The College Dropout Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Just now, Coffee_Johnny said: I reckon £35-40m might do it. Is that eye-watering? Less than what they paid ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 2 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said: I reckon £35-40m might do it. Is that eye-watering? Why would they accept that low of an offer ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee_Johnny Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Less than what they paid ? Thought they paid £25m? (Nottinghamshire Live) but guess that could have been just the up front fee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Novocastrian Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 3 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: Why would they accept that low of an offer ? Rumours they still owe us money for Wood/Shelvey? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee_Johnny Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: Why would they accept that low of an offer ? Might it not help them out of the financial pit they are in? Or do you reckon that the books this season/year might not be taken into account? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 5 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Less than what they paid ? They paid 25m + add-ons, so it's hard to know exactly where they value him now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: Why would they accept that low of an offer ? Only way would be if a considerable chunk of the £17m of add ons hadn’t been achieved. Wolves also have a 15% sell on clause. Forest will pay an initial £25m for Gibbs-White, plus about £10m in add-ons dependent on league appearances and if Forest avoid relegation. On top of that £35m package, Forest would have to pay further add-ons if they were to record a top-half finish or qualify for Europe. Wolves have also inserted a 15% sell-on clause in the deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Just now, Coffee_Johnny said: Might it not help them out of the financial pit they are in? Or do you reckon that the books this season/year might not be taken into account? I just think they will ask for huge money, Johnson went to spurs for 40 I think, and MGW is a better player. 60 million minimum I reckon. (Complete guess though) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 I reckon it would take at least the 45m we paid for Gordon. If we pay upfront like we did with Gordon, they might be tempted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Although it does feel more of a summer move than now. Who knows.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Do Forest still owe us anything from the Wood deal? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteV Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 15 minutes ago, The Prophet said: Do Forest still owe us anything from the Wood deal? Three points Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 6 minutes ago, SteV said: Three points Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontownman Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Honestly have zero idea how the next week and a half is going to pan out. We could sell three huge players, maybe more? Sell no players, bring in 3 players, bring in none. Can't even say for sure what position we will bring in! What a mental end to arguably the most boring first half of a window in years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GideonShandy Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Sick of this and fuck so-called FFP. Have to sell your best players if you want to compete at the top, and then you can't compete because you've sold your best players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon No9 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 34 minutes ago, GideonShandy said: Sick of this and fuck so-called FFP. Have to sell your best players if you want to compete at the top, and then you can't compete because you've sold your best players. Exactly, and why should it be better to sell a homegrown player? It should be more value to keep the homegrown players. FFP is only good for the clubs who were rich before it was introduced. For other clubs it's just a thing that makes it harder and almost impossible to compete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conjo Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, GideonShandy said: Sick of this and fuck so-called FFP. Have to sell your best players if you want to compete at the top, and then you can't compete because you've sold your best players. People get too strung up on this FFP stuff It's obviously something the top clubs had in mind to protect themselves, and the rules definitely needs adjustsments, but I'm glad there is something that prevents another Chelsea/Man City happening, and I like that NUFC is trying to do it the right way. That being said, it's gone alright for West Ham & Tottenham this season selling their best players...well Tottenham the last 20 years really. Re-invest smart and continue to grow the club commercially and we'll get there sooner rather than later. Edited January 23 by Conjo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) Maybe it's the masochistic NUFC fan in me but I think it would be a lot less fun if we could just spend infinite money every window. It's a good thing that ownership is being forced to think about building sustainably and growing the club's commercial infrastructure instead of just going out and buying Robinho. The Saudis (hopefully) won't be there to bankroll everything forever. Edited January 23 by oldtype Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miggys First Goal Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Are we rich in the summer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danh1 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 20 minutes ago, oldtype said: Maybe it's the masochistic NUFC fan in me but I think it would be a lot less fun if we could just spend infinite money every window. It's a good thing that ownership is being forced to think about building sustainably and growing the club's commercial infrastructure instead of just going out and buying Robinho. The Saudis (hopefully) won't be there to bankroll everything forever. The worst thing about it for me is the way a lot of our fans on social media cry about us not buying every fucker. In one tweet they are ripping Everton fans and in the next having a pop at the club for not spending money on Kalvin Phillips. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1892 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Forest in talks to sign Reyna from Dortmund on loan with an option to buy so he could be the Gibbs-White replacement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collage Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 2 minutes ago, Matt1892 said: Forest in talks to sign Reyna from Dortmund on loan with an option to buy so he could be the Gibbs-White replacement. They are also in talks to sign Carlos Borges on loan from Ajax, apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) Guess it comes down to how much or little of a virtue you see in repeat Chelsea/Man City situations. I didn't like Blackburn at the time for this reason and Abramovich finished any love of the game off but in hindsight without Blackburn, Man City and Chelsea the premier league would have been shite and people would be complaining about Man United and Arsenal alternating the title. Could argue there was no reason for Liverpool to get involved in that had Chelsea not happened and broke up the strangle hold that we couldn't be legit means, they certaintly weren't serious contenders before. Edited January 23 by Wolfcastle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) 3 hours ago, SUPERTOON said: Why would they accept that low of an offer ? They probably have to sell now having breached ffp also ffp limits how much people can pay them, which they have to bare in mind Edited January 23 by Wolfcastle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 23 minutes ago, Miggys First Goal said: Are we rich in the summer? Sort of. We need to make an FFP ‘profit’ this season otherwise we’re in breach. So next season we can run a loss again (if we choose to do so). 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