nufcjmc

Likely was a "forced" upon player to get the PSR solving deal over the line was never going to displace Pope who Eddie helped recruit. May just not suit our league either he found himself out of the forest side too before we had to take him didn't he?

Agreed if the good performances don't equal a good bid hopefully a decent loan fee for a few years to offset the 20mish we paid for him.

That was my original point yes 👍 However still struggling to get my head around accounting side if you stretch the fees paid for both big nick over 5 years and wissa over 4 years respectively the Isak money will more than cover year 1 of their amortised costs maybe year 2 and year 3 his fee won't cover the other years so would need more revenue or more sales so its not a magic money tree to tap into more spending potential. My brain clearly is outside of its comfort zone here so I will shut up 🤣

True but without that sort of fee coming in you assume that the budget for a striker wasn't originally 70m it wouldnt have made sense had the rat not wanted to leave to play second fiddle with other areas of the squad needing money spent on it. As it turns out he had no intention of staying and Wilson early doors turned down the extension offer so yes big spends needed on one of the most expensive areas of the squad to recruit in. Losing out on targets and getting later and later into the window has ultimately meant we have spent alot on both of them. Hopefully how they are on the pitch and impact to our season and seasons to come will pay it back.

Do we spend that much on 2 players if the fee for the rat wasn't that big though? There was a point before Wilson left we offered him a contract albeit an incentive based one to stay. How wisely we spent it and what the actual budget was prior to sales coming into the summer was anyones guess though. Sure Craig no hope was peddling 75m at one point we went on to spend over 200m before sales didn't we?

It's exceptional isn't it even when receiving a pass higher off the ground or at the wrong pace it doesn't often bounce off him like you see with others.

I am not accounting smart to debate this so won't make myself any more foolish. The fee in laymens terms paid for the two forwards nearly is all I was agreeing to TCD point. How this is expressed in the accounts is a different matter but the fee for him only comes once in the accounts the subsequent annual costs of the two of them still need to be paid for year on year either through income or sales. Obviously this will depend if psr stays or we move to a squad cost model or a hybrid/something else.

I dont quite follow sorry (this is why I dont get involved with accountacy debates). We still had a book value for Isak yes, we had a reported 5 or 10% rumoured sell on % to go back to his old club so all of the 133 or whatever it was isnt "working capital" We saved year on year the amortisation costs for the others years left on his deal as he was no longer here and replaced it with more spending and costs over the 5 years on big Nick and was it 3 or 4 on Wissa? If we didnt "spend" any of the Isak money/income from the sale what did we spend to make the purchases possible?

Appreciate its not my place to reply but think this year will show a big chunk coming in but if 3 year cycles PSR continues then the amortisation costs of the two strikers need to be paid for the other accounting years via income or sales. Isaks fee essentially did pay for the two players almost outright but the club can look to "spin it out" into more spending if the income/revenues continue to go up too.

I don't agree with the sentiment you need prem proven simply that the fee is as high because they are an established prem player. Knowing the league and taking from a team within it is bound to be more money than a "punt" on a player who doesn't have that.

Was it not 69 and 55 for them both respectively? Minus sell on fee % to rats old club its all of it "gone," isn't it?

Hes a weird player these days his set pieces can be poor but was he the one that crossed the ball tonali nearly lobbed the keeper? He used to be great at header duels for a smaller player now not so much. Hes great at receiving the ball and controlling it but recall yesterday around 13mins he passed the ball directly to the forest player for no reason. Maybe its just because the high standard/level I have of him as a player or age catching up. He will no doubt love getting the game time again but just hope we arent putting too much on him.

Think we agree hes lacked impact in goals and assists but not all through all his fault. Howe has said we as a team need to play to his strengths and also allow the coaches to work their magic. Price tag though carries its own expectation unfortunately hopefully he can eventually live up to it.

Deal wrapped up to go to Como for 22m (i think) wouldn't have helped? On early showing the "over payment" seems worth it. Making the funds stretch is what annoys me more with the Wissa deal over this one.

Alex Murphy but clearly not ready or fancied?

I guess even at the fee with the prem proven tax added in you ask could 52/55m be used to get a better level of player? Hes only 23 Hes got ok output He hits Howes requirement of qualities in a player He "should" improve He can cover more than 1 position should it be needed (swapped sides with gordon a few times and floated out to the other wing). I want him to do better and would have preferred a quicker hit the ground running/impact than what I am seeing but early days and more time/patience needed. In Howe we trust I guess for the fee we paid we need it to work really as no one would bail us out at that sort of outlay.

As we were loaning someone effectively on their last year of their deal I doubt we inserted a recall clause. Buying in jan someone is more likely if hall continues to struggle or burn gets a knock/issues.

I think speed merchant and Howe's desire to get us up the pitch quickly is a good thing not a bad thing, obviously we want and we need more. The fact Elanga came with such a large price tag adds to the expectation to hit the ground running and be impactful. He needs to do more and we need to get the best out of his current skill set even yesterday Trips kicking it up the pitch for him to chase but not getting the weight of the pass right adds to the look its not quite clicking. The complete change to the forward line (striker I mean) and injuries has certainly been mitigating factors to some extent he isn't the only fresh face we have added in and the team by Eddie's own admission aren't getting the training sessions in as the games come thick and fast. I don't want to already rule him out but admit its been a slower start than I wanted from him he wasnt my first choice to drop big money on but clearly someone Howe wants to work with and with age on his side he should get better.

Haha typing when I am meant to be working not even going to correct it 😅 Looks lush (sorry any vegetarians)

I cant remember the game but think its the first time bruno called him willichino he juggled the ball within his feet and nutmegged someone while being pinned in by 3 players. The hot steak goal scoring he did in his initial loan again points to the ability being there. The application, mindset, time and circumstances has made him a shadow of his former self. As I have said I see no value in giving him a new deal to see if he can be the player of 3 years ago.

Its definitely high up on the list you would imagine anyway come the summer BDB has 1 year left, Trips is likely away? Does kraft get another year or away? We also let Targett go without replacement. Likely to need one for each side older rotation option or young up and coming who doesn't have to start every game? Guess it will depend what the philosophy of any new sporting director is on playing squad age etc

Fresh start may be what the player needs too. I hope unless fullbacks or another area of the pitch becomes more urgent we recruit in Jan even if he cant be peddled in the January window as like I say he doesn't currently deserve a new contract offer unless we trigger a year to keep his value up for the summer. If he carries on this way all season with 12 months left its longstaff fee we are talking about at that point.

Playing 115mins or so may have helped him not look as bad this season but is a story in of itself. I have been a harsh critic of willock hes not physical enough to do the defensive stuff and doesn't score. Last season he enjoyed running the ball out of play alot or getting over injuries was my hazy memory of last season. He seems a confidence player who needs a consistent run of games but isn't going to displace the current 3 starters. Hes clearly now bottom of the pecking order unless there is a injury issue thats not getting spoke about hes not even been used as a rotation option. Massively hampered through injury and quality of what's in front of him which isn't his fault at all. 27 next summer with 12 months on his deal at that point I already know my vote before seeing the season out is to sell and not extend. Fresh start for the player and allows us to recruit for what we need in that area which for me is box to box midfielder or a goal scoring midfielder.

If nothing else performances like tonight will help his value you hope he realises his potential here but if not the "dream" of at least getting our money back seems more than possible and 25/30m far less eye brow rausing. After last seasons none event in terms of minutes the time spent by the player and coaches within that time you can clearly see improvement. I think osula last season goes for goal and runs into traffic rather than assisting Barnes.

Hes going to be good but at times hes not burning people for pace or hes lacking the control to keep the ball in. Maybe I am being harsh there he can certainly cross a ball and hugs the line more than Gordon or Barnes does. Hopefully its just a mixture of the side still being in transition and him needing more time to settle in.