NUFC Transfer Rumours

[The Prophet]

13 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Kubo’s release clause is lower, and I think he would suit us much better.

 

No fan or club should really have to consider this, but such as the world we live in now, he could also attract fans from Asia.

 

Not seen much of Kubo, what makes him such a good fit?

[Stifler]

1 hour ago, The Prophet said:

Not seen much of Kubo, what makes him such a good fit?

He plays to a system that would suit Howe, a high press, tracking back, but has the end product that Almirón didn’t.

[Nepharite]

1 hour ago, Stifler said:

Kubo’s release clause is lower, and I think he would suit us much better.

 

No fan or club should really have to consider this, but such as the world we live in now, he could also attract fans from Asia.

Weren't we offered Kubo in the January window and we passed?

[Bimpy474]

3 hours ago, The Prophet said:

Cuhna's release clause is £62.5 million. Fair to say that it rules us out.

 

Someone explain this for me please.

 

So Cuhna is £62.5m, but we can amorotise* that over a maximum 5 years ?

 

So in effect he would cost us £62.5m ÷ by 5 for PSR purposes.

 

God I hate PSR.

[The Prophet]

40 minutes ago, Stifler said:

He plays to a system that would suit Howe, a high press, tracking back, but has the end product that Almirón didn’t.

 

Sounds good to me.

[Shelveys Hair]

Also if we offer Isak a new deal those extra wages will count against PSR

 

 

Edited February 7 by Shelveys Hair

[Checko]

22 minutes ago, Bimpy474 said:

 

Someone explain this for me please.

 

So Cuhna is £62.5m, but we can amorotise* that over a maximum 5 years ?

 

So in effect he would cost us £62.5m ÷ by 5 for PSR purposes.

 

God I hate PSR.

Yeah cost of the transfer would be spread over 5 years for accounting purposes assuming a 5 year contract.

 

PSR didn't invent this: it's been standard football accounting practice for a long time when calculating profit and loss as far as I know (think there are some accountants on who will have a better grasp of the history).

 

The PSR stuff just kind of makes the profit and loss incurred (particularly loss) far less flexible.

 

 

Edited February 7 by Checko

[ikri]

17 minutes ago, Shelveys Hair said:

Also if we offer Isak a new deal those extra wages will count against PSR

 

 

 

 

But, the amortization of his purchase would be changed as well.  The remaining unamortized portion of the transfer fee would be spread over the length of the new contract so we may have been amortizing £12m per year for 3 years but now we'll be amortizing £6m per year instead so giving him an extra £2-3m wages per season actually saves us money (on paper).

 

Utterly ridiculous setup and that's the most times I've ever used amortized/ing/ation in my life.

[NotMike]

32 minutes ago, Nepharite said:

Weren't we offered Kubo in the January window and we passed?

 

[The Prophet]

Fab linking us with Dean Huijsen in his podcast.

[sempuki]

13 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Fab linking us with Dean Huijsen in his podcast.

Hope there is a release clause or he'll cost a bomb.

[Smal]

37 minutes ago, sempuki said:

Hope there is a release clause or he'll cost a bomb.

there is supposed to be one in the realms of £55m

[buzza]

If I had a choice of 55M Dybler or 62M Cunha, the wolves man would be coming to newcastle.

Has everything we like; a fighter, presses, technical, pace and can play on the right or number 10.

 

[The Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Smal said:

there is supposed to be one in the realms of £55m

 

I find it weird that "bigger" clubs are so unwilling to take more punts on the likes of Huijsen before they develop into household names. Same as Gyokeres. Even at the time, it looked a great deal for Sporting 

[Smal]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

 

I find it weird that "bigger" clubs are so unwilling to take more punts on the likes of Huijsen before they develop into household names. Same as Gyokeres. Even at the time, it looked a great deal for Sporting 

at £12m-£15m it should’ve been a no brainer for every prem club in hindsight. We were even linked with him at the time. It was an Osula level fee and significantly less than what we’re going to get for Lloyd Kelly .

 

We don’t seem to be capable of making those kind of punts on players from abroad for some reason.

[KaKa]

5 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

I find it weird that "bigger" clubs are so unwilling to take more punts on the likes of Huijsen before they develop into household names. Same as Gyokeres. Even at the time, it looked a great deal for Sporting 

 

The more money clubs have the more risk averse they become, and so they look for guarantees which cost big money.

 

And when that doesn't pan out it comes at a huge cost. Man Utd are the poster boys for this. Pogba, Lukaku, Maguire, Mount etc.

 

There's often this belief that they'll come in and do well as a given but that's not always true.

 

Probably better off buying more of the more affordable talent you like, that you can easier move on if they don't pan out, and also that you are in position to replace because you haven't blown huge sums already.

[KaKa]

26 minutes ago, Smal said:

at £12m-£15m it should’ve been a no brainer for every prem club in hindsight. We were even linked with him at the time. It was an Osula level fee and significantly less than what we’re going to get for Lloyd Kelly .

 

We don’t seem to be capable of making those kind of punts on players from abroad for some reason.

 

Can you imagine how delighted we'd all be right now knowing we had Botman and Huijsen as the long term centre back partnership. With the battle tested veterans Burn and Schar as backups.

 

Would have been an amazing position to be in.

[SUPERTOON]

29 minutes ago, Smal said:

at £12m-£15m it should’ve been a no brainer for every prem club in hindsight. We were even linked with him at the time. It was an Osula level fee and significantly less than what we’re going to get for Lloyd Kelly .

 

We don’t seem to be capable of making those kind of punts on players from abroad for some reason.

That may change this summer.

[toon25]

Huijsen is such a mature player for 21

 

Edit. Fuck me he's only 19 

 

 

Edited February 7 by toon25

[NotMike]

4 minutes ago, toon25 said:

Huijsen is such a mature player for 21

 

Edit. Fuck me he's only 19 

 

 

 

 

Man, going from Huijsen to Kelly and losing money is wild.

[Boey_Jarton]

2 hours ago, ikri said:

 

But, the amortization of his purchase would be changed as well.  The remaining unamortized portion of the transfer fee would be spread over the length of the new contract so we may have been amortizing £12m per year for 3 years but now we'll be amortizing £6m per year instead so giving him an extra £2-3m wages per season actually saves us money (on paper).

 

Utterly ridiculous setup and that's the most times I've ever used amortized/ing/ation in my life.

It is ridiculous because amortisation is an accounting concept designed to spread  capital expenditure over the useful life of an asset and NOT intended to be shoehorned within a calculation to determine sustainability. 

 

Sustainability is determined by the balance sheet and projected cashflow of an organisation and has nothing to do with accounting policies such as amortisation. 

 

Amortisation is typically stripped out when assessing sustainability because it can be manipulated by accounting policies. Hence the use of EBITDA as a metric (Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) .

[Keegans Export]

6 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

It is ridiculous because amortisation is an accounting concept designed to spread  capital expenditure over the useful life of an asset and NOT intended to be shoehorned within a calculation to determine sustainability. 

 

Sustainability is determined by the balance sheet and projected cashflow of an organisation and has nothing to do with accounting policies such as amortisation. 

 

Amortisation is typically stripped out when assessing sustainability because it can be manipulated by accounting policies. Hence the use of EBITDA as a metric (Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) .

That's exactly what got (I think) Derby in bother.

 

They didn't do a flat rate of amortisation because they argued that a players value decreased more in relative terms in the final year of his contract compared to going from 3 years to 2 years etc.

 

It may not have been Derby but there was a club that did it that way and that's why they ended up forcing a straight line amortisation.

[Pata]

2 hours ago, buzza said:

If I had a choice of 55M Dybler or 62M Cunha, the wolves man would be coming to newcastle.

Has everything we like; a fighter, presses, technical, pace and can play on the right or number 10.

 

 

Cunha is good but he has played once as a RW during his Wolves career. We need a specialist who is natural at right.

[The College Dropout]

Cunha is a top top player but he's a 10 or a LW not a RW. But I do rate Cunha high enough to take Gordon's spot personally.

 

The relative prosperity of PL clubs has killed moves between them. Man U would frequently buy the leagues best players and prospects like Cantona, Yorke, Cole, Ferdinand, Rooney, Carrick, Berbatov, RVP etc. and it was cash money for them.

 

Then more and more of the best players started to go to Chelsea or Real/Barca. Modric and Bale should've gone to Man U a season or two before they went to Madrid.

[cubaricho]

34 minutes ago, Pata said:

 

Cunha is good but he has played once as a RW during his Wolves career. We need a specialist who is natural at right.

 

This has been my thought reading the last few pages. If we're going to spend that kind of cash I'd rather it be on someone in a position we actually need.