Now That's What I Call Transfer Rumours! 7

[Gawalls]

4 hours ago, PauloGeordio said:

I’m going with it hasn’t dropped! 

Ffp is based on a rolling three year basis and we’ve spent more now with last two windows so that will be why we have less (if we do). Said it a few times now - these owners have a long term plan they don’t seem to deviate from so I feel a lot of people will be hugely disappointed at the end of this window.

[Gawalls]

2 hours ago, Matt1892 said:

I think that was wishful thinking more than anything.

 

While I agree with Ashworth that the level we have been spending at is unsustainable, if we can buy a LB, RCB, CM x2 and a RM at the right quality and age to develop then this might be the last window where we have to buy so many anyway.

So you want just the five players then?

[Matt1892]

Just now, Gawalls said:

So you want just the five players then?

This window? Yes.

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, Gawalls said:

Ffp is based on a rolling three year basis and we’ve spent more now with last two windows so that will be why we have less (if we do). Said it a few times now - these owners have a long term plan they don’t seem to deviate from so I feel a lot of people will be hugely disappointed at the end of this window.

100%
 

The only way around some fairly straightforward mathematics is to do what Chelsea have done and offer ridiculously long contracts to players to amortise the fees over a long period.  Our owners aren’t that stupid.

 

The CL money bonanza also isn’t quite the bonanza many are expecting, if the owners have made the sensible calculation that we might go out in the group stage.  Our income is still far lower than the Sky Six.  It’ll take a few years to justify the ramping up of sponsorship money.

 

Also - and this is one quite a few don’t seem to want to accept - the PIF having vast cash reserves doesn’t necessarily mean that they fancy pouring a chunk of it into NUFC for shits and giggles.  I think they see this as an investment - and investments need returns. 

[Shak]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Also - and this is one quite a few don’t seem to want to accept - the PIF having vast cash reserves doesn’t necessarily mean that they fancy pouring a chunk of it into NUFC for shits and giggles.  I think they see this as an investment - and investments need returns. 

 

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate.

 

Think the idea is that by 2030 they want to have a lot of very valuable, profitable assets and are willing to burn through a lot of their cash in the meantime to make sure those assets are top notch.

 

I think a lot of it probably comes down to Ashworth's philosophy. Just don't get the feeling that he wants a bunch of high profile, expensive signings. Isaks and Botmans all the way.

[rebelrouser]

1 hour ago, Gawalls said:

Ffp is based on a rolling three year basis and we’ve spent more now with last two windows so that will be why we have less (if we do). Said it a few times now - these owners have a long term plan they don’t seem to deviate from so I feel a lot of people will be hugely disappointed at the end of this window.

19/20 net spend €37.26m, 20/21 €39m, 21/22 €136m, 22/23 €172m....according to transfermarkt. Not sure how to apply those numbers and our revenue has been increasing. As someone else mentioned the transfer fee is amortized over the life of the contract and selling a player, even for less than you initially paid for him, can result in net gains for ffp purposes.  Ryan Fraser €8m, Jamal Lewis €8m, Matt Ritchie €1.8m, Jamal Lascalles €7 may all be headed out. 

[Matt1892]

The biggest thing holding us back is the lack of saleable players that were here pre takeover that we could look to sell to help with FPP.

[worthy]

21 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

The biggest thing holding us back is the lack of saleable players that were here pre takeover that we could look to sell to help with FPP.

Aye, we have no assets that we can sell that are actually worth anything. At least if we are lucky we might get their wages off the book so we are not stranded with them until the contract runs out. It will give us something at least.

[Coffee_Johnny]

57 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

100%
 

The only way around some fairly straightforward mathematics is to do what Chelsea have done and offer ridiculously long contracts to players to amortise the fees over a long period.  Our owners aren’t that stupid.

 

The CL money bonanza also isn’t quite the bonanza many are expecting, if the owners have made the sensible calculation that we might go out in the group stage.  Our income is still far lower than the Sky Six.  It’ll take a few years to justify the ramping up of sponsorship money.

 

Also - and this is one quite a few don’t seem to want to accept - the PIF having vast cash reserves doesn’t necessarily mean that they fancy pouring a chunk of it into NUFC for shits and giggles.  I think they see this as an investment - and investments need returns. 

Nah, they want glory. To be the best. On and off the pitch. No malo. 

[andyc35i]

Yep and just by how much they’re paying Ronaldo, Benzema and Kante shows that if allowed we’d spend whatever it takes 

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Shak said:

 

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate.

 

Think the idea is that by 2030 they want to have a lot of very valuable, profitable assets and are willing to burn through a lot of their cash in the meantime to make sure those assets are top notch.

 

I think a lot of it probably comes down to Ashworth's philosophy. Just don't get the feeling that he wants a bunch of high profile, expensive signings. Isaks and Botmans all the way.

 

Agree. I think they'd happily blow everyone out of the water with transfer fees and wages given half a chance if it meant we'd be winning titles within a year or two. The ROI would take care of itself.

[aussiemag]

22 minutes ago, worthy said:

Aye, we have no assets that we can sell that are actually worth anything. At least if we are lucky we might get their wages off the book so we are not stranded with them until the contract runs out. It will give us something at least.

 

What is the minimum offer you would accept for our key players? 

 

Pope - 40 mill

Trippier - 30 mill

Schar - 20 mill

Botman - 80 mill

Burn - 20 mill

Targett - 20 mill

Bruno - 110 mill

Joelinton - 80 mill

Willock - 50 mill

Longstaff - 30 mill

ASM - 30 mill

Almiron - 30 mill

Gordan - 40 mill

Murphy - 20 mill

Isak -  100 mill

Wilson - 40 mill

 

 

 

 

[Shak]

Think Wilson and Joelinton are too high.

 

Isak not high enough.

[gazza ladra]

Evaluations are too high, but I agree. Wouldn’t sell. Good way to saying piss off.

[NE28]

4 minutes ago, Shak said:

Think Wilson and Joelinton are too high.

 

Isak not high enough.

It’s not what you think they’re worth though. It’s what you would accept for them. I don’t think Joelinton is worth 80 million but you’d have to get pretty close to that to get me to sell. We’re going in a fuck off position if we don’t want to sell and think we should take advantage of that as much as we can

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I’d be disappointed to sell Miggy, ASM or Longstaff for 30. 

[mikejaxer]

35 minutes ago, aussiemag said:

 

What is the minimum offer you would accept for our key players? 

 

Pope - 40 mill

Trippier - 30 mill

Schar - 20 mill

Botman - 80 mill

Burn - 20 mill

Targett - 20 mill

Bruno - 110 mill

Joelinton - 80 mill

Willock - 50 mill

Longstaff - 30 mill

ASM - 30 mill

Almiron - 30 mill

Gordan - 40 mill

Murphy - 20 mill

Isak -  100 mill

Wilson - 40 mill

 

 

 

 

30m for ASM? you okay there?

 

No less than 50, maybe 45.

[Toonjam88]

3 hours ago, Gawalls said:

Ffp is based on a rolling three year basis and we’ve spent more now with last two windows so that will be why we have less (if we do). Said it a few times now - these owners have a long term plan they don’t seem to deviate from so I feel a lot of people will be hugely disappointed at the end of this window.

Think you have totally miss understood how FFP works. If it is a 3 year rolling thing, which yes losses are, why would Chelsea do 8 year contracts? 

[timeEd32]

18 minutes ago, Toonjam88 said:

Think you have totally miss understood how FFP works. If it is a 3 year rolling thing, which yes losses are, why would Chelsea do 8 year contracts? 

No, he’s right. A club’s finances are measured on a rolling three year basis. 
 

Contract length gets into player amortization. If a player costs £80M and is given a four year contract then the fee is spread across each of those years (£20m each year). If you give that same player an eight year contract then the fee is only £10m per year. So in that example the same player costs half as much for FFP purposes. 
 

The risk in that scenario, aside from potentially getting stuck with a player’s wages far past their usefulness, is the remaining balance is deducted from a sale. So let’s say the four year contract player is sold after year three for £50m. Per FFP you would have paid £20m three times or £60m of the £80m. In the year four accounts you can book that sale as a £30m profit (£50m incoming minus the remaining £20m “owed”). 
 

Now if you do the same thing for a player on the 8 year deal you have only “paid” £30m after three years, so selling for £50m only lets you break even. 
 

(“Owed” and “paid” are in quotes because this has nothing to do with the actual money changing hands. You could have paid the selling club the £80m in cash on day one).

[andycap]

If we got our money back for wood then I can see lascelles been worth twenty million. 

[TRon]

33 minutes ago, andycap said:

If we got our money back for wood then I can see lascelles been worth twenty million. 

 

Why not? A 30 yr old Ward Prowse is supposedly worth £70m.

[The Butcher]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I’d be disappointed to sell Miggy, ASM or Longstaff for 30. 

30 for Miggy would be amazing,  but nee cunt is paying that for him.

[r0cafella]

Also let’s be clear here, Longstaff can never be sold. 

[Chris_R]

Just now, r0cafella said:

Also let’s be clear here, Longstaff can never be sold. 

This. Home grown first teamer when we already don't have enough? He's going nowhere. I think even for 60, maybe 80m we'd still say 'no'.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Chris_R said:

This. Home grown first teamer when we already don't have enough? He's going nowhere. I think even for 60, maybe 80m we'd still say 'no'.

Exactly, he’s far too valuable to sell and I reckon he can still improve as well.