Checko

Wilson was £20million on a four year contract, in 2020/21. Then three years later extened by a further year. So if I understand amoritisation correctly: £20 million over 4 years means £5 million per year. 3 years (£15 million off) then contract extension. So £5 million remaining when he signed a contract extension. 2 years contract at that point so £2.5 million per year. One year later (now) £2.5 million left on the books. Everything over that is PSR profit. By the same method I reckon maybe about 3.5 million for Miggy. [* Note: Approx figure as the exact amount will depend on exact timing of contracts. Also, it's perfectly possible I don't understand it at all ].

I think historically Southgate gets too much criticism for being conservative - you do need to be more conservative in knockout football. In the league, 1 win and 1 loss gets you more points than 2 draws. That won't cut it in a tournament. Also, as international managers get less time with their squads, I think he gets too much flak for sticking with some of the same players who he knows work well together. I remember though in his first tournament, after one match where we hadn't played well and he was questioned about the team struggling a bit he said something like 'well we didn't really have any way of changing it'. And I remember clearly being so irritated by that: an international manager who had a choice of every player in the nation to make a squad, basically admitting he had no plan B. You manage, like, 10 games a year. What are you fucking doing with your time? It was the tournament where we played 532 with Walker RCB, Trips RWB and Sterling up front. I remember thinking, just go to a back 4 with Walker RB Trips RW and Sterling LW and there you go, 451. There's a way you could change it without even making a sub. It feels like this has never changed. He has plan A and if plan A doesn't work he'll stick to plan A. Perhaps we'll nick something from a set piece. That's what I find quite irritating.

Mind you I'm going to predict 8 million. Based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.

We allegedly want 20 They want 2 Split the difference: 11 Add a million for Ratcliffe being a whingebag 12 million final and you can have him now. Jobs a good'n.

New financial year. A year where we had a hefty net spend and low income compared to now drops off the books. Should have some money for at least one really good signing. Tbh a really good RW and replacements for any players like Wilson sold and I'd probably be happy with the window. We have 2 players for every position. Cracking young CB would be nice as well. Would like to avoid more PSR nightmares though, and feel like there's value to be had if we have some financial leeway at the end of June, so wouldn't be against a relatively quiet window.

It does make the public moaning even more irritating though. Paying more now (assuming you have) is basically an acknowledgement that you were lowballing before. And lowballing is fine, but if you're gonna lowball, don't publicly moan when the other party doesn't accept it. That's the part of this whole saga that's a bit annoying really. It's not very respectful of the other club.

Hearing Gordon on the overlap he seems absolutely bloody-minded in his determination to get to the top. If it doesn't look we're going to be able to get there in the near future I suspect he wouldn't hesitate if he got the chance to move to one of the very big boys.

Yeah it's a shame, he really needed a consistent run of starts and he would have got one then.

Anyone else have a feeling in their waters that England are going to absolutely jammy these Euros and get Southgate a knighthood?

Feels like everyone's been calling for Gordon to play. If Southgate does it, and it works, he'll look like a fool for not spotting it himself earlier.

I'm just impressed you're still playing Championship Manager. Must be a very long save.

Random twitter person said £10 million. Actual journalists saying £35 million. We're also buying a dreadful goalkeeper with a fantastic name off them to say thank you. Not sure how much for yet though.

What are the odds the Anderson deal goes through and then this guy fails his medical?

I dunno, call round some modelling agencies and see if they've got anyone who can play football? I do think RW is by far highest priority this year. I would quite like us to not be in FFP trouble as well though, so happy to be more conservative and defer buying a CB till next year, unless we find someone we really like. Schar is still quality.

I want him for his name alone. Surely I can't be the only one?

Definitely agree on that. Top class RW and Schar's long-term replacement should be the priorities this window.

There's perhaps another way to think about it though: You have to be an extremely good player to play at top four level, which is where we want to be, and why it's so hard for young players to come through at very top clubs. Very top teams don't want to use one of their starting 11 spots developing a raw youngster. There's too much at stake for that. So the biggest clubs get these raw youngsters, maybe send them out on loan for a year or two and then sell them on for a profit to a midtable/bottom half team. That gives them the funds to buy someone who's (hopefully) ready to perform at the top level immediately. The midtable team do the final bit of development, getting them experience at that level. Taking that bit of risk that they may or may not develop as hoped. The overall level isn't as high so having a player who's a bit raw isn't as much of a problem. The player may then develop to the level where they are ready to be one of those immediate play at the highest level players, or they may not. So maybe the fact we're the ones selling to the midtable club and not looking to play a raw youngster could be seen as a good sign.

Chris Wood's form this year means they might have warmed to us a bit. Or perhaps a mutual hatred of Charnley!

Suppose could be something like 25million with some appearence add-ons. Still that would a good fee for him and it'll be a good move for him. At his age he just has to play now.

This is the power of FB ref stats. And the power of being able to pad your per 90 stats through short, high intensity substitute appearences.

Agree on the revenue. Spuds' commercial revenue is big. Plus they make a lot more from matchday as well. Re: destroying the rules - I suspect if our owners came in and immediately went 'c'mon everyone let's get rid of these rules so we can massively outspend all you motherfuckers' there might be some pushback. The optics of them coming in and threatening legal challenges etc. wouldn't be good.

Think it's a good move for him. Felt before he needed a year on loan in the Championship because he doesn't seem quite at Premier League level. At least not at the level we want to play at. There's a player there but he's coming up to 22. He needs to play and be starting now or he's never going to get there. And I just can't see that happening for us with the players ahead of him. He would have been a cheap squad player this year IMO. As for we're having to sell him because of PSR. Maybe. But clubs have always looked to sell players to raise funds for purchases. Blaming everything on PSR gives the club a nice out. Hope he gets his game time and does well.

I would say the handball rule is pretty simple. The fact most commentators and pundits haven't spent the 1 minute required to learn it doesn't change that. In most cases it just depends on whether the position of the arm is in a natural position or not, based on the players movement. There's obviously subjectivity regarding what's a natural position, but realistically when you think of all the potential situations where the ball could strike the hand it seems a reasonable rule. Re: PSR, I would say: 1. I didn't say PSR was great. Just that I don't worry about it. I don't personally have an inherant problem with clubs being told they can't spend tons more money that they bring in, but obviously many people here want to take advantage of an infinite money cheat. We'll all have our different attitude here. Overall, personally I find the constant whingeing and self-victimisation around PSR far more annoying than the actual limitations of PSR itself. It's like being on a Liverpool board at times. 2. PSR is designed to stop clubs getting into massive debt. It was never about letting lower teams catch top teams. The free market doesn't do that either, unless you're one of the very few teams that that has a crazy sugar daddy. Even then it wouldn't be make things fair or more competitive for the vast majority of teams that don't have a sugar daddy. Financial inequality is the main problem for competitive balance. And let's be honest, most of us would love to benefit from the PIF and the financial inequality it would provide. Even Jim Ratcliffe's tax exile billions would pale in comapirson.

I don't worry about PSR and leave it up to the club's accountants. Much more peaceful existence. Also the handball rule is fine IMO.