Bruno Guimarães

[WinstonFC]

56 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Not concerned by this at all, we aren’t a pound shop club anymore. IF he leaves he will be replaced. 

Spot on. 100m is a serious chunk in the plus FFP column. IF a bid comes and he wants out then he will be replaced and more quality added at other positions. Never get too attached to a player, esp one that wants a release clause in their contract. 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Gallowgate Toon said:

Don't release clauses have to be paid in full? Or that's at least a very consistent condition? There are very few clubs who can do that with £100m.

 

If that's the case as well then yeah, we're pretty well covered. FFP that'd be huge (Balance Sheet Champions 2024, etc) and I've no doubt we'd go and spend it well. 

[Gallowgate Toon]

2 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

If that's the case as well then yeah, we're pretty well covered. FFP that'd be huge (Balance Sheet Champions 2024, etc) and I've no doubt we'd go and spend it well. 

Iirc, Chelsea had to go over Enzo's release clause to be able to pay in installments.

 

Or that could be total shite 

[vicente_14]

2 minutes ago, Gallowgate Toon said:

Iirc, Chelsea had to go over Enzo's release clause to be able to pay in installments.

 

Or that could be total shite 

 

Exactly this. Release clause has to be paid in one go. Chelsea wanted to pay over many years so had to negotiate a higher fee.

[Erikse]

52 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

If that's the case as well then yeah, we're pretty well covered. FFP that'd be huge (Balance Sheet Champions 2024, etc) and I've no doubt we'd go and spend it well. 

 

How does it count in terms of FFP? For the buying club, even if they pay upfront, the FFP money be split over the length of the contract. What happens if they pay in installments?

[timeEd32]

3 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

How does it count in terms of FFP? For the buying club, even if they pay upfront, the FFP money be split over the length of the contract. What happens if they pay in installments?

 

It's all booked in the current year as revenue.

[Erikse]

Just now, timeEd32 said:

 

It's all booked in the current year as revenue.

 

 

What if we buy a player through installments? It's just not evenly split between each year of the contract anymore?

[timeEd32]

32 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

 

What if we buy a player through installments? It's just not evenly split between each year of the contract anymore?

 

How a player is actually paid for in real money and how they are amortized for accounting / FFP is not the same.

 

A £20m player signed on a five year deal is £4m per season on the books whether that £20m is paid in cash up front or £2m per year for a decade.

[Barnes23]

The "selling Bruno will help us with FFP" attitude is small-time and a little myopic IMO.  Keeping your elite players and building a team around them is what really sends a message in terms of your level of ambition and also the prestige that you're able to build as a club over time. If we take the evolution of Man City as a case in point, the likes of Kompany, Silva and Aguero were integral to their development not only because of their quality but also due to their longevity and what that signified. 

 

Our job, at the very least, is to be highly unwilling sellers. And a £100m release clause doesn't really speak to that. 

[madras]

7 minutes ago, Barnes23 said:

The "selling Bruno will help us with FFP" attitude is small-time and a little myopic IMO.  Keeping your elite players and building a team around them is what really sends a message in terms of your level of ambition and also the prestige that you're able to build as a club over time. If we take the evolution of Man City as a case in point, the likes of Kompany, Silva and Aguero were integral to their development not only because of their quality but also due to their longevity and what that signified. 

 

Our job, at the very least, is to be highly unwilling sellers. And a £100m release clause doesn't really speak to that. 

I don't think anyone's advocating selling, just if the clause is met it will help with FFP. The alternative is that he doesn't extend and 2yrs down the line we risk losing him for nowt.

[timeEd32]

A grand total of nine players in the history of football have been sold for £100m+. They are the following:

• Neymar, age 25
• Mbappe, age 19
• Coutinho, age 26
• Felix, age 19
• Enzo, age 22
• Griezmann, age 28
• Grealish, age 25
• Rice, age 24
• Caicedo, age 21

Five of those nine have been bought by Premier League clubs. It's been four years since a non-PL club spent that much money on a player. Despite the lunacy of ever increasing transfer fees, £100m is still a big number.

 

Bruno turns 26 in a month. The soonest we'd sell him is next summer, at which point he's closer to 27 and firmly on the high end of this list. Both of the 'old' players on this list went to drunk spending Barcelona and we know how those turned out. 

 

I'm all for some worrying™ and debate, but there are far better ways to spend time than letting this clause overshadow a new contract for the best player this club has had in a long time.

[wormy]

We might as well just release him if we're going to give him away with this release clause. Ambitionless.

[Erikse]

3 hours ago, timeEd32 said:

 

How a player is actually paid for in real money and how they are amortized for accounting / FFP is not the same.

 

A £20m player signed on a five year deal is £4m per season on the books whether that £20m is paid in cash up front or £2m per year for a decade.

 

If all is booked in the current year regardless of installments or not, why does it matter that the money is paid upfront? Our owners have infinite money, pretty much the only thing that matters is the FFP limit.

[madras]

1 minute ago, Erikse said:

 

If all is booked in the current year regardless of installments or not, why does it matter that the money is paid upfront? Our owners have infinite money, pretty much the only thing that matters is the FFP limit.

Because we as a club have to show where the money came from. 

[bobloblaw]

43 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

If all is booked in the current year regardless of installments or not, why does it matter that the money is paid upfront? Our owners have infinite money, pretty much the only thing that matters is the FFP limit.

 

Because most buying clubs aren't going to have 100m to pay as a lump sum.

[Ronaldo]

3 hours ago, Barnes23 said:

The "selling Bruno will help us with FFP" attitude is small-time and a little myopic IMO.  Keeping your elite players and building a team around them is what really sends a message in terms of your level of ambition and also the prestige that you're able to build as a club over time. If we take the evolution of Man City as a case in point, the likes of Kompany, Silva and Aguero were integral to their development not only because of their quality but also due to their longevity and what that signified. 

 

Our job, at the very least, is to be highly unwilling sellers. And a £100m release clause doesn't really speak to that. 

Well said.
 

The Ashley mindset in some of our fans is taking a while to shift mind. There’s even some on here that will tell you finishing 8th isn’t a bad season.

[TheBrownBottle]

38 minutes ago, Ronaldo said:

Well said.
 

The Ashley mindset in some of our fans is taking a while to shift mind. There’s even some on here that will tell you finishing 8th isn’t a bad season.

It is cold, hard facts not the 'Ashley mindset'.  The club has a smaller income than Spurs, but plenty on here think we can spend like Man City without consequence.

 

We.  Can't.  Fucking.  Spend.  Like.  Them.

 

The quicker you get it into your skulls and stop thinking that the club isn't limited by FFP, the less pissed off you'll all be at the end of every transfer window.  It is this sort of delusional attitude that sees people grumble about Dan Burn getting contract extensions, or Dummett and Ritchie still being in the squad.  If we could spend what we want, do you think any of that previous sentence would be written?

[Ronaldo]

13 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It is cold, hard facts not the 'Ashley mindset'.  The club has a smaller income than Spurs, but plenty on here think we can spend like Man City without consequence.

 

We.  Can't.  Fucking.  Spend.  Like.  Them.

 

The quicker you get it into your skulls and stop thinking that the club isn't limited by FFP, the less pissed off you'll all be at the end of every transfer window.  It is this sort of delusional attitude that sees people grumble about Dan Burn getting contract extensions, or Dummett and Ritchie still being in the squad.  If we could spend what we want, do you think any of that previous sentence would be written?

Sorry what? What’s my post got to do with spending?

[Erikse]

4 hours ago, timeEd32 said:

A grand total of nine players in the history of football have been sold for £100m+. They are the following:

• Neymar, age 25
• Mbappe, age 19
• Coutinho, age 26
• Felix, age 19
• Enzo, age 22
• Griezmann, age 28
• Grealish, age 25
• Rice, age 24
• Caicedo, age 21

Five of those nine have been bought by Premier League clubs. It's been four years since a non-PL club spent that much money on a player. Despite the lunacy of ever increasing transfer fees, £100m is still a big number.

 

Bruno turns 26 in a month. The soonest we'd sell him is next summer, at which point he's closer to 27 and firmly on the high end of this list. Both of the 'old' players on this list went to drunk spending Barcelona and we know how those turned out. 

 

I'm all for some worrying™ and debate, but there are far better ways to spend time than letting this clause overshadow a new contract for the best player this club has had in a long time.

 

You forgot C. Ronaldo to Juve for £105 mill at the age of 33. Lukaku was fairly close at £97.5 mill at the age of 28. Kanes price can rise up to £100 mill, deal made at the age of 30. According to reports, Liverpool rejected a bid of £150 mill for Salah (31) this summer.

 

Prices have gone crazy in the last few seasons. If Bruno has an incredible season, we don't have the opportunity to play hardball over him anymore to squeeze out some extra money if he is ready to leave.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Erikse

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

Bruno's going nowhere anytime soon, the beautiful bastard loves the Toon. I reckon it's his agent that has pushed for a release clause, probably because we couldn't offer as high wages as some of the prospective offers in the summer. Means next negotiations they are in a better position for even more, which is fair enough tbf. Maybe when we can match the higher wages and if we're still going strong enough, we can negotiate it out.

[NSG]

Be staggered if it’s just “£100m and he’s yours” to anyone. It’ll be specific clubs, specific times and certain conditions attached. Bruno’s really happy here and the only way he’s moving on is to one of the very elite. 

 

We’re not run by idiots anymore. 

[timeEd32]

26 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

You forgot C. Ronaldo to Juve for £105 mill at the age of 33. Lukaku was fairly close at £97.5 mill at the age of 28. Kanes price can rise up to £100 mill, deal made at the age of 30. According to reports, Liverpool rejected a bid of £150 mill for Salah (31) this summer.

 

Prices have gone crazy in the last few seasons. If Bruno has an incredible season, we don't have the opportunity to play hardball over him anymore to squeeze out some extra money if he is ready to leave.

 

 

 

 

Pretty sure Ronaldo to Juve was 100m euros, not pounds. But even if you expand the list to €100m you're adding Lukaku, Dembele, Pogba, Bellingham, Hazard, Ronaldo, Kane, and Bale. Yes fees are inflating, but it's still a very short list comprised of essentially established or potential stars. £100m in the summer of 2024 or 2025 is not going to be some great bargain for the buying club. It's going to be one of the 10-15 largest transfers in the history of the sport (if it happens). 

[Erikse]

Just now, timeEd32 said:

 

Pretty sure Ronaldo to Juve was 100m euros, not pounds. But even if you expand the list to €100m you're adding Lukaku, Dembele, Pogba, Bellingham, Hazard, Ronaldo, Kane, and Bale. Yes fees are inflating, but it's still a very short list comprised of essentially established or potential stars. £100m in the summer of 2024 or 2025 is not going to be some great bargain for the buying club. It's going to be one of the 10-15 largest transfers in the history of the sport (if it happens). 

 

117 mill euros. It says that many places, including transfermarkt.

[timeEd32]

14 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

117 mill euros. It says that many places, including transfermarkt.

Other sources have different numbers but if you want to add him to the list that’s fine. I don’t think including one of the five greatest players ever who defied aging for nearly a decade changes the point.

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, Ronaldo said:

Sorry what? What’s my post got to do with spending?

The idea that we can't be selling better players in order to spend.  If we sold Bruno, it would hardly be to line the owners' pockets a la Ashley.  We would sell in order to improve the squad - if we sold Bruno for 100m (extremely doubtful) that could fund buying several 100m footballers under FFP.

 

But apparently that can't be considered, because that is 'Ashley-like thinking'.

 

Until NUFC's revenues are up with the elites - and based on the adidas and Sela deals, we're not there yet - then of course we'd have to consider selling players.  And we shouldn't act like wet blankets if we do.