Now That's What I Call Transfer Rumours! 7

[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? 

[SteV]

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…

[Optimistic Nut]

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.

[midds]

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

[ponsaelius]

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.

[midds]

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'?

[BennyBlanco]

Would Ayoze be worth bringing back on a free? 

[The Butcher]

2 minutes ago, BennyBlanco said:

Would Ayoze be worth bringing back on a free? 

Absolutely not.

[ponsaelius]

Yeah exactly

 

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.

[Alberto2005]

3 minutes ago, BennyBlanco said:

Would Ayoze be worth bringing back on a free? 

Has to be a windup? 😂