Geordie Ahmed
-
Posts
14,815 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Geordie Ahmed
-
-
-
-
I'm surprised they are after him but also I'd be surprised if anyone gives Chelsea £70m for him
Not too sure where he'd fit in at Arsenal, he's not a striker, can't play wide and isn't better than Odegaard as a playmaker
-
1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said:
Mac Allister & Caicedo replaced by João Pedro & Milner so far?
Dahoud too
-
2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:
That's actually not too bad, I'm happy with the "tougher" start as it has given us this around CL games
-
Tough start but I'd actually prefer that, firstly I think it's better to play sides like City/Liverpool early and secondly I'd rather play them and not then have a CL game to also factor in
Not looked in detail yet but I presume our fixtures around the CL games are kinder?
-
He's a class player and would be a class signing but he's not really a number 6
If he signs then he'll play as an 8, Longstaff's position basically
-
Did well his first couple of seasons but clearly needed to be moved on earlier but that's not his fault, was classic Ashley extending his contract because it was the cheap thing to do
Decent enough servant for us and ultimately that red card proved to be a blessing
-
City to my knowledge aren't challenging FFP or FMV
They seem to be challenging the accusation that they have been hiding sponsors or making sponsorship up, amongst other such things
-
48 minutes ago, Abacus said:
As they are PIF owned, any transaction between us and any of these Saudi clubs would likely be classed as a related party transaction.
So, that loan deal would already need to be assessed at fair market value and wouldn't work as a dodge. Lots of reasons why - the most basic one being that if it was a genuine third party transaction, what would be in it for the loaning club to pay someone's wages with no benefit to them?
Still, always interesting how FFP has been subverted from stopping clubs spending recklessly and possibly going bust, to stopping clubs spending money they actually have and want to spend, in case it threatens certain clubs who seemingly make the rules.
Thing with that is, Man City are already in the henhouse now and seemingly unstoppable, as were Chelsea before. Ban them both and strip their titles, or let others compete on the same basis. Watching Man City parade to the title doesn't make for a great competition either, which is the PL's main global selling point.
I'm actually all for us following FFP using realistic sponsorships etc, because at some point, a reckoning is coming.
Tbf I didn't realise the related transaction extended to transfers as well, just assumed it was sponsors but I suppose it makes sense from the point of the other clubs
But completely agree with the rest of your post
-
6 minutes ago, Nobody said:
Hasn't that loophole already been discussed and closed? I’ve no idea really, but feel like people have mentioned Watford and Udinese already in regards to that
Not that I am aware
UEFA are cutting down in terms of loans, though that doesn't apply to players U21
-
1 minute ago, aussiemag said:
Could we circumvent FFP by PIF companies paying personal sponsorship deals, external to the club to a player, along with a reasonable wage that keeps us within FFP limits.
Probably not as one of the accusations for City was that Mancini was getting paid by am Abu Dhabi company so doing similar would cause scrutiny
Theoretically one of the PIF clubs in Saudi could buy a player and then loan him on to us, whilst covering the bulk of the wages but it would only be a matter of time before they closed that loophole, like they did with the related sponsors
-
4 hours ago, Ben said:
I must admit, now that he's no longer our owner and the fact he did probably the worst deal for a football club in history, I'm not to bothered about him.
Haha £300 million man, what a fuckin grift
I'm somewhat similar
Expanded a lot of energy over the years of proper hating him and whilst I still dislike him and always will I don't really give it much thought, so not really bothered which shops he gets his grubby hands on, just glad he has nowt to do with our club
-
2 minutes ago, Novocastrian said:
Anyone ever had one of the pro shirts? I know the price is insane even for a regular shirt these days but just wondering if there’s any significant difference - bar the stick on crest.
Don't know for certain but I assumed they were a tighter fit
-
The loan regulations in terms of the limits could help with player hoarding however it doesn't include U21 players, which is perhaps where UEFA need to look at
-
2 minutes ago, Jack27 said:
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/felix-nmecha/verletzungen/spieler/406640
are we looking at the same player?
Is he looking at his older brother?
I remember Lukas playing for City the odd game, didn't impress
Not seen Felix play
-
56 minutes ago, Ikon said:
https://twitter.com/joashnjuguna/status/1668200193139912706?s=46
Some moments from Arda Guler if you’re bothered to look. That pass after 36 seconds…..
I wish I hadn't read/watched about this kid cos I'd be gutted to see him go elsewhere, especially as it seems like we are trying to get him
-
Reports that Stevie Gerrard will be manager of Saudi side Al-Ettifaq
-
Robin Koch is a horrific footballer/defender
-
https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1668249160703721473?s=20
Swiss Ramble showing the European Prize money
-
13 minutes ago, GeordieDazzler said:
They’d largely be in the same boat as they are now in terms of player spend. Any takeover doesn’t magically alter revenue, sales or the players already at the club. They would perhaps fix the wreck that is Old Trafford mind.I think it does changes things though, whatever the Glazers currently take out in dividends and also spend on interest payments will go towards transfers. That will be a decent amount
No idea how much it is specifically, maybe @Froggy knows??
-
4 hours ago, madras said:
Once ? Don't the Glazers now seem to be wanting investment rather than a takeover ?
Seems like it will be either Ratcliffe or the Qatari's
With Ratcliffe a couple of the Glazers would remain but as minority shareholders, think there would still be debt involved but at a much reduced rate than they have now
With the Qataris it would make them debt free so they'd have way more scope to spend big, well bigger since they already spend big
-
57 minutes ago, rebelrouser said:
Dominik Szoboszlai doesn't really play RW though does he? Seems to be a younger James Maddison.
He kind of plays everywhere but seems like the majority of his games come as a 10
-
1 hour ago, GeordieDazzler said:
They very much do, highest net spenders in the last decade yet in the same time Chelsea have made more than half a billion more in sales.
They’ve spunked a lot of money on a lot of shit that they’ve lost for nowt, also the wages for Casemiro et al will be very high.
Athletic reporting their budget (even in event of a takeover) will be around £100m to not fall foul of the rules. For a squad that needs some serious money spent on it that won’t go far.
Net spend is somewhat irrelevant to this as it's about profit/loss
To my knowledge they haven't posted ridiculous losses (like Chelsea/Everton etc) and they have significant revenue
A portion of their revenue goes towards dividends and also interest on the debt, a takeover clears that for them
They definitely have scope to continue to spend big, just hope they continue to spend badly
England
in Football
Posted
Get in, happy for him