£5M offer for french left back rejected

[Christmas Tree 4847]

I dont think anyone is fooled into thinking Enrique is being sold because we have found a better left back. He is being sold because we can a make 300% profit on him, sign a replacement and still have £10mil left over. Welcome to NUFC. This is how we do business now.

 

Sign young players cheap, build them up and sell them at a profit. Forget about signing established players for big money, sure they might win us games and get us into Europe, but wheres the fun in that when you cant sell them for more than you paid for them?

 

We are the stereotypical selling club now. Selling Carrol and Enrique is no different to Wigan selling Palacious, Valencia, Heskey and probably NZogbia. Thats the level we are at now.

 

He's being sold (if he is) because he has one year left on his contract and can walk for nothing, if we hung on. That's the way the game is.

 

Apart from Keegan, in the beginning, and SBR that "method" worked well didn't it ???

 

UEFA/Platini's expecting this to be the way for ALL clubs in the future BTW and it's exactly how Spurs did it. Going to be interesting to see what each teams "net" spends are this summer as the Uefa clock starts ticking on 1st June.

 

 

How is that going to work again.

 

Is it an owner can put 12 million in a year to buy players, but that must be a free gift and not a loan. On top of that how does the earnings bit work. IE If we break even or run at a loss, does that mean you cant buy anyone?

[Toonpack 9973]

Yeah it did work well. Much better than buying shite like Best, Lovenkrands, Routledge, Perch and Kuqi.

 

Theres a difference between buying good players for decent money ala Shearer, Ferdinand, Barton, Woodgate, and buying has beens for silly wages like we did with Owen, Duff, Geremi, Viduka, Smith.

 

Agree, but sadly you don't know which good/shite group to drop them in until it's too late. We also later sold Ferdinand and Woodgate whilst they were still "in or near their prime performance wise".

 

You can only buy what you can afford, we can "afford" it now, so let's wait and see eh!

 

As for "buying shite", Enrique wasn't pricey, neither was Tiote and I'd include Simpson an all because he's more than OK (he's no Glen Johnson mind - thank gawd).

[LeazesMag 0]

Yeah it did work well. Much better than buying shite like Best, Lovenkrands, Routledge, Perch and Kuqi.

 

Theres a difference between buying good players for decent money ala Shearer, Ferdinand, Barton, Woodgate, and buying has beens for silly wages like we did with Owen, Duff, Geremi, Viduka, Smith.

 

thats a point which isn't easily grasped by people. Personally, at the time, the only players that I would have put into that category, and were not happy signing, were Viduka and Geremi.

 

Hindsight is easy. Duff chose us over Liverpool [now there is something, when will that happen again I wonder], nobody knew Owen was going to miss a whole season and Smith was a good player before his serious injury at ManU.

 

You still have to attract these calibre of players, rather than the likes of Perch, Kuqi etc, but I agree completely with your point.

Edited April 15, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Toonpack 9973]

How is that going to work again.

 

Is it an owner can put 12 million in a year to buy players, but that must be a free gift and not a loan. On top of that how does the earnings bit work. IE If we break even or run at a loss, does that mean you cant buy anyone?

 

Platini's rules as I believe they are:

 

Basically over a three year rolling period clubs must "break even" and only football related income is included in the calculation. Gates/Media/Transfer profit and football related commercial earnings. Stuff like weddings (for example) in the banquet suite (as I understand it) don't go into the positive side of the equation or if a club owns a hotel etc, not sure about concerts and the like.

 

Wages should not exceed 70% of turnover (as calculated above)

 

Owners can subsidise clubs by a max of 45 Mill Euro's (as equity not loans) for the next three years, 30 Mill for a couple of years after that then a smaller amount to be decided, aim is to get down to zero.

 

All football related costs are put on the debit side of the equation, although ground development, training or youth development facilities are exempt as costs from the "break even" calc.

 

Commercial deals are subject to inspection by the "financial fair play" audit comitee to ensure they are representative of market rates.

 

Clubs with "holding companies" must submit combined returns to UEFA to prove break even.

 

The sanction is revocation of licence to play in UEFA competition. basicall a club "could" do what the hell it likes but would not be allowed to play in European tournaments. Platini states "will we do this, yes because if we don't the whole thing is a waste of time".

 

The primary driver is to reduce transfer fees and wages and keep the money in the game.

[PaddockLad 17687]

I dont think anyone is fooled into thinking Enrique is being sold because we have found a better left back. He is being sold because we can a make 300% profit on him, sign a replacement and still have £10mil left over. Welcome to NUFC. This is how we do business now.

 

Sign young players cheap, build them up and sell them at a profit. Forget about signing established players for big money, sure they might win us games and get us into Europe, but wheres the fun in that when you cant sell them for more than you paid for them?

 

We are the stereotypical selling club now. Selling Carrol and Enrique is no different to Wigan selling Palacious, Valencia, Heskey and probably NZogbia. Thats the level we are at now.

 

He's being sold (if he is) because he has one year left on his contract and can walk for nothing, if we hung on. That's the way the game is.

 

Apart from Keegan, in the beginning, and SBR that "method" worked well didn't it ???

 

UEFA/Platini's expecting this to be the way for ALL clubs in the future BTW and it's exactly how Spurs did it. Going to be interesting to see what each teams "net" spends are this summer as the Uefa clock starts ticking on 1st June.

 

Thats a good point, theyve made millions in recent seasons, then spent them and been in and among the top 6 for a good 4 seasons now. It seems to have stalled a bit when Redknapp came in though, good old Arry eh?

 

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/TottenhamHo...y1908-2009.html

 

The biggest success story of this type of transfer dealing recently is Lyon....dominating a relatively weak league they also got to lots of champions league knockout stages and at least one semi. The wheels seem to have come off a bit lately, but it worked brilliantly for the best part of a decade. they were never afraid to sell their best players, but often had added their replacements before they left. When Essien went to Chelsea for 20 odd million they had signed for comparatively buttons Tiago from Juventus.

 

In saying that its nothing really new, Forest under Clough often sold their best players when it seemed as if they were at their peak, and theres more than a whiff of it around Wenger, but his replacements haven't been hugely effective recently, but there again how can you improve on an unbeaten season?...a lot of the "no trophy for 5 years" brigade fail to acknowledge that side had 3 or of the best European players in the last 20 years, but I digress...

 

The thing is, I'm not hugely confident that the apparently very good side we had the makings of pre xmas 2010 will be adequately replaced should some of the better players be sold off this summer. In fact I'm willing to bet that they won't be. Finding and persuading Tiote and Ben Arfa were huge transfer coups in a way, but for us to keep at the top of that particular game this summer will need a fuckin miracle.

[JawD 99]

if, in the managers opinion, he isn't as good as Enrique then there is absolutely no point in this.

 

Which is probably the case. Liverpool go one step further ahead of us.

 

But Pardew has said Enrique isn't going anywhere, and so the assumption must be he doesn't want to sell lose him.

 

So this is just a rumour.

 

But what if he thinks he is better?

 

does he ?

 

If Pardew thinks he has found a better left back, then by all means back the manager and sell Enrique.

 

Yes, I would say that would be the right thing to do. What are the odds though ?

 

But - Pardew's job rests on such decisions.

 

It may be that we're forced to look around for a new LB because he wont sign a new contract. It may be that we've found one that actually looks better than we have. You understand Im just playing devils advocate here.

 

It may just as easy be that the club want to cash in on Enrique and find a replacement. We'd all like to believe this line as it fits in with our image of the regime. Thing is, none of us know and can only guess.

 

Even if Enrique stays (I doubt), we need a new LB as the squad is so thin. But in that case I think they would have bigger priorities and rely on ferguson.

[StoneColdStephenIreland 74]

I can see most of our dealings being for an "Undisclosed Fee" aswell, because the club will try and stop the figures being mentioned that we buy players for, because the players we buy will in no means come anywhere near the £35 million mark

[Christmas Tree 4847]

How is that going to work again.

 

Is it an owner can put 12 million in a year to buy players, but that must be a free gift and not a loan. On top of that how does the earnings bit work. IE If we break even or run at a loss, does that mean you cant buy anyone?

 

Platini's rules as I believe they are:

 

Basically over a three year rolling period clubs must "break even" and only football related income is included in the calculation. Gates/Media/Transfer profit and football related commercial earnings. Stuff like weddings (for example) in the banquet suite (as I understand it) don't go into the positive side of the equation or if a club owns a hotel etc, not sure about concerts and the like.

 

Wages should not exceed 70% of turnover (as calculated above)

 

Owners can subsidise clubs by a max of 45 Mill Euro's (as equity not loans) for the next three years, 30 Mill for a couple of years after that then a smaller amount to be decided, aim is to get down to zero.

 

All football related costs are put on the debit side of the equation, although ground development, training or youth development facilities are exempt as costs from the "break even" calc.

 

Commercial deals are subject to inspection by the "financial fair play" audit comitee to ensure they are representative of market rates.

 

Clubs with "holding companies" must submit combined returns to UEFA to prove break even.

 

The sanction is revocation of licence to play in UEFA competition. basicall a club "could" do what the hell it likes but would not be allowed to play in European tournaments. Platini states "will we do this, yes because if we don't the whole thing is a waste of time".

 

The primary driver is to reduce transfer fees and wages and keep the money in the game.

 

 

Blimey, so unless Im missing something, this sounds like its going to be fantastic news for us.

[Toonpack 9973]

How is that going to work again.

 

Is it an owner can put 12 million in a year to buy players, but that must be a free gift and not a loan. On top of that how does the earnings bit work. IE If we break even or run at a loss, does that mean you cant buy anyone?

 

Platini's rules as I believe they are:

 

Basically over a three year rolling period clubs must "break even" and only football related income is included in the calculation. Gates/Media/Transfer profit and football related commercial earnings. Stuff like weddings (for example) in the banquet suite (as I understand it) don't go into the positive side of the equation or if a club owns a hotel etc, not sure about concerts and the like.

 

Wages should not exceed 70% of turnover (as calculated above)

 

Owners can subsidise clubs by a max of 45 Mill Euro's (as equity not loans) for the next three years, 30 Mill for a couple of years after that then a smaller amount to be decided, aim is to get down to zero.

 

All football related costs are put on the debit side of the equation, although ground development, training or youth development facilities are exempt as costs from the "break even" calc.

 

Commercial deals are subject to inspection by the "financial fair play" audit comitee to ensure they are representative of market rates.

 

Clubs with "holding companies" must submit combined returns to UEFA to prove break even.

 

The sanction is revocation of licence to play in UEFA competition. basicall a club "could" do what the hell it likes but would not be allowed to play in European tournaments. Platini states "will we do this, yes because if we don't the whole thing is a waste of time".

 

The primary driver is to reduce transfer fees and wages and keep the money in the game.

 

 

Blimey, so unless Im missing something, this sounds like its going to be fantastic news for us.

 

Could be as our "size" could actually matter.

[Christmas Tree 4847]

Im surprised this hasnt been discussed more on here or there arnt more articles out there looking at how this will effect the various teams within the prem over the next few years.

 

Obviously a fantastic time for us to be breaking even this year and then moving into profit next year. Now if only Ashley fully understands all this and can let us take advantage of this situation.

 

Without wishing ill health on anyone, I really wish Llambias would fuck off and we could get a really good football admin man at the helm.

[Toonpack 9973]

Im surprised this hasnt been discussed more on here or there arnt more articles out there looking at how this will effect the various teams within the prem over the next few years.

 

Obviously a fantastic time for us to be breaking even this year and then moving into profit next year. Now if only Ashley fully understands all this and can let us take advantage of this situation.

 

Without wishing ill health on anyone, I really wish Llambias would fuck off and we could get a really good football admin man at the helm.

 

 

It's quite hard to find any decent detailed summary of it all anywhere, I've found bits around and have now got hold of the UEFA regulation document itself which I'm going to try and make further sense of - it's pretty turgid stuff

[The Fish 10972]

We need a French speaking left back to allow us to fill our stroppy French whiner who fucks off to the treatment room around Xmas quota

FYP

[StoneColdStephenIreland 74]

I think this Financial fair play rule has good intentions and all that, but i really don't see it working out.

 

Imagine if a Man Utd, Barca or Real dont get in line with these rules, do i see them being kicked out the competition? I really don't.

[StevenL 0]

People think this financial fair play rule is going to make a significant difference?

[Christmas Tree 4847]

People think this financial fair play rule is going to make a significant difference?

 

 

Why not enlighten us as to why it wont?

[PaddockLad 17687]

People think this financial fair play rule is going to make a significant difference?

 

 

Why not enlighten us as to why it wont?

 

Whats to stop say one of Sheikh Mansour's other companies sponsoring Man City at a rate of say 100million a season?....its difficult to say, because the framework is so vague at the moment, but there will be loopholes for clever accoutants and lawyers to exploit, there always are.

[LeazesMag 0]

People think this financial fair play rule is going to make a significant difference?

 

 

Why not enlighten us as to why it wont?

 

Whats to stop say one of Sheikh Mansour's other companies sponsoring Man City at a rate of say 100million a season?....its difficult to say, because the framework is so vague at the moment, but there will be loopholes for clever accoutants and lawyers to exploit, there always are.

 

those who are ignorant of Mike Ashley, would also appear to be ignorant of the power of money. They will find a way, that's a racing certainty. The notion that Mike Ashley has accidentally stumbled on the way of the future is mind bogglingly funny.

[Christmas Tree 4847]

People think this financial fair play rule is going to make a significant difference?

 

 

Why not enlighten us as to why it wont?

 

Whats to stop say one of Sheikh Mansour's other companies sponsoring Man City at a rate of say 100million a season?....its difficult to say, because the framework is so vague at the moment, but there will be loopholes for clever accoutants and lawyers to exploit, there always are.

 

 

This I guess

 

Uefa warned yesterday that it is preparing to close any loopholes which might persuade clubs to believe that they can evade new financial fair play rules, which could see them banned from European competition if they fail to break even.

 

There remains scepticism in some quarters about the strength with which Uefa will impose the rules. However, the European governing body's head of club licensing, Andrea Traverso – the man tasked with introducing the system by president Michel Platini – could not have been more unequivocal yesterday about Uefa's determination to prevent clubs' owners sidestepping them. Clubs could theoretically do this by generating under-the-counter income by using companies related to them to invest vast amounts in a naming rights deal.

 

"Should the clubs put in place specific structures that allow them, in ways we didn't think about, to easily go around some of the principles, we could amend these rules to catch up with these situations," Traverso said. "You can call them loopholes but you can call them as well an evolution of the market which could not be taken into consideration at the time the rules were drafted."

 

Uefa will demand to see clubs' books to establish the level of naming rights and sponsorship deals and how they are being accounted for.

 

Traverso delivered his declaration of intent in a presentation at the Soccerex conference in Manchester in which he appeared to offer some hope to clubs who may struggle to break even in time to avoid a European ban – Manchester City have two years to make good on £133m losses, for instance – by declaring that it may take some time to establish whether a vast investment by an owner's affiliate company was deliberately inflated to help them break even and did not represent an acceptable market rate.

 

Liverpool's new owners, Fenway Sports Group, have said their interest in buying the club had been influenced by a regime which allows them to compete with bigger earners, and managing director Ian Ayre yesterday revealed his club's concern that the rules will be flouted. Ayre confirmed Liverpool were pursuing naming rights for a new stadium or a redeveloped Anfield and was concerned that British clubs should not be put at a disadvantage, by the Premier League adhering to the regime while other countries' leagues are less scrupulous.

 

Ayre said: "These rules should be rules and should be hard and fast. What will kill the initiative, or certainly stifle it, is people easing themselves into it rather than the rules applying and everyone operating within them. The rules should be clearly defined, you cannot have a half-rule process.

 

"We see it as a positive step but the reservations around it are the proof of the pudding being in the application, how it will be applied – will people be given grace periods, will the sanctions be applied?

 

"The question is, will it be as fairly applied? If the Premier League takes a very serious and professional view and does it properly, does it put itself at a disadvantage?"

 

Independent

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/footbal...es-2257699.html

[Christmas Tree 4847]

There may well be teething problems as with any new laws, however it seems clear they are determined to see this through.

 

LM

 

Whether Ashley foresaw this (doubtful) is immaterial, what matters is that this might give NUFC whoever owns it, a chance to make the most of our size, fan base etc.

 

Surely this should please you, non?

[PaddockLad 17687]

People think this financial fair play rule is going to make a significant difference?

 

 

Why not enlighten us as to why it wont?

 

Whats to stop say one of Sheikh Mansour's other companies sponsoring Man City at a rate of say 100million a season?....its difficult to say, because the framework is so vague at the moment, but there will be loopholes for clever accoutants and lawyers to exploit, there always are.

 

 

This I guess

 

Uefa warned yesterday that it is preparing to close any loopholes which might persuade clubs to believe that they can evade new financial fair play rules, which could see them banned from European competition if they fail to break even.

 

There remains scepticism in some quarters about the strength with which Uefa will impose the rules. However, the European governing body's head of club licensing, Andrea Traverso – the man tasked with introducing the system by president Michel Platini – could not have been more unequivocal yesterday about Uefa's determination to prevent clubs' owners sidestepping them. Clubs could theoretically do this by generating under-the-counter income by using companies related to them to invest vast amounts in a naming rights deal.

 

"Should the clubs put in place specific structures that allow them, in ways we didn't think about, to easily go around some of the principles, we could amend these rules to catch up with these situations," Traverso said. "You can call them loopholes but you can call them as well an evolution of the market which could not be taken into consideration at the time the rules were drafted."

 

Uefa will demand to see clubs' books to establish the level of naming rights and sponsorship deals and how they are being accounted for.

 

Traverso delivered his declaration of intent in a presentation at the Soccerex conference in Manchester in which he appeared to offer some hope to clubs who may struggle to break even in time to avoid a European ban – Manchester City have two years to make good on £133m losses, for instance – by declaring that it may take some time to establish whether a vast investment by an owner's affiliate company was deliberately inflated to help them break even and did not represent an acceptable market rate.

 

Liverpool's new owners, Fenway Sports Group, have said their interest in buying the club had been influenced by a regime which allows them to compete with bigger earners, and managing director Ian Ayre yesterday revealed his club's concern that the rules will be flouted. Ayre confirmed Liverpool were pursuing naming rights for a new stadium or a redeveloped Anfield and was concerned that British clubs should not be put at a disadvantage, by the Premier League adhering to the regime while other countries' leagues are less scrupulous.

 

Ayre said: "These rules should be rules and should be hard and fast. What will kill the initiative, or certainly stifle it, is people easing themselves into it rather than the rules applying and everyone operating within them. The rules should be clearly defined, you cannot have a half-rule process.

 

"We see it as a positive step but the reservations around it are the proof of the pudding being in the application, how it will be applied – will people be given grace periods, will the sanctions be applied?

 

"The question is, will it be as fairly applied? If the Premier League takes a very serious and professional view and does it properly, does it put itself at a disadvantage?"

 

Independent

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/footbal...es-2257699.html

 

 

"Andy Carroll isnt for sale"

 

Alan Pardew, December 2010

 

[Christmas Tree 4847]

????? Whats that got to do with UEFA ??????

[LeazesMag 0]

There may well be teething problems as with any new laws, however it seems clear they are determined to see this through.

 

LM

 

Whether Ashley foresaw this (doubtful) is immaterial, what matters is that this might give NUFC whoever owns it, a chance to make the most of our size, fan base etc.

 

Surely this should please you, non?

 

of course, seeing as I am off down to the ground to pay for my season ticket for the next 3 years next week.

 

Having an owner who makes the most of our fanbase is what we want, he isn't doing it now, so we will see if anything changes.

[LeazesMag 0]

????? Whats that got to do with UEFA ??????

 

We could still have told Liverpool to fuck off ?

 

What will this ruling change in that respect ?

[PaddockLad 17687]

????? Whats that got to do with UEFA ??????

Nothing on the face of it, but people are often utterly powerless to do the things they want to do when the ultimate power on any given situation they are in is in the hands of the very powerful and fabuously wealthy. I bet Alan Pardew wanted to keep Andy Carroll, but was powerless to.

 

I bet the folk at UEFA are very noble and sincere in stopping the power of the English clubs creating a more level playing field for football, but the power in football isnt in their hands, it's in the hands of the people who finance football, not who govern it. This is a bit like shutting the door after the horse has bolted (the horse probably fucked off about 15 years ago tbh) if you ask me and will make little or no difference.

 

But fair play to them, on the face of it we may do well in this system, but even if the changes do stick and we are one of the best financed teams, Newcastle United will find a way of royally fucking things up anyway. 'Tis the law

[Christmas Tree 4847]

While I understand your cynicism, they do seem pretty serious about it (probably because of English dominance).

 

I've had a bit google around and most seem quite in favour of it and that it will make future challenges on the elite more realistic. It should also pull down transfer fees and wages.