Transfers, 2024-25 season

[The Fish 11313]

Just now, LondonBlue said:

 

No, no, no we didn't start FFP. Granted it was introduced to stop new money clubs, like us, from threatening the establishment. 

Whilst we've always had an academy, we rebuilt our academy AFTER the introduction of FFP. 

As an aside City voted against the introduction of FFP, Newcastle voted in favour of it (probably Ashley trying to avoid spending). 

Fulham, West Brom, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea and Southampton all voted against FFP whilst Reading abstained, Had Reading or one other club (such as you guys) voted against it, it wouldn't have had enough votes.

But that's history now.

 

 

 

 

I wonder which clubs would vote to change it to a more meritocratic version? I can't see Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal or Spurs being in favour of opening up the valve any more than it is. 

 

I honestly think the PSR rules should take into account 2 things; 1 prevent megarich clubs from simply spending what they like, and (more importantly) ensuring bad owners aren't mortgaging the club's future on a whim. 

 

Debt should be taken into account, as should revenue obviously, but the capital available from the owner should be considered too. Us, yourselves and others could comfortably afford to make losses greater than £100m over a 3yr period without risking the future of the club, by virtue of having owners who can cover that loss by checking the back of the sofa. The rule as it stands is basically, you can get better, but only by a little bit every season. Of course that means the established elite can keep accelerating at faster pace. 

 

No club, regardless of their revenue stream should have £1bn owed in debt.

[LondonBlue 1021]

3 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

I wonder which clubs would vote to change it to a more meritocratic version? I can't see Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal or Spurs being in favour of opening up the valve any more than it is. 

 

I honestly think the PSR rules should take into account 2 things; 1 prevent megarich clubs from simply spending what they like, and (more importantly) ensuring bad owners aren't mortgaging the club's future on a whim. 

 

Debt should be taken into account, as should revenue obviously, but the capital available from the owner should be considered too. Us, yourselves and others could comfortably afford to make losses greater than £100m over a 3yr period without risking the future of the club, by virtue of having owners who can cover that loss by checking the back of the sofa. The rule as it stands is basically, you can get better, but only by a little bit every season. Of course that means the established elite can keep accelerating at faster pace. 

 

No club, regardless of their revenue stream should have £1bn owed in debt.

 

i agree with your first point, but i have a different view on debt.

 

debt should indeed be taken into account. restricting the losses over a 3 year period would be okay if they allowed owner investment (gifts not loans).

 

the larger your debt the less you should be able to spend. i'm thinking of man uniteds massive debts.  maybe allowable debt should be linked with revenue, not sure.

 

this whole thing about new owners being allowed to spend what they like is bollocks. maybe our owners should sell our clubs to each other for £1, then sell them back again so we can invest.

 

 

 

 

 

[Holden McGroin 7516]

22 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

Heeeeeerrrrrrrresss Luke!  

 

 

 

 

Poor Kalvin. Another 6 months on the bench. At least he will be able to get some game time when England play.

[Holden McGroin 7516]

7 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

i agree with your first point, but i have a different view on debt.

 

debt should indeed be taken into account. restricting the losses over a 3 year period would be okay if they allowed owner investment (gifts not loans).

 

the larger your debt the less you should be able to spend. i'm thinking of man uniteds massive debts.  maybe allowable debt should be linked with revenue, not sure.

 

this whole thing about new owners being allowed to spend what they like is bollocks. maybe our owners should sell our clubs to each other for £1, then sell them back again so we can invest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm not financial expert but surely "gifts" should be allowed. 

[RobElliott 1791]

25 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

I wonder which clubs would vote to change it to a more meritocratic version?

 

Alright wor Joey?  

[wykikitoon 22687]

I hope the club have a plan

[Holden McGroin 7516]

Surely PIFs lawyers have more money than PL lawyers. Thats all that is needed.

[Kid Dynamite 7597]

£7mil loan fee + wages for 17 PL games is mental tbf. We paid less for Cabaye 
 

I don't think the obligation to buy is unreasonable though. We've got ambitions to challenge Man City for the title. They aren't going to do us any favours 

[Holden McGroin 7516]

1 minute ago, Kid Dynamite said:

£7mil loan fee + wages for 17 PL games is mental tbf. We paid less for Cabaye 
 

I don't think the obligation to buy is unreasonable though. We've got ambitions to challenge Man City for the title. They aren't going to do us any favours 

 

I genuinely don't think they are concerned by us as title challengers. They just want to recoup some money and get him off the wage bill.

[LondonBlue 1021]

1 minute ago, Kid Dynamite said:

£7mil loan fee + wages for 17 PL games is mental tbf. We paid less for Cabaye 
 

I don't think the obligation to buy is unreasonable though. We've got ambitions to challenge Man City for the title. They aren't going to do us any favours 

 

 

if there's an obligation to buy then its the loan fee + the purchase fee that matters. i think a higher loan fee normally suggests no obligation but i'm no expert.

 

 

 

[wykikitoon 22687]

Well I suppose Haydn is like a new signing 

[LondonBlue 1021]

1 minute ago, Holden McGroin said:

 

I genuinely don't think they are concerned by us as title challengers. They just want to recoup some money and get him off the wage bill.

 

correct imo.  we sold Jesus and Zinchenko to Arsenal who were title rivals and we sold Sterling to Chelsea.

[Tom 14078]

I think deep down Pep knew Arteta is a bitch though 

[LondonBlue 1021]

5 minutes ago, Tom said:

I think deep down Pep knew Arteta is a bitch though 

 

Arteta managed City for 1 game. We lost. He's pants. Case closed.

[PaddockLad 18947]

Odds on KP’s next club… I can only presume Palace are willing to buy him too because at 7 mill for 17 games I’d be expecting him to guarantee a champions league spot for Palace who are currently 19 points adrift of Arsenal who occupy fourth    Would the 7 mill come off any transfer fee? 
 

FWIW I think if he’s still at Man City around 28th January and we’re his preferred move we might get him…Man City might drop the fee a bit and let him go without the obligation 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

 

[PaddockLad 18947]

Actually are we seeing some sort of “Southgate Factor” coming into play here?  

[Isaksbigrightfoot 29]

On 14/01/2024 at 10:13, ewerk said:

I see that Hayden’s loan has been terminated. Probably more to do with him not getting a kick in Belgium but if we’ve no one else coming in then he could be an extra body.

 

[Howay 12496]

As a fan I want us to sign a player this window, but I can see why they’re so hesitant. We will likely have a good profit this annual period, with the new sponsors, sale of ASM, and CL money - then next year we will have the adidas deal etc. So there’s a risk of throwing good money at a bad situation if we were to dip into the January market. They likely hope we turn our form around, have a strong finish with what we have and an FA cup run. 
 

Then we go into next season with at least one decent FFP year in the bank, and a ton of players back. 

[Holden McGroin 7516]

Didn’t Eales say it was imperative that we get in Europe every year?

[wykikitoon 22687]

35 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said:

Didn’t Eales say it was imperative that we get in Europe every year?

 

Aye  

[Howay 12496]

It does depend though, I think winning the Europa League nets about €20m - fail to reach the final and you’d get just over half that - Kalvin Phillips alone would be over half that between fee and wages all hitting this year. There’d also still be a large chance we missed out with him. 

[Kid Dynamite 7597]

1.If Notts Forest are fucked then I'd have Morgan Gibbs White off them. 
 

2.Given how how little room for manoeuvre we have with FFP, Tonali costing £60mil and getting banned for a season has been a catastrophic transfer in hindsight 

[Dr Gloom 23536]

10 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:

1.If Notts Forest are fucked then I'd have Morgan Gibbs White off them. 
 

2.Given how how little room for manoeuvre we have with FFP, Tonali costing £60mil and getting banned for a season has been a catastrophic transfer in hindsight 

And Barnes. He was supposed to be out for 6–9 weeks. How long has it been now? He’s nowhere near playing by the sound of it 

[OTF 8382]

11 hours ago, Dazzler said:

We've already covered this man

You can't be considered exceptional at something if you injure yourself everytime you do it.  Dummett remains the king of the slide, and even better he's* often** able to pull off the elusive legal slide tackle reducer.

 

* - he's = he was

** - often based of per minute of play

[Chaser 1365]

38 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

And Barnes. He was supposed to be out for 6–9 weeks. How long has it been now? He’s nowhere near playing by the sound of it 

Yeah the two of them together have pretty much fucked us. Barnes was supposed to be fit by Christmas and he's only just running by the sounds of it.