Bruno Guimarães

[Lordshola]

5 hours ago, Groundhog63 said:

Fuck cleaning the weeds out of that block paving. 

And for that reason, I wouldn’t buy it 

[Mag3.14]

5 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

Realising that's a massively smaller percentage of his pay than mine is to my mortgage

 

Its about 15% of his weekly wage - same amount a week I spend on beer!!  

[timeEd32]

Don’t like that

 

Quote

When Guimaraes signed his new five-year contract at St James’ Park, a release clause was included, which is quite rare for Newcastle. But 90min understands there is also a verbal agreement in place that Guimaraes will be allowed to talk to Champions League clubs, and that offers below his release clause will be engaged with providing they exceed £80m.

 

[FloydianMag]

6 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

Don’t like that

 

 

90 Min, must be true.

[80]

12 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

Don’t like that

 

 

Paying much attention to this kind of chat gives no benefit whatsoever. The club probably has made a gentlemen's agreement with Bruno, because we're (apparently) run by gentlemen and Bruno's a gentleman. He probably doesn't want to feel trapped here and is more likely to want to voluntarily stay if we don't set ourselves up to look like a prison which would hang his career out to dry even if we're finishing bottom half. All the same it doesn't mean any particular outcome is inevitable.

 

On a separate note - and I hope this warning never ends up being necessary - people would be wise to remember our club has a rich history of anonymously trashing a player's character when it wants to sell them but doesn't want to be held responsible by the fans for their departure. "Greedy cunts" etc. Don't let yourselves be taken for mugs, think about who benefits from stories.

[Skeletor]

5 minutes ago, 80 said:

Paying much attention to this kind of chat gives no benefit whatsoever. The club probably has made a gentlemen's agreement with Bruno, because we're (apparently) run by gentlemen and Bruno's a gentleman. He probably doesn't want to feel trapped here and is more likely to want to voluntarily stay if we don't set ourselves up to look like a prison which would hang his career out to dry even if we're finishing bottom half. All the same it doesn't mean any particular outcome is inevitable.

 

On a separate note - and I hope this warning never ends up being necessary - people would be wise to remember our club has a rich history of anonymously trashing a player's character when it wants to sell them but doesn't want to be held responsible by the fans for their departure. "Greedy cunts" etc. Don't let yourselves be taken for mugs, think about who benefits from stories.

 

This club, but not this regime (so far).

[80]

3 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

 

This club, but not this regime (so far).

Yeah totally, and I'm optimistic. Just, we've not really seen them in that kind of dilemma yet. Most of the original talk was about how the club needs to sell to finance other signings, so it's just interesting how lately the conversation has moved on to release clauses and 'can we keep him happy here?'.

 

Like I said, hopefully what I was saying ends up being totally irrelevant, but it's always worth keeping in mind.

[Skeletor]

Just now, 80 said:

Yeah totally, and I'm optimistic. Just, we've not really seen them in that kind of dilemma yet. Most of the original talk was about how the club needs to sell to finance other signings, so it's just interesting how lately the conversation has moved on to release clauses and 'can we keep him happy here?'.

 

Like I said, hopefully what I was saying ends up being totally irrelevant, but it's always worth keeping in mind.

 

Well they've never been one to sell their major assets in any venture. Also this club bluffs a lot these days, so saying we need to sell to buy could just be a negotiating tactic.

[Tiresias]

At the end of the day it's just up to Bruno. He seems very happy here to me.

[80]

2 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

 

Well they've never been one to sell their major assets in any venture. Also this club bluffs a lot these days, so saying we need to sell to buy could just be a negotiating tactic.

PIF you mean? To be fair, they've never worked in an industry with weirdly corrupt, profit limiting rules before where they're not the ones rigging the rules.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying they're up to some Mike Ashley-style smash and grab to earn a few quid. But I could imagine them taking the view FFP means we need to move Bruno on, but also thinking the fans are too thick to understand that decision, and concluding they need to implement some preventative PR crisis management in advance.

[Chris_R]

4 minutes ago, Tiresias said:

At the end of the day it's just up to Bruno. He seems very happy here to me.

 

This. We can do nothing about a player with a release clause, we just have to hope it's A) not triggered or if it is, B) he turns down the approaching club because he's happy here.

 

Beyond that, bugger all we can do. Not worth wasting much energy on.

[HalloNUFC]

23 hours ago, Lazarus said:

Wonder if its this?

 

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/126819749#/?channel=RES_BUY

Compare to other parts of England? Is real estate cheaper in Newcastle?

 

Like is this property at this price is a steal?

 

[Skeletor]

57 minutes ago, HalloNUFC said:

Compare to other parts of England? Is real estate cheaper in Newcastle?

 

Like is this property at this price is a steal?

 

 

In London it would be closer to £20m.

[PauloGeordio]

???

[Nucasol]

PSG are set to abandon their interest in signing Barcelona's 26-year-old Netherlands midfielder Frenkie de Jong amid Financial Fair Play concerns. (Sport - in Spanish)

 

If PSG can’t afford De Jong then they can’t afford Bruno. Only City seem to be a likely suitor. Madrid and Barca sniffing around Bernardo Silva.

[Cf]

30 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

PSG are set to abandon their interest in signing Barcelona's 26-year-old Netherlands midfielder Frenkie de Jong amid Financial Fair Play concerns. (Sport - in Spanish)

 

If PSG can’t afford De Jong then they can’t afford Bruno. Only City seem to be a likely suitor. Madrid and Barca sniffing around Bernardo Silva.

 

Going to be laughs where every club needs to sell for FFP reasons but there's no one to sell to because we are all in the same boat. 

[Fatwax]

If he was sold for 100m, what does that actually do for us in terms of spending? Does that mean we have 100m to spend over 3 years? No idea how it works.

 

What a batshit system. Sell your stars to have to rebuild for the next half a decade.

[ExiledGeordie]

A strong finish to the season with European qualification sets up a completely different summer vibe of positivity. Going to Man U and winning would be the icing on the cake. All the players are obviously aware of how badly injuries have limited potential this season. Most including Bruno will realise that with a fit squad and some additions we will have a very good team again next season. Im starting to think he’ll be here next season now. 

[Keegans Export]

46 minutes ago, Fatwax said:

If he was sold for 100m, what does that actually do for us in terms of spending? Does that mean we have 100m to spend over 3 years? No idea how it works.

 

What a batshit system. Sell your stars to have to rebuild for the next half a decade.

Basically means that we can "lose" £105m/3 years (current system) plus about £80m (estimate) from selling Bruno.

 

That £80m to spend isn't on the transfer fee, it's the transfer fee split over the length of the contract, up to five years. So if we signed someone for £50m on 5-year contract it would only "cost" £10m/year plus wages.

 

Added complication is that they're potentially changing the £105m/3yr thing anyway....

[PauloGeordio]

32 minutes ago, ExiledGeordie said:

A strong finish to the season with European qualification sets up a completely different summer vibe of positivity. Going to Man U and winning would be the icing on the cake. All the players are obviously aware of how badly injuries have limited potential this season. Most including Bruno will realise that with a fit squad and some additions we will have a very good team again next season. Im starting to think he’ll be here next season now. 

I don’t doubt it! 

[Mag3.14]

2 hours ago, Keegans Export said:

Basically means that we can "lose" £105m/3 years (current system) plus about £80m (estimate) from selling Bruno.

 

That £80m to spend isn't on the transfer fee, it's the transfer fee split over the length of the contract, up to five years. So if we signed someone for £50m on 5-year contract it would only "cost" £10m/year plus wages.

 

Added complication is that they're potentially changing the £105m/3yr thing anyway....

 

Yeah its £105m losses over three years allowing for £30m/year owner "investment" without it the allowable losses are only £15m over a rolling 3 year period. The new changes to squad costs as a % of turnover are much worse as it doesn't allow (at least it looks like that to me with the current information out there) for that investment, just purely what the club "earns" 

 

 

[SUPERTOON]

Arsenal have enquired about him supposedly.

[Solitude20]

So Arsenal wants Bruno and Isak now?

 

 

Edited April 22, 2024 by Solitude20

[Coffee_Johnny]

29 minutes ago, Solitude20 said:

So Arsenal wants Bruno and Isak now?

 

 

 

They said: Nah fuck that!

[r0cafella]

Source is Bein Ben, so can safely ignore. I’m not sure where this 80m figure comes from when the clause is 100 too.