timeEd32

Not at all - I’m just saying it’s naive to think there aren’t a fairly significant number of players with awful opinions like this. I’d prefer we don’t sign anyone who thinks that way.

We talk a lot about the right characters. I assume it will be part of the equation. Given the multitude of backgrounds and religions in football I’m sure there are many who have similar opinions, maybe even some players we love in our team. To be very clear, not excusing or condoning it. I’m genuinely not sure how it factors in or how all the differences are managed.

It’s insane but £15m is basically nothing in today’s market. For a 22 year old it’d be very hard to not (worst case) break even if things don’t go particularly well.

Yeah, it’s next to nothing.

That’s a higher level loan than I expected. Good sign.

If we do only get 2 or 3 new players one of them better be someone who can cover for Bruno.

Will Tripps still be on free kicks if he comes?

So for the question that was asked a zillion times - “is there any difference between 3rd and 4th?” - the answer is yes, about £5m between PL and CL prize / TV money.

It ended up being wrong, but the info was right at the time. He was coming and then something (Wilson injury / more money / Isak discount) changed our plans. Just look at who broke the Pedro to Brighton news - he clearly has a source close to the player.

Agree, the Maddison links are not that exciting to me because I want Szoboszlai more.

You know even if we buy Min-jae Eddie will make him earn his place. Schar will get plenty of time. BTW, it would be hilarious if we ended up getting him because Maguire refuses to leave.

It also very enjoyably says Chelsea is the least likely given their instability.

Was this posted? https://www.footmercato.net/a4170076248895688328-newcastle-le-psg-et-chelsea-veulent-jouer-un-vilain-tour-a-manchester-united-pour-kim-min-jae I barely believed these links at first, but the Kim Min-jae talk won't go away. Basically says Man United negotiations have slowed opening the door for us and PSG. Player is keen on the PL.

England and Italy are the top two for this season. I don’t think yesterday’s game mattered either way. But the reporting on this has been very weird and I feel like there’s confusion about which season’s results count towards the extra spots. I actually think it’s the 2023/24 country coefficients which will determine it, which is odd because you could have a scenario where teams are battling for 4th/5th in the league and not know how many positions qualify for the CL. But UEFA uses the language “previous season” and I think they mean previous to the subsequent CL.

We’re not seriously going to talk about a 29 year old Ross Barkley, right?

We are guaranteed to play two of these clubs twice next season: Barcelona PSG Bayern Munich Feyenoord Sevilla Napoli Benfica ————————- Real Madrid Dortmund Atletico Porto Inter Milan RB Leipzig Ignoring the last one (which would hopefully have a Big Dom reunion storyline) that’s incredible.

Spurs spending a bunch of money on a GK is fine with me.

I’m at the point where if we get him I barely care what else we do.

Greatly enjoyed the great trucking debate of 2023. Made even better by repeated use of articulated lorry, one of the best British terms.

No, he’s right. A club’s finances are measured on a rolling three year basis. Contract length gets into player amortization. If a player costs £80M and is given a four year contract then the fee is spread across each of those years (£20m each year). If you give that same player an eight year contract then the fee is only £10m per year. So in that example the same player costs half as much for FFP purposes. The risk in that scenario, aside from potentially getting stuck with a player’s wages far past their usefulness, is the remaining balance is deducted from a sale. So let’s say the four year contract player is sold after year three for £50m. Per FFP you would have paid £20m three times or £60m of the £80m. In the year four accounts you can book that sale as a £30m profit (£50m incoming minus the remaining £20m “owed”). Now if you do the same thing for a player on the 8 year deal you have only “paid” £30m after three years, so selling for £50m only lets you break even. (“Owed” and “paid” are in quotes because this has nothing to do with the actual money changing hands. You could have paid the selling club the £80m in cash on day one).

Tbf, their website is not helping with legitimacy. It’s all very vague and it’s hard to find details on things they’ve done. I’m not surprised this theory has gained traction.

This is exactly how I feel about it: https://twitter.com/nufcsanjay/status/1667270353314250752?s=46&t=JZ8c671x9oEsAzFgMcFNxQ I can’t actually believe the prices being quoted for him and would feel sick as if it’s my own money if we spend north of £30m on him.

Saudi Arabia’s billions are shaking up golf. What next? https://www.ft.com/content/dede3728-b146-4a51-a6c5-e82f901b6f57

£18 for socks is worse than than the cost of the shirt. Definitely buying one of these but waiting for patches online and to see if there’s a long sleeve.

I hope so. That would be a nice income boost.