Common sense posts are getting few and far between on here Leon. Your post will be ignored by most though.
Transfer Rumours 2016/17 City Transfer Thread
- Thread starter originallambrettaman
- Start date
-
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
-
Loved that series...almost the final scene...
You must log in or register to see media
Last edited:
Steve Bruce has always said transfers are judged on a player by player basis. This £18m thing is clearly bollocks. Don't worry about it.
When Buckingham and Burnsy are in agreement on it I tend to believe it's more than just a rumour.
I wonder about that...being more than a rumour that is, given the "for sale" sign and rumoured interest/bid(s). Nothing would have been leaked, unless there is total incompetence or a complete pack of lies around potential purchasers.
Maybe more than 18 million and they would have to increase an already accepted price for the sale of the club?
No, even if it ends up being true, it's still a rumour until it is officially confirmed.
FACT.
We need 5 or 6 strikers, some more options in midfield, depth in defence and a new goalkeeper.
£18m won't even scratch the surface.
£18m won't even scratch the surface.
I've just had a thought, could be way off and ridiculous but then again it might not.
The club owe somewhere around around £80m to the Allams right? What if they're expecting to sell the club for £100m and the £18m talked about is pushes up what's owed to £100m so if/when the club is sold nothing is owed?
Might be miles off so don't slate me but there could be some logic in there.
The club owe somewhere around around £80m to the Allams right? What if they're expecting to sell the club for £100m and the £18m talked about is pushes up what's owed to £100m so if/when the club is sold nothing is owed?
Might be miles off so don't slate me but there could be some logic in there.
Have you ever googled jar squatter?
Too many have got carried away with the headline figures, it was never as good as it sounded.
You get just under £100m for a season in the Premier League, if you go straight back down you're guaranteed another £86m in parachute payments over the following three years, hence the £170m headline figure.
We've already got a £50m wage bill, spend another £20m on players and add their wages to your spend and most of the £100m has gone. You can spread the player purchase costs over three years and have a real go, but if you go down the parachute money doesn't even cover the wage bill and you need to have a major clear-out.
If last season showed us anything, it's that spend doesn't equal success.
You get just under £100m for a season in the Premier League, if you go straight back down you're guaranteed another £86m in parachute payments over the following three years, hence the £170m headline figure.
We've already got a £50m wage bill, spend another £20m on players and add their wages to your spend and most of the £100m has gone. You can spread the player purchase costs over three years and have a real go, but if you go down the parachute money doesn't even cover the wage bill and you need to have a major clear-out.
If last season showed us anything, it's that spend doesn't equal success.
A wage bill of £50m equates to 25 players on £40k a week, which seems a bit high
(OLM trust the wedding went well)
(OLM trust the wedding went well)