TRon Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 37 minutes ago, Unbelievable said: There should be no "untouchables" if we want to progress, just players we would only let go if an offer too good to refuse comes in or if their value is only going to go down (contract ending, player agitating for a move). I agree with this, but would add as long as we have an equally good player lined up to replace them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 1 hour ago, TRon said: I agree with this, but would add as long as we have an equally good player lined up to replace them. The only player on our books where I think that would be too much to ask is Isak, so if any one player would be untouchable it would be him. Still though, if a really big offer comes in I think we would have to consider it and accept we’re probably not going to get a player of quite similar ability to replace him, but it would allow us to strengthen the team as a whole. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
healthyaddiction Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 21 hours ago, Paully said: Big Joe surely?! I'd have never had him down as an untouchable. I certainly wouldn't have him down as our fourth best player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted Monday at 08:26 Share Posted Monday at 08:26 2 years left on his deal according to Douglas. If that is the case, I can see him going if Liverpool bid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee_Johnny Posted Monday at 08:27 Share Posted Monday at 08:27 Him and Tripps must be due back today/this week? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted Monday at 08:27 Share Posted Monday at 08:27 Just now, SUPERTOON said: 2 years left on his deal according to Douglas. If that is the case, I can see him going if Liverpool bid. Yep, new contract or flogged sadly. We can’t be slow sellers given PSR. Might be painful but this is the shocking reality we have to work in until someone crushes the PSR farce. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted Monday at 08:28 Share Posted Monday at 08:28 We used to have to sell a player if they had one year left on their contract, now it's two years? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted Monday at 08:29 Share Posted Monday at 08:29 I’m astounded we only gave him a 3.5 year contract - as above - it’s either new deal this summer or sell sadly due to the shite PSR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted Monday at 08:30 Share Posted Monday at 08:30 3 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: 2 years left on his deal according to Douglas. If that is the case, I can see him going if Liverpool bid. I don't see a world where we outlay £45m + clauses on a three-and-a-half year deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted Monday at 08:42 Share Posted Monday at 08:42 15 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: 2 years left on his deal according to Douglas. If that is the case, I can see him going if Liverpool bid. Doesn't sound sure in the comments mind: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted Monday at 08:43 Share Posted Monday at 08:43 He has no idea He just googled what’s out there and ran with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted Monday at 08:47 Share Posted Monday at 08:47 17 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: We used to have to sell a player if they had one year left on their contract, now it's two years? Based on you will get more value if they have 2 years rather than one ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted Monday at 08:48 Share Posted Monday at 08:48 Well sure, but they have more value if they have 3 as well Point being I didn't notice when the expectation changed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted Monday at 09:25 Share Posted Monday at 09:25 35 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: Well sure, but they have more value if they have 3 as well Point being I didn't notice when the expectation changed. It's a fair question. I suppose clubs like Real Madrid happily turning a top player's head then telling them to wait until their contract has expired has made clubs needing to sell to progress a little more anxious about letting it come to the final year of contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted Monday at 10:22 Share Posted Monday at 10:22 The other thing is PSR (once again). It's basically created a parallel economy. If you lose a player on a freebie, you don't just lose the money, you effectively lose the permission to replace them - it's catastrophic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted Monday at 10:24 Share Posted Monday at 10:24 1 minute ago, 80 said: The other thing is PSR (once again). It's basically created a parallel economy. If you lose a player on a freebie, you don't just lose the money, you effectively lose the permission to replace them - it's catastrophic. PSR is absolutely turd, terrible for both football and the wider economy. As usual when such drastic rules are invoked very little thought goes into the wider implications of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted Monday at 10:33 Share Posted Monday at 10:33 6 minutes ago, r0cafella said: PSR is absolutely turd, terrible for both football and the wider economy. As usual when such drastic rules are invoked very little thought goes into the wider implications of them. Its this 3rd party sponsor deals that baffle's me, that could fix the cash flow problem overnight by injecting millions into football, the top6 insisted on this anti-Newcastle rule and its fucked to whole system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufc123 Posted Monday at 11:06 Share Posted Monday at 11:06 2 hours ago, SUPERTOON said: 2 years left on his deal according to Douglas. If that is the case, I can see him going if Liverpool bid. Why did we buy him for 45m and give him a contract like that? If he doesnt sign a new contract and nobody will buy him this window, we wont get much profit for him with one year left. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted Monday at 11:36 Share Posted Monday at 11:36 27 minutes ago, nufc123 said: Why did we buy him for 45m and give him a contract like that? If he doesnt sign a new contract and nobody will buy him this window, we wont get much profit for him with one year left. Wouldn’t reflect very well on Staveley and Ashworth if they’ve fucked up with the contract and left us with no option but to sell him at this point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted Monday at 11:56 Share Posted Monday at 11:56 1 hour ago, Ben said: Its this 3rd party sponsor deals that baffle's me, that could fix the cash flow problem overnight by injecting millions into football, the top6 insisted on this anti-Newcastle rule and its fucked to whole system. Can’t have just been the top 6 who voted for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDT Posted Monday at 13:49 Share Posted Monday at 13:49 Out & about in Morpeth today apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Monday at 14:00 Share Posted Monday at 14:00 Douglas has no clue about the contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted Monday at 14:08 Share Posted Monday at 14:08 18 minutes ago, KDT said: Out & about in Morpeth today apparently. Did someone say he bought his mother a house in Jarrow ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Monday at 14:10 Share Posted Monday at 14:10 3 hours ago, Ben said: Its this 3rd party sponsor deals that baffle's me, that could fix the cash flow problem overnight by injecting millions into football, the top6 insisted on this anti-Newcastle rule and its fucked to whole system. It hasn’t fucked them, crucially. The rest of the PL - (ie the daft cunts who voted for it) - definitely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Monday at 14:20 Share Posted Monday at 14:20 The rest of the PL don’t want more super clubs. Every other club outside the top 6 has been relegated in the PL era (except Everton, and City have been relegated). And unless they get super owners - every other club can be relegated. The other clubs don’t want that. They don’t want us or Villa to have rich owners that can spend. Because of FFP 14 clubs can get relegated. They don’t want that number to keep decreasing. ATM we could do a Leicester and wage bill ourselves into a FFP hole and get relegated. Once we get our revenues £400m+ we’ll become untouchable even in dire times. They don’t want that to happen for us or to Villa or anyone else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now