Jump to content

Generic small time football blather thread FOREVER


Sonatine
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Chelsea thing probably guarantees that if we end up selling him he’ll go to a direct premier league rival. Are we at the stage now, and I don’t think am a massive believer in conspiracy theories, where the Premier League are being paid off to make decisions like these? 

Edited by PaddockLad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ewerk said:

No PSR charges for 23/24. The Chelsea accounting department right now:

 

Music Video Dancing GIF by Vevo

 

they'd find some dodgy way to swerve any breaches anyway: 

 

Newcastle boss Eddie Howe said the club reluctantly let youngsters Elliot Anderson and Yankuba Minteh join Nottingham Forest and Brighton respectively in order to remain compliant.

 

Howe referenced the club's summer transfer dealings in his news conference on Tuesday morning, when asked if the club was in danger of breaching PSR.

"No, I don't believe we are [on that list]," he said.

 

"The breaching of financial fair play for us was something that we fought really hard against in the summer to not be in that position - and that's why the departures of the ones we didn't want to happen had to happen."

 

Chelsea, who spent £747m in the 2022-23 season alone, sold their women's team to the club's parent company on June 28 2024 - two days before the end of their financial year - in order to boost their finances.

 

The Blues' sale of two hotels next to Stamford Bridge to a sister company for a fee of £76.5m was cleared by the Premier League in September.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cx2y7l0dk02o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

they'd find some dodgy way to swerve any breaches anyway: 

 

Newcastle boss Eddie Howe said the club reluctantly let youngsters Elliot Anderson and Yankuba Minteh join Nottingham Forest and Brighton respectively in order to remain compliant.

 

Howe referenced the club's summer transfer dealings in his news conference on Tuesday morning, when asked if the club was in danger of breaching PSR.

"No, I don't believe we are [on that list]," he said.

 

"The breaching of financial fair play for us was something that we fought really hard against in the summer to not be in that position - and that's why the departures of the ones we didn't want to happen had to happen."

 

Chelsea, who spent £747m in the 2022-23 season alone, sold their women's team to the club's parent company on June 28 2024 - two days before the end of their financial year - in order to boost their finances.

 

The Blues' sale of two hotels next to Stamford Bridge to a sister company for a fee of £76.5m was cleared by the Premier League in September.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cx2y7l0dk02o

 

Aye, the sale of the women's team hasn't been cleared yet as being of fair market value. If it's passed then I can see several other clubs doing just the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the plus side, there can't be many assets left for them to do that with. It's still disgusting that they spent £0.75bn in a season and washed it all way by selling assets to its own parent company. 

 

Fuck all will happen with the sale of the women's team. If selling hotels is fine to offset against PSR losses, they'll piss the women's team side of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

begs the question why we don't find ways to bend the rules when others have clearly set a precedent. we seem determined to play nice, so far. will that last forever?

 

makes it all the more satisfying i suppose if or when we do finally win something if we managed to do so while remaining squeaky clean. it would make howe's coaching and the recruitment all the more impressive. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a massive risk to take, to do stuff that you know is probably against the rules, and hope it works out for you. 

 

Besides that, the only option available to us is selling off existing players for an inflated value. We don't have many of those either. 

 

In future, we'll use academy players for this purpose. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

begs the question why we don't find ways to bend the rules when others have clearly set a precedent. we seem determined to play nice, so far. will that last forever?

 

makes it all the more satisfying i suppose if or when we do finally win something if we managed to do so while remaining squeaky clean. it would make howe's coaching and the recruitment all the more impressive. 


It would be fucking glorious if we did succeed despite the bullshit stop NUFC rules, I think probably even more so than if we were splashing the cash.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should get in a dozen Saudi teenagers, train them for a season and sell them to Saudi clubs for £10m a pop.

 

Repeat the process every season.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

We should get in a dozen Saudi teenagers, train them for a season and sell them to Saudi clubs for £10m a pop.

 

Repeat the process every season.

 

I know this is tongue in cheek but I do wonder what is really stopping us from doing this. Surely it would be more legit than selling hotels.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

It's a massive risk to take, to do stuff that you know is probably against the rules, and hope it works out for you. 

As an aside when I was looking for a job in 2014 after being made redundant I was applying for both permanent and contract jobs. When I'd previously been a contractor (96-03) the most common way of working was to setup a limited company and take dividends as a director.

 

In 2014 a lot of agencies were pushing a scheme where you'd work for a company and be paid with employee loans and then these loans would be transferred to a trust with you as the beneficiary. It stank to me but I was assured it was all fine and had been cleared by hmrc.

 

As it happens I took a permanent job where I still am but a couple of years later the beneficiary scheme was ruled illegal and people had to pay shit loads back. There were also a lot of ruined lives and suicides.

 

I think squeaky clean is the right way to go. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I know this is tongue in cheek but I do wonder what is really stopping us from doing this. Surely it would be more legit than selling hotels.

 

there must be things they could do. the board and PIF must have had these sort of conversations but for whatever reason, they have decided against taking any risks. they are doing everything above board. the only thing that sailed close to the wind so far was the anderson/vlachodimos exchange. 

 

i'm not saying it's the wrong decision but i am surprised. saudis aren't known for backing down when they want something. look at how they disrupted golf and boxing. they steamrolled into both sports with their billions and changed the game. they've shown surprising restraint with us so far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gemmill said:

We should take it as a positive that we aren't pulling Todd Boehly shit. It demonstrates that they're prepared to be patient and stick it out for the long term. 

Why don't you see it as a positive and the rest of us will contemplate why the club aren't trafficking in 16 year old Saudis?

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dazzler said:

Why don't you see it as a positive and the rest of us will contemplate why the club aren't trafficking in 16 year old Saudis?

 

I fully accept that that's how this is going to go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gemmill said:

We should take it as a positive that we aren't pulling Todd Boehly shit. It demonstrates that they're prepared to be patient and stick it out for the long term. 

It’s also pretty fucking desperate stuff and you’d think they’re running out of assets to sell. There’s only players after that and they’re all on silly contracts. Plus they’ve been largely poor signings. Certainly from a value for money pov. 
The other side of it is we know we’d be held to different standards 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Alex said:

It’s also pretty fucking desperate stuff and you’d think they’re running out of assets to sell. There’s only players after that and they’re all on silly contracts. Plus they’ve been largely poor signings. Certainly from a value for money pov. 
The other side of it is we know we’d be held to different standards 

Nkunku apparently on the market for 65m :) 

Edited by RobinRobin
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.