NUFC Transfer Rumours

[Holmesy]

59 minutes ago, reefatoon said:

This is car crash telly like  

 

Let’s go to Frank Pebblecock who is outside Wolves training ground. Any news? No, but I’ll waffle on for a bit about fuck all. Now let’s go to Creamy Goodness outside Fulham’s ground, any news Creamy? No. Thank you very much Creamy.

 

Not even a dildo in sight either. Very disappointing.

 They've properly fucked this haven't they?! Only £50m spent all window. Well done UEFA you bunch of balloon popping pricks!

[LFEE]

5 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

 They've properly fucked this haven't they?! Only £50m spent all window. Well done UEFA you bunch of balloon popping pricks!

Ultimately though it might drive prices down which would be a good thing if it does. Will be interesting to see how the summer and next winter windows play out.

 

I agree in it’s current form it needs to be looked at but no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

Id like to see clubs massively in debt restricted in their trading rather than based on just revenue streams as ultimately its solvency that the fans want protecting for their clubs if a an owner decides to pull out.

[Joelinton7]

3 hours ago, reefatoon said:

Lewis Hamilton saving sky sports today. They are creaming themselves they have something to talk about.

They actually put Hamilton’s move on the football section on their website as a deadline day move. His pic is in between Broja and Gallagher. 

 

 

Edited February 1 by Joelinton7

[jackflap]

Great that the market has suddenly deflated just after Chelsea spunked a billion on players.

[vexred]

4 minutes ago, jackflap said:

Great that the market has suddenly deflated just after Chelsea spunked a billion on players.

 

I hadn't thought about that. I'm sure the market will pick up in the summer though. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

TBF to Chelsea they got their debt paid off and managed to offload people to Saudi for big money. They got very lucky. 

[TRC]

5 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

TBF to Chelsea they got their debt paid off and managed to offload people to Saudi for big money. They got very lucky. 

Arsenal taking Havertz for 70m and us taking Hall for 30m was nice for them too.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The Havertz one is mind boggling. I thought they’d have to offload him for cheap as a failed signing. 

[jackflap]

14 minutes ago, vexred said:

 

I hadn't thought about that. I'm sure the market will pick up in the summer though. 

 

Wouldn't be so sure, feels like we're entering into a new era now with a lot more talk of compliance. Think COVID gave teams a free hand to write off spending and that's gone past the 3 years now.

[TRC]

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

The Havertz one is mind boggling. I thought they’d have to offload him for cheap as a failed signing. 

Its actually ridiculous weakened themselves and saved Chelsea with that move. Its one of the worst transfers in history giving the implications it has on both teams long term. Arsenal unable to buy Toney this window, the Arsenal change in tactics. Moving Xhaka on who could push Leverkusen to win the league. 

 

James Alcott will do a ripple effect pod on this transfer in 5 years time.

[timeEd32]

38 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Ultimately though it might drive prices down which would be a good thing if it does. Will be interesting to see how the summer and next winter windows play out.

 

I agree in it’s current form it needs to be looked at but no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

Id like to see clubs massively in debt restricted in their trading rather than based on just revenue streams as ultimately its solvency that the fans want protecting for their clubs if a an owner decides to pull out.

 

Agreed. I'm on board with the fact that it's silly the £105m in losses hasn't changed in years, but at the same time the real problem is that the inflation of transfer fees is outpacing most clubs revenue growth. It's not sustainable and TV deals aren't going to keep increasing at the rate they have in the last 20 years.

 

The changes that will apparently be discussed in two weeks seem pretty logical to me (which probably means they won't happen):

 

Quote

One new measure that has already been confirmed is mirroring Uefa’s squad cost-control rule, which limits clubs to spending 70 per cent of their revenue on wages and transfers. The Premier League is set to bring in a similar rule, but with an 85 per cent limit.
 

The clubs are also expected to be presented with proposed measures that would replace the PSR rules, which have a ceiling of £105 million for financial losses over a rolling three-year period.
 

The Times has been told that some proposals include clubs needing to maintain “working capital” of £25 million, to be sure they can meet any short-term financial demands, and to pass a “liquidity test”, which demonstrates that they can cover their debts in the longer term.
 

The new measures would also potentially require clubs to demonstrate that they could cope with any significant financial setbacks — such as the sudden loss of a big sponsor or a big drop in income as a result of a dip in performances on the field.

 

[Tsunami]

Why am I watching Paul Merson talking about Lewis Hamilton and Ferrari? Just turned Sky Sports on, puzzled.

[dcmk]

Might be the dullest transfer deadline day ever.

 

Matz Sels to Nottingham Forest getting significant attention says it all.

[Keegans Export]

23 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Agreed. I'm on board with the fact that it's silly the £105m in losses hasn't changed in years, but at the same time the real problem is that the inflation of transfer fees is outpacing most clubs revenue growth. It's not sustainable and TV deals aren't going to keep increasing at the rate they have in the last 20 years.

 

The changes that will apparently be discussed in two weeks seem pretty logical to me (which probably means they won't happen):

 

One new measure that has already been confirmed is mirroring Uefa’s squad cost-control rule, which limits clubs to spending 70 per cent of their revenue on wages and transfers. The Premier League is set to bring in a similar rule, but with an 85 per cent limit.
 

The clubs are also expected to be presented with proposed measures that would replace the PSR rules, which have a ceiling of £105 million for financial losses over a rolling three-year period.
 

The Times has been told that some proposals include clubs needing to maintain “working capital” of £25 million, to be sure they can meet any short-term financial demands, and to pass a “liquidity test”, which demonstrates that they can cover their debts in the longer term.
 

The new measures would also potentially require clubs to demonstrate that they could cope with any significant financial setbacks — such as the sudden loss of a big sponsor or a big drop in income as a result of a dip in performances on the field.

 

I'd argue that if the goal of PSR/FFP is to prevent clubs from going bust, points 3 & 4 would be sufficient. Having a spending limit tied to revenue still creates the uneven playing field that benefits the more established clubs we have now.

[Paully]

https://twitter.com/plettigoal/status/1753065852902248543?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA

[Nucasol]

Just now, Paully said:

https://twitter.com/plettigoal/status/1753065852902248543?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA

Njoi yer bratwurst Hugo

[Pancrate1892]

6 minutes ago, Paully said:

https://twitter.com/plettigoal/status/1753065852902248543?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA

I get the impression we don't go if for sloppy seconds anymore 

[mouldy_uk]

[timeEd32]

11 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I'd argue that if the goal of PSR/FFP is to prevent clubs from going bust, points 3 & 4 would be sufficient. Having a spending limit tied to revenue still creates the uneven playing field that benefits the more established clubs we have now.

 

I think it depends on how it's implemented and punished. UEFA's version of cost-control is like a soft cap with a luxury tax. The penalty for going over it is increasing levels of fines (though it does seem like there is a possibility of harsher punishment if it's regularly ignored). The problem is UEFA also has their own version of the three-year losses rules.

 

In theory if that's all the PL had + those other new rules then a club with a new, rich owner could play catch-up in a more equitable way. But if cost-control rules are punished with point deductions then yes, it's hugely weighted towards favoring the already established.

[sushimonster85]

I have said a few times that if it was truly there to stop clubs going out of business there's other ways of implementing it that doesn't penalise ambitious clubs. I'd keep the PSR rules in some form, set a higher limit which clubs are allowed to break/go over, but only on the proviso that they have to put aside the same amount they're over by at the end of each period. So if you're 20m over you have to put 20m aside into a trust controlled by the PL. This money is only released back to the club after a designated amount of time, or if the club changes hands. 

[Joelinton7]

1 hour ago, Tsunami said:

Why am I watching Paul Merson talking about Lewis Hamilton and Ferrari? Just turned Sky Sports on, puzzled.

It’s called “desperation”. What did he say? “Good at corners but don’t know if he’s got the engine to bomb on”. 

[relámpago blanco]

12 minutes ago, sushimonster85 said:

I have said a few times that if it was truly there to stop clubs going out of business there's other ways of implementing it that doesn't penalise ambitious clubs. I'd keep the PSR rules in some form, set a higher limit which clubs are allowed to break/go over, but only on the proviso that they have to put aside the same amount they're over by at the end of each period. So if you're 20m over you have to put 20m aside into a trust controlled by the PL. This money is only released back to the club after a designated amount of time, or if the club changes hands. 

Exactly, it should be that they can utilise a certain amount of credit and wages are linked to turnover and cash in the bank and that's it.  Any money an owner sticks in should be fine.  If PIF want to stick 1 Billion in we can spend it but we need to have enough turnover or cash in the bank to cover the future costs of any contracts.

[brummie]

1 hour ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Agreed. I'm on board with the fact that it's silly the £105m in losses hasn't changed in years, but at the same time the real problem is that the inflation of transfer fees is outpacing most clubs revenue growth.

 

 

 

You could also argue (like monetary economic theory) that FFP is reducing the amount of money in circulation (in the transfer market) which should effectively bring down transfer fees inflation.

 

FWIW, I find the idea of FFP to be completely sane, and there's no doubting that football clubs need some sense knocking into them, and also that state-owned clubs (sorry, chaps) are a fucking terrible idea for a number of reasons.

 

So I am a big fan of doing something to address all these things, but it has to reflect the fact that you have a few clubs who have wilfully and repeatedly broken those rules, got away with it, and now built themselves an absolutely unassailable financial position thus making themselves absolutely immune from these rules.

 

 

Edited February 1 by brummie

[LFEE]

5 minutes ago, relámpago blanco said:

Exactly, it should be that they can utilise a certain amount of credit and wages are linked to turnover and cash in the bank and that's it.  Any money an owner sticks in should be fine.  If PIF want to stick 1 Billion in we can spend it but we need to have enough turnover or cash in the bank to cover the future costs of any contracts.

Maybe the injection needs to be limited. So they can’t inject anymore than the current highest in the league. Therefore no fast track cheating but also no restriction of trade within the current members of the EPL.

[mighty__mag]

Imagine how dire January windows have become when Matz Sels is the big news of the day.