Now That's What I Call Transfer Rumours! 7

[Manxst]

4 minutes ago, Hughesy said:

Think Lavia from Southampton could be a decent shout to strengthen our midfield a bit.  Although not sure if Man City have an option to buy him back.

Man City supposedly have a number of clauses with Lavia- They can match any bid, they also have a buyback clause, as well as a sell-on clause of 20 per cent. The buy back clause only activates in 2024, apparently. 

 

[TRon]

2 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Man City supposedly have a number of clauses with Lavia- They can match any bid, they also have a buyback clause, as well as a sell-on clause of 20 per cent. The buy back clause only activates in 2024, apparently. 

 

Liverpool and Chelsea will be after him as well.

[SteV]

9 minutes ago, LFEE said:

We are miles off. Our top earners are £110-125kpw. The others squad players are on more than that ?

Yep, I have reiterated this point before. You can pay transfer fees for players that haven’t yet quite made to elite level, but you think will, (like Bruno, Botman, Isak), that are roughly equivalent (or a tad below) to players that are elite level. However the difference in wages between the two is absolutely massive.

 

Having said that, how we’ve ended up getting Trippier in our current wage model is bit mental though.

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, KaKa said:

 

That's interesting man. Every time budgets are mentioned I've never looked at it as taking total fees into account, because the figures always seemed too small then.

 

I mean they wouldn't even make sense if that was the case. And so if that's what the press are actually doing then it's pretty bizarre.

No, that is definitely how it always works.  A budget of £100m means the total value of the players brought in, not the size of the available down payments.  The down payments wouldn’t make sense, given that if you did so you’d then have to calculate that window’s budget all of the payment installations from previous transfers.

14 minutes ago, Kimbo said:

People don’t full understand what the big 6 is. It’s a voting block that conspired together to try to take over the league with project big picture. It’s an evil little elitist club that I hope we never join. Being good or successful doesn’t necessarily make you part of that block.

It’s about purchase power as much as owt else.  How much of a revenue making monster you are.  And we’re still a long way off even Spurs - even with finishing third and CL qualification next season.  That’s why we don’t have £150m+ to spend in the summer - our turnover is still dwarfed by a struggling Spurs.  Spurs have roughly three times our match day revenues, and roughly the same multiplier against commercial income.  There’s a long way to go yet. 

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, STM said:

 

It has been utterly bizarre. Edwards saying 50m budget last summer or whatever.

 

I think it's pure guesswork.

FFP is pretty easy to calculate - Edwards was laughed at because he is full of shite.

 

But if you’re waiting for a £150m+ spend you’re going to be disappointed in September.  The only way that’s achievable is to do something as fucking stupid as Chelsea and tie players to eight-years deals.   The budget will be just over £100m, based on likely income and the previous two seasons. 

[KaKa]

6 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

No, that is definitely how it always works.  A budget of £100m means the total value of the players brought in, not the size of the available down payments.  The down payments wouldn’t make sense, given that if you did so you’d then have to calculate that window’s budget all of the payment installations from previous transfers.

It’s about purchase power as much as owt else.  How much of a revenue making monster you are.  And we’re still a long way off even Spurs - even with finishing third and CL qualification next season.  That’s why we don’t have £150m+ to spend in the summer - our turnover is still dwarfed by a struggling Spurs.  Spurs have roughly three times our match day revenues, and roughly the same multiplier against commercial income.  There’s a long way to go yet. 

 

That is all taken into account before any budgets are set.

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, KaKa said:

 

That is all taken into account before any budgets are set.

The press have never referred to upfront payments as the budget - the transfer budget has always been the total value of the players being brought in.  Only in articles where they go into further detail would they talk about payment structure.  You’re honestly the first person I’ve ever seen who made that assumption - everything from the press to the likes of transfermarkt.com refer to the total transfer value.  

[kocunar]

8 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

FFP is pretty easy to calculate - Edwards was laughed at because he is full of shite.

 

But if you’re waiting for a £150m+ spend you’re going to be disappointed in September.  The only way that’s achievable is to do something as fucking stupid as Chelsea and tie players to eight-years deals.   The budget will be just over £100m, based on likely income and the previous two seasons. 

Only way we can do that (£150m+)is if we sell some big names too. 

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, kocunar said:

Only way we can do that (£150m+)is if we sell some big names too. 

Yeah agreed, which is why I think someone like ASM will go.  It’ll be mainly players on the outskirts of the squad who’ll leave, but I can easily see Howe selling one player worth a few bob to bolster his budget.  At least we know these days any fee brought in will be recycled straight back into the squad  

[SAK]

3 hours ago, BonesJones said:

 

Yeh fair enough guess it just depends on the individual. I would take the beaches and countryside up north, over knife crime and loads of people.

I live in London and the whole knife crime thing is overblown, it’s rarely average folks getting stabbed unless really unlucky. Mostly teens/youths involved in gang violence. Unless you look like complete wuss you wouldn’t register on the radar of these people so it never affects you.

[KaKa]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The press have never referred to upfront payments as the budget - the transfer budget has always been the total value of the players being brought in.  Only in articles where they go into further detail would they talk about payment structure.  You’re honestly the first person I’ve ever seen who made that assumption - everything from the press to the likes of transfermarkt.com refer to the total transfer value.  

 

Yes, but we've moved past what the press we're stating. That has been agreed on that it isn't very clear at all, because if it  is total numbers they are still getting the budgets wrong, and so they are apparently just throwing random numbers about.

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, KaKa said:

 

Yes, but we've moved past what the press we're stating. That has been agreed on that it isn't very clear at all, because if it  is total numbers they are still getting the budgets wrong, and so they are apparently just throwing random numbers about.

The only member of the press who ever went down that line was Edwards, who back-pedalled and claimed that the c.£50m was right because that was what actually got paid out in upfront payments.  And we all laughed because we knew he was completely full of shit and was being disingenuous - it absolutely was not what he meant.  Until Isak came in he was banging on about how right he’d got it.

[Skeletor]

How many pages will this thread be by the end of the window?

[Dr Jinx]

10 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

How many pages will this thread be by the end of the window?

I’m hoping not too much, it will be nicely balanced between new player threads.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 hour ago, LFEE said:

We are miles off. Our top earners are £110-125kpw. The others squad players are on more than that ?

Well then it depends what you mean by compete. We’ve snagged at least 3 players that would walk into any of their teams. Whatever the wages are. 

[LFEE]

27 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Well then it depends what you mean by compete. We’ve snagged at least 3 players that would walk into any of their teams. Whatever the wages are. 

We can compete as a team with them but not for similar signings. They might walk into them now but there was doubt and hesitation from others allowing us to move in. We’ll have to be smart in the market and hopefully get a few players not on everybody’s radar or at least are in two minds on. Going to be harder the higher up the talent scale you aim for.

[mighty__mag]

Would love us to try for Enciso 

[Kimbo]

2 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

No, that is definitely how it always works.  A budget of £100m means the total value of the players brought in, not the size of the available down payments.  The down payments wouldn’t make sense, given that if you did so you’d then have to calculate that window’s budget all of the payment installations from previous transfers.

It’s about purchase power as much as owt else.  How much of a revenue making monster you are.  And we’re still a long way off even Spurs - even with finishing third and CL qualification next season.  That’s why we don’t have £150m+ to spend in the summer - our turnover is still dwarfed by a struggling Spurs.  Spurs have roughly three times our match day revenues, and roughly the same multiplier against commercial income.  There’s a long way to go yet. 

But even if we get big revenue, it doesn’t mean we should join their voting block, and nor should we. Those clubs tried to get a veto on the rest of the leagues takeovers, it was an attempt to kill off future competition. We should never aspire to be like that.

[huss9]

definitely need 2 centre mids first and foremost.

got really stretched in there as the season wore on.

[Stottie]

5 hours ago, SteV said:

Yep, I have reiterated this point before. You can pay transfer fees for players that haven’t yet quite made to elite level, but you think will, (like Bruno, Botman, Isak), that are roughly equivalent (or a tad below) to players that are elite level. However the difference in wages between the two is absolutely massive.

 

Having said that, how we’ve ended up getting Trippier in our current wage model is bit mental though.

I get the impression wages spend and transfer spend are almost different things, not the same "money".

In theory, a free player on 200k wages for four years would be the same spend as a 20M fee 100k wages player if that 20M value is likely to disappear in four years, say with a 28 year old. However, it doesn't work like that, does it? The fee gets amortised, with whatever accounting chicanery than involves, and the lower wage means there is no effect on squad harmony or the FFP wages angle. It almost seem to be like the burden of wages spend is a multiple, I dunno, 50% more or something, of transfer spend. Am I right to think that? Does it work like that in simulation games like FM too?

[NWMag]

1 hour ago, Stottie said:

I get the impression wages spend and transfer spend are almost different things, not the same "money".

In theory, a free player on 200k wages for four years would be the same spend as a 20M fee 100k wages player if that 20M value is likely to disappear in four years, say with a 28 year old. However, it doesn't work like that, does it? The fee gets amortised, with whatever accounting chicanery than involves, and the lower wage means there is no effect on squad harmony or the FFP wages angle. It almost seem to be like the burden of wages spend is a multiple, I dunno, 50% more or something, of transfer spend. Am I right to think that? Does it work like that in simulation games like FM too?

My understanding of it, using your example above, is:

 

free agent:

transfer cost £0

wages £200,000pw

 

yearly cost to FFP:

52x£200,000=£10,400,000

 

compared to £20m signing on £100,000pw:

 

transfer cost £20,000,000

wages £100,000

 

yearly cost to FFP:

 

£20,000,000/4 = £5,000,000

52x£100,000=£5,200,000

total = £10,200,000

 

pretty much identical costs, however the difference comes if we were to sell the player. If we sold them after 12 months it would be pure profit for the free agent,  but not for the one we paid a fee for. 
 

 

[STM]

Reet lads, first one through the door? I'm going Tierney.

[Stottie]

I don't know how it works, but I get the impression that its better/easier to pay money in transfer fees than in wages. Maybe because there is a wages as percentage of turnover calculation for FFP. Something like that.

 

 

[TheBrownBottle]

9 hours ago, Kimbo said:

But even if we get big revenue, it doesn’t mean we should join their voting block, and nor should we. Those clubs tried to get a veto on the rest of the leagues takeovers, it was an attempt to kill off future competition. We should never aspire to be like that.

Yeah, I agree mate.  

[STM]

11 minutes ago, Stottie said:

I don't know how it works, but I get the impression that its better/easier to pay money in transfer fees than in wages. Maybe because there is a wages as percentage of turnover calculation for FFP. Something like that.

 

 

 

From what I gather, transfer fees are largely not an issue for us. As KaKa points out, we can spread their costs out over a few seasons if we like. That said, we don't want to be pissing money up the wall.

 

On the other hand, wages are a fixed budget every year and signing one player like Bruno costs us 6m in wages each year for the length of his contract.

 

Wages is always where the issue is. Getting Shelvey and Wood off our books was massive.