Jump to content

Now That's What I Call Transfer Rumours! 7


Recommended Posts

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 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 [emoji38]

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 by Keegans Export

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, midds said:

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? 

Not like Juve to be fiddling the finances…

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, midds said:

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? 

 

That's ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Optimistic Nut said:

 

That's ridiculous.

The agreed a joint fee for the pair of them but officially it was done in such a way as to protect Juve and scam the prior owners. Sure that was the plan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh as dodgy as that is, and annoying for any previous club, it's basically completely impossible to mitigate against or challenge legally. Unless it's extremely obvious like giving one away for free/nominal cost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ponsaelius said:

Tbh as dodgy as that is, and annoying for any previous club, it's basically completely impossible to mitigate against or challenge legally. Unless it's extremely obvious like giving one away for free/nominal cost.

Like, say, 'fair market value'? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah exactly :lol:

 

The 20 million euros Spurs paid for Bentancur wasn't massively undervalued at the time, to be honest. He had been shite for Juve for a while and had definitely depreciated in value up to that point. Probably slightly under value but not hugely. I would definitely say Kulusevski being the more expensive of the two was reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

150 million would be about what I expected. That should definitely get four quality players if spent effectively.

 

Don't think we will actively try to sell any key players but also think the club would definitely be tempted to cash in on some if a team came and offered decent money for the likes of Maxi/Miggy/Murphy etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...