Jump to content

James Maddison (now playing for Tottenham Hotspur)


The Prophet

Recommended Posts

Guest HTT II
2 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

HIS businesses, his money.

Maybe so, but he didn’t quite bankroll them, more like a cash injection which he got back eventually. Same with SJH. He didn’t spend 3.5m of his own money to pay for Shearer in the way SJH didn’t either!

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Would be massively surprised if Maddison comes now Chelsea Todd is about to fill Leicester’s FFP hole with his giant Fofana-shaped wedge of cash. Think Leicester may be in for a heavy transition season.

 

Leicester probably don't have an issue with FFP. They had losses of £60m in 19/20 and £31m in 20/21 but they have claimed covid costs of £50m which will be discounted from that for the FFP calculation. So that's a FFP loss of at most £40 for 19/20 and 20/21 (in reality it will be less than that because there are other expenses that can be discounted). 

 

PL FFP allows losses of up to £105m over three seasons, so they could have lost up to £65m in 21/22 and still been ok, which they won't have because they only lost £31m in 20/21 when most games were played to empty stadiums.

 

This season they're in an improved position because their £60m loss in 19/20 no longer counts towards FFP and the majority of their covid costs (£36m) are from 20/21, so that wipes out all of their loss from that year and leave them with the full £105 loss allowance for 21/22 and 22/23.

I think their need to sell is more to do with the owners wanting to cut costs and reduce a bloated squad. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Leicester probably don't have an issue with FFP. They had losses of £60m in 19/20 and £31m in 20/21 but they have claimed covid costs of £50m which will be discounted from that for the FFP calculation. So that's a FFP loss of at most £40 for 19/20 and 20/21 (in reality it will be less than that because there are other expenses that can be discounted). 

 

PL FFP allows losses of up to £105m over three seasons, so they could have lost up to £65m in 21/22 and still been ok, which they won't have because they only lost £31m in 20/21 when most games were played to empty stadiums.

 

This season they're in an improved position because their £60m loss in 19/20 no longer counts towards FFP and the majority of their covid costs (£36m) are from 20/21, so that wipes out all of their loss from that year and leave them with the full £105 loss allowance for 21/22 and 22/23.

I think their need to sell is more to do with the owners wanting to cut costs and reduce a bloated squad. 

105% wages:turnover ratio too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Kevin Maguire football finances guy said Leicester's wages were at 85% of turnover or whatever that metric is. The level to aim for is below 70%.

 

That 85% is with fans in the stadium. It was higher without them before, as Nucasol says above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kanji said:

 

Which is so factually incorrect. There have been other owners since City who have gone absolutely bananas in the transfer market — Everton! 

Nah Moshiri has spent money in the transfer market but it's not the same as City and what we are likely to do. And what Abramovic.

 

You need to big rich enough to write-off and invest several billion pounds. Moshiri can't and won't do that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 05/08/2022 at 19:43, JumpersForGoalposts said:

I can't help but feel that Leicester are going to really struggle this season, especially if anything happens to Vardy, who as an aging pace based player could see his abilities fall off a cliff any time now.

 

They look a bit like Southampton did when all of their quality players were grabbed by 'big' clubs - didn't help them one bit.

 

If I were Maddison I'd be really wary of planning on staying. Clearly not his call to accept the bid, but if Rogers sees that his heart isn't in Leicester...

 

 

 

We’ve lost an ageing keeper who was on the decline ffs. Whilst not on his level, Daka and Iheanacho have both scored plenty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Leicester probably don't have an issue with FFP. They had losses of £60m in 19/20 and £31m in 20/21 but they have claimed covid costs of £50m which will be discounted from that for the FFP calculation. So that's a FFP loss of at most £40 for 19/20 and 20/21 (in reality it will be less than that because there are other expenses that can be discounted). 

 

PL FFP allows losses of up to £105m over three seasons, so they could have lost up to £65m in 21/22 and still been ok, which they won't have because they only lost £31m in 20/21 when most games were played to empty stadiums.

 

This season they're in an improved position because their £60m loss in 19/20 no longer counts towards FFP and the majority of their covid costs (£36m) are from 20/21, so that wipes out all of their loss from that year and leave them with the full £105 loss allowance for 21/22 and 22/23.

I think their need to sell is more to do with the owners wanting to cut costs and reduce a bloated squad. 

It’s FFP, but the UEFA FFP and not the premier league one. We obviously have designs on playing in Europe, so you have to keep within them, but it’s not really a massive deal. 
 

Plus we just need to move players on to bring players in. But we don’t have to sign players do we. 

 

 

And before anyone says it… I’m on holiday.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

Nah Moshiri has spent money in the transfer market but it's not the same as City and what we are likely to do. And what Abramovic.

 

You need to big rich enough to write-off and invest several billion pounds. Moshiri can't and won't do that.

 

 


They attempted to write that shit off with the Russian oligarch imo 

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Maybe, maybe not. Man Utd have similar ownership have managed to absorb missing out on CL qualification a few times. It's not as big of a deal as it used to be with the amount clubs earn from the PL.

 

Looks like Man U might be signing Marko Arnautovic to replace Ronaldo. A bdget savvy reposte to Haaland no doubt!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Chelsea don't have £1.5bn in the bank.

 

Even if they did it wouldn't make any difference to how much they could spend under FFP.

 

The players they already bought with Russian money are  in the bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TRon said:

 

The players they already bought with Russian money are  in the bank.

 

That's irrelevant to their current spending, which is what was being discussed.

 

Also, the new owner paid more for the club than Abramovich paid and put in.

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not bothered. We need RW & striker more. I don't think we play as dominant against Forest as we did if he was playing ahead of Willock who was brilliant in the pressing to regain possession in their half.

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...