Abacus

Nah, we pay what we think he's worth to us and then move on if not. It's a buyer's market, especially in the European leagues which struggled more than the PL. So far, there hasn't been a queue forming from the big clubs either. And that's not meant to be a dig at all, he's a really good player, and most fans here see Leicester as an enviable model to follow. Rodgers might want £60m, but he probably won't get that. That's if he even has any say in it anyway - to me, he is sounding a bit like a hostage who is making escape plans / getting his excuses in. What's your take on him? It seems like a real odd position to be in to be considering losing either him or Fofana, for example. I know the wage restrictions etc. But is that down to him, or the club, or just a bunch of bad luck?

With everyone going on about us buying Richard Madeley for one MILLION dollars, I hope we blindside everyone with a sucker punch transfer. That Sesko looks a real talent to me, would absolutely love it if we snuck in and bought him. (Although, for some reason, I have it in my head that it's pronounced Sexshow. It's certainly what I'd get printed on the back of my Saudi shirt anyway.)

Would be our new record signing, wouldn't it? Love a record signing, me. I remember the days of thinking £1.75m was a bit steep for Andy Cole...

Be a cracking Monday if this goes though, mind. And all because Shelvey pulled his hamstring.

They probably won't get any "bother" from Real Madrid or Barcelona fans either.

Also, we should be offering money in pounds. We'll get scammed at them airport booths.

I wouldn't trust the figures being bandied about in the press for one thing. With any kind of negotiation, it's brinkmanship and both sides need to be able to claim a 'win'. Besides, I think you need a reputation as being tough to deal with, and only paying what you think something is worth. Otherwise you end up with Will Grigg.

This squad 'refresh' that Rodgers is on about seems weird. Can't get rid of the dead wood, so be prepared to sell your better players and gamble on replacing them with better. Unless they've already lined up some exciting new talent, it seems a bit risky. Also, you'd have to wonder why Madison might be keen on the move - we're not a step up on Leicester at the minute. Mind you, that bit came from Luke so the likely source is whatever just came into his head that he thought would get most reaction.

Mind, I did like the bit that put Sunderland in the same bracket as Wigan and Hull

It's one big excuse for coming back into management after his cry-baby and overly well rewarded exit. No mention of the mess he left behind. He deserves no sympathy and pitiless criticism. Mind, it's pretty hilarious reading his list of non-achievements and the excuses he makes every single time. He's also typically inaccurate with the Lego headed dolt Arteta calling him the most important manager of the last 20 years. It was 100 years - even Bruce must know he was talking out of his arse there. And the West Brom bit at the end - mentioned their record low finish in 10th last season and his job being to change that, distancing himself from the fact he caused that finish in the first place. Best of all, his voice being hoarse from shouting in training (one-fawty two! one-fawty three!). Clearly stung by the correct criticism that his training is hopeless and trying to get his message out that he isn't just a lazy inept loafer. It's a disgraceful article that says nothing except defending a pal of the writer. Despite the subject of the article having never achieved anything and having nothing of interest to say.

And I'd been fretting whether they were ambitious enough to turn Barker & Stonehouse into a club shop.

Yes, I read it the same way. You're just describing a loan from the owner (or someone linked to them) and that would indeed be an associated party transaction. Nothing wrong with doing that, of course, and it wouldn't be stopped, but the loan would be assessed at open market value. If you made the loan interest free as many previous owners have done, under these new anti-NUFC rules, I suspect it would fall foul of that. So, they would assume an interest charge similar to if you'd got a loan on the open market. That notional interest charge would then count towards your profit and loss for FFP. So, in some ways, you might as well just get an actual loan as it makes no difference to FFP, and you might be able to sort it quicker and without the whole hassle. But I think you probably get all that already, apologies if so.

Yes, you're right, if it was a loan then no it wouldn't need to be matching. But the debate at that point was about investing through shares, so we're just slightly talking at cross purposes there.

What you're describing is a loan to the business. He was talking about investment through share capital rather than a loan. Where you can't just issue more equity to one party only without diluting the ownership percentage of the others, is all.

OK, some positive pure speculation then. In the early days of the takeover, the consortium were accused of being slow to act, with every decision needing to be signed off by the head of the giant PIF. But let's say you wanted access to potential funds fast, without bureaucracy or alerting people as to how much you had to spend via Companies House filings on loans or shares etc. You might set up a facility like that, to get commercially sensitive deals like transfers done fast, for example. Well, it's a thought anyway. Might just be a payday loan for washing those windows.

I think where he is absolutely right is that this is not some sly dodge around FFP. But also, that there are plenty of reasons you might set up such a facility instead of asking for an equity or shareholders loan. As has been said, it's common practice in terms of how clubs are run, and running us normally is what we've all wanted. I think that, to then go on to question the owners ability or willingness to fund the club is probably what some people are reacting to, because that part of it is not based on anything at all. I'm not all that fussed if it's a slow build, for what it's worth. But we have already spent a relative fortune on transfers, started to sort out our back office infrastructure and started looking at expensive training ground revamps for just three. Given all that tangible progress and spend, it seems a bit odd to then question the owners motives. Either way, keep going like this and however we choose to fund it, that's fine by me.

Although, if a related party loan charged zero interest, I'd guess that zero interest now wouldn't be deemed at fair market value and would probably be subject to endless PL quibbling. In practical terms, we have to live within our means either way, and the strategy has to be to grow our means. A capital injection doesn't solve much there, since whilst you may not need to pay interest on it, it dilutes the other owners. I think it's purely related to having access to cashflow, as I can't see any of these things mattering much for FFP.

There are obviously gaps all over the squad, so I'm not saying this is a priority, but I wouldn't mind some of these left sided midfielders we've been linked with, especially if they can be versatile and play on the other side too. We talk about Wilson being injured so striker is a priority position (agreed), but St Max has a few spells out too. Nowhere near as long, but on the other hand, in addition to that he has little patches of poor form too, or playing when carrying knocks. On the right, Trippier is arguably better going forward than in defence, and can pose a threat from the right to partly make up for weaknesses there. But on the left, Targett is primarily a defensive LB, so without St Max you'd wonder where the threat comes from on that side. Cover on the left is maybe a luxury we can't afford yet, I'm just saying there is a risk with an over-reliance on Maxi. Especially if he tries to reverse park and scratches Eddie's car.

The ridiculous thing is, he wasn't even a 'mag'. So they've (apparently) claimed to chin a fan from a non rival lower league club just because they didn't like being laughed at. Stay classy

Haha, yes it's come to something where I'm starting to think of £3bn as 'not being very rich' as well.

I'll bow to your knowledge on that. I'd read the owner was worth about £3bn which isn't far off Ashley levels, but who knows what's behind that or whether it's even accurate at all when it comes to offshore wealth, but I didn't really look any further.

Harrison mainly plays on the left as well - of those two I'd rather Barnes if there's anything in either link. But then yes, St Max does then become a bit of a puzzle. Although, when isn't he? So, at that point I'd probably just say - over to you Eddie.

Had a quick look on one of their fans forums. They haven't actually spent much on transfers, net as ON says, so I was also wondering why they were so cash strapped. I don't think it's anything FFP related - I think it's literally that they don't have all that much money, having just spent £100m on training ground redevelopment (great for the future, but takes time to pay back) but also some poor short term squad management. They are also looking to spend a lot on a stadium expansion to take them to 40,000 capacity. In itself, that should indicate why they might be struggling now - a club of Leicester's size and attendances needs to box clever in the transfer market, buying low, developing and selling high, or gravity will reassert itself. They obviously had a one off boost with that incredible league win and CL campaign after, but realistically that was only ever a one off. However, it probably also set an expectation that they could build on that in order to carry on competing towards the top end of the table. A few fans seem to blame Rodgers for the current squad being a little bit of mess. Lots of players coming into the last 24 months of their contracts (10 of them within 12 months, by one count), all ageing and on high wages, with some of the worst ones being his buys. Perez is usually cited as an example of a poor player on £70k a week. NB, our old pal Choudhury on £50k a week is another example. Not a Rodgers signing here, but he did extend his contract for 4 years, with neither player contributing much and nobody much wanting them. Some say there's been a departure from bringing in younger players, developing them and selling them on. So, there seem to be a fair few players they want rid of, and not the money or wage room to buy again until they clear out the unwanted ones first. And given those short remaining contract situations, there's not much leverage to negotiate decent transfer fees even if there was interest. So, they end up losing players they don't want to instead which is where our ears should prick up, with the likes of Barnes. Plus, this isn't a club with hugely wealthy owners (they're rich, but not mega rich). Or a consistent record of success, large attendances or huge commercial revenues as well as coming off the back of two years of Covid losses and a nondescript season - which bigger clubs would be able to absorb better. That's my impression anyway - I'm sure it's not as doom and gloom as all that.

Bet he parked his car in the disabled bay too, and then rolled around on the ground when he got a ticket.

From what I can understand, the position has always been that we follow our transfer strategy, but that if an opportunity elsewhere comes up that is too good to pass up, we wouldn't. Probably a lot of people on here put Paqueta into that category, which doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Not least because we apparently enquired about him in January, and we've gone back to both our other big January targets already. Not saying we're likely to be in for him - I don't know. But I also don't think it's daft for people to think or hope that we will.