Keegans Export

From a squad building perspective, I wouldn't be disappointed if the money we would have spent on Ekitike's fee and wages covers Wissa and Gallagher.

Happy with this one. Productive, proven in the PL. Also in that sweet spot in that he'd accept being Isak's backup but also good enough to lead the line if needed. Not every signing has to be with resale value in mind, if we keep adding sellable assets to the squad.

The issue with "He could get £300k/week somewhere else" is that we'd have to sell him first. He holds a lot of the cards, but not all of them. He could go nuclear, hand in a transfer request, refuse to train, whatever, but so could the club. He could get 3x the salary elsewhere? Great, you can wait for three years to find out. I'm not for a moment suggesting either of those things should/will happen but contracts work both ways - he could break his leg, go completely off the boil, a new superstar could emerge & suddenly the security of £150-200k/week for the next however many years at NUFC seems like he's got a good deal. Personally I think he'll get a substantial rise, not near £300k mind, and there'll be a nine-figure release clause active from next summer in there. If those clubs lining up to give him £300k+ want to make a move, there's a fee in black and white. Keep banging the goals in and there'll be a queue of clubs lining up.

Scored a nice goal in the Sela Cup iirc. Was also a star of my Football Manager 2015 team so I was desperate to sign him that summer.

There's two sides to any negotiation. Yes, we don't want to lose him on the cheap/free, but likewise if he turns down an extra £120k/week he's leaving nearly £20m on the table with three years left. Plus, assuming there's a release clause in there so if one of those clubs who want to give him £300k/week or more fancy making a move there's a fee written in black and white so he only has to "accept" whatever we're offering for as long as it takes someone to activate that clause.

£300k/week is probably a reasonable starting point for him/his agent to start with. As @TheBrownBottle has previously worked out, we can probably add an extra £100k/week without making any impact on our PSR position so that would take him to somewhere around the £220k/week range and that would be a fair place for us to start imo. Obviously he holds most of the cards but we're not completely helpless. He still has three years on his current salary and seemingly no release clause, so "I could earn £300k/week somewhere else" only holds true if someone gives us what we want. Hopefully something around the £250k/week range would be doable.

100% There are too many clubs who just want to increase the gap between themselves and those below. The "Big 6" want to make sure the likes of us, Villa, Forest are hamstrung, the lower-midtable want to start every season with a huge financial advantage over the promoted teams. PSR in it's current form achieves that.

"I can reinvigorate our recruitment with a data led strategy" "That's good!" "It led us to sign Rasmus Hojlund" "That's bad" "But we sold him for a huge profit" "That's good!" "But....Rasmus Hojlund" ... "...that's bad"

Little dweeb better get his Laptop out, pronto

That's appalling if true. We've been in a few times and it always seemed to cater for families, celebrating special occasions or whatever. The idea of the whole area for the entire season being bought up by "Business Club" members is sickening.

I can't see any scenario where this benefits us directly eg. loosening of PSR

Making some assumptions if we added another three years I think we'd be able to offer an extra £90k/week and "break even" as far as PSR goes. Anything less and it's improving our immediate financial position.

Just checked now - some in Wings

My dad, my brother and I usually do a couple of games in the Barracks each year but it doesn't seem to be an option for any of the games? £400+ per person will be a bit much for us!

I don't know if we ever actually bid for those players but I'm sure some discussions were had and if we'd been able to get them on terms we were happy with we would have gone for it, like we did with Elanga. Ekitike was probably the same and Trafford may go that way too. I don't have an issue with all the names in the above post being our top targets and I don't have an issue with missing out on those players, most of which have gone to rivals with considerably more prestige and money. What matters now is our plan B and how quickly and successfully we pivot to that. If we are flexible, able to move onto our "B List" and bring in the three or four we need then the window will most likely end up being a success. However if we're still sticking with the "small pool of players" and that means we're short this coming season then we'll pay the price for it.

.

Im just delighted that after nearly 15 years we finally have an answer to the question "Where's the Carroll money?"

Thanks Google

Clearly a made up name. Move on.

A lot to agree with in this post but this especially. Aim high, absolutely, but I really hope we have multiple alternatives that we can move to. I could be misremembering but isn't that what happened with Burn? We spent most of that first window chasing Botman, asking price went up every time we made a bid. Eventually we pulled the plug and made the deal for Burn quite quickly. We want 20-24 year-olds who can potentially come straight into the team but we also have to be willing to look at players who don't tick all the boxes - a few years older, maybe coming off a poorer season or have had injury trouble. It's what got us Burn, Tino, Isak. We brought in Bruno when others hesitated. Trust the scouts that identified those players.

You mean "we"....right?

How much room to facilitate "no impact on PSR at all"? Is that what you're asking? All you need to work out amortisation is how much the player was signed for and how long the contract is, plus any extensions. It's not degree-level accounting just a basic understanding of how amortisation works.

Fair enough In that case the only extra cost is how much more we're giving him. Plus, in all likelihood he's off in a 12 months anyway so we don't have to worry about it beyond year one!

I'm probably misunderstanding but where are you getting £70m from?

Sorry, what I mean is that extending/increasing Isak's contract doesn't necessarily have to have any substantial impact on the current expenditure on the accounts. Obviously new players are going to add to the expenditure, but if the net cost of extending Isak's contract is close to zero then it would have minimal impact on our incoming transfer business. Players wanting rises themselves is a different issue but one that we're going to have to deal with regardless. Isak is widely regarded as one of the best in the world and has two seasons of consistent production. Once we see that from the others then we can talk about parity. Having said that, assuming Isak is off next summer then that naturally creates some room in terms of wages and PSR.