tarie4

Villa's wage bill is astronomical. It's unsustainable. Hence they will need a big sale every season to keep up, with Mitchell in charge dont think that will be our approach, better to pad out the squad with young talent without the high wages (Ndidi is on 75 k a week)

Huh? According to data, Trent has made four errors leading to a goal in his entire Premier league career. VVD has 6. Go figure.

I agree. Averages a goal and assist every 3 games at right back. Thats elite.

All the best young players, under 20 and worth over 30 million, and you're saying they aren't spending big? Adding the over 100 for Jude and 80 for Tchouaméni. Wow. They've won two Champions Leagues and domestic trophies in the last three seasons, and you think that's an odd approach for squad building? 🤔 I would say its an odd opinion you have rather than an odd approach to squad building

Not entirely true. How much did they pay for Bellingham and Tchouaméni? Just to name a few. They do spend big.

Saliba comes to mind.

We're in Europe next season, and the cups too, so he'll get tons of playing time here. Just like last season. Miley's definitely staying put.

It's crazy when people say "I can't see that happening" about billionaires and football clubs, right? These guys are billionaires for a reason; they see things we don't. Especially a fund like Clearlake. Nobody thought a club would be worth $100 million, let alone a billion, 50 years ago! Fenway bought Liverpool for $300 million – what's it worth now? Four or five billion in just 15 years! Maybe ten times that in the next 15. Don't be short-sighted; even Mike Ashley profited from Newcastle despite relegations. These guys are billionaires for a reason

You're missing the point, mate. Nobody said Man U's revenue will drop. I'm saying constantly missing the Champions League will hurt them because other clubs will catch up, making it tougher to grab one of the 4 or 5 CL spots, maybe even 8 or 9 teams competing. Their massive debts mean they'll need cash injections, and the owners might not be keen on that. It's totally wrong to say Spurs and Man U don't need European football. If they miss out, other teams will get richer and closer, forcing them to spend even more – they can't keep that up. Plus top players want to play CL how do you convince players with no CL.

They're billionaires, so obviously they've got better vision than me. I'm sure they know what they're doing. Will it help Chelsea? Maybe not. But I bet they'll make a ton of money off it.

So being a fund and all, the plan's to boost the team's worth, simples. New stadium, better facilities etc, a young hotshot team to rake in cash for years through player trading and sponsorship etc, then sell the club for a profit. Classic American investor model. The Glazers' primary motivation for acquiring Manchester United was likely financial gain. Their subsequent success in this endeavor is evident. copy and paste that to Clearlake

That's wrong, some of those clubs' income depends on European football. Missing two CL seasons would really hurt them. But the main thing you're overlooking is the difference between FFP wiggle room and actual cash. Spurs and Man U are losing money. Forget FFP for a sec – they're in the red, huge debts. Spurs are finding this out now. You can have FFP headroom, but you also need owners willing to keep funding it because the club itself isn't making money. It's losing money. So yeah, if the Glazers/Sir Jim or the Lewis trust/Levy are willing to keep funding them for years, fine, but I seriously doubt that. Multiple seasons without CL would be a disaster for either team. If Chelsea miss the Champions League this season and next season, it'll really hurt them (include spurs and man u). Because while they're struggling, we and Villa are just getting stronger.

Yeah, I get it. But two straight seasons of Champions League cash for Villa? That'll totally change them, making them a real contender. Chelsea and City will still spend big, with or without the Champions League. So, just looking at the competitive balance, Villa have to be left out. See how not being in the Champions League or even Europe messed up our team building this year? That's just how I see it..

Villa, for sure. It's crucial Villa misses out; that'll mess up their plans and maybe they'll sell a star player. Us in third, City fourth, and Forest fifth is perfect for me.

PSG.

These are two mutually exclusive scenarios; it must be one or the other. Financially, for Isak (with three years remaining on his contract this summer), the decision is between signing a new contract or seeking a transfer. If he only had two years left, that would be more easily understood. His agent and advisors would be negligent if they did not recognize this significant financial consideration. He would risk forfeiting at least one to two million pounds in wages. His rumored current weekly wage is £120,000. If offered £180,000 to £200,000 per week, he might consider signing with a release clause or an agreement allowing him to leave the following year if the team fails to meet certain targets or if a suitable club makes an offer. Not signing, and not moving means he is losing at least £60,000 in wages weekly. This makes little financial sense, as he could still pursue a transfer the following year.

Case in point last summer were we ended up losing Minteh and Anderson. In the FFP world we have to trade smart. We already have some top class talent on the books already, a few shrewd buys at decent prices will firm up our starting 11 and squad. Blowing 50 million on a defender or winger will not bode well for us in terms of FFP.

I respectfully disagree; while we were linked with Huijsen last summer, we opted for more established players like Guehi. Similarly, Kerkez was linked with Arsenal and Barcelona, but they ultimately decided against pursuing him in favor of more established players.

Mitch said the club's transfer policy sucks. (Not fit for purpose) So, getting Dibling, Delap, Mbeumo, and Huijsen is a no-go, I reckon, based on what Mitch said. It's about keeping our best players and adding talented high-potential guys at good prices. Like, we got Hall for thirty-odd million, Bournemouth got Kerkez for fifteen. We offered forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy million (whatever) for Guehi, Bournemouth got Huijsen for twelve-odd million and Zabarnyi for twenty-odd million. Man City got Khusanov for thirty-three million. I hope we don't buy from the Premier League, but from the continent. Loads of talent there at decent prices. This summer's the time for Mitch to prove his words.

Losing to Brentford next game will put them under a ton of pressure, especially after a Champions League match. Their league form after Champions League games has been terrible.

Haven't they added Rashfords 325k a week for half a season. Also Asensio, Disasi, malen and Garcia. They will need to sell definitely. Sell Watkins make the Rashford deal permanent.

Exactly, too much attention is put to PSR headroom, that people forget the overall accounts of the football club. Not every club has owners like us who are willing to bank roll the project.

Tottenham Hotspur has PSR headroom, but that's distinct from their overall financial situation. Their recent accounts showed a loss above £200 million, largely due to stadium repayments, which doesn't affect their PSR. This creates a misconception about their financial health. Our owners are prepared to utilize our full PSR headroom, even if it means operating at a loss. Some clubs, including Tottenham, cannot or will not take that approach. You only have to look at Manchester United to see why. This explains why many teams in the bottom half of the league are content with the £105 million, three-year rolling loss limit.

So this supposed point of yours has gone from doing Leicester (relegation) to Everton (consistently fighting relegation) and now Bournemouth (mid table)? Great point mate. Keep shifting goal posts. Have a good one 👍

In the short to medium term no, long term yes. Watkins is twice the player Duran is currently. If I had to choose. I would choose to keep Watkins than Duran.