White stool may indicate a serious underlying medical problem - usually a lack of bile or some other malfunction of the gallbladder. I would recommend seeing a doctor, or alternatively, generating a large amount of bile on SCM.
Summer rebuild 2023
- Thread starter Hansern
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
There are ways in which the money can be raised.... As you put it "lash it on the credit card and pay it later like Chelsea seem to be doing"... But no one is asking them to go to extremes like Chelsea. I am saying Just enough to secure Jude Bellingham and it be paid back out of a future transfer pot,or pots
Or why not give to to the club in the form of a intrest free loan..
Remember the stands are being enlarged which will porvide extra revenue
Say we max that credit card. Then we have the same issue but with defence or in goal next season. We can’t buy anyone because we are still paying off that credit card. Then everyone will be whining again that no money is being spent.
I am not say that we max out the card merely that we occassionly use it, and pay it off from the next transfer pot. Along the way toward a new pot we have extra gate money plus money form player sales
We’ve used it this past year haven’t we?
Bellingham would be maxing it out. Let’s see who we buy this summer before losing our minds.
Bellingham would be maxing it out. Let’s see who we buy this summer before losing our minds.
I think so too, don’t they have to pay some kind additional fees to the player if they sell without the player demanding a transfer and for a small salary elsewhere? Or is that only in some scenarios in old days.
In practice, a player can just agree to sit on his contract, take his money and refuse to move. In the normal scheme of things, if a club wants to move on a player who is on too high wages, they'll end up topping up what he gets offered by his new club in some form or other, at least until the end of the contract he has with the selling club. That might be all in one go up-front (and possibly negotiated to a smaller number because it's paid up front) or by instalments.
But every time you hear about a player agreeing to a wage cut to join another club, it usually means the new club is playing a lower wage, but the old one is making up the difference for the remainder of the original contract.
The player might also get "loyalty" bonuses due under his contract because he didn't ask to leave.
Used it on whom?
I mean, we have spent 100m and gave Salah a bumper new deal
Where's the short version?
Yer ma.
Was listening to Darren Bent earlier this evening and he said some which resonated. How many players who’ve cost over £70 million have worked out? Only van Dijk and Becker (who’ll actually cost less than that), apparently!
Pepe, Maguire, Lukaku, Pogba, Neymar, Coutinho, Sancho, Grealish (despite recent flashes), Mudryk, Enzo Fernandez, Anthony …. the list goes on … have all been busts. Likely because they weren’t £70 millionplus players in the first place.
Pepe, Maguire, Lukaku, Pogba, Neymar, Coutinho, Sancho, Grealish (despite recent flashes), Mudryk, Enzo Fernandez, Anthony …. the list goes on … have all been busts. Likely because they weren’t £70 millionplus players in the first place.
Zidane, Bale, Ronaldo, Mbappe, KDB, Suarez, Rodri all done alright. A few jury is out on still like Grealish etc.
I don’t think it’s particularly the case, if they cost over 70m they are more likely to fail, it’s just more it’s more expensive mistake.
@Beamrider
What’s the deal with owner providing “loans” at 0%.
If it’s a simple as that, why didn’t City owners just do that - or are you saying that’s capped to an extent.
What’s the deal with owner providing “loans” at 0%.
If it’s a simple as that, why didn’t City owners just do that - or are you saying that’s capped to an extent.
They tend to use loans because they think they'll be able to get their money out nice and easy at. later date, but of course that rarely happens. Interest free is to avoid an extra charge going through the profit and loss account that suppresses profit for FFP. Fair value principles would say a loan should always bear interest so a charge should be assumed for FFP purposes but you can get around that if you make the loans repayable in demand with no fixed repayment date - just accounting trickery really. Does make the credit risk profile look worse though as the debt will show as due within one year so it'll make your solvency ratios look bad.
And then if they need to they can convert the loans to shares at a later date to allow for a higher loss for FFP if needed.
Point is that putting the cash straight in as equity is a one way ticket that leaves little flexibility, but the more pragmatic owners will do it if they know they're already up against the limits or they realise they won't get their money back out anyway. That was probably what Abu Dhabi thought.
My view would be that it's best to lend and then convert as it gives you flexibility to time the equity conversion to suit what you need for FFP, when you need it,, and you could do it with the balances from historic cash injections so no need to provide fresh money to cover losses.
Of course some try to play both angles - eg Moshiri put his (Usmanov's?) money into Everton as loans but then managed to persuade the auditors that it should be classed as equity regardless as it wasn't expected to be repaid. But he then converted some of it to shares shortly after so I'm guessing the initial argument for equity treatment didn't hold water for very long.
Of those players, De Bruyne, Suarez, Zidane (barely), and Rodri cost less than 70m GBP.
That's silly though. You'd have to index a big player against the market at the time.
To a large extent the flips consist mostly if those bought by Man Utd. They're specialists though.
He veers so far right, sometimes he ends up in the stands.
Not sure how well this political joke is working as Orban is a Right Winger too.
He would 'present' so many opportunities for us
Last edited:
You could just say 'gift' and the joke would have been so much easier.
The germane point was many of those £70 million plus aren’t worth that at all and are mostly vanity signings with many prudent clubs not paying those fees at all. Many players now deemed worth that much had only cost a fraction of that the previous season or even half season. Hell, even Real Madrid is probably thinking that Tchoumanéni was not worth that £72 million.
KdB and Rodri cost less and, yet, have massively improved Man City. Grealish, sorry, is not playing like a £70 million plus player however you may want to spin it. Bale (arguable), Zidane, Ronaldo. (first time found) and Suarez, definitely yes were successes. Mbappé? Excellent player but PSG has still to win the champions league and, a serious question, has it done significantly any better since he moved there? Vanity signing.
Last edited:
Was referring to euros, we are just splitting hairs really now, point still stands.
https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/100...-transfers-all-time/ikr3oojohla51fh9adq3qkwpu
This is true, RM get big transfers mostly right and United get them wrong pretty much every time.
KDB and Rodri cost over 70m euros under City’s accounting. Whether Grealish is a 70m player is not is questionable, he has been one of the best CMs in the PL so his asset value I would say is still over CM.
Bale scored in two CL finals and won 5 champion leagues, I would say he was a successs.
Ronaldo - big success
Mbappe - His current value is still protected, RM bid last year was around what they purchased originally with a year left on his contract. Regardless of the fact they haven’t won CL or not which is on PSG more than him, they have won the league many times over and he has been at the fore front of that. His current asset value stands.
When you value the impact of a transfer, all factors should be considered including end on field performance, current/exit asset value, commerical impact etc.
Last edited:
- Status
