NUFC Transfer Rumours

[elbee909]

Completely indifferent to Notts Forest. 

[Nucasol]

3 minutes ago, elbee909 said:

Completely indifferent to Notts Forest. 

Melts them that one.

[Matt1892]

I went to watch them at home to Bournemouth just before Christmas as part of me and my boy trying to do the 92 football grounds, definitely an air of inferiority complex in the stadium that they are not seen as a big club any more.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Matt1892 said:

I went to watch them at home to Bournemouth just before Christmas as part of me and my boy trying to do the 92 football grounds, definitely an air of inferiority complex in the stadium that they are not seen as a big club any more.

That’s because they aren’t. Nobody would notice if they got relegated. 

[Ronson333]

Notts Forest fans are similar to Sheffield Wednesday fans, they are both stuck in a time warp and annoyed they are irrelevant.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2024 by Ronson333

[MagMal]

I have always liked forest, middle level club giving out bloody noses to the big clubs in England and Europe, played good football and had some nice kits back in the day, plus clough was always good for a quote and a laugh.

[Mazzy]

50 minutes ago, Ronson333 said:

Notts Forest fans are similar to Sheffield Wednesday fans, they are both stuck in a time warp and annoyed they are irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

Same goes for Derby and Blackburn.

[NSG]

7 hours ago, Dr Jinx said:

Tin foil hat here but the more I think of it, the more the Gibbs-White story seems to be a goer.

 

Ordinarily, he’d be going for a lot more than what were rumoured to be bidding and any number of clubs could be in for him at a higher fee.. so why deal with us?

 

That Chris Wood fee, or what they owe us for it could be the difference between being in or out of the FFP limit.

 

So say we revisit that deal and restructure it. There’s the incentive, staying in the premier league is worth a hell of a lot more than getting an extra 20 million for a top prospect after you’ve been relegated. (Or a sale that only counts for next years accounts)

 

The FFP dilemma is a two way street of course and we’re close to the limit, but maybe enough wiggle room to write off what’s owed on that particular deal?

 

Getting the premier league to re-evaluate Forests accounts would probably be tough though and that’s where NDM comes in?

That’s incorrect. Say they owe us cash from that deal. If it’s the full £15m (no idea if it is) but we would have accrued the full £15m income into last years accounts. If we therefore “wrote off” that income, the accrual would reverse into 23/24 and we’d have an in year hit of £15m (net neutral over the 2 years but when 23/24 cycle is included in FFP and 22/23 isn’t in two years time, it would actually show as a pressure).

 

If we reduced the MGW fee by £15m to “offset this”, what actually would happen would be we’d see a c£3m reduction in spend each year (£1.5m in 23/24 as only a half year - based on a 5 year contract) but would also have to show the £15m hit, so we’d be c£13.5m worse off in year) by completing the transaction that way.

 

If we were going to transact the deal we’d be far better off just leaving the Wood deal as it is and paying the correct fee for MGW.

 

Cash transactions are an absolute red herring when it comes to FFP. Offsetting cash from deals may help cash flow etc but it has nothing to do with FFP compliance (same with how you structure payments etc).

[The Prophet]

 

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

I’m sure clubs are beating down our door for Ritchie. Did we renew him since the takeover btw? I can’t recall. 

[Matt1892]

Both are out of contract in the summer so we can’t expect to get much for them, if anything.

 

How far away is Targett away from returning? I can see him being sold and Lloyd Kelly coming in.

[sushimonster85]

That we're listening to offers for either/both does make it seem like Trippier is staying in Jan. No way Krafth and Trippier goes. Leaves us with one RB till the end of the season. 

[SUPERTOON]

20 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

I dare say Krafth will stay if Trippier is going.

[The College Dropout]

7 hours ago, Nine said:

At the same time we shouldn’t totally judge a player from select data in a below average, inconsistent team. 
 

He was voted their player of the season for 22/23 also. 

 

 

 

Barnes & Maddison were pretty consistent in their data when Leicester were relegated.

 

It's worth mentioning he's being compared to AMs there though. And I don't think we would use him as such.

 

I think MGW is a good player. I thought it was a good transfer for Forest at the time when many scoffed at the fee. I still like him. But for £40-50m we should be able to find better and for more pressing positions like RW.

[The College Dropout]

20 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I’m sure clubs are beating down our door for Ritchie. Did we renew him since the takeover btw? I can’t recall. 

Yes.

 

 

[Menace]

Spurs paid £47.5M for Brennan Johnsons who IMO is the lesser player out of him and MGW. I don't think we'll get him for the prices quoted personally.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

1 hour ago, NSG said:

That’s incorrect. Say they owe us cash from that deal. If it’s the full £15m (no idea if it is) but we would have accrued the full £15m income into last years accounts. If we therefore “wrote off” that income, the accrual would reverse into 23/24 and we’d have an in year hit of £15m (net neutral over the 2 years but when 23/24 cycle is included in FFP and 22/23 isn’t in two years time, it would actually show as a pressure).

 

If we reduced the MGW fee by £15m to “offset this”, what actually would happen would be we’d see a c£3m reduction in spend each year (£1.5m in 23/24 as only a half year - based on a 5 year contract) but would also have to show the £15m hit, so we’d be c£13.5m worse off in year) by completing the transaction that way.

 

If we were going to transact the deal we’d be far better off just leaving the Wood deal as it is and paying the correct fee for MGW.

 

Cash transactions are an absolute red herring when it comes to FFP. Offsetting cash from deals may help cash flow etc but it has nothing to do with FFP compliance (same with how you structure payments etc).

 

Just one minor point, the Wood Sale completed in this financial year so we won't have accrued anything in last years accounts so if we did buy MGW now they would both be in the same year

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

5 minutes ago, Menace said:

Spurs paid £47.5M for Brennan Johnsons who IMO is the lesser player out of him and MGW. I don't think we'll get him for the prices quoted personally.

And Forrest are in the clagg facing a points deduction for waiting out for a higher fee for Johnson, making his sale fall in a different accounting period. They may also be at risk of a further deduction if they don’t make additional sales.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

6 minutes ago, Menace said:

Spurs paid £47.5M for Brennan Johnsons who IMO is the lesser player out of him and MGW. I don't think we'll get him for the prices quoted personally.

 

They pushed the BJ sale into this year to maximise the value, but this has tripped them up FFP wise.

 

Look at their net spend over the summer https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/nottingham-forest/transfers/verein/703

 

If they now look like tripping the FFP regs again this year, and feel that there is at least a 50% of a points deduction (and almost certain relegation) they may look to cash out on MGW now if there is a serious buyer. £40m is a lot of cash for them now, if they go down and trigger a FFP breach the vultures will circle so they may feel that is peak value.

[Matt1892]

4 minutes ago, Menace said:

Spurs paid £47.5M for Brennan Johnsons who IMO is the lesser player out of him and MGW. I don't think we'll get him for the prices quoted personally.

Johnson’s price would also reflect his potential though, he signed for Spurs having not long turned 22 and he only had one season in the Premier League, when before that he was named the Championship young player of the year the season before I think.

 

Gibbs-White is 24 in a few days and is moving out of the potential bracket, don’t get me wrong I think playing under Howe will potentially see a bigger improvement to what we had with Gordon but that is down to the setting here.

 

I can see why they would have a similar value.

[JonBez comesock]

Please please …No one say the toe curling ……

 

“ cannit wait for a sawdi club to bid £70 million for Matt Ritchie , that’ll be a reet laff “

[JonBez comesock]

[Fezzle]

6 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

And Forrest are in the clagg facing a points deduction for waiting out for a higher fee for Johnson, making his sale fall in a different accounting period. They may also be at risk of a further deduction if they don’t make additional sales.

Is it right that years in the EFL reduce the FFP loss limit? Sure i read allowable losses are only £13m rather than £35m each season so the period they are in the shit is much lower than £105m and the next perion to June they need to clear £83m losses to avoid further. Well assuming they stay up.

[NSG]

7 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

Just one minor point, the Wood Sale completed in this financial year so we won't have accrued anything in last years accounts so if we did buy MGW now they would both be in the same year

Depends on the criteria of the sale. Substance over form would suggest that if he’s gone, hit all the criteria of the sale and the income is guaranteed, then it could/should be recognised.

 

Would be an interesting discussion with the external auditor as you could probably argue either way.

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

1 minute ago, Fezzle said:

Is it right that years in the EFL reduce the FFP loss limit? Sure i read allowable losses are only £13m rather than £35m each season so the period they are in the shit is much lower than £105m and the next perion to June they need to clear £83m losses to avoid further. Well assuming they stay up.

Honestly not sure about that, but it’s been reported widely that they needed to sell Johnson earlier on in the window than they did. They elected to hold on to as late in the window as possible to maximise the fee received, which they believed would be understood by the PL. Obviously that was not the case and the PL charged them. I’m unsure how confident Forest are regarding challenging the deduction. But given their continued spending I wouldn’t be surprised to find that they’re in a position where they need to sell again to avoid a further future breach for this accounting period.