Transfer Rumours Summer 2024

  • 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!
Newcastle selling Elliott Anderson to Forest for £35m and signing Vlachodimos from Forest in a separate deal

Newcastle also selling Yakuba Minteh to Brighton

Newcastle signing a keeper might mean Pope is available, will surely have better offers than us and is tragic with his feet so Martin probably wouldn’t want him anyway (if we are in for a keeper at all now)
 
SaintsFan86 said:
Spurs are talking to Leeds now, Makes sense. They can offer the same deal plus Rodon who they wany to resign and Skipp too, pn loan to replace Gray. Or possibly just loan gray back to Leeds for a season.
Click to expand...
Hasn’t this happened to us a few time (I mean what seems to have happened to Brentford). Used by agents as a stalking horse to get the bigger clubs to finally get their act together a make a real bid for a player
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaintsFan86
Saintmagic said:
Newcastle selling Elliott Anderson to Forest for £35m and signing Vlachodimos from Forest in a separate deal

Newcastle also selling Yakuba Minteh to Brighton

Newcastle signing a keeper might mean Pope is available, will surely have better offers than us and is tragic with his feet so Martin probably wouldn’t want him anyway (if we are in for a keeper at all now)
Click to expand...
I don’t really understand how this deal benefits Forest
 
Gregm1988 said:
I don’t really understand how this deal benefits Forest
Click to expand...

It depends what the fee is for Vlachodimos. Lots of outfits appear to be reporting the £35m fee for Anderson (which is ludicrously high), but I'm not seeing anything about what the fee would be Vlachodimos.

If it was, say, £30m, then that's how it benefits Forest. Just more dodgy PSR dealing with two clubs.

But if it was, say, £3m, then I agree that it doesn't benefit Forest at all. They'd be paying a net sum of £32m for someone who is worth nowhere near that, at a time when they have only recently just been punished for breaking PSR rules. My guess therefore is that the Vlachodimos deal is also for a ridiculous price.

It's a total joke, and I hope the PL throw the book at these club (as much as it has the power to).
 
tomw24 said:
PSR.
Click to expand...
Massively overpaying on a player does not benefit them - PSR or not. I can get the whole thing of selling a player and getting the full amount as income and amortising a signing to reduce the cost. Simple accounting. But the massively overinflated fee seems to only benefit Newcastle here so I’m not sure why Forest would go along with it. Three letters doesn’t seem to be an answer to this
 
Gregm1988 said:
Massively overpaying on a player does not benefit them - PSR or not. I can get the whole thing of selling a player and getting the full amount as income and amortising a signing to reduce the cost. Simple accounting. But the massively overinflated fee seems to only benefit Newcastle here so I’m not sure why Forest would go along with it. Three letters doesn’t seem to be an answer to this
Click to expand...

As Brendy says if they've sold a youth player for a silly fee too it will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ronnie Hotdog (MLsfc)
The clubs are essentially gambling that PSR will be overhauled soon. If they remain as they are, then the inflated transfer costs will be fall into then next few years accounts and restrict their activity then. It really isn't a sustainable strategy and only makes sense if a club is facing a severe points deduction.
 
Ronnie Hotdog (MLsfc) said:
The clubs are essentially gambling that PSR will be overhauled soon. If they remain as they are, then the inflated transfer costs will be fall into then next few years accounts and restrict their activity then. It really isn't a sustainable strategy and only makes sense if a club is facing a severe points deduction.
Click to expand...

Dont any changes have to be voted through by 14 clubs? They’ll all just vote to keep the rules the same if they can do this
 
Gregm1988 said:
Lots of contradictory rumours. One is that we are apparently not concerned with 30m for O’Riley (which seems substantially overpriced) and now that we are backing away on £18m for Clarke - which doesn’t seem much more than you’d expect to have to pay for him in terms of percentages

Rumours are all over the place
Click to expand...
Agree about O`Riley - not worth anywhere near £30m.
 
Ipswich have done well to get Hutchinson back on a permanent deal.

No surprise that Chelsea sold him - they love to sell an academy player - but I thought a higher PL club might be interested in him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back