MNC: Transfer deadline eve & Messi says goodbye to Argentina

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. Prep for a busy week with Whole Foods Market. Start your day with fully cooked breakfast sausages from Amy Lou, 365 brand frozen waffles with no bleached flowers, and of course Whole Foods Market eggs, which are all cage free or better. In the evening, bring home a build your own family meal that feeds for just $35. Choose one entry in two sides. Shop smarter, not harder, at Whole Foods Market. Labor Day deals are looking good at lows. Save $10 on one gallon cans and $50 on five gallon pails of select interior paint via rebate. Plus, get $2.5 court to three court mums for just $8. A fresh look and savings? Even better. Labor Day deals are on now at lows. In store and online, valid through $9.9, gossip lies last, mumsize is very by location and exclude Lask and Hawaii. See store at lowz.com for more details. Monday night club on the way then in the company of Chris Sutton, Rory Smith, and Stephen Warner. We're going to do transfers really for the first half hour, also, as we get closer to the window closing. Do you find this, Stephen? I'll come to you first. Is this the most baffling transfer window you have ever seen? Yes. And could you put a reason why on that? Honestly, no. I find it bizarre how much prices have been inflated and how much people are going for. I found it, we were just talking off air, weren't we saying that? I found it incredible how players who were signed last year by clubs of scored one goal, i.e. the lap goes for £10 million more. I look at James Trafford and I think went to Manchester City, they sell him for £30 million more. I found it incredible that clubs are actually willing to pay those inflated prices for players. I think there's a lot of panic buying going on. I think there's a lot of pressure now to get within the top four, top five of the Champions League places to make sure there's more money coming into the football club. But I think what we're seeing in England between clubs and certainly for homegrown players, I feel really sorry for homegrown players at the moment because I just think you go to an academy and ideally you go to the academy of the team you support if you're lucky and that becomes your team and you want to play for that team. As soon as you get in the first team they look at you and go well there's a value in you and there's full profit in it and I look at Harrison Armstrong, you really think Harrison Armstrong wants to leave Everton after just breaking into that first team. Going out alone to Preston, working hard, getting his opportunity and then they get a call and say by the way Everton have accepted a bid, it's not would you like to go, they've accepted a bid and I was like how can you accept that bid for a homegrown player? Don't get me wrong, it's big money, it's astronomical money for a homegrown player but yeah I think we need to re-evaluate what's going on because a lot of homegrown players. I actually had this conversation with someone the other day at the Liverpool game and I thought what a great point this is, could you imagine Stephen Gerr coming through the academy? And he plays a handful of games towards the end of the season and Nottingham Forest come in with a £40 million bid and Liverpool go, well we need that money because it's full profit and you potentially lose a great of the club or because of PSR. But the interesting thing about that Rory is that the fans were furious about it. Now I don't know in how many examples of transfers this because there have been a lot of transfers between clubs where you go, well where's that come from or actually aren't the fan base fuming that that's happened? Now I think the Chelsea fans are not happy with Fernandez but I think that's as much comments over the last six months as necessarily going to City. But the Everton fan base saying, "Hang on me, you can't do this." It's one of the few examples of real anger this summer. Is everybody just becoming more immune, do you think? Oh well they're just going to go there from there. Well I think the Harrison Armstrong one is a slightly unusual case because as Stephen says he's a homegrown player at a club that's got a really proud tradition of having Liverpool Lions and Evertonians in that team. And I think he's the only one and that hurts fans, so that would hurt him and United would hurt Liverpool to see a kid who's a boyhood fan come through, get into the team and then just be sold because he represents pure profit. That's damaging. I think fans find that really kind of, it calls into question what the purpose of the club is effectively. I think in most of the cases if you've got a player who's not in that circumstance who's been kind of brought into that team for money, I think we've all got a little bit like in your to the figures. I mean totally gapo now looks like it's about to not go through but Lord knows. But you know that's 85 million twid for someone who a city would be a squad player. That's almost a meaningless amount of money and I think it's maybe a split. There's fans who I think are kind of bamboozled by just a sheer scale of the spending and there's other fans who think well that's fine because that means you can spend that on somebody else and as long as the kind of that dopamine here of a new player coming in keeps rolling they're okay with it. But I'm the same as you Mark I found it. I don't understand what's happened in this window. Partly the inflation. Partly why everyone's left it so late. Forrest made a bid for two gold keepers yesterday. Did they not think they needed a gold keeper in July? Why? I mean I get that you can try and drive a bargain. Well and also Rory less often forget as Chris very helpfully told me two or three weeks ago you can't play two gold keepers because of it. So that pie is quite confused by that. Well it's it's a tactic that only sort of managerial visionaries can change. So no it's it's I presume they went for Mamadash really because they they dropped told no by Dean Henderson or by Palace but why are you doing that on all just the 30s? Yeah. Doesn't make any sense and I you can kind of make a case that you you hold and hold and hold and hold and hold and the hope of strengthening your negotiating position. But then if you put a bid in this light on it does kind of look desperate and when you look desperate what happens is the price goes up. Can I just go back to the talk about the homegrown players very quickly? So when Liverpool Soul Curtis Jones the next squad was the first time in 134 years they had another scoutser in the team. That matters. It's huge for the fans. But it's not only the fans chappers it's the academy because you draw players to the academy by the the the fact of where we progress our players into the first team now they'll be looking at it going we progress our players to sell them. How do you see it Chris? No I think Steven makes you know a great point actually about the you know about homegrown players and that and that feeling and that connection you know if this carries on will it you know will there be the same sort of feeling for young players you know going into their boyhood club and really cherishing that it has been wild. I quite like some of it. I quite like what Ipswich have done. I love clubs who come up and they spend and that you know and they're having it go. They evidently had a plan in the summer this is what they were going to do and you could probably say that it feels like maybe a whole have had a plan as well but there are and who knows what to believe or not to believe and a little later on what we'll talk to David Ornstein but well hang on a minute if you're if you're a city well so you've sold Savinio but then you brought in Alan. Davio. Sorry Davio. Well they sold Savinio but that's mad at us. If you want to be really factually correct. Yeah. So but they've done that and then they've sort of pivoted to I will we'll see if we can get Cody Gapo but then they can't get code don't appear to be able to get. So we might then go for it. There's no plan. You know we might then go for NGI who's also on a spurs list but now I mean and and these are these these bigger clubs are the ones with the well they've all got sporting directors but we're told we're living an age of sporting directors and carefully planned squads. Yeah and but there's there's I mean they're just all pretend as aren't they you know essentially clubs pretend they plan but they don't they the Cody Gapo are saying I mean I've got to say I thought we had gone to City the other the other day I thought that was done and Dustin. I only saw before I came on tonight that Liverpool have told you did you research so you don't research that bit today. That's that's incredible and itself really what Liverpool's mindset was in letting him go and I never understood that and you know Iriola has gone in and you think well you know what's wrong with Cody Gapo. I think he's you know been pretty reliable for them. I don't understand why Manchester United haven't brought a left back I think that that is that's pretty alarming in itself but there are there are stories or you know all the way through as the Eston Villa situation where I mean I thought they beat bright and last week based on their results. results against Brighton the previous season, and then I saw they had half a team, and that is, I mean, if you're a villa fan, you think what on earth is going on? I mean, they've sold half the team who won the Europa, and I mean, stuff like Ollie Watkins, that winds me up 30-year-old going to Saudi. I know people can talk about the Saudi League maybe getting better, but I think it's a horrible look for him. So there's a lot which has annoyed me about the window, but it does seem wilder than ever. Let's talk about the money side of things, and where clubs are getting some of this from. Dr. Tom Basin joins us now. Do you look at some of these fees, giving your football finance expertise and think, how are they managing to do this? Or does it make sense to you when you have the numbers in front of you? Well, I was talking to my dad about it yesterday, and he mentioned about Everton selling a player for $80 million, or so he's an Everton fan, and saying that that's maybe not enough, and I said that if Everton saw the player for $80 million two seasons ago, you'd have thought that would be ridiculous. That would fund the club for transfers for a couple of years. So the amount of transfers seemed to have gone up this season, the number of £100 million signings this season. Yeah, it's been surprising, but then the line goes up. Clubs revenues are going up, and for most industries from revenues go up, that translates into profits, but football clubs aren't there to make profits. So when the revenues go up, so do the transfer fees and the salaries, and that's very much what we've seen this summer. Where are the revenues going up? And maybe this is a bit difficult because I'm lumping a whole load of clubs together here who have spent a lot of money and they may have different reasons for their revenues going up. But if you take the outlaid that Spurs have made, now their fans would probably go, "Oh, we haven't done that much in previous years, so maybe that's why we're doing it now." But does that come from basically having had Champions League football every now and then over the last two years? Does the new Champions League format immediately skew it to teams who have been in there, even if it's just been for a season or two? Well, it definitely skews it, I think, to those teams that have been it for longer because we have the way that you've set up the payments in the wake of the European Super League, was that the clubs have been in their Champions League for longer, getting more money than the clubs have just been in for one season or two seasons. But yeah, even that Aston Villa, I think, and 17 million or so from their run to the quarterfinals was two, a couple of years ago. That's a huge amount of money for a mid-table Premier League club. That's almost half of what ball-mether in a season. So yeah, I think those clubs that are in the Champions League and in the Champions League year after year are always going to have far more spending power than those clubs aren't. Tom, can you explain the difference between PSR in our league? Am I right in saying that in the Champions League, you can only spend 70% of your profit? So squat cross ratio. So that's different, isn't it? So it's okay saying we make this money in the Champions League, but then for 70% of it, it's surely going to have to take a hit at some point. So yeah, we've got the new squat cross ratio being introduced to the Premier League this season, which is broadly similar to UEFA's rules. And what it basically says is that a club can spend either 85% in the Premier League or 70% for UEFA. They can spend that percentage of their football revenues on their first teams. So that's money that's spent on transfer fees, on player wages, on agents fees, and on the head coach or manager's salary. So what it does, is it directly links the amount of revenue a club makes to the amount that it can spend. PSR previously said that a club could lose 35 million of season, up to 105 million over three seasons. That was kind of a different question. That was asking how much a club can lose. And that 105 million was the same, whether you have 500 million pound revenues like Manchester City or 100 million pound revenues like Bournemouth. Now we have Premier League clubs can spend 85% of their revenues and 85% of Manchester City's revenues is an awful lot more than 85% of Bournemouth or Brentless revenues. And yes, clubs in New York, in European competition, very, very similar regulations in UEFA. They're limited to 70%. I think for the clubs in the Champions League, the action money they get, probably, means that that's broadly offset. Like I say, Gilla made 70 million a couple of seasons ago. The clubs that I think are going to be really hard hit are the ones that are in the conference league and the Europa League, because they're going to be bound by that UEFA 70% rule. But the revenues they make are far, far less. Tottenham made half the money in winning the Europa League that they're made in the Champions League a couple of seasons ago. Which then brings us to this point. People are praising Brentford for what they have done, not just this summer, but in the past. But actually Brentford, by not qualifying for Europe, did themselves a favour on the squad cost ratio. Didn't they, Tom, because it means they can still be at the squad cost ratio of 85%, where say Bournemouth and Brighton have to drop to 70 because they are in, they are, they are in European football. Yeah, I suspect that Brentford have probably run well enough that they're going to be up towards that 85% anyway. But yeah, Chelsea, not in European competition this season, they don't have to abide. Obviously they've got some European restrictions because of how they failed UEFA regulations in the past. But Chelsea broadly have this 85% rule that none of their other title challenges have because they're all playing in Europe. And Tom, is that partly what's happened then, that the clubs basically driven by the Champions League 5, I suppose, that they have basically looked at it and thought, well, we're no longer high bound by this, need to not make losses. We can just cut loose and do what we like. The part of SCR that wasn't passed by the Premier League was a bit, that would anchor it as a by a factor of 1.8 or whatever to the bottom club, which would effectively have put a cap on spending, even with the richest teams, that bit didn't get through. So now what you have is this sort of supercharged market where the big teams basically do what they want, as long as they kind of keep some money rolling in to offset a bit of it from sales. Yeah, or they get those revenues from playing in the club, for example, every two years, or the many they get from the Champions League every season. So yeah, we're now in a situation where the clubs at the top are going to have far more revenues coming in and can spend 70% of it instead of 80% because they're going to be in the Champions League every season. Although UEFA's restrictions are stricter, their punishments are far less punitive than the Premier League. There's tends not to be points deductions in UEFA. I suspect that some of the clubs in that are in European competition think they could probably ride out any UEFA restrictions. If they fail, you know, Villa failed last season and had, I think, two thirds of their fine suspended. So even our 70% restriction in UEFA competitions isn't necessarily that, you know, a hard line. And even then, you could take it as a luxury tax, which is not unfamiliar to people in the US sport. The other thing I'd say, or I'd ask you, you mentioned revenues are going up, which is obviously true. They cannot possibly, even for the, like, the big clubs, we don't up at the rate of football inflation, because you're looking at, if suddenly, kind of, it's 70, 80 million twid for a pretty broad standard, right? Winner. That is a factor, you know, it's that maybe not quite doubled from a couple of years ago, but it's not far off. That for most clubs, their revenues are not going up that way. So is that just kind of an inflationary spiral that prices at the top are driving that? And everyone's kind of saying, okay, well, we'll have to pay that to keep up. Or is there something else at play? I suspect it's partly that. I also think that in the Premier League, we have the fact that the revenues are increasing for all the clubs, whereas they're not in other leagues. I think in the last Deloitte reports that there were 15 or the 30 richest clubs in the world are playing the Premier League. And so we have, it's not just the big clubs that are spending big money. These transfer inflation is being driven as well by clubs that are in the mid table, you know, whose equivalent clubs in Spain and Italy in France are probably spending 10 million this season. But is that a, is it a bubble that won't burst as long as they keep trading between themselves? Possibly, possibly, that might be the case. I mean, whether it's a bubble, I remember when I stood at this point 20 years ago, my lecture then telling me this is a bubble that's going to. Because the first match of the day of this season, were you talking about transfer fees? And there is a website where you can look at what somebody cost back in the day and what it would cost now. And we may have mentioned this on the show before, but Shira, for example, the 50 million that Shira went to Newcastle 4 in 96 from Blackburn, equivalent now will be somewhere around 240 million pounds. So when you hear that, there is an element of perspective, but the weren't, the weren't deal after day, I don't remember there being deal after deal after deal after deal back then at that. Well, that's, that's the bit that I find baffling is that you, you can say the, the big clubs revenues have drawn up to six, 700 million 20 a year. But as a percentage of those revenues, the amount that these deals are costing is much higher because they're doing multiples of them. It's not just that they're, if they were signing 175, 180 million pound player reach, that would be different. But they're trying to, you know, Man City have spent or will have spent, if they get Enzo through and are now talking to Chelsea, will have spent 300 million twid just on midfielders in one summer. And their, that's half their, that's half their entire revenue. Yeah, you only have to look at Liverpool, don't you? You look at Esach votes and embark goaler, all 100 million plus players. And that's probably more than 300 in the last, what, two windows or three windows if it's summer to summer. That's just mine. It's, it's absolutely baffling. But I don't think that point you might quite, the clubs buy from each other is, is also driving this, you know, you tell us, you know, say, say, city, you spent 300 million outside midfields with their soul, 250 million of, of, of players, you know, this old sabiote, this old rotri, they've, they've sold quite a few players, this, this summer as well. So the fact that there is a transfer market that's been very, very active means that that money is circulating through through the clubs. So this may be a really stupid question, then, do, do the higher fees benefit everybody? If, if they're buying and selling from each other, because as Stephen made the point earlier, how, how do you, how do you work out? I mean, we're not picking on him, but it is a, how do you work out Liam Delapscoring one goal in nearly 30 appearances, going for 30 million last summer and 50 million this summer, or, or Savio going for 75 million, two years after going for 30 million. But if everybody's going, well, I say, if we all, if we all pay more, it helps us, can it help them all? I think there's a two interesting examples, because the lap had a release clause, didn't he, when he went to Chelsea and Savio was signed from another city group club. So, right. And whether the extent to which those two transfers were, what we, you know, maybe say, were the market value for those players at the time. I, I don't know. But I think because the transfer values are going up, means the clubs are more willing to spend a lot of money on a young player, because the values keep going up, spurs might be thinking that if they spend, however much they're spending on, on Savio, that's, if, if he's great for them, brilliant, that works out. If he's middling and the value of players continues to go up in two, three years, you know, when he's 24 or 25, he's not going to be past it. There's still going to be a market for him then. And I'll still be able to, to move him on. I find it incredible, because if you, if you add two bad seasons at a football club, your value just completely fell off the edge of a cliff. And that was the way it was. Why are you laughing? I was just, why did you look at Chris? I was just going to ask him what Celtic paid for it. You know what I'm saying? It's quite, quite interesting, really. So, so I went for 10 million to Chelsea from Blackburn, had a bad season and went to six million, which was a Scottish record fee at the time arc. So I've been a, an English record fee in a Scottish. But it's a ID valued four million pounds. And then the, the Liam collapse thing is astonishing, really. And I get what you say about the release clause, but it's still was 30 million. And, and, you know, people looking there, it's a layman looking at that situation, which just think it's absolutely mad. Hey, I mean, I looked at that. I couldn't believe it, but, you know, that someone can, you know, can nearly double in value after having such a poor season. It's just, I mean, it's, it's, it's absolutely wild. And the stuff about, you know, listening to the stuff about the difference with the sort of Champions League revenue and the, and the Premier League revenue. Basically, if you're a football fan, you're thinking, the dream is for our club to qualify for Europe. Yeah. Actually, but then, yeah, then the club will think, well, maybe we don't want to qualify for Europe. That's bonkers. And if it's, I'm right in saying that. Yeah. Yeah. And when, when we were doing this last season, talking about PSR against squat costs ratio, and we were going through the vote on it, Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Palace, Fullham and Leeds, all voted against squat costs ratio. And at the time, we were like, oh, really what? And then when it's all explained, you can, go on, Rory, you can see why they did. I just wanted to say I did make that point last season. You did. Yeah. PSR had many, many, many faults. But what it did was keep some sort of lid on this thing. SCR, what they replaced it was because they didn't pass the anchoring. SCR is free rent. And the thing that will limit them to some extent is the, is the UEFA rules. So Chris is totally right. The Europa League and the conference lead are basically a punishment for doing well, but not well enough. But if you didn't have that, if UEFA said, okay, well, you didn't have 85% as well, then you can't, there is, then it just kind of solidifies that hierarchy. Whereas PSR was, it did, it had checks and balances in it that certain teams didn't like, because they were in specific circumstances that didn't meant it didn't work for them. But for the clubs that were quite well-run, Palace, Brentford, all those, it was, it was quite a good thing. I think just a final one, Tom, then, with all these regulations, are there benefits with clubs for the clubs if they trade between each other several times? Tension, I mean, we saw in PSR a couple of seasons ago, we saw that the final day transfers between nothing of forest and dillard and Chelsea and Everton, all those transfers that went on. That doesn't work quite the same under SDR, because under PSR, under the profitability and sustainability regulations, when you saw the player, you've booked all that profits in this season. In Squacos Reshier rules, that's not quite the same. So I think you were talking about Armstrong from Everton went by and joined. If they sold him for say 45 million just for the sake of arguments, that wouldn't be 45 million profit booked onto this season, that would be 15 million analyses and 15 million and another 50 million and another. So they have changed that in the Squacos Reshier regulations to try and avoid these last minute sales, the old pure profits of academy players to solve the financial issues. Clubs can't, don't quite have that same, that same, out anymore. But you still book a purchase over the duration of the contract? Yes, the transfer fee is still amortized over the duration of the contract up to five years. And then the sales spread over three years to smooth that out. So even if you give someone a six or seven year deal, you can only do it over five years. Yes, that changed up to Chelsea, we're giving that eight million, eight year deals and we're drinking to play it over. Tom, thank you very much for coming on this evening. Appreciate it. Very welcome. Thank you, Dr Tom Basin, assistant professor in sport management at Coventry University. Five likes sports. So here's the first ball of it soon. All the cricket you left. It lives on BBC sounds. It's a ball cricket and it's the huge one. This is the Monday night club on the football daily podcast. Chris says to roast Smith and Steve a wallet on the Monday night club. It is being announced that Manchester City have reached an agreement to sign Ileman and Jai of from Everton for around £65 million. So £60 million plus five addons. I think that's an actually that's a sensible figure. It is, but why is Ileman and Jai who is Everton's best player worth £20 million less than Cody Gattpop? Yeah, I've got no idea because my other point was going to be, I mean Liverpool of, I don't know if it's gone through, but he's the gank goalkeeper as you signed after play 12 games for £35 million. I mean, what's going on here? It must have been really good in those 12 games. He must have been incredible. It must have been impressed, yeah. But what is it with younger players now who've got potential? That's suddenly, I mean, even Harry, how strong do you think people in the officers of these football clubs in the sporting directs offices and whatever? Think, think the same. I've got no idea. They are, they're not sort of new to football. They've been around, I'm not just saying Liverpool, at any point, do they sit back and think, "Blimey, £35 million for someone who's played 12 games?" Not their money. It's not their money. Yeah, they don't care. I tell you who's having a great time. Well, they make care. European sports and directors, who must be sitting there thinking, "Honey, I don't know. They're going to pay how much." They will be, I mean, they have different issues, and if you look at the French clubs, they're all having to kind of ship players out, Leon Monaco, Leo as well, to meet their debts, just the collapse of the media rights and stuff. But they must be, they've always preferred selling to Premier League clubs because Premier League clubs generally pay up front, and now there is very clearly a system where there is one fee for other European teams. There is one fee for mid-range Premier League teams and there is one fee for the big Premier League teams, and I don't think they're even pretending that it's. works any other way now. They are plucking figures from the start. It's the easiest thing in the world with younger players as well because you can say well they're going to devote, I mean goalkeepers especially, well he'll be a good keeper in 10 years. It has to play. Yeah, but the other side of it Chris is that you buy them and then if they win trophies it leads to a bigger fee or if they play so many games but now it's like it's a fixed fee poor saddens and you think it's absolutely insane. Do you think that I say, wait on the enjoy one then? You said where are you thinking that's fair enough? Do you think it's fair enough fee or do you think that's a good move for both city and player? When you look at what else, and I spoke to my restaurant Friday night and I said to him, a pre-match. Yeah, pre-match. When you are looking at your squad, what is your ideal balance when you are looking at the makeup of it and versatility? And he said two players for every position. But depending on where they play him, they may have more than two players for his position. Yeah, and Gianni, I think you can probably play maybe all three of the roles. Turn on the two players. If you're only two players are right to play wide right to play wide left. He'd be fine in any of those positions I think. It made sense for him as a player who has been Everton's best player. I think that's probably not too controversial to say for a couple of years. He probably hasn't that natural step up. I mean, 65 million pounds, 65 million pounds. But how much was first going to pay for him? Because I saw a totally different figure unless I'm getting it wrong. I'm so confused. Yeah, I thought they were going to pay 75. Good handling from Man City. Yeah, but I, from my point of view, I look at it and think Everton have undercooked themselves there. A little bit. Yeah, I mean, I would say it's a good move from Gianni. I think it's a smart move for City. Yeah. I'm not sure it's a brilliant price for Everton. No, I don't think so at all because they're losing like you say there. The best player, the player who retains possession for them, the player that gets them up the pitch, you lose a player of that quality and you go, okay, so what are you bringing in? Now, whether there's a deal behind the door, that's getting done for Jack, Jack Greenless just to go the other way. That was getting done. Yeah, but I don't know. I just, I mean, when I first saw that deal where it was in Gi to Spurs and Rachelis into Everton, and it was like 60 million or 70 million for in Gi and 35 million for Rachelis and I was thinking, you've only made 25 million pounds on that deal. It's really strange. 35 for Rachelis and it's good. They'll play three games this season. But then they're also just on City. They're also reporting tonight. Sky reported that they've opened talks out with Chelsea to Silent Enzo Fernanda. Who has played, they've been looking out all summer and there are 20 seven hours of the transfer window window left. But then it's nonsensical. But then where do you, do you play him alongside that? What do you mean it's nonsensical? What do you mean by that? If Enzo, Maresco has targeted him and wants him and knows him, why wouldn't he want to be as strong as he could possibly be? Oh, no, it's not, it's not that I think he's about, I think Enzo is a, I don't think he's worth 120 million twit, but he's, he's a really good footballer. I get the Maresta trust him. He likes him. Obviously has a profile that Maresta thinks he can work with and he needs despite the presence of Elliot Anderson and Boate fine, not problem. They can afford it, they've got the revenues. What I don't understand is why you're doing that now and not, for example, when the price was exactly the same in July. It's a bit like the question I see Louis Paul and Barcole are on on Saturday. Do they need it? Am I flogging a dead horse by saying, do City need all of these players? Because I'm sure City fans will come back. While we're in all of these competitions, we can mix them up. Yeah. I think from a manager's point of view, if you're, if your director of football is saying, I can give you this player and you're not, there's a manager, you're not bothered about the fee because it doesn't matter to you. You just want the player through the door. So that fee is irrelevant. As long as the football club agree to get the player through the door, they're happy with the wages, they're happy with the fee. The manager goes, give me as many players as I can have through the door of high quality. A million percent manager does not, you know, he wants as many and as possible. Manage is not bothered about how much they spend. It's about having the strongest team, the strongest squad to give them the best possible chance. I think there's a money really doesn't matter. There's a difference in where you are as a manager. I think if you're David Moise and you're getting told you have to wheel and deal a little bit at Everton, then you will be looking at fees and going, well, I don't want to spend all that on him. It's completely different from Erasco. Erasco is just going, give me everyone. But that's why they handed control and why over the last 10, 15 years, we've seen basically every club, I think now without exception in the Premier League, hand control to what Americans were told of front office. You know, you have one to seven sporting directors, you've got heads of recruitment, you've got the head of analysis, you've got all these people who are meant to be making these decisions collectively and long-term, because they are thinking about the club's interests, not just this summer and this season, but into the next two, three years. They're the ones who are meant to be thinking, well, we've got this 15-year-old who, if he fulfills his talent, we need to make sure there's a pathway there. Who do you think is doing that in the Premier League at the moment? Well, I think they all start with B and we all end up having to quote them endlessly. Does nobody? Everyone else seems to have given up on it. I think Liverpool and City did it to an extent and now seem to have stopped and I think that is something that I find complete. It seems to be this summer, something has changed and Tom, that is the most coherent and complete explanation for it. Can I throw someone out there who might be doing it? Go on, which may seem ridiculous, who may or will laugh at me, I don't know. Newcastle? Yeah, but yes, what Newcastle have done has been really impressive, but it's reactive to a situation they maybe wouldn't have chosen. But yes, I think that's absolutely fair. What way wouldn't they have chosen it, because they were the ones who chose to get rid of the manager? But they didn't want to sell to Nali and Bruno. I think if they could have kept hold of those two, they really think that though, because I think 100 million chose to get rid of the manager. Well, by not backing him. They didn't, but that's not choosing to get rid. That's slightly pushing him, isn't it? It's helping him. It's giving him an option or a decision to make. If you don't back your manager and you're there thinking, well hang about, I need money here to strengthen and your your tiny sands behind his back and then suddenly you go, well hang about, we're going to sell all the best players. Then you've got a decision to make as a manager and think you're not actually getting the back and you want. But the decision, Rory, I was going to say with Bruno was not Bruno, sorry, Tynali. 100 million pounds for Tynali. Yes, please. Absolutely. It's not a forced decision. That's a decision where you just go, well, yes, someone's stupid enough to pay it. David Hansen has joined us from the athletic. And Jay is done, is it? Or nearly done? I thought you were going to say, joins us from a toilet or something, because I'm in a hotel room preparing for a group of transfer deadline there, with the athletic. It does look a bit suspicious. Yeah, evening all. The element and Jay deal from Everton to Manchester City is agreed in principle. It's a 65 million pound package, 60 plus 5 million in add-ons. And I'm expecting him to undergo medical tomorrow morning. Tottenham, of course, had agreed to deal in principle that would have seen and die come to them and Rachelis and go in the opposite direction. But that was subject to personal terms and medicals. And ultimately, my information this evening is that Rachelis and did not agree personal terms with Everton for a return there and and die favoured Manchester City, obviously playing European Champions League football, which wouldn't have been the case at Tottenham. Spurs weren't the only other team interested in him. There was a lot of very serious interest. And I think Everton needed to do this at this price point as well. Manchester City first targeted Cody Gackpo. I know you were just speaking about him. That was their priority and that gave a window for others to get and die. But when the Cody Gack Poe deal was called off today and he'll be staying at Liverpool, Manchester City executed on that and die deal that had been lined up some days ago. And now they'll be adding him to their their squad on a long-term contract. And now they'll get Fernandez as well, will they? So they have open talks. I heard you just mentioned it there. Club to club pretty much for the first time or summer. And so now we're at Crunch Point obviously in terms of timings. But in terms of the fact that there's actual direct communication between Chelsea and Manchester City, Chelsea will want to receive a fee that they feel is appropriate, which I would imagine in their mind will be higher than the 120 million pounds that they set a deadline on a couple of weeks ago that wasn't met. But they will also want to reinforce and be able to come out of this situation stronger than they went into it. And that means turning to the market for another signing. We don't know if it would be like for like they have been linked with the likes of Manu Kona in the last 24 hours. Kamara at Monaco, but I don't think that's so likely. And they'll have other other options too. So would you believe it? It's going to be a busy 24 hours as the window shots at Stanford Bridge. Which also includes Mudrick going to Spurs? Yeah, I'm trying not to ask every question with an element of disbelief in my voice, but I feel like I am doing it at the moment, so I apologise. to Spurs. Yeah, so they have inquired about taking him on loan. He's a favorite of Roberto Deserberi from Shaktar Donetsk, of course. There were multiple clubs interested in him, despite the fact he's not played competitively since his ban. Leeds were one of them, but it is Tottenham who really need that wing and now because they needed one more attacker in their mind, and that's why they were so keen on First Gakpo then and Die. They've lost out on both of them. Will it be Mudric now? It seems that situation is accelerating at the time of us coming on air. I don't know if it being done, but it wouldn't surprise you if it got there now. Balagun to Everton? Balagun to Everton is a possibility. It has legs, as people say in this industry, there are talks, but I'm not sure it's going to happen. It's difficult. Well, I'm not just saying leaving Monaco for Mursy side because I love Mursy side, but he owns a very handsome salary there, and I'm not sure that Everton can make the numbers work. They can't make the numbers work with someone, haven't they? They can't just allow Elmer and Jard to go and not have anybody. I mean, it's a different position, but they relish, I think, that they could get Jack Reelish done, and that's one that they've been on for a long time and it's believed that it's his preference. They've got to make the numbers work on that one because there's interest in Reelish from elsewhere too, but you would imagine that would be the endive replacement, and then let's see where they can do Balaghan or another striker. Balaghan's into the last two years of his contract. This was always the summer in which he was going to move irrespective of the good World Cup, controversial World Cup he had, and Monaco are open to it, but the numbers will need to be right for them as well, and that's where the challenge will lie forever. I stopped asking questions, and I'm just going to find names at you. Julian Alvarez? That one hasn't been a goa in my mind, or my information for quite some time, because Arsenal were really keen, of course. They have been for a long time. It precedes this window, but the player does not share that keenness on a return to English football. He wanted Barcelona and Barcelona only. The doors are closed to Barcelona, but it doesn't seem that he has opened them to England and Arsenal. We believe that there's been conversations between him and Mick Alartetta, but I don't think Arsenal have come away with a good feeling. We'll have to wait and see what happens right up until the deadline, because I do think Arsenal would have been prepared to reach an agreement with Athletico Madrid, and I'm sure Athletico would have as well to avoid selling him to Barcelona, but it doesn't seem one that's going to happen. Maybe you could say fair enough, if Arsenal are going to commit something like 150 million euros, do you want to be doing that on somebody that ultimately has made your reservations? Not only now, but what might happen further down the line? They went big this summer Arsenal for the attacker, of course, the world-documented pursuit of Veniceus Jr. Prior to that, it was Morgan Rogers, then now Julian Alvarez. It doesn't look like they'll get any of them. They have made an inquiry to Leon. There's some conversations about Malik Fafana, the 21-year-old Belgium international winger. He plays to the left side. Let's see if anything develops around that. I think they would see that as a future potential development opportunity stroke investment. There's no guarantee it will happen, but they are weighing it up tonight and have been over the last 24 hours. They looked at him last year as well, but it doesn't seem one of the big name attackers will come into the Emirates before the window closes. Just to case, everybody, before anybody else has anything to fire at you, or you might want to throw anything else in yourself, David. I don't know whether you know how much you're up on either of these. I've seen reports, "Eventus might want to loan Voldemort, I've seen reports that "Eventus might want to loan Zerkecy." Is that one or the other, or are they going for the most enigmatic forward line in European football with two players who nobody's quite sure what they are? That should be thrown over to the hips, the Rory, or get James Hornkars down to show very clear. The desire of the eventus, I think, was on Zerkecy, but I'm not sure that that one has developed, either be it with the player or Manchester United, and so maybe they've pivoted to Nick Voldemort. I think there's a appeal on the part of Voldemort as well, and clearly with Newcastle bringing in Fernandez Pardo from Leo, this really exciting 21-year-old Winger, another Belgium international, which is in the process of being completed for, oh, I think it's around 65 million euros. I can't remember the exact fee, but he's flown in to Newcastle in the northeast this evening, so he'll undergo a medical. That was the deal that Newcastle wanted that would allow Nick Voldemort to leave on loan. I think he was quite keen on the Dortmund opportunity, but I'm not sure the numbers were right around that, so it seems there's a real possibility in the eventus, but I don't have firm details on it just yet. Anything else, anybody? Or David, have you got anything else? Well, there's loads going on. I think Villa will close out to deal very, very soon for Taylor Harwood-Bellis. That is a £30 million package, and I think the medical was today. I don't know if they've announced it yet, but Ibrahim and Bay, this coveted 18-year-old Winger from PSG, that deal is done, and it's just waiting to be sort of formalised and announced. He was wanted by so many clubs, and I think that's a really interesting one after they part the Rafael Leo situation. He went from Aitemland to Galatasaray. There's probably loads more that I've forgotten. Will Manchester United signed a left-back before the deadline. I heard Chris mentioning it earlier. I'm not hearing encouraging sounds around that just yet. Again, you never know until the deadline, but I don't think United are just going to bring in extra bodies for the sake of it. That's the word from Old Trafford, and they've addressed areas quite methodically. Last summer, it was the attack this summer, the midfield, and they don't have unlimited resources financially to do so. Well, also, if you're going to bring people in, you need to get people out, and they don't seem to be able to sell anybody. David, what about Sartre Mahmoudashvili, a centre-of-fielder at Liverpool? Any talk on that? No, I think it will, famous last words, be quite quiet at Amfield now, because it was linked to the GAC post-situations. So, there was the pursuit of Yankuba Minte, who offers, I think, £50 million, £60 million, both rejected. It seems maybe there was a deal to be done around £70 million plus add-ons, but he's out until October, November, and it's a pretty high price to pay. I think there was temptation to do it, given his vast quality and potential Premier League ready, but it was steep. Ishmael Assah was explored, I think, as I understand it, there was one offer, but it fell way below what Crystal Palace would have considered to sell, and he is 28 years old, so Liverpool were never going to go too high for that age bracket. And with those being the main options, I think they were in favour of Codigat post-staying. So, that gives them their full complement of wingers now. And of course, they've got Eckertike to come back, and they'll hope he's out. We'll hit form in terms of the mid-fielder. No, there was some suggestion of maybe Alexis McAllister going to Manchester City if they didn't get in Zofa Nandes, and if that was the case, I'm sure Liverpool would have bought somebody in a mid-field, but in the absence of that, which we don't expect to happen, I think McAllister stays, I don't anticipate another mid-fielder coming in, even though Curtis Jones left. It's just the young goalkeeper that is obviously a question, the Belgian goalkeeper 18 years old, I think it's about 35 million euro package, but that would be, I think, to come next year, rather than now. When he's played a few more games. David, thank you very much. Do you put your phone on silent tonight? I didn't. No, I don't know. When you go to bed, do you put your phone on silent? I won't go to bed tonight, so it's irrelevant. Are you wide at it? Oh, no, no. Come on here, playing the tough guy. Come on, come on. No, no, maybe a couple of hours, but nothing, nothing serious. Will you at least have like a bath or something to relax? I had a shower before doing this, actually, but I sort of had to balance the phone on the shower frame so that I could see any messages or contact with you for you. That is the exclusive of David. David, obviously, for the athletic weather. Now, let's move on to Liam Elmessy on the Monday night club with Rory Smith, Stephen Warnock, and Chris Sutton. He's announced his retirement from international football. He said on Instagram, "I love, have loved, and will always love being part of the national team. I've given my all. I've nothing left to give." He said he'd written the statement two days after the World Cup final defeat to Spain, and that the recent death of his father had convinced him to end his international career. So, the numbers, 125 goals in 207 appearances, one World Cup, two player of the tournaments, two Copper Americas, one Finaleissima, and it's no surprise, Rory. No, it's funny at the end of the World Cup in the summer. This idea kind of took hold that Messi might go for another one, that, obviously, the 2030 tournament starts in, I think I'll probably start in Eurod, but there's early games in Argentina that he might want to, that he might want to play for that one, that he's obviously quite happy settled in Miami, he's still playing for into Miami, he, I heard Tim Viter earlier sort of saying that after the final Messi looked kind of, as though he could see the golf between Argentina and Spain, I'm not, I think that given what we now know about the context behind kind of Messi's tournament and the passing of his dad, I think he may be understand the emotional kind of fatigue that he was feeling, but then everyone's going to kind of be ignoring the fact that he'd be 43. and he's not going to play in a World Cup at 43, so I, yeah, what would his walking stats have been at the next world? Well, I think, Chris, did we not say join the World Cup that the walking stat was like, was slightly misleading because it was something that he walked for 36% of the time, or 76% of the time, and ran for 20. But he was also standing round for like 18%. He was, he was basically stationary until he had to move. I love the way Chris can say that when there wasn't those stats when he was playing. I know, yeah. The, the, I think it's not a surprise, you know, eight time comes for everybody and Messi has done incredibly well to last as long as he had. I, I think, you know, the one thing you missed out there, Mark, is that he, um, he's played in three World Cup finals. That, there's not many people who play in three World Cup finals, and he lost two of them, both of them very narrowly, both of them just about deservedly, I think. I don't remember the Germany game, but you know, he, he has been for Argentina. This has been the golden age of Argentinian football by any standard since, certainly since 2020, and Messi obviously has been central to that, quite late in his career. He has become, he's kind of delivered to his country, everything he needed to deliver, and it's, it's, it feels like it's the right time for him to step aside. There's no point just sort of slotting on for the sake of a happy ending that you might not get. I think it's incredible that you, you lose arguably the greatest player in the world as a number 10 in Maradona, and then you arguably replace him with a greater player who holds that number 10 shirt, which is a heavy shirt to wear, and you just think, who's next? Who steps into that number 10 shirt? There will be a lot of players who want to wear it because it's iconic, but there would have been, no matter how good a player Messi was, there would have always been a pressure to put that shirt on and perform because of Maradona, and he, he just embraced it and loved it, and I mean, for me he's the best player that's ever lived, that I've ever seen on a football pitch and being able to watch out, I didn't really get to see enough of Maradona, but when I look at it, I think Maradona had it tougher. Yeah, no, I can imagine that pressure. There was that physical element where we know people tackle that, but I mean, if you look back at some of the footage, and some of the tackles which Maradona had to ride, I mean, it was, it was wild, that was, I mean, it's not, say, Messi couldn't have done, but that test of your courage as well, you know, it's different to me, and it is one of those, there's no answer to it, it's personal preference, there's no, there's no kind of objective truth to who is the greatest player of all time, but to me, that is out, and Chris's point is absolutely right, this outweighed by the longevity of Messi. The fact that I watched the compilation of all of his world cup rolls today, and on the BBC, I think, and he, he stored the first one in 2006, and they're all wearing those big, billowing shirts that people used to wear in the olden times, Chris, and you kind of think about all the stuff that's changed in football while Messi has been there, and he has been the best at it throughout until the last couple of years. Loggedivity also partly comes down to how you live your life, and what circumstances then mean you live your life in the certain way. I think we did, we all agree that Diego Maradona's commitment to his training regime was, was beyond repro. Yeah, but also circus as has played into things with Maradona as well, whether it be, whether it be early injuries, whether it be being at Napoli, I mean, there were all sorts that played into it. Yeah, I mean, Napoli, Maradona's life is is probably more, much more compelling tail than Messi's Messi. I mean, Maradona's like, Maradona is about a million different lives, all of them really fascinating, and it's not to kind of impune his memory. He is, like Steven says, it's what's amazing about Maradona is that he was the, Maradona was the fulfillment of a prophecy, that's the mad thing about Maradona, that he was described in 1928 as the spirit of Argentinian football, and the 50 years later, the literal description of him, of that description is made fleshly Maradona, and to have to follow that, who wasn't just the number 10, but was the kind of the spiritual ideal of Argentinian football, for Messi to follow that, build on it, and I mean, early on in his international career, I think it did really weigh on him, I think it took him a long time to get used to being in Argentina, the focus of that kind of the cult around the Argentine national team. Well, there was a lot of scrutiny as well, wasn't there, about leaving Argentina and being in Barcelona and not coming back, and that will have weighed heavy on him as well, but again, to be able to put that to a side and to prove everyone wrong in Argentina, that he was arguably the greatest club in the world when he was doing it. But, you know, football, it's just really, really quickly, chapassari, just the thing on the three finals that I think he's really important is that Messi has defined three world clubs, he might not have won all three of them, but he dragged Argentina into the final in 2014, he dragged them in 2026. I mean, the half an hour that he produced in England to knock them out in the semi-final was genuinely astonishing, he got lost in all the controversy over two. He should have been taking off in the final. I think that's the good thing for the Argentine manager, he won't have to wonder now whether he can take a player off or not. Also, if there was one person who I would probably have money on knowing who might take Messi's number ten shirt, who's 17 and playing in a suburb of Buenos Aires at the moment, No, I wish I did, chapassari, I really wish I did. I don't disappoint him, really. There were always, after Maradona before Messi, there were endless new Maradona's, Ariel Ortega. Oh, Lord Ortega. Yeah, yeah. Pablo Imar, who's Stallone's assistant now, Raquel May, but loads and loads came through between 1990 and 2005-2006. There will now be endless new Messi's. Just make a name up. No, does that might look like I'm kind of disparaging of kind of Argentine name, so I'm not going to do that because it might create accusations of xenophobicism. Absolutely not. I don't know. I would genuinely, I mean, I wouldn't, because you're too much of a valuable member. But if your broadcasting career came to an end because you made up an Argentine name, would it also feel very kind of appropriate? It would be a fitting way to bang out, if I made it kind of really offensive, Ariel Ortega. I wouldn't have been so emotional. He shows down the center. He's going to do it. He's going to make head, and perform a champion's now. His extraordinary start. Clicked on the show for Austinite. He gets on his knees and kisses the door. You can also enjoy a range of podcasts, add free, with an Amazon Music subscription.