Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

For about the 5th pre match press conference running, beheadie has a cry in about FFP holding them back. Personally I think they want to drive the point home that FFP/PSR is not fair and they should be allowed to bypass it. 

Yeah, it's a bat signal to the likes of that fat fuck Samuel and our Evertonian brethren to pipe up with "it's not fair that well intentioned owners can't invest to help their team take on the corrupt Sky 6" etc.

 

Ignoring the point that it's all well and good your owners doing that if they can afford it, but what about owners who'd borrow money at way more than they or the club can afford to fund it - who or what is going to stop them doing that and jeopardising the very existence of the club? Because it sure as fuck won't be the fans, as Everton are proving around 777.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Manny said:

Yeah, it's a bat signal to the likes of that fat fuck Samuel and our Evertonian brethren to pipe up with "it's not fair that well intentioned owners can't invest to help their team take on the corrupt Sky 6" etc.

 

Ignoring the point that it's all well and good your owners doing that if they can afford it, but what about owners who'd borrow money at way more than they or the club can afford to fund it - who or what is going to stop them doing that and jeopardising the very existence of the club? Because it sure as fuck won't be the fans, as Everton are proving around 777.

 

or the owners just lose interest and no longer want to support the losses? it's why it's important they don't have inflated sponsorship. look at everton when they got shit canned because of usmanov. they were able to replace those sponsorship deals because they were well out of kilter with market rate. 

 

personally, i would let them do it, but it is a tax. but not a lightweight tax, a full kick in the balls. You want to run your books at £200m loss for one season. Sound. Deposit in a bank the money to ensure those losses can be covered for the duration of the contracts you've stumped up for. so if you have players on 8 year deals like chelsea, 8 years of wages has to go into escrow. then for each of your competitors - so in terms of the premier league, the other 19 clubs, you need to give them all 50% of your annual losses. So you lose £200m, well give the other 19 clubs £100m each. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

I heard somewhere that selling someone for like 50 million frees up a shit load more than 50 million to play with. Not sure how it works it was background noise at the time.

 

Yeah you can. It's just like the NFL salary cap, if your accountants are clever you can manipulate the numbers pretty easily to a point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Scott_M said:


Why would they sell somebody decent, who they’d have to spent a decent wedge to replace?

 

They should be selling Matt Richie, Karius, Dummett or some other bum. 


 

They’ll probably sell them and loan him back….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

I heard somewhere that selling someone for like 50 million frees up a shit load more than 50 million to play with. Not sure how it works it was background noise at the time.

If you sell someone who you bought for £50m, and who has 1 year left on his 5 year contract, then it goes down as £40m profit on that year's books.

If you buy a player for a £50m on a 5 year contract, only one-fifth of that  shows up on this year's books. 

 

You can literally replace one £50m player with 4 x £50m players and it will show as breaking even in the accounts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

I heard somewhere that selling someone for like 50 million frees up a shit load more than 50 million to play with. Not sure how it works it was background noise at the time.

 

At it's most basic if you bring in 50 million you could, in theory, buy five 50 million pound players on 5 year contracts because each of those fee's are spread over the length of the deal so each player would cost 10 million a year.

 

 

It becomes more complicated when you consider wages, the book value of the existing squad, income and expenditure etc.

 

They could probably squeeze a few players out of that 50 million in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
30 minutes ago, Captain Turdseye said:

Found this thread on page 11. They’re pretty much irrelevant, for now at least. 
 

Turns out Sandro Tonali was placing bets on English games even after he’d signed for Newcastle. The FA are charging him now for 50 different bets. Another ban incoming. 

They are pretty irrelevant right now. But I think they'll tell themselves it's a gradual process. There seems to be more financial barriers in place for them than there was for Chelsea and City.

 

And yeah, they got flim-flammed bad by Milan. Pants pulled down, etc, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very cunning plan by Milan to sell a player for 60ml knowing he has a ban likely incoming and the player that never wanted to leave then gets another ban in the hopes that Newcastle terminate his contract and he goes back to Milan on a free

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Turdseye said:

Found this thread on page 11. They’re pretty much irrelevant, for now at least. 
 

Turns out Sandro Tonali was placing bets on English games even after he’d signed for Newcastle. The FA are charging him now for 50 different bets. Another ban incoming. 

 

Makes it look like what Merson was saying really, the guys an addict.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Pidge said:

 

Makes it look like what Merson was saying really, the guys an addict.

 

I keep seeing people say this after Merson starting on about it. They shouldn't get bans, they are addicts etc. Surely the fact they all appear to be betting on games they are involved in means they should get bans, this isn't sone addict who keeps throwing money at betting whatever the results. They might not be throwing matches but its a small step from getting booked to that going further. I'm sure there was one a while back when a player put a bet on tbe ball would go out of play in the first 20 seconds after kickoff so he just belted the kick off out wide and out of play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...