Alexander Isak

[Kanji]

There was always going to be this possibility for any player - it all depended on the technical team telling the board “we need to do this deal” imo. This appears to be the first one that they pushed the boat out for this summer. 

[Hanshithispantz]

@Jackie Broon has done a really good job of explaining FFP throughout the window. It's just never made any sense for us to have a 'budget'. We'll have calculations telling us what we can and cannot do over a period of time, but not specific across the board limits.

 

I don't think FFP would have massively effected us going for Paqueta either, we'll just have a plan in mind that doesn't involve him.

 

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Hanshithispantz

[The College Dropout]

5 minutes ago, STM said:

One way or another, the media got this wrong.

 

They were briefing about their being 40m left or whatever and we spent 58. They can claim things changed after the city game, that doesn't change the facts. The facts are that they had more money to spend that'll what the media thought.

 

Not one of them suggested that the budget could change... because they didn't know.

 

Personally, I think the club have been playing down their budget, precisely for this reason.

 

I don't think it does.

 

I think we always knew we had the funds to do whatever we want. But the club had a budget and a strategy.

 

And they decided to change approach when the Chairman saw a fabulous game that exposed out fragility upfront

[Hanshithispantz]

Tempering fan expectations is clearly viagra for Eddie too. We'll have a clearer picture of things come the end of the window but it's really difficult to believe anything you read until then.

[STM]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

 

I don't think it does.

 

I think we always knew we had the funds to do whatever we want. But the club had a budget and a strategy.

 

And they decided to change approach when the Chairman saw a fabulous game that exposed out fragility upfront

 

Perhaps but even then the media still had no idea that there was a possibility of a change of budget.

 

If you are in the media, you can't have the get out clause of "I'm right but things changed". 

[Scoot]

11 minutes ago, STM said:

One way or another, the media got this wrong.

 

They were briefing about their being 40m left or whatever and we spent 58. They can claim things changed after the city game, that doesn't change the facts. The facts are that they had more money to spend that'll what the media thought.

 

Not one of them suggested that the budget could change... because they didn't know.

 

Personally, I think the club have been playing down their budget, precisely for this reason.

 

Been saying exactly this all summer. There is absolutely no way the owners were going to tell journalists how much they had to spend. Its not in their own interest to do so. People might believe that now...

[Happinesstan]

Yasir saw how could we were, against Cambridge, and stumped up £25million for Wood.

He saw how good we were against City, and stumped up £60 million for Isak.

 

[Mazzy]

16 minutes ago, STM said:

One way or another, the media got this wrong.

 

They were briefing about their being 40m left or whatever and we spent 58. They can claim things changed after the city game, that doesn't change the facts. The facts are that they had more money to spend that'll what the media thought.

 

Not one of them suggested that the budget could change... because they didn't know.

 

Personally, I think the club have been playing down their budget, precisely for this reason.

 

They get it wrong as in most cases but then sweep it under the rug and just continue reporting as if they know it all.

 

For what it's worth a few places did report that Al-Rumayyan was at the City game and after witnessing the performance and ofcourse Wilsons injury he made more funds available.

[Shearergol]

10 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

 

I don't think it does.

 

I think we always knew we had the funds to do whatever we want. But the club had a budget and a strategy.

 

And they decided to change approach when the Chairman saw a fabulous game that exposed out fragility upfront

So piecing things together from your posts:

 

1. The club had a transfer plan

2. That plan failed and we gambled on signing Dan Burn and Targett

3. We then had to waste more money on Pope and Botman which stretched our budget.

4. The failed bid for Ekitike left us with no clue what to do.

5. PIF swoop in and we sign Isak, based on a 3-3 draw with Man City

 

That about right?

[Thumbheed]

The FFP restrictions are all about future expenditure and how what we spend now impacts us in the future,  so with that in mind, I'd imagine FFP is only a consideration for the club when they're signing players for the short to medium term, players like Trippier, Targett and Pope who will all need replacing at some point in the future for a variety of reasons and will therefore mean future expenditure for the club.

 

The other side to this though is that the club is probably more than happy to spend large amounts now on players who they don't beleive will need replacing long term and therefore don't have to envisage a future expenditure for the position. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Thumbheed

[Happinesstan]

25 minutes ago, STM said:

One way or another, the media got this wrong

But for the right reasons.

[Happinesstan]

17 minutes ago, STM said:

 

Perhaps but even then the media still had no idea that there was a possibility of a change of budget.

 

If you are in the media, you can't have the get out clause of "I'm right but things changed". 

Don't need it, the fans will provide that argument, amongst themselves.

[Kanji]

Need to also consider simple cash flow and money in the account and money available via credit facility. Seems like we slowed down a bit to get the new credit facility sorted too. 

[Keegans Export]

8 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

The FFP restrictions are all about future expenditure and how what we spend now impacts us in the future,  so with that in mind, I'd imagine FFP is only a consideration for the club when they're signing players for the short to medium term, players like Trippier, Targett and Pope who will all need replacing at some point in the future for a variety of reasons and will therefore mean future expenditure for the club.

 

The other side to this though is that the club is probably more than happy to spend large amounts now on players who they don't beleive will need replacing long term and therefore don't have to envisage a future expenditure for the position. 

This is exactly the right way to think about FFP.

 

Everton didn't have problems with FFP because they spent loads of money. They had problems with FFP because they spent loads of money on players who turned out to be crap (or paedophiles) and ended up needing to be replaced or sold at a loss.

 

If we think Botman, Bruno, Isak is part of our spine for the next 5+ years then their annual FFP hit (which will be around £10-15m or so) is almost irrelevant. If you think Isak is your #1 CF in a season or twos time then great, you're just spending £60m now rather than £60m next season or the season after that.

 

You're right about the Burn/Targett/Wood signings but it's no coincidence that Wood & Burn were given 2 1/2 year deals and Isak/Botman have been given 5 or 6. 

[Jackie Broon]

36 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

@Jackie Broon has done a really good job of explaining FFP throughout the window. It's just never made any sense for us to have a 'budget'. We'll have calculations telling us what we can and cannot do over a period of time, but not specific across the board limits.

 

I don't think FFP would have massively effected us going for Paqueta either, we'll just have a plan in mind that doesn't involve him.

 

 

 

 

Ta, but also I might be completely wrong and I haven't really looked at the UEFA FFP rules, they're above my head.

[duo]

Defo that result against City helped get this over the line.

[hakka]

What I love about the Isak signing is it's another first XI spot of true big quality. Bruno, ASM and Wilson are the only three you want to see on the ball in the opposition half. Isak added to that is a huge boost. It's very exciting.

 

I know we talk of a Paqueta and it seems the club aren't interested, but someone like him or Maddison etc. is badly needed too because without Bruno we suddenly look far less creative. Especially with Shelvey injured.

[Abacus]

Pretty sure that despite all his other jobs as the head of the world's largest sovereign wealth fund that Yasir just went all mental-balls after Sunday.

 

Saw the Man City game, evaluated the state of the squad, seen Wilson's injury and just yelled "Monkey Spunk! We need a striker!"

 

He'll be keeping an eye on the central midfield conundrum too from now on, and badgering Amanda daily for an understudy to Targett at left back, and a ball-playing defensive midfielder.

[Abacus]

Alternatively, he turns up at big games and before big signings, to be associated with both.

[PauloGeordio]

7 minutes ago, hakka said:

What I love about the Isak signing is it's another first XI spot of true big quality. Bruno, ASM and Wilson are the only three you want to see on the ball in the opposition half. Isak added to that is a huge boost. It's very exciting.

 

I know we talk of a Paqueta and it seems the club aren't interested, but someone like him or Maddison etc. is badly needed too because without Bruno we suddenly look far less creative. Especially with Shelvey injured.

?? I’ve no doubt they’ll deliver on this before the transfer window closes ?

[Rafalove]

Pushing time to get paperwork through for tomorrow.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Shearergol said:

So piecing things together from your posts:

 

1. The club had a transfer plan

2. That plan failed and we gambled on signing Dan Burn and Targett

3. We then had to waste more money on Pope and Botman which stretched our budget.

4. The failed bid for Ekitike left us with no clue what to do.

5. PIF swoop in and we sign Isak, based on a 3-3 draw with Man City

 

That about right?

Eh? 

 

Agenda against me aside. The Athletic article says our Chairman was at the City game and after that game he decided to release additional funds so we can get our primary attacking target that we previously deemed too expensive. Within days he's ours.

 

I'm not making anything up here or adding anything to a supposed agenda. It's literally what's being reported in the media. 

 

Did you bother to read the article?

[B-more Mag]

Congratulations to everyone who guessed that unknowable thing X was actually true. 

[STM]

My reading of the situation is entirely different.

 

Our scouting department has files on dozens of players, often different profiles; wingers, forwards, number 10s, players with potential, players with experience.

 

Our recruitment team then spends time assessing the value of the player and making lower bids, seeing where the selling clubs value is. 

 

We've left things late, knowing that the market heats up, with clubs getting desperate due to their own needs. 

 

Isak was clearly a player we fancied earlier on but we weren't going to go in during June because values can be lowered.

 

I suspect at some point in the last week, Ashworth and Co decided that it was MORE wasteful spending 30m on a player who might be decent, as opposed to 58m for someone we know is decent. Sometimes spending more money is spending less in the long run.

 

Budgets have nothing to do with it. It's about value. We don't want to over pay on average players. In this scenario, we have paid the going rate for a top quality young striker.

[loki679]

5 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

Congratulations to everyone who guessed that unknowable thing X was actually true. 

 

Don't be so flippant.  THERE ARE INTERNET POINTS AT STAKE HERE FFS.