Transfers, 2024-25 season

[Gemmill 46088]

9 minutes ago, The Fish said:

What about a spend cap? Like £120m, say. 

 

Would mean the top clubs can buy 1 or 2 toptoptoptoptop players, but the lower teams have the freedom to fill out their squad more. Would prevent a club like Chelsea spending more in 1 window that others have over 5 years, but would allow clubs like Villa, Everton, Nottingham Forest and ourselves could keep things competitive. 

 

Coupled with a rolling 3yr limit of £360m loss allowance?

 

I don't think you can make a cap a fixed numerical value. It only takes a Chelsea signing Enzo moment to turn the window upside down and permanently move prices upwards. I don't know how you do it but the cap has to flex itself rather than have to wait for people to get round a table and move it. 

[The Fish 10972]

11 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

I don't think you can make a cap a fixed numerical value. It only takes a Chelsea signing Enzo moment to turn the window upside down and permanently move prices upwards. I don't know how you do it but the cap has to flex itself rather than have to wait for people to get round a table and move it. 

Could the prices flux that much if there's a cap, though? Say Chelsea spunk £120m on Sander Berge and he inevitably flops, that's not going to make all bang average midfielders 'worth' £120m, is it?

The flex should come from the spending power of the least rich member of the PL, so if Leicester, Southampton and Leeds were to be promoted it could increase, but if Luton, QPR and Plymouth fluked promotion it should contract.

[Dazzler 10380]

4 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Could the prices flux that much if there's a cap, though? Say Chelsea spunk £120m on Sander Berge and he inevitably flops, that's not going to make all bang average midfielders 'worth' £120m, is it?

The flex should come from the spending power of the least rich member of the PL, so if Leicester, Southampton and Leeds were to be promoted it could increase, but if Luton, QPR and Plymouth fluked promotion it should contract.

Doesn't that simply maintain the status quo though? E.g. if all clubs are only allowed to spend £120m then none of the teams beneath the elite will ever catch up. We need the ability to spend within our own capacity, same as the other clubs.

 

It would need to factor in things like revenues, profit from player sales and how much of the company is funded through debt financing (inc. instalment obligations to other clubs for transfers) IMO. That way clubs that increase revenues and sell on a few players at massive profit, whilst having a low gearing ratio can spend more than heavily debt funded clubs - That is sustainable and actually fair, it doesn't penalise clubs with ambition, and encourages clubs to invest in their academies etc.

[ewerk 31226]

36 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

I don't think you can make a cap a fixed numerical value. 

 

They've already done that though. The cap for losses was set ten years ago at £105m over three seasons and hasn't changed since. It's ridiculous when you take into account the inflation of transfer fees and wages in that time.

[Alex 35615]

It doesn’t matter because we’ll build commercial revenue steadily. It just means our progress will be steady. It should also make the ‘lesser’ clubs realise they’ve shot themselves in the cock with their previous forelock tugging. You’ve already seen attempts to further hamper us getting blocked because clubs like Everton have woken up to the closed shop. This window has hammered it home to a few more clubs. It’s frustrating in the short-term but I think it’s unsustainable. But like i

mentioned re the long term revenue increases, it’s pretty much win-win for us anyway 

[Dazzler 10380]

Just now, ewerk said:

 

They've already done that though. The cap for losses was set ten years ago at £105m over three seasons and hasn't changed since. It's ridiculous when you take into account the inflation of transfer fees and wages in that time.

Even if they had factored in inflation down the years it's a mental figure - £105m of losses to Man City are poles apart to £105m of losses for a team like Luton.

 

Man City lose £105m over three seasons and it just means they didn't do a cup and league double one year, but will make it back by selling 3 academy players to Southampton when they are promoted. Luton are in administration.

 

Even losses as a % of revenue over three years would make more sense, then it's scalable depending on the size of the club. You want to increase the threshold for losses? Make more money, boost revenues, sell players at huge profits etc.

[The Fish 10972]

Just now, Dazzler said:

Doesn't that simply maintain the status quo though? E.g. if all clubs are only allowed to spend £120m then none of the teams beneath the elite will ever catch up. We need the ability to spend within our own capacity, same as the other clubs.

 

It would need to factor in things like revenues, profit from player sales and how much of the company is funded through debt financing (inc. instalment obligations to other clubs for transfers) IMO. That way clubs that increase revenues and sell on a few players at massive profit, whilst having a low gearing ratio can spend more than heavily debt funded clubs - That is sustainable and actually fair, it doesn't penalise clubs with ambition, and encourages clubs to invest in their academies etc.

 

 

I don't think it does. Every deal done by the elite become more risky. Committing £80m to one player carries with it a risk now, but if that's 75 of your allowance, it becomes a bigger concern. Those teams fishing in the smaller ponds for less money can afford to swallow the cost of a failed transfer more. That means teams will have to focus more on good scouting, and developing their own players as a more cost effective route to becoming competitive. 

 

Don't mind the cap being influenced by the things you mention, but a cap , in my mind, is a fair way of reducing the spending power of the elite, while still letting weaker clubs catch up.

[Dazzler 10380]

2 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

 

I don't think it does. Every deal done by the elite become more risky. Committing £80m to one player carries with it a risk now, but if that's 75 of your allowance, it becomes a bigger concern. Those teams fishing in the smaller ponds for less money can afford to swallow the cost of a failed transfer more. That means teams will have to focus more on good scouting, and developing their own players as a more cost effective route to becoming competitive. 

 

Don't mind the cap being influenced by the things you mention, but a cap , in my mind, is a fair way of reducing the spending power of the elite, while still letting weaker clubs catch up.

Aye but my way of say:

 

Revenue less debt funding + player sales would mean Man Utd would have a negative transfer budget every year and they'd die, and all their fans would die, and SAF would die (he's probably teetering now anyway tbf).

 

I much prefer my way.

[Gemmill 46088]

22 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

Even if they had factored in inflation down the years it's a mental figure - £105m of losses to Man City are poles apart to £105m of losses for a team like Luton.

 

Man City lose £105m over three seasons and it just means they didn't do a cup and league double one year, but will make it back by selling 3 academy players to Southampton when they are promoted. Luton are in administration.

 

Even losses as a % of revenue over three years would make more sense, then it's scalable depending on the size of the club. You want to increase the threshold for losses? Make more money, boost revenues, sell players at huge profits etc.

 

Something like this would make sense. 

[Gemmill 46088]

27 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

They've already done that though. The cap for losses was set ten years ago at £105m over three seasons and hasn't changed since. It's ridiculous when you take into account the inflation of transfer fees and wages in that time.

 

That's what I mean though. If they replace it with something new, it can't be another fixed numerical value. 

[Dazzler 10380]

3 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

That's what I mean though. If they replace it with something new, it can't be another fixed numerical value. 

It just needs to be something easy to find on the stat accounts and inarguable really, a metric that applies to a simple figure(s) on the audited accounts. A universal monetary cap could (and should) be deemed unfair. As it stands it's unfair to the smaller clubs, or those with ambition. A transfer cap would be deemed unfair by the clubs capable of comfortably spending above it (us included).

[Howay 12496]

51 minutes ago, Alex said:

It doesn’t matter because we’ll build commercial revenue steadily. It just means our progress will be steady. It should also make the ‘lesser’ clubs realise they’ve shot themselves in the cock with their previous forelock tugging. You’ve already seen attempts to further hamper us getting blocked because clubs like Everton have woken up to the closed shop. This window has hammered it home to a few more clubs. It’s frustrating in the short-term but I think it’s unsustainable. But like i

mentioned re the long term revenue increases, it’s pretty much win-win for us anyway 

Agreed, we’re building the club within the rules - it’s absolutely hampered us in the short term but we will eventually get past them whereas others will always struggle with them including the cunts who have made up rules to try and stifle us along the way. 
 

In general the rules should be scrapped imo, you can make huge losses while excluding a ton of other costs and the main punishment is in the form of fines so there’s clearly no actual desire to make clubs sustainable. On the other side of things any restriction based upon things like historic club revenue will always block teams out - which imo is the rules main intention - is it’s inherently unfair. I don’t really see any issue with the way things were prior to these shite rules, it hasn’t changed how the top clubs with money spend until this window basically (and they’re already light years ahead anyway) all it’s really done is stop others from capitalizing after a good year. But as Alex says fuck them tbh, they made the shite rules and we will navigate around them it’s just going to take another 2 years or so. 

[The Fish 10972]

54 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

It just needs to be something easy to find on the stat accounts and inarguable really, a metric that applies to a simple figure(s) on the audited accounts. A universal monetary cap could (and should) be deemed unfair. As it stands it's unfair to the smaller clubs, or those with ambition. A transfer cap would be deemed unfair by the clubs capable of comfortably spending above it (us included).

If the cap was around£120m a window, that's more than enough for clubs like us, or Man City to use to bolster, improve or restock the squads. It gives a ceiling for clubs like Luton that is so high it not restrictive at all. It stops clubs like Chelsea from splurging and falsely inflating the value of players.

 

And, of course if Man City can offload a youth player for £40m, that goes into the allowance.

 

If it were debt-linked as well, well that would be fantastic. Also, if there were better regulations about the number of homegrown players that must be included in the matchday squad, that'd be great too, but I've no idea how you define homegrown when there are so many clubs that have overlapping catchment areas, or catchments areas where 50% of it is the North Sea?

Edited January 30 by The Fish

[trophyshy 7084]

And here come Geordie McSquid down the wing. Developed in the rock pools at Cullercoats and rushed into the side after the unfortunate Jinky Jim Haddock was cooked and eaten by Steve Bruce last week. 

[Dazzler 10380]

42 minutes ago, The Fish said:

If the cap was around£120m a window, that's more than enough for clubs like us, or Man City to use to bolster, improve or restock the squads. It gives a ceiling for clubs like Luton that is so high it not restrictive at all. It stops clubs like Chelsea from splurging and falsely inflating the value of players.

 

And, of course if Man City can offload a youth player for £40m, that goes into the allowance.

 

If it were debt-linked as well, well that would be fantastic. Also, if there were better regulations about the number of homegrown players that must be included in the matchday squad, that'd be great too, but I've no idea how you define homegrown when there are so many clubs that have overlapping catchment areas, or catchments areas where 50% of it is the North Sea?

 

I think the definition of HG is simply playing for a club between ages 15-21 at the minute isn't it, so if you bring in a future star from overseas they'd count. I think I'd only ever bring it back to a national level otherwise you'd end up with a load of teams suing each other - Mackems taking a kid from south Gateshead and claiming him as Durham or some shite and that would be a fucking bureaucratic nightmare.

 

Just say if he's a British citizen then he counts as home grown and signing him comes down to the contract offer from you and whomever else.  Extend it so you're also allowed a handful of youth players from overseas who'd also qualify as HG, but you need to allocate a specific space in your academies and are only allowed a definitive amount. That way you a) don't lose out on class young players from abroad to some big club overseas with different rules and b) you encourage promoting these players / selling them for profit to free up spaces for the next batch of talented foreigners. 

[The Fish 10972]

Only 10 permanent signings in the Premier League with only 1 day to go. 12 teams haven't done any business so far.

 

Last January there were 51. Brentford Leeds and Spurs were the only teams not to bring anyone in.

[Dazzler 10380]

But there are people that will still confidently claim that FFP isn't real and that the owners have failed badly

[The Fish 10972]

I wonder if the tv companies will get in the ear of the Premier League to let the reigns loose a little.

 

[Renton 22008]

1 hour ago, Dazzler said:

But there are people that will still confidently claim that FFP isn't real and that the owners have failed badly

 

It's a real head scratcher to me why the mysterious Saudi cabal bribe match officials, players, and managers every week but never try to bribe UEFA officials behind the FFP rules? I guess it's just the long track record of supreme integrity held by these officials of UEFA and FIFA that stop them?

 

 

Edited January 30 by Renton

[Dazzler 10380]

15 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

It's a real head scratcher to me why the mysterious Saudi cabal bribe match officials, players, and managers every week but never try to bribe UEFA officials behind the FFP rules? I guess it's just the long track record of supreme integrity held by these officials of UEFA and FIFA that stop them?

 

 

They only have so much time in a single day. Aside from bribing low level people within the sport they also have to murder journalists, treat women to the occasional stoning and throw the LGBT community off roofs. They do this every day, with zero exceptions. There's just no time to bribe the PL, UEFA and FIFA to turn a blind eye to our dodgy FFP deeds.

[Ayatollah Hermione 14069]

PSG are desperate to loan Ekitike out. Wonder if we’ll bury the hatchet with the fucker and bring him in

[MrBass 2723]

Unlikely imo. He's built like a twig so not very well suited to the English game plus, I imagine, it would take a good few months to get him up to speed with Howe ball.

[RobinRobin 11597]

14 hours ago, trophyshy said:

And here come Geordie McSquid down the wing. Developed in the rock pools at Cullercoats and rushed into the side after the unfortunate Jinky Jim Haddock was cooked and eaten by Steve Bruce last week. 

[wykikitoon 20799]

Forest breach FFP yet have loaned a lad from Ajax and are getting another from Dortmund.  

[ewerk 31226]

The FFP breach relates to last year, it doesn't affect the current season.