Keegans Export

Not a link I was expecting at all. Would take a hefty lump of cash and for a player most suited to a position we don't really use? If we could still bring in someone like Dennis who can play across the front three I guess it could make sense, but even he would be £20m+ you'd think and I can't see us spending another £70-80m.

You got a surname? I'm going tonight and it would be nice to know who to look out for!

Surely it's better to wait in the hope of nailing down one of our top targets rather than just go with whoever is available for the sake of 5 extra games? This is a long term project, we don't need to panic over 13% of the first full season.

I'd rate Sarr above Cornet but I'd be happy with both. I know he plays mainly on the left, but as a left-footer do you reckon Cornet could play RW?

I guess if you viewed the Leazes stand sort of sideways...through the Matrix filter...in a really strong wind that was in the process of blowing it down?

I think he means why did Chelsea have to offer him that much when they signed him from Leipzig

Villa are in a similar position to us - rich owners (I think?) but no clear path to just loading money into the business. I wonder whether the PL are also starting to scrutinise things like owner loans to the business? Would explain why two clubs with fairly wealthy owners are turning to the banks.

I should also add that, although Bompeter is right about the 80/10/10 thing I don't agree with his conclusion that this loan shows that PIF are not fully invested (financially or otherwise). It's a quick, easy and uncomplicated (in terms of the PL getting pissy) way of getting some cash into the bank account. What we're going to do with it or how much it's actually worth, who knows.

Right, but what we're talking about here is whether PIF putting money into the club directly would force Staveley & Reuben to do the same. If its a loan then no they wouldn't. The quote was ...to which I'm saying it wouldn't have to be funded 80/10/10

Absolutely, and it could be that the 80/10/10 split is what has been agreed between the three parties but it doesn't have to be.

Your assumption about the split is wrong. It means any money taken out (eg dividends) is split 80/10/10 but not money going in. For example, I own 60% of a business, my business partner has the other 40%. If I chose to drop £600k of my own money into the business, my partner doesn't have to add £400k of theirs. It just adds +£600k to my Directors account (which is basically a record of who is owed what by the business or vice versa).

So he's either going to take a ~£150-200k/week pay cut to join permanently or Chelsea are going to subsidise his wage by the same for a loan deal? I actually think he would be a really good option - I think he'd fit in our system much better than he has Chelsea's - but it's a complete non-starter.

I was thinking about that appointment, plus the fact that Eales has only just been brought in. I wonder whether they really are just going to use this season to get everything in order - give Ashworth & Eales the time to get everything just as they need it, the new Council is there to oversee the legal aspect etc then see a real push next summer. Explains why there was no mad rush to end the Fun88 deal before this season. They may even have explained this to the players they've brought in - use 22/23 to bed in, then we all push on the following season. Like Mehrdad said - building the skyscraper starts with the foundations...

Agree 100% We also have an advantage over Dortmund & Leipzig in that we are in the Premier League. Obviously in the position we are now that isn't enough but if we can consistently offer European and Premier League football, it gives us a better chance than those two clubs of holding on to our talented players.

Unless I'm misreading it, the paperwork lodged at CH is Burnley taking out a loan and using the future installments in the Pope transfer as collateral - basically "You know we can pay this loan off because we're getting these payments over the next three years". Seems to me that if they'd got the £10m up-front they'd have been better off.

I had an old lady stop me as I was walking down Clayton Street. Must have been at least 80. She grasped my arm, looked nervously into my eyes and said "Pet, where are the goals coming from if we don't improve our front three?" I told her not to worry, to trust the process and have faith in Mandy, Dan and Eddie. She smiled politely and nodded, but I could tell I hadn't reassured her. I hadn't even reassured myself. Troubling times in NE1.

Pepe is on about £140k/week so either Arsenal are going to loan him but pay a share of the wages or he's going to have to take a pay cut to come here. Can't see either of those happening. Out of that whole list I'd have Sarr pretty comfortably above the others.

Let's look at the teams we expect to be competing with around that 7th-11th area; Villa (14th last season) Coutinho, Carlos, Kamara Brighton (9th) Encisco, Baker-Boaitey, Adingra Out - Bissouma Leicester (8th) ...? West Ham (7th) Aguerd, Areola Wolves (10th) Collins It makes complete sense to go after your ambitious targets first. That may well mean you are miles apart on valuation (Harrison) or get quoted fees you aren't willing to go near (DCL) or have players who currently don't want to make the move (Diaby). We'll have our alternatives identified, they may not be first or even second on our shortlist but they can still come in and improve us & they may well be deals that are much easier to do (I'm thinking players from relegated teams like Cornet, Sarr etc, those with release clauses or clubs looking to cash in on assets) tldr; calm the f*** down.

You're right. Clearly our current strategy will render us unable to sign any players of real quality. Like Bruno. Or Botman. For a combined SEVENTY MILLION POUNDS. Jesus...

Everything I've read about how transfers work these days tells me that speaking to agents/representatives is the first step, not the last. Us meeting with the agent is consistent with Hope's claim that we are "exploring" a deal.

The "compensation" rules seem so out-dated. For example, if we end up getting that young lad from Sunderland (Rigg?) then any compensation is based purely on the costs incurred training and developing that player. Nothing to do with how good he is or "market value" or whatever else. I'm not sure what the alternative would be but when you look at the money being quoted for good quality 19-20 year olds (10s of millions) if you can pick up a bunch of talented 14-16 year olds for a fraction of that, is it any surprise we're seeing it become more and more commonplace?

Although there is an argument that finishing 10th next season doesn't actually put us in a better position to attract our top targets than we are now. Still not in Europe, still midtable. We also know that we can spend more than we are currently even without the increased sponsorship money because FFP is run in three-year cycles & there is a fair amount of slack in the system due to the chronic lack of spending during the Ashley years. Put it this way - if what we really want are the likes of Diaby, Osimhen etc I don't think they're any more achievable next summer after finishing 10th than they are now, even if we do end up with a boatload more sponsorship money.

It's a fine line. I guess it depends what we are really aiming for next season and how attractive that would then make us to the next tier up in terms of our transfer targets. If you assume the top 6 is currently sewn up (obviously that's not guaranteed but for arguments sake) then you've got West Ham who seem to have invested well, Leicester without European football as a distraction & Villa who have also made a couple of decent additions. Brighton and Wolves I guess would be up there but I'm not sure how much they've improved from last season. Currently I'd have us behind West Ham and Leicester in terms of squad quality & depth so if our aim is 7th/8th then we might have to bite the bullet and spend a little more than we are comfortable with.

He's playing like someone who knows he has a limited opportunity to show he's worth keeping around

The gap in quality between the likes of Trippier and Bruno and the fringe guys is quite something. At least pre-January they were all mostly crap so it wasn't so obvious.