NUFC Transfer Rumours

[gdm]

13 hours ago, Nowhere Man said:

What’s Jermaine Jenas up to nowadays?

 

Bring him home!!

 

out somewhere securing that coin coin coin coin no doubt 

[TRon]

15 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

Which frankly is not the end of the world as far as I am concerned. Ultimately I want these owners to develop the club as an institution that can stand on its own two feet, rather than one that might go under once they lose interest and stop investing or decide to sell up. I want the club to excel in scouting, youth academy, player development, having a clear identity/playing style, etc. as opposed to ending up as PSG Mk II.

 

I agree to a point. But for me, Isak is almost a generational talent. How would you replace him?

 

Bruno I would be sad to see go, but for what we'd lose in technique, we could probably gain in other aspects where he's not so good, like pace. Not that I'd want to lose him either tbh, but that's the way the game is rigged.

[LFEE]

I read somewhere that loans are bad business sense with regards to PSR as a loan fee (hefty these days depending on the player) can’t be amortised. Is that all correct and another reason why we don’t look to short term solutions like some?

[ikri]

19 minutes ago, LFEE said:

I read somewhere that loans are bad business sense with regards to PSR as a loan fee (hefty these days depending on the player) can’t be amortised. Is that all correct and another reason why we don’t look to short term solutions like some?

 

I think it's also about how Howe likes to take time to integrate a new player into the team and getting a player on loan without the purchase option means wasting half the loan period whilst the player learns the system.

[TRon]

30 minutes ago, LFEE said:

I read somewhere that loans are bad business sense with regards to PSR as a loan fee (hefty these days depending on the player) can’t be amortised. Is that all correct and another reason why we don’t look to short term solutions like some?

 

They are just bad business in general because of those hefty loan fees. If they don't pay off with results  you are left much worse off later down the line.

[Unbelievable]

1 hour ago, TRon said:

 

I agree to a point. But for me, Isak is almost a generational talent. How would you replace him?

 

Bruno I would be sad to see go, but for what we'd lose in technique, we could probably gain in other aspects where he's not so good, like pace. Not that I'd want to lose him either tbh, but that's the way the game is rigged.

The game is rigged to stop our owners using their vast wealth to turbocharge our development the way Chelsea, PSG and City have been, but not to stop us making progress the way any football owner with their head screwed on can. When we were held back by that cunt Ashley I never wanted NUFC to be owned by the wealthiest owner and demolish the competition by vastly outspending them. All I ever wanted was an ambitious owner that acts in the best interest of the club and moves it forward. We have that and then some.

 

As for your individual players, I agree Isak is pretty much irreplaceable, and we have some other very good other players I’d be sad to see leave, but the way I see it is that we’re clearly able to spot a talent, so for every player we sell for a good fee we’d be able to get a replacement and strengthen another position, allowing the club to not go stale and move forward in overall quality. Sadly we cannot do that by holding on to our “purples” until their contracts expire or they start to decline, so needs must.

 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Unbelievable

[Unbelievable]

16 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

They are just bad business in general because of those hefty loan fees. If they don't pay off with results  you are left much worse off later down the line.

Not only that. You cannot amortise the fee over the length of a multi year contract, so indeed the wages and loan fee are a 100% hit for that PSR year.

[SteV]

50 minutes ago, LFEE said:

I read somewhere that loans are bad business sense with regards to PSR as a loan fee (hefty these days depending on the player) can’t be amortised. Is that all correct and another reason why we don’t look to short term solutions like some?

I would assume so. You can’t amortise a fee over the length of a contract that doesn’t exist. 
 

The amount Villa are paying for Disasi seems ridiculous. Obviously if he contributes to them qualifying for the CL again, or going really deep in it this year, you can argue it’s worth it, but…

[LFEE]

6 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

Not only that. You cannot amortise the fee over the length of a multi year contract, so indeed the wages and loan fee are a 100% hit for that PSR year.

 

 

1 minute ago, SteV said:

I would assume so. You can’t amortise a fee over the length of a contract that doesn’t exist. 
 

The amount Villa are paying for Disasi seems ridiculous. Obviously if he contributes to them qualifying for the CL again, or going really deep in it this year, you can argue it’s worth it, but…

 

Thanks both for confirming 👍🏻

[janpawel]

55 minutes ago, SteV said:

I would assume so. You can’t amortise a fee over the length of a contract that doesn’t exist. 
 

The amount Villa are paying for Disasi seems ridiculous. Obviously if he contributes to them qualifying for the CL again, or going really deep in it this year, you can argue it’s worth it, but…

If Villa make top 5 / CL this season then these loan moves are an absolute success and moment of genius. Apparently they have banked 70m for finishing in the top 8 in CL

 

If they don't, then they're covered by the Duran 70m I presume 

[1unluckyjill]

1 hour ago, LFEE said:

I read somewhere that loans are bad business sense with regards to PSR as a loan fee (hefty these days depending on the player) can’t be amortised. Is that all correct and another reason why we don’t look to short term solutions like some?

Daft question, if you have an 18 month to 2 year loan plus option/obligation to buy can the loan fee be amortised over the period of the loan?

[SteV]

8 minutes ago, 1unluckyjill said:

Daft question, if you have an 18 month to 2 year loan plus option/obligation to buy can the loan fee be amortised over the period of the loan?

Not sure, but even if you could it wouldn’t make that much difference really unless you were paying an astronomical loan fee.

[1unluckyjill]

How much was halls loan fee last year ? If you're obligated to buy you are probably more then likely to pay roughly the same or more over the 3 to 5 year period anyway, and you can only get knocked back instead of doing nowt. Plus having cover is better then flogging your players till they get injured 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by 1unluckyjill

[RobsonsWonderland]

16 minutes ago, SteV said:

Not sure, but even if you could it wouldn’t make that much difference really unless you were paying an astronomical loan fee.

Did villa not get around this by only paying Rashfords wages and no loan fee.

I know it's because his wages are excessive but I'm sure it will become more common with PSR

 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by RobsonsWonderland

[1unluckyjill]

4 minutes ago, RobsonsWonderland said:

Did villa not get around this by only paying Rashfords wages and no loan fee.

I know it's because his wages are excessive but I'm sure it will become more common with PSR

 

 

 

 

At least try and be creative to give your manager the bodies/squad to compete, especially with the position we were in, instead of doing nowt for the first team, expecting miracles with about 14-15 players, and hanging him out to dry so you can get your own coach in

[SteV]

57 minutes ago, 1unluckyjill said:

How much was halls loan fee last year ? If you're obligated to buy you are probably more then likely to pay roughly the same or more over the 3 to 5 year period anyway, and you can only get knocked back instead of doing nowt. Plus having cover is better then flogging your players till they get injured 

 

 

 

If you’re obligated, then that’s completely different, it’s just moving numbers around.

 

But getting someone in at £5m+ to play 15-20 games is clearly a risk. One hamstring or twisted ankle and you’ve done your money for basically no return.

[1unluckyjill]

18 minutes ago, SteV said:

If you’re obligated, then that’s completely different, it’s just moving numbers around.

 

But getting someone in at £5m+ to play 15-20 games is clearly a risk. One hamstring or twisted ankle and you’ve done your money for basically no return.

Sure it's a risk, plus it can be rewarded if it works out. Hall being the example, if you want you could possibly use target, however he did well when he was on loan and helped us stay up. If the selling club and the players are ok with the terms of the negotiations, then go for it if it's possible, Italian clubs have been doing that for years. Also it's better taking a risk with the potential of winning cups and also qualifying for champions League, then to get no one in, asking for miracles by expecting Howe to achieve those goals, without any backing for 3 windows,and then having joelinton, Barnes Wilson, lascelles already injured and then potentially have isak, Gordon, Murphy and tonali, and bruno and botman getting injured too

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by 1unluckyjill

[rebelrouser]

How sad that transfer rumors is all PSR. Funny to watch Palace move the ball on Spurs pursuit of Guehi: