NUFC Transfer Rumours

[r0cafella]

20 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

It's not that we have nothing to spend but (I assume) they don't believe there's value this month and investing now for what they consider to be marginal gains could impact what we do in the summer.

 

I'm just parroting the manager here really. This is what he says in pressers. That's not to say you can't disbelieve him or think it's the right approach, but personally I'll forever cut them some slack because of the rules.

 

Incidentally we won't be the only fanbase thinking we're desperate for a signing and as far as I can see no one is really making moves. Everyone (bar the obvious few) is in the same boat.

As you know, I'm very much aware of PSR and the constraints we face but as mentioned funds should be available if not cool I balance the books at the end of the window. I think it's clear as day we need reinforcements and with a degree of urgency. At least bring Targett back so we don't flog Hall to death. 

[Coffee_Johnny]

Are there any? Nope. As you were 🫡 

[Yorkie]

4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

As you know, I'm very much aware of PSR and the constraints we face but as mentioned funds should be available if not cool I balance the books at the end of the window. I think it's clear as day we need reinforcements and with a degree of urgency. At least bring Targett back so we don't flog Hall to death. 

 

This will go down like a lead balloon I'm sure but with Burn back in contention then that problem will be seen as solved. He's been ahead of Targett at LB for years now.

 

Bringing Targett back did seem like low hanging fruit and maybe it will still happen, but for whatever reason it doesn't look like it right now. Maybe the wages contribution Boro are making offsets the benefit of having a player we don't rate sat there doing nothing unless there's an emergency. 

 

Wouldn't expect many to agree with that and I'm not necessarily saying I do either, but that would be my theory.

[Dr.Spaceman]

It's absolutely nailed on what's going to happen on the 4th Feb away to Man City (result aside)....right 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

23 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

This will go down like a lead balloon I'm sure but with Burn back in contention then that problem will be seen as solved. He's been ahead of Targett at LB for years now.

 

Bringing Targett back did seem like low hanging fruit and maybe it will still happen, but for whatever reason it doesn't look like it right now. Maybe the wages contribution Boro are making offsets the benefit of having a player we don't rate sat there doing nothing unless there's an emergency. 

 

Wouldn't expect many to agree with that and I'm not necessarily saying I do either, but that would be my theory.

 

Botman's playing well and Burn is back, I doubt we'll see the need to recall Targett. Whatever fans think, Howe doesn't seem to like him at all. 

 

Personally I would have just kept him as backup LB always, but maybe there is some financial or other reason why we didn't.

[TRon]

44 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

This will go down like a lead balloon I'm sure but with Burn back in contention then that problem will be seen as solved. He's been ahead of Targett at LB for years now.

 

Bringing Targett back did seem like low hanging fruit and maybe it will still happen, but for whatever reason it doesn't look like it right now. Maybe the wages contribution Boro are making offsets the benefit of having a player we don't rate sat there doing nothing unless there's an emergency. 

 

Wouldn't expect many to agree with that and I'm not necessarily saying I do either, but that would be my theory.

 

 

Said this right at the start of the window. I didn't think we would bring in defenders to provide cover for a few weeks, and I still don't. 

 

I doubt we'll make any signings at all, and that was my view back in December. Maybe if some really promising youngster like Kees Smit becomes available we'll move, but I think that one's already been ruled out. 

[RobsonsWonderland]

Just wish we would bring in two loans to help the squad out.

 

Not sure on the numbers but do we need to ship players out or remove them from the squad first?

[Whitley mag]

10 minutes ago, RobsonsWonderland said:

Just wish we would bring in two loans to help the squad out.

 

Not sure on the numbers but do we need to ship players out or remove them from the squad first?

Unless they’re loans with a view to signing them long term it’s a no go due to PSR. 
 

We spent 6 million on Ramsdale in the summer and I don’t think many would want to make that permanent now. Sunderland and Man U signed very good young goalkeepers in the summer with good scouting for reasonable fees.

[PauloGeordio]

 

[TheBrownBottle]

22 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Unless they’re loans with a view to signing them long term it’s a no go due to PSR. 
 

We spent 6 million on Ramsdale in the summer and I don’t think many would want to make that permanent now. Sunderland and Man U signed very good young goalkeepers in the summer with good scouting for reasonable fees.

Why would loan signings be a no-go due to PSR?

[El Prontonise]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

Why would loan signings be a no-go due to PSR?

 

Because you get no value from a balance sheet perspective.

[r0cafella]

Loans are awful for PSR. your borrowing someone else's asset and paying a fee to do so. Very much break in case of emergency stuff. 

[Whitley mag]

8 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Why would loan signings be a no-go due to PSR?

It’s money down the drain with no re-sale value. The 6 million on Ramsdale if we don’t sign him is gone. If we’d added another 6 million and signed Roefs for 12 million we’d have an asset on our books now.

 

The loan market has died a death unless you plan to make the deal permanent.

 

 

Edited January 26 by Whitley mag

[TheBrownBottle]

6 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

It’s money down the drain with no re-sale value. The 6 million on Ramsdale if we don’t sign him is gone. If we’d added another 6 million and signed Roefs for 12 million we’d have an asset on our books now.

 

The loan market has died a death unless you plan to make the deal permanent.

 

 

 

Re-sale doesn’t mean it has a PSR impact.  If we sign a permanent player for £50m on a five-year contract or a loan player for a year for £10m it has the same PSR impact in that season.  You’re also not stuck with the player if they flop.  Permanent deals are no guarantee of better PSR outcomes.  

[TheBrownBottle]

16 minutes ago, El Prontonise said:

 

Because you get no value from a balance sheet perspective.

 

14 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Loans are awful for PSR. your borrowing someone else's asset and paying a fee to do so. Very much break in case of emergency stuff. 

No, not if the player flops.  Is Elanga looking good in PSR terms because he’s permanent?  What if we’d signed someone like Rashford instead on a £11m loan fee for the season.  Which would be the better signing under PSR?

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

 

No, not if the player flops.  Is Elanga looking good in PSR terms because he’s permanent?  What if we’d signed someone like Rashford instead on a £11m loan fee for the season.  Which would be the better signing under PSR?

Good thing about Elanga is we can ship him on loan next season and if he doesn't flop again we won't make an accounting loss. With Ramsdale on the other hand we've gained very little. 

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, r0cafella said:

Good thing about Elanga is we can ship him on loan next season and if he doesn't flop again we won't make an accounting loss. With Ramsdale on the other hand we've gained very little. 

We’ll make an accounting loss if we don’t get at least an £11m loan fee for the season - who is liable to pay that for Elanga?  Shit permanent signings cause more damage than shit loan signings.  If we’d permanently signed Ramsdale for £20m, would that have been a better outcome?

 

I still think sensible loan signings can work in the age of PSR - Villa have done well with them.  Targett was good for us.  

[Harveys Barn]

8 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

We’ll make an accounting loss if we don’t get at least an £11m loan fee for the season - who is liable to pay that for Elanga?  Shit permanent signings cause more damage than shit loan signings.  If we’d permanently signed Ramsdale for £20m, would that have been a better outcome?

 

I still think sensible loan signings can work in the age of PSR - Villa have done well with them.  Targett was good for us.  

I agree, especially given the dollars to be gained from simply getting 1-2 more wins in the UCL. 

 

If a loan signing saves Bruno G or Hall from fatigue injuries, then that's another big upside.

 

[r0cafella]

9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

We’ll make an accounting loss if we don’t get at least an £11m loan fee for the season - who is liable to pay that for Elanga?  Shit permanent signings cause more damage than shit loan signings.  If we’d permanently signed Ramsdale for £20m, would that have been a better outcome?

 

I still think sensible loan signings can work in the age of PSR - Villa have done well with them.  Targett was good for us.  

No we won't, if we say loan elanga in the summer and sell the year after we've amortised his fee for 3 years. So as long as we get 33m for him we would be fine. 

 

I wouldn't touch a player like Ramsdale unless he was free. 

[The College Dropout]

I want to resist the urge to talk about Villa. But their loans last season gave them a shot at CL football down to the last day of the season and helped them run deep into 2 cups.  
 

They also have loan players now in the squad - 1 started yesterday. 
 

Villa seem more willing to be flexible and take risks and find workarounds in the transfer market and their general approach to PSR. 

We are overly risk averse and inflexible imo.  We need at least 2 bodies this window and won’t get them.  A defender (left back) and an attacker/creative midfielder. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

No we won't, if we say loan elanga in the summer and sell the year after we've amortised his fee for 3 years. So as long as we get 33m for him we would be fine. 

 

I wouldn't touch a player like Ramsdale unless he was free. 

I think Ramsdale looks like a bad signing either way, agreed.

 

If we loaned Elanga in the summer, we are unlikely to get a fee to cover his amortisation - and we’ve already incurred a (wasted) £11m amortisation for this season.  I also think it’s unlikely we’d get £33m the year after if Elanga continues his current form elsewhere.  So a terrible permanent signing can impact multiple seasons. 

[The College Dropout]

3 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

No we won't, if we say loan elanga in the summer and sell the year after we've amortised his fee for 3 years. So as long as we get 33m for him we would be fine. 

 

I wouldn't touch a player like Ramsdale unless he was free. 

It’s not fine mind. We’ll have £22m amortised for little value and just removed the remaining liability. 
 

Thats the same as paying £11m loan fee for a season.  The PSR impact is entirely known and you have a good indication of how much you can afford. 

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I think Ramsdale looks like a bad signing either way, agreed.

 

If we loaned Elanga in the summer, we are unlikely to get a fee to cover his amortisation - and we’ve already incurred a (wasted) £11m amortisation for this season.  I also think it’s unlikely we’d get £33m the year after if Elanga continues his current form elsewhere.  So a terrible permanent signing can impact multiple seasons. 

Oh for sure, Elanga appears to be a poor buy and yes we won't cover his years amortisation if we loan him out. But at least his age profile gives us a chance. Imagine if Wissa plays like he did at the weekend on a regular basis  

[The College Dropout]

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I think Ramsdale looks like a bad signing either way, agreed.

 

If we loaned Elanga in the summer, we are unlikely to get a fee to cover his amortisation - and we’ve already incurred a (wasted) £11m amortisation for this season.  I also think it’s unlikely we’d get £33m the year after if Elanga continues his current form elsewhere.  So a terrible permanent signing can impact multiple seasons. 

Aye if we sell Elanga next season we make a PSR loss.  
 

But let’s be honest. His £11m amortisation when playing has been bad value for money anyway so what does it matter?

 

If we sign a loan player that helps us win games, our revenues increase and it’s worth the money. 

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

It’s not fine mind. We’ll have £22m amortised for little value and just removed the remaining liability. 
 

Thats the same as paying £11m loan fee for a season.  The PSR impact is entirely known and you have a good indication of how much you can afford. 

Your missing my point. Elanga is very much worst case scenario and was a poor buy. If he was good it would be beneficial to amortize the fee. As I said earlier loans unless your getting a Lewis hall are very much emergency break use.