Jump to content

More transfer rumours


midds
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, DMLeazesender said:

Schmeichel would be good.

Lingard would have been good in January but not now.

Tarkowski is gash.

Schmeichel it's all about what price for me he's 35 years old. Could be a bargain or could be overpriced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, STM said:

What he actually says is that he needs to make sure there is the correct balance.

 

I agree that it seems unlikely that he will bring in a 35 year old keeper AND a 29 year old defender though but we don't know what the club has planned in other areas.

He was very precise with his language and made a point of saying it was very position dependent as well which may mean that we’re comfortable with an older keeper for a while.

 

FWIW I think he’d be a great fit personality wise as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Would have 2 strikers rather the a new striker and a keeper. 

Ekitike and the Arsenal lad i dont remember his name, or Isak. We need good pace and flair. 

 

 

Edited by BigValley

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Thanks for sharing WM. 

 

not sure why Reims would agree to such a deal but fingers crossed. 

 

In this case, if there is basically an obligation to buy then maybe it wouldn't make much difference to Reims. It would be a sale in all but name.

 

It might be unrelated, but I read an article recently that Newcastle would be trying lots of inventive ways to stretch FFP. 

 

And another brief reference in the Times saying that one club (unnamed) would be backloading deals. I.e., relatively low up front sales, but loaded with incentives so that the fee was likely to increase retrospectively in future years of the contract.

 

The idea being that, in future years with a higher profile and more successful team, other revenues would have increased to offset it and therefore mean that FFP wasn't an issue.

 

The article didn't say that it was us doing that, but in a way it doesn't matter. Because, completely speculating here, I could definitely see us doing that.

 

It might be a risk for some clubs to gamble on that kind of growth, but with PIF's backing you'd have to think that growing our name and commercial income is very much part of their medium and long term plans.

 

Long and short of it is that things like this kind of loan deal would fit with that kind of strategy. [Speculation ends.]

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBF Keith Downie has a policy of only making statements about potential signings if he has the story stood up from more than one source.

 

For him to mention Lodi, suggests there is at least some evidence that we are in for him.

 

It's different on deadline day, as SSN just turns into a circus but otherwise Keith is decent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, STM said:

TBF Keith Downie has a policy of only making statements about potential signings if he has the story stood up from more than one source.

 

For him to mention Lodi, suggests there is at least some evidence that we are in for him.

 

It's different on deadline day, as SSN just turns into a circus but otherwise Keith is decent.

Usually true but he completely ruined his reputation with the Digne nonsense in January 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Usually true but he completely ruined his reputation with the Digne nonsense in January 

Remind me? I can't recall that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

 

Oh, don't you know? 

No that why i asked? Did he make a claim on the Digne front?

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, STM said:

No that why i asked? Did he make a claim on the Digne front?

Something along the lines of we have bid cash plus longstaff for Digne then literally about 5 minutes later saying we hadn’t made a bid. I can’t remember exactly but he had a complete nightmare. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Abacus said:

 

In this case, if there is basically an obligation to buy then maybe it wouldn't make much difference to Reims. It would be a sale in all but name.

 

It might be unrelated, but I read an article recently that Newcastle would be trying lots of inventive ways to stretch FFP. 

 

And another brief reference in the Times saying that one club (unnamed) would be backloading deals. I.e., relatively low up front sales, but loaded with incentives so that the fee was likely to increase retrospectively in future years of the contract.

 

The idea being that, in future years with a higher profile and more successful team, other revenues would have increased to offset it and therefore mean that FFP wasn't an issue.

 

The article didn't say that it was us doing that, but in a way it doesn't matter. Because, completely speculating here, I could definitely see us doing that.

 

It might be a risk for some clubs to gamble on that kind of growth, but with PIF's backing you'd have to think that growing our name and commercial income is very much part of their medium and long term plans.

 

Long and short of it is that things like this kind of loan deal would fit with that kind of strategy. [Speculation ends.]

 

Good post. I read in The Athletic that we would indeed be looking to structure deals this way, as well as spreading payments out also. As a matter of fact they said the payment for Bruno is spread across his contract and actually works out to us making 5 payments of £8 million per year.

 

The structure of the deal for Ekitike is particularly interesting i.e. loan with an obligation to buy. Particularly because Scamacca who we have also been linked with as a more senior striker to bring in recently extended his contract with the following reason being mentioned by Fabrizio Romano: 

 

“Yes, yes, he will leave Sassuolo.

“He extended the contract a few days ago but he will leave Sassuolo.

It was an extension to allow a potential loan with obligation to buy clause.

 

Scamacca's fee has been stated to be £34 million this summer. 

 

Scamacca is looking like a very strong possibility based on that info. The fee is much more realistic compared to the prices being quoted for Nunez, and is right around what we paid for Bruno, and Sassuolo are willing to structure the deal with a loan and obligation to buy clause better suiting FFP requirements.

 

Would not be at all surprised if we end up signing him now.

 

 

Edited by KaKa

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...