did most of the first season they went down. Leeds are a massive one city club with far more potential than West Ham.
There youth system still produced Lennon, Carson and probably others that i cant remember and there are a couple that Chelsea have poached that Bates is/was trying to sue over.
If Magnusson sold up then they could be in a very awkward predicament, but at the moment why would he ?
Magnusson is not the Billionaire backer, Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson is. Magnusson heads the consortium.
I am well aware about Leeds Utd support and their youth system. I was pointing West Ham's potential out as a reason they can avoid the Leeds Utd scenario, i.e. the potential to earn enough revenue to cover their increasing costs is there - more so since they have a billionaire backer and London generally offers a greater capacity to earn more.
The Leeds Utd crisis was gradual over 3 or 4 seasons, it was caused not only by signing players, but by an attitude of being profligate that riddled their finances.
They didn't have the Billionaire backer to balance the books in the immediate short term, at West Ham they are able to do so whilst at the same time working to increase revenues so they can continue with the same wage structure and transfer spending in future.
If the backer backed out immediately they would surely have to cut back on wages, but they are nowhere near the Leeds Scenario. If they continued to spend big on wages over 3 years and didn't increase their revenue to match then that would leave them with longer term problems, but as of now they are a million miles away from the Leeds scenario. It is not the club spending - it's the cash from the new owners.
Now you make a bit more sense mate, the first post you seemed to indicate that Leeds did not have a fantastic following and one of the better acadamies, but West Ham do.
Totally see your point now about the backers of Wham.
Posted:
Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:37 pmby Scottbot
Ace Ventura wrote:Totally see your point now about the backers of Wham.
Pepsi and Shirley?
Posted:
Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:38 amby Redrulz(lfc)
It's look that bent is coming to liverpool 90% if this deal happen then it is not more then heartbraeking news plz don't sign him.
Posted:
Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:33 amby Red H
I know that Bent is, to say the least, not everyones cup of tea, However lets start looking on the brightside.
1.He knows the league.
2.He's an Englishman playing for an English club.
3.He can't get more stick than Crouch.
4.It looks like he's turned moves down to other club, form which we could infer that he's not a total merc.
5.It could just be a smokescreen for someone else.
I know this is the most glass half full I could possibly be but it's better than all this doom & gloom I keep reading. Come on the season hasn't even started, lots of time yet. What's it they say on Dad's Army... Don't Panic.