Odysseas Vlachodimos

[Magdad]

€23.6m in transfermarket.com I 

[smootsmack]

It seems unrealistic to implement strict financial rules and then not allow clubs to negotiate/make financial decisions with those rules in mind

[Ben]

1 minute ago, smootsmack said:

It seems unrealistic to implement strict financial rules and then not allow clubs to negotiate/make financial decisions with those rules in mind

 

I find it funny that the vast majority of supporters of EPL teams actually approve of what Chelsea are doing to to get around the rules.

[smootsmack]

10 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

I find it funny that the vast majority of supporters of EPL teams actually approve of what Chelsea are doing to to get around the rules.

 

I guess if you have to choose between "selling a hotel" or doubling ticket prices or something, it's an easy choice to make. We'll see what happens 

 

 

Edited July 27 by smootsmack

[woody]

6 hours ago, Skeletor said:

 

https://www.footballinsider247.com/premier-league-could-investigate-newcastle-and-nottingham-forest-deal-sources/

 

The journo in question: “the Real Madrid Graduate School.” I have no idea why I find it funny, just imagining Florentino Perez teaching a course 

 

 

[huss9]

4 hours ago, Skeletor said:

 

Well clearly it has been flagged.

clearly?

how do you know?

[The College Dropout]

4 hours ago, TRon said:

 

If we've paid £20m for him then he's worth less than nothing because that means we've basically given Anderson away for £10m.

£15m no?

 

I personally think that’s close to Anderson’s true value.  

[Magdad]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

£15m no?

 

I personally think that’s close to Anderson’s true value.  

I’d agree with that. Kid did nowt to suggest anything else 

[SUPERTOON]

3 hours ago, huss9 said:

clearly?

how do you know?

Because football insider says so.

[nemtizz]

Despite the fact it won't ever happen I'm fully ok with us being deducted points for spending £19m on this guy.

[TheBrownBottle]

39 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

£15m no?

 

I personally think that’s close to Anderson’s true value.  

 

35 minutes ago, Magdad said:

I’d agree with that. Kid did nowt to suggest anything else 

When £15m was first touted I thought it sounded about right.  When it was £35m it seemed insane.  The PSR finagling makes it make more sense. 

[TheBrownBottle]

4 hours ago, smootsmack said:

 

I guess if you have to choose between "selling a hotel" or doubling ticket prices or something, it's an easy choice to make. We'll see what happens 

 

 

 

Yep, this is the great missing element from all of these conversations in the media - for all of the defending of these rules, no fucker ever points out that FFP just means more costs being passed on to ordinary supporters instead of billionaire owners

[Zero]

Why not just a random young kid? It’s hard to put a value on them. This keeper however is fucking easy

 

the whole transfer or PSR issue is handling very unprofessional I would say 

[80]

5 hours ago, smootsmack said:

It seems unrealistic to implement strict financial rules and then not allow clubs to negotiate/make financial decisions with those rules in mind

Yes, the dynamics of the market are shaped by it's rules. PSR is dictating whether some clubs are able to spend less - or more - than usual on certain players. 

 

I'm sure it upsets the regulator but it's their own fault.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Norseman said:

Is the fee confirmed to be £20M or are bed sheets getting wet for no reason?

 

£20m fee and £100k a week. 

[Displayname]

I really doubt the £20m number. Its just to fucking obvious. Maybe they leaked it so that the real number doesnt look so bad when it gets out.

 

 

Edited July 28 by Displayname

[Menace]

Either way - this lad has potentially hit the jackpot. Imagine that signing on fee and those wages over the next few years just so we can bypass some nonsense restrictions.

[Groundhog63]

I think someone's already said but is it not the case that the PL questioning deals, between two consenting parties, that have been made to serve their PSR needs isn't enforceable? 

"We need to sell (A) for £20m for PSR" 

"Well we need to sell (B) for £10m for PSR" 

shakes hands 

[Gawalls]

1 minute ago, Groundhog63 said:

I think someone's already said but is it not the case that the PL questioning deals, between two consenting parties, that have been made to serve their PSR needs isn't enforceable? 

"We need to sell (A) for £20m for PSR" 

"Well we need to sell (B) for £10m for PSR" 

shakes hands 

It has to be hard for me to enforce - even if it seems inflated. Both parties willing to pay and in no expert but in a court it would be hard to be we force I reckon.

[Groundhog63]

1 minute ago, Gawalls said:

It has to be hard for me to enforce - even if it seems inflated. Both parties willing to pay and in no expert but in a court it would be hard to be we force I reckon.

That's what I was thinking. They've made up these, arbitrary, rules so clubs must be able to, arbitrarily, make up their responses 

[Gawalls]

6 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

That's what I was thinking. They've made up these, arbitrary, rules so clubs must be able to, arbitrarily, make up their responses 

Very well put - to quote the white stripes, you can’t take the effect and make it the cause.

[Abacus]

Even if any part of this is true, I suppose the PL would need to argue the deal was in bad faith.

 

"You have acted in bad faith by spending money that you legitimately have on a player for a position you need, in order to meet a rule that we ourselves put in place to, errr, well, no hang on a minute. I'll call you back". 

 

Anyway, hope he turns out to be a decent 2nd choice keeper and the conversation changes to actual football. I do actually think Anderson had some real potential as well for a youngster. Think he'll do very well for Forest.

[Gawalls]

1 hour ago, Abacus said:

Even if any part of this is true, I suppose the PL would need to argue the deal was in bad faith.

 

"You have acted in bad faith by spending money that you legitimately have on a player for a position you need, in order to meet a rule that we ourselves put in place to, errr, well, no hang on a minute. I'll call you back". 

 

Anyway, hope he turns out to be a decent 2nd choice keeper and the conversation changes to actual football. I do actually think Anderson had some real potential as well for a youngster. Think he'll do very well for Forest.

Would like to hear that 

 

“why did you buy another keeper”

” did you see how many goals we shipped last season when Pope was injured? We made it a high priority “

” he’s clearly not worth the money you paid for him though “

”I disagree - that was also said about Gordon and by a lot of people about Isak.”

[Unbelievable]

I’d love the PL going after us for this transfer and us finally taking the gloves off and lawyering up to blow their hole FFP nonsense to bits.

[The College Dropout]

2 hours ago, Abacus said:

Even if any part of this is true, I suppose the PL would need to argue the deal was in bad faith.

 

"You have acted in bad faith by spending money that you legitimately have on a player for a position you need, in order to meet a rule that we ourselves put in place to, errr, well, no hang on a minute. I'll call you back". 

 

Anyway, hope he turns out to be a decent 2nd choice keeper and the conversation changes to actual football. I do actually think Anderson had some real potential as well for a youngster. Think he'll do very well for Forest.

This is a way better argument than acting like he’s worth the money.  
 

Hes worth the money to us because it allows Forest to buy Anderson, thus making us PSR compliant and literally saving us 1-10 points.  Buying him at £20m directly indirectly got us 1-10 points that’s fair market value.  
 

This is defo more a problem for Forest than us though.  
 

I maintain that anchoring is the best idea for the PL.   You don’t want us and City building Galactico teams that nobody can compete with.  But you can’t FMV transfers man.