Transfer Rumours Transfer Rumours thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Stanley J Krammerhead III said:
Okay, you Tobes and Astro used to argue this stuff till the cows came home, and now two of those are no longer with us we'll have to just take your word for it. What you'll have to take my word for (hopefully) is that there was an article in the Echo explaining all this a year ago, and that came up with £350m figure at that time, and was updated this summer before that window's transaction.

As said, I don't think it was saying how much actual money we HAD - just how much money we could SPEND and not transgress FFP. As to how much doss we have, I keep making the point that if Chelsea can simply write off £1.5bn of what Abramovich gave them to buy players, then surely, if FSG ARE selling the club (?), then can they not lump £1bn on to the value by splashing out that much on players in this window, then whoever is buying pays that extra knowing that will have increased the value of the club AND circumvented FFP as Chelsea did? :bandit:
Click to expand...
I know you aren't keen on FSG :bandit: but i can't see the UK Govt sanctioning them <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Beej and Ivan Dobsky
Stanley J Krammerhead III said:
Okay, you Tobes and Astro used to argue this stuff till the cows came home, and now two of those are no longer with us we'll have to just take your word for it. What you'll have to take my word for (hopefully) is that there was an article in the Echo explaining all this a year ago, and that came up with £350m figure at that time, and was updated this summer before that window's transaction.

As said, I don't think it was saying how much actual money we HAD - just how much money we could SPEND and not transgress FFP. As to how much doss we have, I keep making the point that if Chelsea can simply write off £1.5bn of what Abramovich gave them to buy players, then surely, if FSG ARE selling the club (?), then can they not lump £1bn on to the value by splashing out that much on players in this window, then whoever is buying pays that extra knowing that will have increased the value of the club AND circumvented FFP as Chelsea did? :bandit:
Click to expand...

ForedeckDave too <rose>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garlic Klopp, moreinjuredthanowen, Bumps and 3 others
Bumps said:
HMOC has Astro died too :(:(
Click to expand...

I've wondered that. Of course it's also possible he forgot he got a new phone, didn't know his password.

For a long time (few years) emails didn't work, so you couldnt reset password or create a new account. It's possible he tried for months to get back in and finally gave up and joined RAWK or one of the other sites out there.

Whenever I get locked out or banned, I've gone to sixcrazyminutes for refuge...

... Not that I've ever been banned from here. :bandit:

#denyeverything
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bumps
Stanley J Krammerhead III said:
Okay, you Tobes and Astro used to argue this stuff till the cows came home, and now two of those are no longer with us we'll have to just take your word for it. What you'll have to take my word for (hopefully) is that there was an article in the Echo explaining all this a year ago, and that came up with £350m figure at that time, and was updated this summer before that window's transaction.

As said, I don't think it was saying how much actual money we HAD - just how much money we could SPEND and not transgress FFP. As to how much doss we have, I keep making the point that if Chelsea can simply write off £1.5bn of what Abramovich gave them to buy players, then surely, if FSG ARE selling the club (?), then can they not lump £1bn on to the value by splashing out that much on players in this window, then whoever is buying pays that extra knowing that will have increased the value of the club AND circumvented FFP as Chelsea did? :bandit:
Click to expand...

the rules dint allow that.much cash injected by an owner. even chavs had to circumvent that via yearly debt to equity conversion by the oligarch.

city are doing it via fake revenues in on end.

there's not time to magic up 300mil without borrowing it.
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
the rules dint allow that.much cash injected by an owner. even chavs had to circumvent that via yearly debt to equity conversion by the oligarch.

city are doing it via fake revenues in on end.

there's not time to magic up 300mil without borrowing it.
Click to expand...

Debt isn’t a problem necessarily, although the time do do that is gone now, it’s the amount of debt and the return on capital invested which is more critical.

I’m not sure what we owe, I believe that it went as high as $200m but I read a while back that this had been paid down somewhat….for reference, Utd’s debt at the same time was c.$600m (not sure if either are £ or $ btw).
 
SIR_KENNY_KLOPP_KING said:
Debt isn’t a problem necessarily, although the time do do that is gone now, it’s the amount of debt and the return on capital invested which is more critical.

I’m not sure what we owe, I believe that it went as high as $200m but I read a while back that this had been paid down somewhat….for reference, Utd’s debt at the same time was c.$600m (not sure if either are £ or $ btw).
Click to expand...

it was a short tem loan for covid and was largely given back unspent.

we will only find put end of Feb I think. the orem requires accounts to be published annually but the rules either end Feb or end march

I'm fairly sure when record profits and low debts is communicated people will go mad we didn't buy a cm this window
 
  • Like
Reactions: SIR_KENNY_KLOPP_KING
moreinjuredthanowen said:
it was a short tem loan for covid and was largely given back unspent.

we will only find put end of Feb I think. the orem requires accounts to be published annually but the rules either end Feb or end march

I'm fairly sure when record profits and low debts is communicated people will go mad we didn't buy a cm this window
Click to expand...

yeah, is my guess too and also is what prompted JK’s ‘more risk’ comment I reckon.
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
the rules dint allow that.much cash injected by an owner. even chavs had to circumvent that via yearly debt to equity conversion by the oligarch.

city are doing it via fake revenues in on end.

there's not time to magic up 300mil without borrowing it.[/QUOTE]
Click to expand...


My point - borrow the £300-£400m, then the new owner (or investor) pays for it in an inflated price for the sale, and it adds value to their purchase. No different to building an extension on your house before selling it, is it? Actually, I don't know - but Chelsea seem to have gotten away with it. :emoticon-0108-speec

But the article in the Echo was written before the sale talk, so presumably, it's saying we have £300m -£400m wiggle room accounting for borrowing? :emoticon-0112-wonde
 
Last edited:
SIR_KENNY_KLOPP_KING said:
low debt right now is a good thing. High debt will need to be restructured at some point and it just got a ton more expensive to do that….and will likely get worse. We need a sugar daddy.
Click to expand...

Especially given the economy atm, interest rates are high. Don’t want to be taking out any kind of loans.
 
SIR_KENNY_KLOPP_KING said:
low debt right now is a good thing. High debt will need to be restructured at some point and it just got a ton more expensive to do that….and will likely get worse. We need a sugar daddy.
Click to expand...

Indeed. That's why I say IF we're being sold or getting investment (and if it's an investment it presumably is straight into us and not shared around with the Sox and the rest of the crowd) it's a way of getting £400m or so of interest-free money that circumvents FFP, providing those new owners/investors are not leveraging their stake against the club?
 
SIR_KENNY_KLOPP_KING said:
Debt isn’t a problem necessarily, although the time do do that is gone now, it’s the amount of debt and the return on capital invested which is more critical.

I’m not sure what we owe, I believe that it went as high as $200m but I read a while back that this had been paid down somewhat….for reference, Utd’s debt at the same time was c.$600m (not sure if either are £ or $ btw).
Click to expand...

Isn't a fair whack of that debt what we 'owe' FSG for the stands? That doesn't come under FFP anyway, and I think that's what the article stated. And don't get me going on how FSG is billing the club for infrastructure when NESV, as it was, went to court alongside RSB against Hicks and defended the sale price on the basis that the new owners had £200m ready to build the new stadium that H&G didn't. I don't blame them for not building a new stadium, but I do think it's rich that when they eventually got around to doing it that they then billed the club for the privilege, even though it adds value to their asset. presumably, if we're sold the remaining debt is written off?
 
Stanley J Krammerhead III said:
Isn't a fair whack of that debt what we 'owe' FSG for the stands? That doesn't come under FFP anyway, and I think that's what the article stated. And don't get me going on how FSG is billing the club for infrastructure when NESV, as it was, went to court alongside RSB against Hicks and defended the sale price on the basis that the new owners had £200m ready to build the new stadium that H&G didn't. I don't blame them for not building a new stadium, but I do think it's rich that when they eventually got around to doing it that they then billed the club for the privilege, even though it adds value to their asset. presumably, if we're sold the remaining debt is written off?
Click to expand...

no idea tbh - football finances do my nut in. However, in terms of being fiscally astute, I completely trust FSG so I have no issue with how they structure their debt. Whatever anyone says about them now, we are in a far healthier position now than we were before they came and it is because of them.

Have they taken us as far as they can, given the spending of other teams? Possibly but I wouldn’t rule them out, I guess we’ll soon find out.
 
SIR_KENNY_KLOPP_KING said:
Debt isn’t a problem necessarily, although the time do do that is gone now, it’s the amount of debt and the return on capital invested which is more critical.

I’m not sure what we owe, I believe that it went as high as $200m but I read a while back that this had been paid down somewhat….for reference, Utd’s debt at the same time was c.$600m (not sure if either are £ or $ btw).
Click to expand...

Why Man Utd’s debt is set to rise a further £200m | FootballTransfers.com *

*Taking it to £700m, but I suspect United are doing what I said Liverpool could do - take their debt to the limit of FFP and then sell off the club so that it;s incorporated into the price and wiped off, or get a sugar-daddy investor to pay it off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bumps and moreinjuredthanowen
Steve caulker joined Wigan whose manager is kolo toure.

Think that shock me is he’s only 31.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back