Transfer Rumours Summer 2024 transfer 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!
What is Giles problem exactly?

Can't walter sell him the dream. Obviously would likely be in the starting 11. What's not to like.
 
Idi Amin said:
What is Giles problem exactly?

Can't walter sell him the dream. Obviously would likely be in the starting 11. What's not to like.
Click to expand...
He has never really looked like he's wanted to be here even when given chances. He used to annoy me as he just kept messing with his hair. A petty rage of mine is players playing with chewing gum in too. Spit it out and put some effort in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rovertiger, NewcastleTiger, TwoWrights and 2 others
askewshair said:
Very different to the premier league version then?
Click to expand...

Premier league clubs are swapping youth players for overinflated fees. So whilst no profit is made by either club they can show paper profits for ffp as the cost is amortised against the length of the contract whilst the income from selling the player is booked entirely that year. If they sell a player for £40m and sign a player for £40m on a 4 year contract, they can technically show a £30m profit in accounts. Whilst it's a handy work around for clubs it's only a short term solution and is just kicking the problem down the road.

Any player we sign is also amortised against the length of his contract, but the second they're sold any amortisation that is left has to be shown as they are no longer an asset the club holds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SydneyTiger14, Stockholm Tiger, highpeak tiger and 1 other person
HullCityInEurope said:
Premier league clubs are swapping youth players for overinflated fees. So whilst no profit is made by either club they can show paper profits for ffp as the cost is amortised against the length of the contract whilst the income from selling the player is booked entirely that year. If they sell a player for £40m and sign a player for £40m on a 4 year contract, they can technically show a £30m profit in accounts. Whilst it's a handy work around for clubs it's only a short term solution and is just kicking the problem down the road.

Any player we sign is also amortised against the length of his contract, but the second they're sold any amortisation that is left has to be shown as they are no longer an asset the club holds.
Click to expand...
Well explained if that's the case:emoticon-0148-yes:


(Obviously,if it's not the case,then it's not well explained):emoticon-0102-bigsm
 
  • Like
Reactions: balkan tiger, Stockholm Tiger, rovertiger and 3 others
M88 EVN said:
On the other hand, its probably a good message for potential new signings to hear though, along with loan clubs and agents etc. They will be happier moving to us, knowing that the club won't stand in their way if a bigger club comes in. Player gets the move he deserves, agent gets pockets lined, loan clubs get a more valuable asset at a club where the chairman appears to care for the players etc. It also may help us get deals like Abdus over the line, where the selling club get a hefty sell on in return for a low transfer fee.

I'm not being difficult, I am just trying to show the other side of his tactic.

It looks like we're also getting north of £40m plus sell ons for Greaves and Jaden which is not exactly way below market value even though he's saying they can leave.

I do find the Giles transfer utterly bizarre though, especially when we aren't making a profit.
Click to expand...

The Giles situation screams we agreed an obligation, thought about it, didn't want it and are happy to recoup. **** situation you put yourself in. I can see why Acun blew Liam out. He was banking on promotion despite what he said.
 
Evington said:
The Giles situation screams we agreed an obligation, thought about it, didn't want it and are happy to recoup. **** situation you put yourself in. I can see why Acun blew Liam out. He was banking on promotion despite what he said.
Click to expand...

I think we'd probably rather have kept him than lose money on the deal. But there's the pull of a bigger club, stadium and fanbase, existing relationships with the squad - whereas we no longer have a squad, and the fact he's been successful under Carrick previously.

If we insist he stays we risk a Henriksen type scenario.

Hopefully we can structure a deal whereby we recoup our losses.
 
Mckechnie Orange said:
I think we'd probably rather have kept him than lose money on the deal. But there's the pull of a bigger club, stadium and fanbase, existing relationships with the squad - whereas we no longer have a squad, and the fact he's been successful under Carrick previously.

If we insist he stays we risk a Henriksen type scenario.

Hopefully we can structure a deal whereby we recoup our losses.
Click to expand...

The Henriksen situation was that City refused to play him in his final year until he signed a longer term contract, or left for a fee. That wouldn't happen again unless we decided to do it again.
 
Oh ****ing hell.

I'm sure things will improve as the season draws closer.

I predict bottom three for most of the season leading up to Xmas.

I acknowledge this is not adding anything to the discussion regarding signings and outgoings.
 
PLT said:
The Henriksen situation was that City refused to play him in his final year until he signed a longer term contract, or left for a fee. That wouldn't happen again unless we decided to do it again.
Click to expand...

He wanted to leave on a lowball offer and Ehab dug his heels in. End result a waste of a contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back