ewerk 26730 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 8 minutes ago, wykikitoon said: If we splash no cash this window, pull it out to get Bowen on a free in summer. You slag Given that he's got a contract until 2030 we'd be doing very well to get him on a free. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 16927 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Oh I didn't realise he signed a new contract 😂 Tbh I think we shall see movement on Philips this week. Now the city game is out of the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBass 2284 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 You think, or you hope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20001 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 12 hours ago, Dazzler said: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinRobin 9367 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, MrBass said: You think, or you hope? He thinks he hopes 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 5007 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 20 minutes ago, MrBass said: You think, or you hope? He knew a couple of weeks ago. Wyki Casey. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 16927 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 If we signed him, he would have been tied for our game so I think that's been the factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 5007 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 I think its just a stand off with Phillips at the moment. They want rid of him and want a big loan fee. Hopefully our plummet down the league might persuade them to do us favour and swerve the loan fee. Plus, if he plays well then it might put in the shop window. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 6274 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 18 hours ago, Dazzler said: As well he should. Hayden makes him look like a moderately gifted amateur at best when it comes to the art of sliding tackles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzler 5714 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 18 minutes ago, OTF said: We've already covered this man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBlue 563 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 On 10/01/2024 at 02:10, Nefilim said: Man City started this FFP selling home grown players becuase they were good at it. Chelsea did it for a long time, and are fast approaching their next hit like a junky 'Gallagher for FFP' Talk of selling Bruno for extra FFP - it's so sad. We're not allowed nice things etc. Staveley/Howe have built a spine before Ashworth came in - (Pope > Botman > Bruno > Isak) No, no, no we didn't start FFP. Granted it was introduced to stop new money clubs, like us, from threatening the establishment. Whilst we've always had an academy, we rebuilt our academy AFTER the introduction of FFP. As an aside City voted against the introduction of FFP, Newcastle voted in favour of it (probably Ashley trying to avoid spending). Fulham, West Brom, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea and Southampton all voted against FFP whilst Reading abstained, Had Reading or one other club (such as you guys) voted against it, it wouldn't have had enough votes. But that's history now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26730 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Aye but we'd still have UEFA's FFP rules so it would still be there for anyone at the top end of the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14799 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Heeeeeerrrrrrrresss Luke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBlue 563 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, ewerk said: Aye but we'd still have UEFA's FFP rules so it would still be there for anyone at the top end of the table. that's a really interesting point. although it might be awkward if you spent a £10billion in one window to win the premier league causing you to fail UEFA's FFP. or worse, all four clubs at the top of the premier league being banned form europe for failing ffp 🙃 originally the rules were meant to be to protect clubs against themselves. overspending and going into administration etc. keep that aspect as it still allows for free owner investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9103 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Just now, LondonBlue said: No, no, no we didn't start FFP. Granted it was introduced to stop new money clubs, like us, from threatening the establishment. Whilst we've always had an academy, we rebuilt our academy AFTER the introduction of FFP. As an aside City voted against the introduction of FFP, Newcastle voted in favour of it (probably Ashley trying to avoid spending). Fulham, West Brom, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea and Southampton all voted against FFP whilst Reading abstained, Had Reading or one other club (such as you guys) voted against it, it wouldn't have had enough votes. But that's history now. I wonder which clubs would vote to change it to a more meritocratic version? I can't see Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal or Spurs being in favour of opening up the valve any more than it is. I honestly think the PSR rules should take into account 2 things; 1 prevent megarich clubs from simply spending what they like, and (more importantly) ensuring bad owners aren't mortgaging the club's future on a whim. Debt should be taken into account, as should revenue obviously, but the capital available from the owner should be considered too. Us, yourselves and others could comfortably afford to make losses greater than £100m over a 3yr period without risking the future of the club, by virtue of having owners who can cover that loss by checking the back of the sofa. The rule as it stands is basically, you can get better, but only by a little bit every season. Of course that means the established elite can keep accelerating at faster pace. No club, regardless of their revenue stream should have £1bn owed in debt. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBlue 563 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 3 minutes ago, The Fish said: I wonder which clubs would vote to change it to a more meritocratic version? I can't see Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal or Spurs being in favour of opening up the valve any more than it is. I honestly think the PSR rules should take into account 2 things; 1 prevent megarich clubs from simply spending what they like, and (more importantly) ensuring bad owners aren't mortgaging the club's future on a whim. Debt should be taken into account, as should revenue obviously, but the capital available from the owner should be considered too. Us, yourselves and others could comfortably afford to make losses greater than £100m over a 3yr period without risking the future of the club, by virtue of having owners who can cover that loss by checking the back of the sofa. The rule as it stands is basically, you can get better, but only by a little bit every season. Of course that means the established elite can keep accelerating at faster pace. No club, regardless of their revenue stream should have £1bn owed in debt. i agree with your first point, but i have a different view on debt. debt should indeed be taken into account. restricting the losses over a 3 year period would be okay if they allowed owner investment (gifts not loans). the larger your debt the less you should be able to spend. i'm thinking of man uniteds massive debts. maybe allowable debt should be linked with revenue, not sure. this whole thing about new owners being allowed to spend what they like is bollocks. maybe our owners should sell our clubs to each other for £1, then sell them back again so we can invest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 5007 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 22 minutes ago, PaddockLad said: Heeeeeerrrrrrrresss Luke! Poor Kalvin. Another 6 months on the bench. At least he will be able to get some game time when England play. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 5007 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 7 minutes ago, LondonBlue said: i agree with your first point, but i have a different view on debt. debt should indeed be taken into account. restricting the losses over a 3 year period would be okay if they allowed owner investment (gifts not loans). the larger your debt the less you should be able to spend. i'm thinking of man uniteds massive debts. maybe allowable debt should be linked with revenue, not sure. this whole thing about new owners being allowed to spend what they like is bollocks. maybe our owners should sell our clubs to each other for £1, then sell them back again so we can invest. Yeah, I'm not financial expert but surely "gifts" should be allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobElliott 1019 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 25 minutes ago, The Fish said: I wonder which clubs would vote to change it to a more meritocratic version? Alright wor Joey? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 16927 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 I hope the club have a plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 5007 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Surely PIFs lawyers have more money than PL lawyers. Thats all that is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6042 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 £7mil loan fee + wages for 17 PL games is mental tbf. We paid less for Cabaye I don't think the obligation to buy is unreasonable though. We've got ambitions to challenge Man City for the title. They aren't going to do us any favours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 5007 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, Kid Dynamite said: £7mil loan fee + wages for 17 PL games is mental tbf. We paid less for Cabaye I don't think the obligation to buy is unreasonable though. We've got ambitions to challenge Man City for the title. They aren't going to do us any favours I genuinely don't think they are concerned by us as title challengers. They just want to recoup some money and get him off the wage bill. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBlue 563 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, Kid Dynamite said: £7mil loan fee + wages for 17 PL games is mental tbf. We paid less for Cabaye I don't think the obligation to buy is unreasonable though. We've got ambitions to challenge Man City for the title. They aren't going to do us any favours if there's an obligation to buy then its the loan fee + the purchase fee that matters. i think a higher loan fee normally suggests no obligation but i'm no expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 16927 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Well I suppose Haydn is like a new signing Link to comment 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