gdm Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 33 minutes ago, timeEd32 said: Those aren’t the same. Pedro was actually coming until a last minute change of plan. Regardless it was never both it was one or the other & Isak came straight out of the blue. You knew the point I was making. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 3 minutes ago, Upthemags said: I don't think that's true when it means the player walking out the door can't be replaced by someone of equal merit. With Wilson, anyone coming in to replace him, e.g., DCL, is a downgrade in terms of pure footballing ability The replacement player may be more expensive in terms of fee (vs what we'd recoup) and possibly wages, but in terms of PSR any fee we'd get for Wilson would be profit that can be re-invested a few times over (if sustained by growing commercial revenue in the years the replacement player is under contract), and then that replacement player may actually increase in value, like Isak, Bruno and many other younger players have done. Wilson's value is only going one way... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upthemags Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Just now, Unbelievable said: The replacement player may be more expensive in terms of fee (vs what we'd recoup) and possibly wages, but in terms of PSR any fee we'd get for Wilson would be profit that can be re-invested a few times over (if sustained by growing commercial revenue in the years the replacement player is under contract), and then that replacement player may actually increase in value, like Isak, Bruno and many other younger players have done. Wilson's value is only going one way... This is not how PSR works - it can be reinvested a few times over, but that expenditure is always brought to bear at the end of the three year accounting window. Re-investing is merely kicking the can down the road until you have to fire sale your Mintehs. Point being - I wouldn't be surprised if the club want to hold onto Wilson because anyone coming in in his stead will be a lesser footballer. We need to keep profits in mind as you point out, but the challenge is being profitable, while not appreciably damaging the quality of your squad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocker Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 I don't know if it's because I'm approaching 40 (which is mental, considering I've been on this forum since I was 17), but I don't crave a transfer rumour or links etc anymore. I still get excited when we sign a player and I'll do all the research into his stats etc, but I dismiss all the elongated preamble of the pre-season, especially the early part of pre-season. Saying that, I still log in everyday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATB Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 2 minutes ago, Rocker said: I don't know if it's because I'm approaching 40 (which is mental, considering I've been on this forum since I was 17), but I don't crave a transfer rumour or links etc anymore. I still get excited when we sign a player and I'll do all the research into his stats etc, but I dismiss all the elongated preamble of the pre-season, especially the early part of pre-season. Saying that, I still log in everyday. Same Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Same, I don't care for the rumours but I like the deals done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 I still get a heavy dopamine hit from a new player thread starting and some brackets that include the word 'various sources'. Keep clicking on here in the vain hope I'll get my hit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 6 minutes ago, Upthemags said: This is not how PSR works - it can be reinvested a few times over, but that expenditure is always brought to bear at the end of the three year accounting window. Re-investing is merely kicking the can down the road until you have to fire sale your Mintehs. Point being - I wouldn't be surprised if the club want to hold onto Wilson because anyone coming in in his stead will be a lesser footballer. We need to keep profits in mind as you point out, but the challenge is being profitable, while not appreciably damaging the quality of your squad I am aware of the 3 year rolling period for maximum losses. However, assuming similar wages, if you were to sell Wilson for 20m that represents 20m profit in 24/25, then spend 40m on a replacement (younger with similar potential and future resale value), you'd spread that over 5 years, or a negative impact on profitability of 8m on 24/25, 25/26 and 26/27, so short term that would allow you to invest 20-8 = 12m on another player (again amortised over 5 years). As long as you can continue to grow revenue (match, commercial and through player trading) you would then continue to build the strength of the squad year on year. I'd keep Wilson around if he was capable of being relied on in terms of fitness. Isak is quite injury prone, so there are bound to be periods where you'd have to play Wilson most times. Sadly, it's almost a given Wilson will himself not be available for a significant amount of time. On top of that I imagine at his age and with his pedigree he will want to play most games for which he's fit, which is another thing we can't offer seeing as Isak is better than him. We'd be better off both financially and long term in terms of squad strength with a Isak understudy capable of developing into a first choice striker over the next few years, like we've done with Isak and Wilson a few years ago, and with Livramento and Trippier more recently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upthemags Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 5 minutes ago, Unbelievable said: I am aware of the 3 year rolling period for maximum losses. However, assuming similar wages, if you were to sell Wilson for 20m that represents 20m profit in 24/25, then spend 40m on a replacement (younger with similar potential and future resale value), you'd spread that over 5 years, or a negative impact on profitability of 8m on 24/25, 25/26 and 26/27, so short term that would allow you to invest 20-8 = 12m on another player (again amortised over 5 years). As long as you can continue to grow revenue (match, commercial and through player trading) you would then continue to build the strength of the squad year on year. I'd keep Wilson around if he was capable of being relied on in terms of fitness. Isak is quite injury prone, so there are bound to be periods where you'd have to play Wilson most times. Sadly, it's almost a given Wilson will himself not be available for a significant amount of time. On top of that I imagine at his age and with his pedigree he will want to play most games for which he's fit, which is another thing we can't offer seeing as Isak is better than him. We'd be better off both financially and long term in terms of squad strength with a Isak understudy capable of developing into a first choice striker over the next few years, like we've done with Isak and Wilson a few years ago, and with Livramento and Trippier more recently. I think we're talking past each other a bit because I agree that investment in younger talent is the model we should be after. But as that pertains to Wilson I'm not sure. The model of the top clubs, after all, is not selling their "Wilsons" - older talent, cheap, and quality. It's to sell the youth they brought in for a pittance, or brought up through the academy. With all that said, we don't have that luxury yet, so maybe Wilson has to be flogged as sacrifice for the profit... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 16 minutes ago, Rocker said: I don't know if it's because I'm approaching 40 (which is mental, considering I've been on this forum since I was 17), but I don't crave a transfer rumour or links etc anymore. I still get excited when we sign a player and I'll do all the research into his stats etc, but I dismiss all the elongated preamble of the pre-season, especially the early part of pre-season. Saying that, I still log in everyday. It used to be my favorite thing. I lost interest somewhere in the Ashley years where it was all very pointless. Now we're in good hands and there was a lot of "mega rich Saudi" nonsense, so I find it more enjoyable to tune out most of the noise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 He’s surely on our list? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontownman Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 3 minutes ago, gdm said: He’s surely on our list? Possible. More possible we aren't on his list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, The College Dropout said: Aye. That Isak signing was rather emotional and fuck God it was. 1 game, 1 injury, we doubled our budget on a signing in a moment. As I’ve said countless times. It helped the Isak deal (Fee & Wages) practically halved in size after we held out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menace Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 60m euros for their third choice right winger, and they have financial difficulties. Cheeky buggers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 9 minutes ago, gdm said: He’s surely on our list? Once players have gone to one of the mega clubs, they will be on a different wage bracket to most of our lads. I could be wrong but he would probably price himself out of a move here in our current status. We are still a couple of years off paying cartel club salaries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 55 minutes ago, Rocker said: I don't know if it's because I'm approaching 40 (which is mental, considering I've been on this forum since I was 17), but I don't crave a transfer rumour or links etc anymore. I still get excited when we sign a player and I'll do all the research into his stats etc, but I dismiss all the elongated preamble of the pre-season, especially the early part of pre-season. Saying that, I still log in everyday. 51 minutes ago, gbandit said: I still get a heavy dopamine hit from a new player thread starting and some brackets that include the word 'various sources'. Keep clicking on here in the vain hope I'll get my hit Hard agree on both of these things. Nothing beats a signing out of nowhere - I don't want to know me on the day I don't get a rush out of that any more. But lord above can I not be fucked with the rumour mill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Controversial take ... It's looking like Gordon is going to get a new contract once he returns now, as he essentially played himself into the first team last season. This will mean both Barnes and Gordon are now going to be on significant wages. Do we just start both Barnes and Gordon, and get two younger promising backups that won't be on big wages? Just as an example say Summerville to interchange with Barnes on the left and Asprilla to interchange with Gordon on the right, or whoever you prefer to envision in those spots. Rather than spend that sum and wages in one player like Bowen? Not sure we're at a stage where having Barnes come off the bench makes as much sense. He's productive enough to start and is on £80k a week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menace Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 I don't think Gordon is as effective on the right personally. We need a right winger, Murphy can do the job as a backup but Almiron imo cost us north of 12 points last year. These are the margins that separate you from Europe and CL Signing 2 left wingers and sticking with Murphy and Almiron is starting to seem odd now providing we don't splash on a RW Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 2 minutes ago, KaKa said: Controversial take ... It's looking like Gordon is going to get a new contract once he returns now, as he essentially played himself into the first team last season. This will mean both Barnes and Gordon are now going to be on significant wages. Do we just start both Barnes and Gordon, and get two younger promising backups that won't be on big wages? Just as an example say Summerville to interchange with Barnes on the left and Asprilla to interchange with Gordon on the right, or whoever you prefer to envision in those spots. Rather than spend that sum and wages in one player like Bowen? Not sure we're at a stage where having Barnes come off the bench makes as much sense. He's productive enough to start and is on £80k a week. I don't think the solution to an inefficient use of resources at LW is to play one of our best players out of his best position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 3 minutes ago, Menace said: I don't think Gordon is as effective on the right personally. We need a right winger, Murphy can do the job as a backup but Almiron imo cost us north of 12 points last year. These are the margins that separate you from Europe and CL Signing 2 left wingers and sticking with Murphy and Almiron is starting to seem odd now providing we don't splash on a RW It was odd last year when we did tbf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Yeah, the fact there was clearly massive interest in Moussa Diaby for a while and then all RW links just died was odd. They must have several that they’ve progressed to a decent stage now and it’s just a case of trying to land our favoured target Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Just now, timeEd32 said: I don't think the solution to an inefficient use of resources at LW is to play one of our best players out of his best position. I'm not convinced he won't be just as good on the right. Otherwise, I think we might end up selling one of Gordon or Barnes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menace Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 I'm glad we didn't sign Diaby looking back, he's not worth £60m Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 1 minute ago, KaKa said: I'm not convinced he won't be just as good on the right. Otherwise, I think we might end up selling one of Gordon or Barnes. I was open to Gordon being used on the RW a year ago and kind of thought that might be the idea when we added Barnes. Obviously Barnes missed most of the season, so the sample is small but I feel like we would have seen more of Gordon on the right in the run-in if it was going to be a core part of our plan. I do think Eddie likes the idea of an interchangeable front three and we did see Gordon moving around at times in-game, but I don't think Barnes is equally as capable of that so you're pretty firmly planting Gordon at RW by playing Barnes at LW. The Barnes signing was opportunistic, but I think after the extent of our PSR issues last month it's fair to call it a mistake (financially and as a use of resources; not a comment on the player, who I like). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 I think Barnes potentially has the tools to be a striker but obviously we haven't seen it. 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