NUFC Transfer Rumours

[David Edgar]

18 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

The joys of football in 2025. 
 

Unless you bedded in massive revenue streams pre-2021, you have the choice of:

 

- Not selling the players who got you into Europe and buying the players you need to compete on 4 fronts and blowing out the ratios

- Not buying any players, not selling your purples but burning them out (aka NUFC 23/24 season)

- Selling your stars to your Cartel 6 rivals to finance / adhere to artificially created rules, weakening you and strengthening them, making it an uphill task to repeat

- Having a stellar academy and using / selling them (cheers Mike Ashley for that glorious act of self sabotage)

 

AND ITS LIVE

[Jewel]

Fuck, this is so boring. Not just us, but there hardly seems to be any eye-catching deals being done anywhere.

 

Man City have bought a load of prospects, and that’s about it.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

I guess if we got to Europe we could just ignoring the European limit and work to the premier league one.  Sounds like we’d just get fines. 

[Keegans Export]

The 70% cutoff wouldn't be so much of an issue with Champions League qualification and the money that brings but if you just end up in the Conference League the 15% drop in "allowable expenses" wouldn't come close to being covered by the income from being in that tournament. Almost penalises clubs for almost getting there but just missing out.

[TRon]

7 hours ago, mighty__mag said:

Loads of teams in Europe target the Argentine league for talents they can buy low sell high, feel that is a market we need to enter.

 

Even if we do, as you've said yourself, loads of teams from Europe are entering the same market for the same reasons. Instead of fighting over the top proven talent, we will be fighting over the top unproven prospects who will hopefully be ready after a year or so prep. Not exactly spine tingling stuff.

[The Prophet]

2 hours ago, JonBez comesock said:

No , it’s horrendous for us (especially if we qualify for Europe) 

 

70% costs v turnover 

 

it’s going to leave us with next to nothing 

 

Costs include , Wages , Amotisatuon too.

 

 

 

What were our costs v turnover in the last accountancy year?

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

What were our costs v turnover in the last accountancy year?

Our wages alone are more than 70% iirc. I said when this was published this will absolutely cripple us. 

[TRon]

5 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Our wages alone are more than 70% iirc. I said when this was published this will absolutely cripple us. 

 

I assume if we want to keep Isak that percentage is only going to go higher.

 

PSR is so well designed, to comply you have to sell your best players, probably to the cartel as they are the only clubs who can pay the wages you aren't allowed to.

[MagCA]

17 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

What were our costs v turnover in the last accountancy year?

Wages to Turnover were at 75% for 22/23. Including the rest of the costs you can tack on another couple percent, I guess. 

[The Prophet]

4 minutes ago, MagCA said:

Wages to Turnover were at 75% for 22/23. Including the rest of the costs you can tack on another couple percent, I guess. 

 

 

So in theory, minus any commercial growth since then, we'd ne looking at an amortised spend of around £75 million if we chose to max out?

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

 

So in theory, minus any commercial growth since then, we'd ne looking at an amortised spend of around £75 million if we chose to max out?

In 2023 our amortization plus salaries were higher than turnover. To be compliant we would need to reduce either turnover or amortization or sell someone. 

 

Rancid rules. 

[The Prophet]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

In 2023 our amortization plus salaries were higher than turnover. To be compliant we would need to reduce either turnover or amortization or sell someone. 

 

Rancid rules. 

 

So wages aren't included in amortisation?

[r0cafella]

Just now, The Prophet said:

 

So wages aren't included in amortisation?

No, they aren't. Amortization is basically the cost of players transfer fees. 

[The Prophet]

Just now, r0cafella said:

No, they aren't. Amortization is basically the cost of players transfer fees. 

 

Aye, I just wasn't sure if they were included as part of the PSR calc. 

 

It feels like there's a lot of clubs that are going to be knackered by this.

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Aye, I just wasn't sure if they were included as part of the PSR calc. 

 

It feels like there's a lot of clubs that are going to be knackered by this.

They all voted for it so should be well aware of the impact plus these rules obviously affect the ambitious ones the most. 

 

Btw glad to see your back and posting again

[The Prophet]

8 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

They all voted for it so should be well aware of the impact plus these rules obviously affect the ambitious ones the most. 

 

Btw glad to see your back and posting again

 

Cheers man.

 

Only just feels I got my head around the last set of PSR rules.

 

Explains why we're focusing on clearing the decks then.

[mouldy_uk]

[SUPERTOON]

We would have been better off without the window opening at all this month tbh, as soon as it’s open it always feels a bit more negative around the club.

[mouldy_uk]

Just now, SUPERTOON said:

We would have been better off without the window opening at all this month tbh, as soon as it’s open it always feels a bit more negative around the club.

Paul Mitchell likes this

[Dokko]

2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

We would have been better off without the window opening at all this month tbh, as soon as it’s open it always feels a bit more negative around the club.

 

The shit state of the window, and several of the  sky 6 struggling and can't make moves is perfect for us in the long run. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Even in normal times January is pretty rubbish. 
 

I still prefer this to being owned by Mike Ashley. At least we know that if they can spend they will. 

 

 

Edited 37 minutes ago by AyeDubbleYoo

[JonBez comesock]

2 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Even in normal times January is pretty rubbish. 
 

I still prefer this to being owned by Mike Ashley. At least we know that if they can spend they will. 

 

 

 

Agreed 

[SUPERTOON]

3 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Even in normal times January is pretty rubbish. 
 

I still prefer this to being owned by Mike Ashley. At least we know that if they can spend they will. 

 

 

 

Don’t think anyone is saying the opposite tbh. 

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Keegans Export said:

The 70% cutoff wouldn't be so much of an issue with Champions League qualification and the money that brings but if you just end up in the Conference League the 15% drop in "allowable expenses" wouldn't come close to being covered by the income from being in that tournament. Almost penalises clubs for almost getting there but just missing out.

CL football if you don't get out the group phase for a club with our co-efficient is £30-40m. That's 10-15% of our revenue aka it's probably not the be all and end all of PSR breaches.

 

CL qualification is not the money spinner for teams in our position that it used to be (comparing to the last time we were in it). PL revenue is significantly bigger. Payment splits benefits the bigger clubs too. Need to run deep to get the big money.

 

Great for reputation for sponsors and players.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, SUPERTOON said:

Don’t think anyone is saying the opposite tbh. 

Didn’t say they were. But negativity around the club is a bit unnecessary, given they don’t make the rules and they’re trying to run the club properly. 

 

 

Edited 32 minutes ago by AyeDubbleYoo