Summer 2023 Transfer Thread

[redinblack]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

Harsh on Klopp there

Should have said "Kloppo exempted"

[3 Stacks]

Ornstein said on tv before the Spurs game there's a decent chance Chelsea sign both Caicedo and Lavia.

[The Golden Eel]

4 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

He's not going to make an immediate impact anywhere because he's not been training for more than a week..and if he doesn't really want to be here, he might not settle at all. If he was all in on coming here and we'd have got him in when we got Dom, I'd agree with you, but at this stage I think he represents a genuine risk and at 111m maybe too much of a risk. 

 Yes, it doesn't sit right with me spending that sort of money on someone who isn't 100% up for coming here. I'm actually hoping he doesn't sign. 

[Elite]

1 minute ago, 3 Stacks said:

Ornstein said on tv before the Spurs game there's a decent chance Chelsea sign both Caicedo and Lavia.

If they are struggling with FFP to sign Caicedo how can they buy both? 

 

I dont understand it all to be honest.

[3 Stacks]

1 minute ago, Elite said:

If they are struggling with FFP to sign Caicedo how can they buy both? 

 

I dont understand it all to be honest.

Who knows. @lifetime fan was saying they want to sign a few more players. 

[coachpotato]

1 minute ago, Elite said:

If they are struggling with FFP to sign Caicedo how can they buy both? 

 

I dont understand it all to be honest.

Neither do the cunts who run football, and it’s their rules.

[Barrington Womble]

28 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Ornstein said on tv before the Spurs game there's a decent chance Chelsea sign both Caicedo and Lavia.

 

There could also be a decent chance we sign both, depending how you define decent! 

 

26 minutes ago, Elite said:

If they are struggling with FFP to sign Caicedo how can they buy both? 

 

I dont understand it all to be honest.

 

Maybe it's not ffp but cashflow. Or I saw some talk of the missing 30m (from the 80 of last week) to be made of another player. So maybe 80m+Gallagher or something and Brighton don't want Gallagher but Chelsea think there's a deal to be made. Same with Southampton. There's probably half a dozen players they could loan them for a season if they want to carry on selling..

[Dundalis]

33 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

He's not going to make an immediate impact anywhere because he's not been training for more than a week..and if he doesn't really want to be here, he might not settle at all. If he was all in on coming here and we'd have got him in when we got Dom, I'd agree with you, but at this stage I think he represents a genuine risk and at 111m maybe too much of a risk. 

He won't make an immediate impact because he hasn't trained in a week? What? His talent is transformative and he has PL experience in a similar system. That's what matters. Maybe you can find someone else with similar transformative talent as a CDM, but the likelihood of a long adaptation phase is pretty much certain.

 

If he doesn't want to be here, then the club should never have bid for him in the first place. Even submitting a bid for a player with zero knowledge of whether they are interested in joining your team is something that should never happen in any type type of transfer dealing, much less when it involves a english transfer record fee. It's amateurish and all on the club, not the player.

[redinblack]

2 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

Lavia in reality is not a second prize. He is an exceptional talent that is just uncertain because he is a teenager who hasnt played many games, so  realistically you cant really rely on him in the short term

 

In our policy of "buy to sell" I sometimes think this point is neglected. We need someone now, we have enough people who might be good and make us money down the line. If we want to stay at the top table, we have to pay to stay. We need someone who, as Dirty Harry said, "knows what the hell he's doing"

[TD_LFC]

17 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

There could also be a decent chance we sign both, depending how you define decent! 

 

 

Maybe it's not ffp but cashflow. Or I saw some talk of the missing 30m (from the 80 of last week) to be made of another player. So maybe 80m+Gallagher or something and Brighton don't want Gallagher but Chelsea think there's a deal to be made. Same with Southampton. There's probably half a dozen players they could loan them for a season if they want to carry on selling..

 

Book value and structure of add-on's I would guess, the wages could throw a spanner in the works as if they've almost doubled the original offer that will impact it.

 

If the fee is 100m + add-ons and he's on 220k a month then they're looking at 25m book value for the next 7 years (or until they can renegotiate a deal) given they were trying to get him for significantly less than that, and have other things to do in the market then it impacts other prospective deals.

 

Edit: worked the above on 7 year deal but just read elsewhere it might be 8 years so closer to 24m a year if so.

[Barrington Womble]

3 minutes ago, Dundalis said:

He won't make an immediate impact because he hasn't trained in a week? What? His talent is transformative and he has PL experience in a similar system. That's what matters. Maybe you can find someone else with similar transformative talent as a CDM, but the likelihood of a long adaptation phase is pretty much certain.

 

If he doesn't want to be here, then the club should never have bid for him in the first place. Even submitting a bid for a player with zero knowledge of whether they are interested in joining your team is something that should never happen in any type type of transfer dealing, much less when it involves a english transfer record fee. It's amateurish and all on the club, not the player.

He doesn't want to be here..he told us that on Friday and refused to travel for a medical and talks and said he wants to join chelsea. 

 

As for "transformative". He's a good player, but honestly, I don't think he has any body of work to support that. Out of the available defensive central midfielders in this country, he might be the best. But he's not the best in the league, he's not in the top 3 right now, of course that might change down the line. He's a good young footballer, who's stepped to a good level quickly and had a high ceiling..for me that's it..

[3 Stacks]

Now this guy, who normally knows what he's talking about with Belgian players says we'll match Chelsea's bid.

 

 

[Anubis]

Round 2.

[TheHowieLama]

13 minutes ago, Dundalis said:

Even submitting a bid for a player with zero knowledge of whether they are interested in joining your team is something that should never happen in any type type of transfer dealing, much less when it involves a english transfer record fee. It's amateurish and all on the club, not the player.

 

If that happened it would be, that is not what happened.

[Barrington Womble]

1 minute ago, TD_LFC said:

 

Book value and structure of add-on's I would guess, the wages could throw a spanner in the works as if they've almost doubled the original offer that will impact it.

 

If the fee is 100m + add-ons and he's on 220k a month then they're looking at 25m book value for the next 7 years (or until they can renegotiate a deal) given they were trying to get him for significantly less than that, and have other things to do in the market then it impacts other prospective deals.

New uefa rules only allow amortisation over 5 years. As they're giving him a 8 year contract with an option on 9, it would seem it would be pretty I likely they would give him a new contract any time soon. So if it's 100m, it's 20m per year amortisation + add-ons which even at the full hit of 11m it's a little over 22m. 

 

From this season, uefas new sustainability rules kick in, so they need to fit with this:

 

The regulations see clubs subject to squad cost controls for the first time. The cost control rule limits spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to 70% of club revenue – the gradual implementation will see the percentage at 90% in 2023/2024, 80% in 2024/2025, and 70% as from 2025/2026.

 

I believe the "transfers" part of that it amortisation and not actual fees and obviously can be offset with profitable sales. I'm sure all the info is out there somewhere. 

 

Chelsea aren't in Europe this season, so I think it's possible they can ignore it till they return. So it's just the premier league, which it is based on pure P&L iirc. 

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

6 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Now this guy, who normally knows what he's talking about with Belgian players says we'll match Chelsea's bid.

 

 

Got to say I don't understand what he's saying. Is he claiming Chelsea have had a bid accepted but kept it secret because the player wants to join LFC?

[TD_LFC]

2 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

New uefa rules only allow amortisation over 5 years. As they're giving him a 8 year contract with an option on 9, it would seem it would be pretty I likely they would give him a new contract any time soon. So if it's 100m, it's 20m per year amortisation + add-ons which even at the full hit of 11m it's a little over 22m. 

 

From this season, uefas new sustainability rules kick in, so they need to fit with this:

 

The regulations see clubs subject to squad cost controls for the first time. The cost control rule limits spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to 70% of club revenue – the gradual implementation will see the percentage at 90% in 2023/2024, 80% in 2024/2025, and 70% as from 2025/2026.

 

I believe the "transfers" part of that it amortisation and not actual fees and obviously can be offset with profitable sales. I'm sure all the info is out there somewhere. 

 

Chelsea aren't in Europe this season, so I think it's possible they can ignore it till they return. So it's just the premier league, which it is based on pure P&L iirc. 

 

 

 

UEFA rule does, and as far as I'm aware it doesn't prevent you offering longer contracts it just means the calculation UEFA uses will be based on 5 years.

 

As you say, it's not really a concern for Chelsea at the moment the shit cunts and I'm only taking into consideration P&S which is different.

 

 

 

 

[Razoray]

12 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

 

Book value and structure of add-on's I would guess, the wages could throw a spanner in the works as if they've almost doubled the original offer that will impact it.

 

If the fee is 100m + add-ons and he's on 220k a month then they're looking at 25m book value for the next 7 years (or until they can renegotiate a deal) given they were trying to get him for significantly less than that, and have other things to do in the market then it impacts other prospective deals.

 

Edit: worked the above on 7 year deal but just read elsewhere it might be 8 years so closer to 24m a year if so.

For FP in the Premier League, the max time it can be ammortised is over 5 years, so the £100m plus aages is a cost of £31m p.a.

[3 Stacks]

3 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

Got to say I don't understand what he's saying. Is he claiming Chelsea have had a bid accepted but kept it secret because the player wants to join LFC?

He's saying in broken English that we will match Chelsea's bid for Lavia and let the player decide. And the player supposedly prefers us.

[No2]

Has saying suggested we also want both of them?

[redinblack]

1 minute ago, TD_LFC said:

 

UEFA rule does, and as far as I'm aware it doesn't prevent you offering longer contracts it just means the calculation UEFA uses will be based on 5 years.

 

As you say, it's not really a concern for Chelsea at the moment the shit cunts.

 

 

 

 

How do you bury a 7 year contract over 5 years? It means you could theoretically be paying them for 2 years but with the expense going against a fully amortised asset. Don't see how that passes audit. Though I realise in the Premier League anything is possible. I guess it just goes straight to expense and they show him as a Contractor or consultant or something. But it still sounds like Rangers "side letters"

[TD_LFC]

5 minutes ago, redinblack said:

How do you bury a 7 year contract over 5 years? It means you could theoretically be paying them for 2 years but with the expense going against a fully amortised asset. Don't see how that passes audit. Though I realise in the Premier League anything is possible. I guess it just goes straight to expense and they show him as a Contractor or consultant or something. But it still sounds like Rangers "side letters"

 

It would just be a UEFA paper exercise not actual accounting.

 

So if in the accounts a club has X amount amortised over X years UEFA would adjust that to X over 5.

 

It's changed a few times so who knows what it'll ultimately end up being and there's an adjustment period built in for the %  of turnover rules that allows 90% in the first year scaling down so no doubt there'll be a similar loophole.

 

I've not read anything that says they're physically preventing the registration of contracts over 5 years, only ever in the context of a grander calculation but I might have missed it. 

[Razoray]

4 minutes ago, redinblack said:

How do you bury a 7 year contract over 5 years? It means you could theoretically be paying them for 2 years but with the expense going against a fully amortised asset. Don't see how that passes audit. Though I realise in the Premier League anything is possible. I guess it just goes straight to expense and they show him as a Contractor or consultant or something. But it still sounds like Rangers "side letters"

It'd be like if your business got a 7 year loan for a piece of machinery and it was going to be worthless in 5 years time. You'd still be paying back the loan in 6 years time but the depreciation of the asset would be covered in the balance sheet over 5 years. 

[TheHowieLama]

There is no chance he will see the contract out.

[redinblack]

Just now, Razoray said:

It'd be like if your business got a 7 year loan for a piece of machinery and it was going to be worthless in 5 years time. You'd still be paying back the loan in 6 years time but the depreciation of the asset would be covered in the balance sheet over 5 years. 

So as I said it's straight into P/L. If it was a machine I guess you would have to call it "Repairs & Maintenance" or " Non Capitalsed Asset Expenditure" given the Asset is fully written down. Sounds like our treatment room to be fair.