Jump to content

Kieran Trippier: targeting return for Brighton (h) (Hope)


Yorkie

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Chris_R said:

 

That's all well and good provided those revenue streams materialise and can cover the shortfall. But there's not an infinite amount we can grow revenue by, at a speed we dictate. 

 

It's a nice theory, but it's not a certainty to happen. Far from it. And we can't just keep saying we'll increase revenue streams by 4* every sale we make forever more.


Well obviously not, but there will be further player trading alongside the increases in commercial revenue, which for the next few years the club can be fairly sure of, given the low base Ashley left us at. Remember the club are actually employing competent people now to manage this stuff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

Well yes if we amortised his initial fee over a number of years and that's not fully paid yet, we still owe it.

 

Every transfer is amortised over the contract length in terms of FFP regardless of when the club actually pays the money. We could have paid the £12 upfront or not paid them a penny yet and it wouldn't make a difference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

That's all well and good provided those revenue streams materialise and can cover the shortfall. But there's not an infinite amount we can grow revenue by, at a speed we dictate. 

 

It's a nice theory, but it's not a certainty to happen. Far from it. And we can't just keep saying we'll increase revenue streams by 4* every sale we make forever more.

We have a new £35m+ revenue stream coming in the summer

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, nufcnick said:

We have a new £35m+ revenue stream coming in the summer

Great. But entirely not my point.

 

My only point is that too many people think that amortisation just removes the future commitment. That you can repeatedly sell a player for £10m and that gives you £50m to spend, and that you can just keep doing this infinitely.

 

That's a genuine position some seem to have. All I'm doing is pointing out it's nonsense. Sure, revenue will increase in future allowing more spending. But it would do that anyway without us selling Trippier, the two things aren't connected.

 

 

Edited by Chris_R

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're never going to get this much money for him again and we were probably going to move him on in the summer anyway.

 

Given the reality where we are this season, it makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oldtype said:

We're never going to get this much money for him again and we were probably going to move him on in the summer anyway.

 

Given the reality where we are this season, it makes sense.

 

This is how I feel about Miggy, but I'm not sure this is true for Trippier. He could easily be our starting RB and captain for the first game next season.

 

It also feels like we're potentially set at fullback for next season if we keep him. Trippier, Tino, Burn, Hall (presumably), and Targett (unless we can sell him, fingers crossed) provides options and cover. But if we sell him then suddenly Tino is the starting RB, the starting LB is one of those others, and we don't have a backup RB. 

 

Whereas with Miggy we know we want to upgrade RW anyway and I'm confident it's at or near the top of the club's list. He would be a nice squad option, but there are other ways to go about that (e.g. Gordon as a backup).

 

With Trippier it feels like we're getting less money for a more important player that may also force us to invest more into his position in the summer.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

This is how I feel about Miggy, but I'm not sure this is true for Trippier. He could easily be our starting RB and captain for the first game next season.

 

It also feels like we're potentially set at fullback for next season if we keep him. Trippier, Tino, Burn, Hall (presumably), and Targett (unless we can sell him, fingers crossed) provides options and cover. But if we sell him then suddenly Tino is the starting RB, the starting LB is one of those others, and we don't have a backup RB. 

 

Whereas with Miggy we know we want to upgrade RW anyway and I'm confident it's at or near the top of the club's list. He would be a nice squad option, but there are other ways to go about that (e.g. Gordon as a backup).

 

With Trippier it feels like we're getting less money for a more important player that may also force us to invest more into his position in the summer.

 


I don’t necessarily disagree but I also think we’re going to miss Miggy more than Tripps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cubaricho said:


I don’t necessarily disagree but I also think we’re going to miss Miggy more than Tripps. 

We won't miss Champions league and Carabao Cup Tripps.

 

 

........to soon ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, cubaricho said:


I don’t necessarily disagree but I also think we’re going to miss Miggy more than Tripps. 

 

That feels linked to the fact that we have a promising replacement in place for one and the other leaves a big, unknown hole. I agree we're going to miss a lot of the work he does and it could be hard to find the right player, but spun another way...

 

There's also far greater potential for a new RW to transform us whereas we're mostly hoping Tino can just match Trippier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

This is how I feel about Miggy, but I'm not sure this is true for Trippier. He could easily be our starting RB and captain for the first game next season.

 

It also feels like we're potentially set at fullback for next season if we keep him. Trippier, Tino, Burn, Hall (presumably), and Targett (unless we can sell him, fingers crossed) provides options and cover. But if we sell him then suddenly Tino is the starting RB, the starting LB is one of those others, and we don't have a backup RB. 

 

Whereas with Miggy we know we want to upgrade RW anyway and I'm confident it's at or near the top of the club's list. He would be a nice squad option, but there are other ways to go about that (e.g. Gordon as a backup).

 

With Trippier it feels like we're getting less money for a more important player that may also force us to invest more into his position in the summer.

 

 

I'm sure we could figure something out at backup RB in the summer if we have to. I just don't think it makes sense to have Trippier blocking Livarmento's ascent to the starting role next season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

The problem is, going to tino first choice and Kraft backup massively weakens us. We need to sign a new right back. I assume we will do in summer anyway.

Does it really though? Tino is seen as the long term replacement for Trippier, he's just stepping up 18 months earlier than planned. He's been a belting signing but getting our money back on a now 33 year old who wants away anyway is a no brainer for all concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

The problem is, going to tino first choice and Kraft backup massively weakens us. We need to sign a new right back. I assume we will do in summer anyway.

Yes. I'm worried by the assumption that further injuries wont happen. If we leave a position light, knowing us this season, they almost certainly will.

 

 

Edited by Wolfcastle

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

The problem is, going to tino first choice and Kraft backup massively weakens us. We need to sign a new right back. I assume we will do in summer anyway.

 

This is crazy to me. Is the new RB you want a starter or a backup?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oldtype said:

 

The "all of our creativity comes from our 33-year-old right back" model was never going to be sustainable anyway. We have other creative players, they can step up to fill the void. We have a whole half-season with relatively low expectations for Howe to figure it out.

We have other creative players?

 

No we don’t! 
 

Sellinf Tripps allows us 1 good player for 1 year of the amortisation cost.  It’s not a silver bullet to our transfer woes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...