Richarlison

[Zatara]

Correct. Love Richy but we can't pay big fees for players that have no resale value and any money should go on younger players

In the case of Richarlison, you have to make an exception.

Having a quality player with an infectious positive winning mentality that will give his absolute all both attacking and defensively can be worth his weight in gold.

We hear about Moyes liking Harrisons work rate. Thats actually a fair point, he just doesnt have the quality.

We can sign the top young players (i would love this) but we also need quality performers who can win games for us and drive both the team, and crowd on. This sets an example on the pitch to young players.

He's a player that you would want on the pitch alongside you and you would hate to play against him.

For me, it comes down to 3 things;

1: His injuries. Whats our medical teams' assessment of his physical condition?

2: What formation is Moyes going to play? Is it a case of Richarlison vs Ndiaye for the left position?

3: Cost. At £24mil (as someone mentioned) if we could see a 27 year old Richarlison playing like he did with us then its a no brainer.

Ignoring the right midfield spot, if we could sign him, Delap and Alcaraz for £67mil we would have different threats in 3 attacking positions.

LM: Richarlison, Ndiaye.
ACM: Alcaraz, McNeil
CF: Delap, DCL, Beto, Chermiti


I dont know about you but thats going to create a huge amount of competition for places. We could bring in a top young player for the right hand side (Cherki/Dibling etc) and we have a forward line to really hurt teams.

 

[WA Toffee]

Aside from the fact starting a Europa League semi final isn't exactly an incredible achievement for a professional footballer, I don't think many people think he's literally not good enough to play for us, more that he might not be the best signing we could make for the money.

I don't think he's good enough for us. I have never been sold on him as a player, and the fact that he started for Brazil is more a measure of how poor their options were, rather than how good he was.

Now, is he better than what we currently have? Probably yes, but again, that is more a measure of how poor we are in those areas rather than how good he is.
If we have ambition to be challenging for the European spots, then I think we need better players than Richarlison.

 

[Zatara]

I don't think he's good enough for us. I have never been sold on him as a player, and the fact that he started for Brazil is more a measure of how poor their options were, rather than how good he was.

Now, is he better than what we currently have? Probably yes, but again, that is more a measure of how poor we are in those areas rather than how good he is.
If we have ambition to be challenging for the European spots, then I think we need better players than Richarlison.

Richarlison - History

Richarlison statistics – 28 years_old Tottenham Attacking Midfielder (Centre, Left, Right) / Forward. Check out his latest detailed stats including goals, assists, strengths & weaknesses and match ratings.

www.whoscored.com

Mentality
Energy
Passion
Goals

 

[DayL08]

Got us through some dark times. The goal he scored against Chelsea to win 1-0 when we were 5 points off safety under Lampard may have saved us that season

However he is injury prone and is often out for a few months at a time

The only way I would take him is a loan with obligation to buy if he played a certain amount of games - say 75%. No way Levy goes for that though

 

[Papa Shango]

Yup, we keep bringing back old players and managers who are almost to a man inferior to what they were the second time around and then we wonder why we decline as a club.

I think its slightly exaggerating to say we keep bringing players back. We seem to be linked with ex players more than actually resigning them.

How many have we had since the Premier League began? Ferguson, Unsworth, Pienaar, Rooney, Stubbs (?) and Gueye? 3 of them could be deemed as relatively successful signings too I reckon. One every 5 seasons or so? I may be missing some more to be fair.

We have brought some back on loans like Jeffers, Beagrie, Deulofeu and Gravesen but we binned them off pretty quickly. I'm probably forgetting others, Pistone was a weird one as technically we brought him back I suppose.

I'm not a huge fan of going back myself to be honest but we have declined through buying rubbish players for way too much money regardless of if they played for us in the past or not.

 

[SLAVEN BILIC]

I think its slightly exaggerating to say we keep bringing players back. We seem to be linked with ex players more than actually resigning them.

How many have we had since the Premier League began? Ferguson, Unsworth, Pienaar, Rooney, Stubbs (?) and Gueye? 3 of them could be deemed as relatively successful signings too I reckon. One every 5 seasons or so? I may be missing some more to be fair.

We have brought some back on loans like Jeffers, Beagrie, Deulofeu and Gravesen but we binned them off pretty quickly. I'm probably forgetting others, Pistone was a weird one as technically we brought him back I suppose.

I'm not a huge fan of going back myself to be honest but we have declined through buying rubbish players for way too much money regardless of if they played for us in the past or not.

Don’t forget the mighty James McFadden!!

 

[MikeH72]

Kind of not what i was getting at. He started a semi final ahead of players like Kulusevski.

So?

 

[Blue Alert]

If he was the same player he was when he left he, then obviously yes. Take him back.

But he’s clearly not the same player. He’d buck up a bit with us, for sure, but probably not enough.

It’d be a gamble.

 

[The binman chronicles]

So?

The player who was left on the bench walks into our team.

 

[MikeH72]

The player who was left on the bench walks into our team.

Once again, that’s not the point. There are more factors to consider than “would this player start the Ipswich game YES OR NO”. Such as how much would they cost, what would be his wages, how many games would he play over the course of the season, how many seasons will you get out of him at his peak, is there potential sell on value. And then when you’ve weighed that up you’ve got to compare it against other players on the market available for a lower or similar price and see who would be the best value for your money.

All that being said, I don’t think we should buy 28 year old injury prone Richarlison for £30m+ on over £100k a week.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Once again, that’s not the point. There are more factors to consider than “would this player start the Ipswich game YES OR NO”. Such as how much would they cost, what would be his wages, how many games would he play over the course of the season, how many seasons will you get out of him at his peak, is there potential sell on value. And then when you’ve weighed that up you’ve got to compare it against other players on the market available for a lower or similar price and see who would be the best value for your money.

All that being said, I don’t think we should buy 28 year old injury prone Richarlison for £30m+ on over £100k a week.

I don't remember ever saying we should throw unlimited funds at the deal. Of course it has to work out financially. A loan would be best (if possible) and then take stock.

 

[MikeH72]

I don't remember ever saying we should throw unlimited funds at the deal. Of course it has to work out financially. A loan would be best (if possible) and then take stock.

A loan would be a move that benefits us only and not Spurs, therefore it’s a complete non starter that Daniel Levy is never going to agree to unless there’s a built in obligation that we can’t worm our way out of if it suits us.

 

[Dutch Toffee]

I absolutely love(d) Richy, but for me for it to happen, it would simply have to be an initial (financially realistic) loan deal, with an option to buy. Let him prove his fitness and qualities on the pitch for a season. If he impresses at both of them, then excercise the option for a maximum of £20m. Do it on our terms, not Spurs/Levy.

 

[Dutch Toffee]

A loan would be a move that benefits us only and not Spurs, therefore it’s a complete non starter that Daniel Levy is never going to agree to unless there’s a built in obligation that we can’t worm our way out of if it suits us.

Probably right and for that reason I'm in the no camp

 

[Gallaeo]

A loan would be a move that benefits us only and not Spurs, therefore it’s a complete non starter that Daniel Levy is never going to agree to unless there’s a built in obligation that we can’t worm our way out of if it suits us.

We’d have to,pay his full wages plus a fee for them to even turn on their fax machine to look at the offer and they might consider that?