timeEd32

Going to be Raphinha - Lewa - Rashford I assume. Still scary and Rashford seems rejuvenated to some degree, but it's a big break for us for sure.

Unfortunately this past summer was probably the one chance to get him.

* Be 100% ready for PSG in a massive home game so that Barcelona doesn't start the league phase with 0 points through two games

This is ultimately meaningless, but can we all just take a moment to think about the fact that a computer simulation thinks we're one of the 10 most likely clubs to win the Champions League and that we have a 1 in 3 chance of reaching the quarterfinals? Four years ago that same computer would have said we were heading to the Championship. I really just hope we don't get crushed by injuries again so we can have a fair shot at showing what we can do.

They have the highest ranking of the English clubs in the media value list due to being in the CL all of the last five years (4th overall behind the three French clubs) and then they have the second highest coefficient behind only RM. Those two rankings are averaged to form the final list, which City sits at the top of. PSG, Liverpool, Bayern, Chelsea, Real Madrid, and Arsenal come behind. Each place in the list is worth almost €1m more than the next one. We sit 21st in large part to England's place in the media value rankings, so while it's frustrating to us to see how much more the other English clubs make I am sure the likes of Napoli, PSV, Ajax, and others are wondering what ridiculous system allows Newcastle United to make more than them.

9-24 goes to the playoff round, but yes. Villa got almost double last season what we got in 2023/24. Obviously they did well, but this format can be very lucrative.

Guaranteed CL money for this season (showing English clubs plus some others): Man City - €64m PSG - €63m Liverpool - €61m Real Madrid - €60m Chelsea - €59m Arsenal - €58m Barcelona - €55m Tottenham - €50m Benfica - €43m Newcastle - €35m Kairat - €21m Every club gets an €18.6m participation fee and last place in the league phase gets €275k in prize money. The rest is the "value pillar" which is based on UEFA coefficients and each country's media market ranking (we benefit in this vs. every country other than France). In the league phase each win is worth €2.1m and each draw is €0.7m. Every place in the league phase is worth an additional €275k, plus finishing in the top 8 gives a €2m bonus and 9-16 is a €1m bonus. The knockout round playoff gets you €1m, but the last 16 is €11m (on top of all of the above). For some context, if Villa win the Europa League they will get €42m total.

Swiss Ramble said back in June that he thought we'd struggle to comply based on the UEFA adjustments we published in the last accounts + 2024/25 projections. Maybe we'll surprise everyone with Adidas + Stack + other sponsorships being more meaningful than anyone has thought. It's weird how UEFA uses calendar year for the squad cost rule but the last three accounting periods (which vary by club/country) for stability. If we are in breach I wonder if we'll try to use the summer business + CL revenue as an argument that, while we weren't ok on June 30, we are fine now.

Black and white stripes vs. all orange is pretty aesthetically pleasing, I must say.

Everything is setup incredibly for a massive fall from grace for Slot. One can dream.

Even if those two countries made the final less than half of those players would likely be playing. It’s a nice dream though.

Woltemade is going to make Germans realize who Eddie Howe is.

This feels like an extremely big deal with a very wide range of future outcomes for Spurs (and also the PL given his influence).

I have a good feeling about this.

Longstaff being in his “peak” years makes him less valuable. The vast majority of clubs are primarily spending money on young players because everyone is concerned with resale value, plus older players often means higher wages. Every player you mentioned was on the wrong side of the age curve except Kelly, and his wages made him less attractive. Isak is a special case because the market is different above £100m and the circumstances caused us to lose control of the situation (you can call us bad sellers for that). We could look great on a spreadsheet if we made Tino, Hall, or Miley available. If there’s something to be critical about it’s more that we haven’t sold some players earlier when they had more value (Wilson, Miggy, etc.). But it’s hard to be good sellers when you have older players, little depth (because the rules make that hard), and you’re trying to compete.

What's announced first -- Man City punishment or our stadium decision?

CB will depend on Botman on Thiaw to a large extent, but I assume we'll need at least one. CM is absolutely screaming for an update and that's without considering the futures of Bruno and, more worrisome, Tonali.

Colo covered a bunch of details and sorry, I've left different parts of the math in different places. But basically: - after you remove the remaining amortization and sell on fee you're at ~£85-90m - I always mentally divide sales by three since 1) that's how long they are relevant in the various FFP calcs 2) so much changes in three years that for this rough accounting I don't think we need to currently cover years 4 and 5 of a deal, but as Colo pointed out you could in theory end up in a deficit - That gets to the same £30m per year you said above, except we've already covered Isak's remaining amortization and we shed his £6m per year wages - You can pick either new striker, but roughly speaking the savings from Isak leaving and removing his annual amortization covers one of them - The £30m per year we've gained is used to cover the other one. We still have £12-15m to play with (again, in theory - we may have spent it already) All these numbers are rough estimates, but the main point is regardless of how you bucket the money Isak leaving+his fee frees up ~£45m per year, not just £30m.

I don't think I'm double counting because I'm deducting it from the fee first. There's obviously nuance to this, but I think it's generally right. @Colos Short and Curlies maybe to confirm?

It disappears all at once and we don't have to pay it every year for the next three years, along with his wages. That's the part you're missing. If we had sold Isak and not signed any players to replace him then our wage bill would have gone down by ~£6m and our amortization costs would have dropped by £10m in each of the next three years.

You're missing the fact that Woltemade is essentially canceled out by dropping Isak's wages + amortisation. In a vacuum (which we can't really do but for simplicity sake), Isak = Woltemade and the remaining profit spread over three years could = Wissa + another in the £12-14m annual cost range (e.g. a £50m player on £100k/wk).

I could not care less about fashion but I love that he looks like he hit a different thrift shop every day.

I know, but it just seems like someone was texting Craig Hope like this in every meeting we had.

Man United in recent years is genuinely one of the worst clubs in the world to develop as a footballer.

That's what I'm wondering. The Howe's + Nickson overlap with the Tonali deal and seem unlikely. My questioning would start with everyone else.