Now That's What I Call Transfer Rumours! 7

[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.

[Hhtoon]

14 hours ago, KaKa said:

 

I think typically what is still owed each year, is taken into account before then determining the transfer budget for that year.

 

So for example, before the club would have set this summer's budget, they would have already determined and taken into account what we need to pay out this year from previous deals first.

 

 

 

14 hours ago, KaKa said:

 

Yeah, seems I've been giving them way too much credit by assuming they were quoting those figures based on the actual outlay we'd be shelling out upfront.

 

 

 

 

To be fair, I don't necessarily think this is as unreasonable as people are making out and I doubt anyone really knows how these things are discussed internally...though clearly journos will/do assume that transfer budget equates to total cost of the players. 

 

Talking in absolutes of 100m is odd as deals are structured differently. You could buy 2 players worth 50m each but only pay 10m each upfront and that would be our transfer spend done despite only a 20m CASH outlay. But that would be the same as the clubs insisting we pay more upfront which equates to a 100m CASH outlay but apparently the same transfer spend. 

 

Extreme obviously. But I dont think it's beyond the realms of possibility that they are talking cash outlay budget rather than future total spend. 

 

That being said, 100m total transfer spend equates to about 20m a year FFP hit (exc wages) assuming 5 year contracts. Which seems reasonable...so who knows 

[Stifler]

You are allowed losses over 3 years though and add on the fact that this season we will get new sponsors. The shirt sponsor alone is said to be worth £19m more than previously, but you would think that the sleeve sponsorship would go up a little, as well as other sponsorship. We could also gain a training kit sponsorship separately.

[PauloGeordio]

Trading ground sponsor and stadium name association also. 

[worthy]

So when is Gnonto signing?

[astraguy]

What happened to the Raphinha links? Seem to remember it coming from the here we go geezer, unless I got done 

[Swissmag]

On 27/05/2023 at 22:49, Optimistic Nut said:

 

That'd be a concern. I know Botman isn't a slouch but I think we need some pace there. 

Sorry, I have to take that back. Somehow i was thinking of Rrahmani (don‘t ask me why). Kim instead is quite quick for a defender ?

[RobsonsWonderland]

So who is going to be our next Beardsley, Bellamy, Trippier team changing signing? 

 

That one player who will lift 3 or 4 players around him and see a huge change to the team dynamic.

 

An easy one in my head would be Kane... But I know thats never going to happen!

 

[Keegans Export]

43 minutes ago, Hhtoon said:

That being said, 100m total transfer spend equates to about 20m a year FFP hit (exc wages) assuming 5 year contracts. Which seems reasonable...so who knows 

This cuts both ways though - the fees paid for Trippier, Bruno, Botman, Isak, they're all still being factored into the FFP calculation. It's why growing the squad quickly is so difficult, even with the additional sponsorship. 

 

We also have to be careful around the "Champions League money" - that's only guaranteed for next season so if we go overboard this summer and miss out next season we're at risk of hamstringing ourselves down the line.

 

Basically - FFP is designed to stop clubs from doing what we're trying to do and it's very effective at it.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Keegans Export

[Hhtoon]

36 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

This cuts both ways though - the fees paid for Trippier, Bruno, Botman, Isak, they're all still being factored into the FFP calculation. It's why growing the squad quickly is so difficult, even with the additional sponsorship. 

 

We also have to be careful around the "Champions League money" - that's only guaranteed for next season so if we go overboard this summer and miss out next season we're at risk of hamstringing ourselves down the line.

 

Basically - FFP is designed to stop clubs from doing what we're trying to do and it's very effective at it.

 

 

 

 

Yeah I agree, I was kind of bandying 20m about as the known increase in sponsorship. 

 

We definitely need to live within non-champions league budgets as you say, though even that one-off season (if it is just a season) hike would help reduce our losses over 3 years. 

[The Prophet]

https://twitter.com/MailSport/status/1663141908170915841

 

Cracking price.

[clintdempsey]

I would love Kulusevski at NUFC. Think he’d be an awesome fit alongside Isak and also think that he’s a player who’s got the right tools and mindset to be a superb “Eddie Howe player”. 

[Stifler]

Is that clause not just limited to Spurs only though?

[lovejoy]

3 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Is that clause not just limited to Spurs only though?

you'd imagine so.

[Mikky]

34 minutes ago, clintdempsey said:

I would love Kulusevski at NUFC. Think he’d be an awesome fit alongside Isak and also think that he’s a player who’s got the right tools and mindset to be a superb “Eddie Howe player”. 

i actually wouldn’t mind the Swedish striker at Coventry - purely as a 3rd choice striker - takes away the worry of injuries to either Isak or Wilson

[The Prophet]

29 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Is that clause not just limited to Spurs only though?

 

Most likely. Didn't they have some kind of arrangement between that and the Bentancur deal?

[midds]

10 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Most likely. Didn't they have some kind of arrangement between that and the Bentancur deal?

They overpaid for 1 and underpaid for the other to minimise the sell-on fees that Juve were due to pay to their previous clubs. Who says the cartel aren't rotten as fuck eh?