Miguel Almirón (now playing for Atlanta United)

[The Prophet]

Sounds like be doesn't want to go. We need Tindall to make life uncomfortable for him.

[TRon]

13 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Sounds like be doesn't want to go. We need Tindall to make life uncomfortable for him.

 

I doubt it will be a problem, just add a couple of zeros to his wage packet in Saudi. He'll still turn out to be better value than fuckwits like Henderson.

[thomas]

15 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

That's not how maths works.

 

 

It only frees up THIS YEAR's portion of £150m towards transfers. We'd then need to sell someone for £30m next year, and for the 3 years after that, to balance the books for the £150m total.  The subsequent years costs don't just magically disappear into thin air.

 

On the other side, if we've already amortised previous years' fees into the future (very likely), we may be selling Almiron to pay for previous spends.

 

What we need to do is grow revenue. Which of course we're looking to do all the time now, but that's the cure long-term, but in the mean time we've got to cut our cloth accordingly.

 

 

mate, that's what the £50m players are for, to keep pushing it forward another year. you sell them and buy 2 £75m players, and so on. if i'm mathing correctly here [shuffles beads on an abacus] yep it's an infinite money glitch.

 

 

Edited January 23, 2024 by thomas

[Newcastle Fan]

Reminds me of when Arry tried to sell Benjani

[The College Dropout]

2 hours ago, nufcnick said:

transfer fees
2x 50m = £100m / 5 = £20m (per year amortisation)

Wages per year 

£120k x 52 =£6.2m x2 = £12.4 

Total of £32.4m 

 

miggy sale

£30m  transfer fee received (no amortisation left as over 5 years at club) 

wages saved £3.1m per year (£60k per week) 

 

 

 

This is not true. 
 

contract extensions further extend the amortisation cost. As in - it becomes spread over a longer term. 
 

Miggy still has an amortised cost.  It’s just low at this point. I’ve shared the KDB example elsewhere on this forum. He still has an amortised cost. 

[nufcnick]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

This is not true. 
 

contract extensions further extend the amortisation cost. As in - it becomes spread over a longer term. 
 

Miggy still has an amortised cost.  It’s just low at this point. I’ve shared the KDB example elsewhere on this forum. He still has an amortised cost. 

Yeah sorry that’s right, it’s around £4.1m left, there are a few other factors as well, so it would be more like one £40m player and 1 £30m player 

[The College Dropout]

58 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

That's not how maths works.

 

 

It only frees up THIS YEAR's portion of £150m towards transfers. We'd then need to sell someone for £30m next year, and for the 3 years after that, to balance the books for the £150m total.  The subsequent years costs don't just magically disappear into thin air.

 

On the other side, if we've already amortised previous years' fees into the future (very likely), we may be selling Almiron to pay for previous spends.

 

What we need to do is grow revenue. Which of course we're looking to do all the time now, but that's the cure long-term, but in the mean time we've got to cut our cloth accordingly.

 

This is correct.  The key is driving long-term revenues. Gate receipts, prize money, sponsorship, TV rights.  
 

You can’t just keep flipping your best players.  
 

Where Spurs succeeded is they started qualifying for the CL regularly (and they built the stadium). The revenues from that drives everything else up.  Where Leicester failed is they didn’t qualify for the CL consistently.  There’s a few sliding door moments for Leicester but not getting CL in atleast one of those 2 seasons under Rodger’s are 2 of them.  They did nearly everything else how it should be done. 

[loki679]

Can't wait to start filling up this year's Panini ledger. 

[The College Dropout]

The Eales breakdown of selling a 100m player is an over simplification.  You do need to account for the following years costs. Chelsea will need to keep selling. Villa keep selling A1 prospects.  Neither of these avenues are good or even sustainable long term. Both teams need CL football regularly (particularly Chelsea).  
 

The ideal is selling fringe players and good but not good enough youth players. 

[nufcnick]

16 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

This is correct.  The key is driving long-term revenues. Gate receipts, prize money, sponsorship, TV rights.  
 

You can’t just keep flipping your best players.  
 

Where Spurs succeeded is they started qualifying for the CL regularly (and they built the stadium). The revenues from that drives everything else up.  Where Leicester failed is they didn’t qualify for the CL consistently.  There’s a few sliding door moments for Leicester but not getting CL in atleast one of those 2 seasons under Rodger’s are 2 of them.  They did nearly everything else how it should be done. 

This is why I’m certain we will be moving stadium, it’s not the 50k normal fans that will make money , it’s the hospitality, Old Toilet and the emirates have double the hospitality we have, that’s where the money is. 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2024 by nufcnick

[Disco]

Hopefully this affront to humanity is given hell on Saturday. Darts, bricks, songs about blowing up his kids and parents. The lot. What he has done is unforgivable.

[Groundhog63]

1 minute ago, Disco said:

Hopefully this affront to humanity is given hell on Saturday. Darts, bricks, songs about blowing up his kids and parents. The lot. What he has done is unforgivable.

[arnonel]

Brighton have proved you can build a competitive team, strong scouting network, etc with positive net transfers. 

If they can do it, we should do it. Its a longer project, but I would be personally ok to be patient if that was the model 

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, arnonel said:

Brighton have proved you can build a competitive team, strong scouting network, etc with positive net transfers. 

If they can do it, we should do it. Its a longer project, but I would be personally ok to be patient if that was the model 

They’ve not yet qualified for the CL and are in Europe for the first time. 

 

They are don’t have 2 £50m+ players and several more over £30m. We aren’t playing the Brighton game. 
 

Their owner also owns the data company that houses their transfer algorithm.  
 

[nufcnick]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

They’ve not yet qualified for the CL and are in Europe for the first time. 

 

They are don’t have 2 £50m+ players and several more over £30m. We aren’t playing the Brighton game. 
 

Their owner also owns the data company that houses their transfer algorithm.  
 

They also aren’t really trying to compete for the top, they seem happy to be in that second tier of PL clubs. 

[Menace]

They also have a debt to their owner of around £500M. Their model has only really took off last few years, prior to that they were buying dross under Hughton.

[The College Dropout]

4 minutes ago, Menace said:

They also have a debt to their owner of around £500M. Their model has only really took off last few years, prior to that they were buying dross under Hughton.

TBF the model has taken them from L1 to the Europa League.

 

The model wasn't always hitting like it is now but it did enough to keep them in the league and then get them to mid-table. Your Ben White's, Trossard's, Gross, Lamptey etc. it's good business.

 

 

Edited January 23, 2024 by The College Dropout

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

30 minutes ago, arnonel said:

Brighton have proved you can build a competitive team, strong scouting network, etc with positive net transfers. 

If they can do it, we should do it. Its a longer project, but I would be personally ok to be patient if that was the model 

This is always brought up as a model to follow and in some aspects I'd agree. It is worth noting that it’s not quite as investment free as is often portrayed however. Tony Bloom has invested over half a billion in Brighton to get them to where they are now. As others have also said I don’t see them actually trying to go for cups or titles yet either, so are they happy to stay where they are? Or are they going to invest heavily again to try and push on?

[Shearergol]

7 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

This is always brought up as a model to follow and in some aspects I'd agree. It is worth noting that it’s not quite as investment free as is often portrayed however. Tony Bloom has invested over half a billion in Brighton to get them to where they are now. As others have also said I don’t see them actually trying to go for cups or titles yet either, so are they happy to stay where they are? Or are they going to invest heavily again to try and push on?

 

Invested in them in what way though? Infrastructure, players, staffing? 

[Ronaldo]

48 minutes ago, arnonel said:

Brighton have proved you can build a competitive team, strong scouting network, etc with positive net transfers. 

If they can do it, we should do it. Its a longer project, but I would be personally ok to be patient if that was the model 

That model isn’t sustainable for what the owners want to achieve. It’s OK for the odd 6th-8th finish.

[OverThere]

I suppose you could do this for a while but at some point a sale would be in order to replace an ageing superstar with a young superstar. There is a ceiling as noted 6-8th if you are still buying potential.

[Pixelphish]

3 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

I hate each and every one of you

Fuck you and see you tomorrow.

[SUPERTOON]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

TBF the model has taken them from L1 to the Europa League.

 

The model wasn't always hitting like it is now but it did enough to keep them in the league and then get them to mid-table. Your Ben White's, Trossard's, Gross, Lamptey etc. it's good business.

 

 

 

Think De Zebri has been the key to taking them to the next level. They where no better than mid table under Potter.

[The College Dropout]

21 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

This is always brought up as a model to follow and in some aspects I'd agree. It is worth noting that it’s not quite as investment free as is often portrayed however. Tony Bloom has invested over half a billion in Brighton to get them to where they are now. As others have also said I don’t see them actually trying to go for cups or titles yet either, so are they happy to stay where they are? Or are they going to invest heavily again to try and push on?

They are going for cups.

 

But they're building it, brick by brick. They can't do what our owners want to do and probably don't have the same end vision.

 

Bloom also "built" the Amex Stadium. That took over a decade to get done though.

[The College Dropout]

10 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Think De Zebri has been the key to taking them to the next level. They where no better than mid table under Potter.

Agreed. That same brick-by-brick nature goes from Poyet > Hughton > Potter > De Zerb