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!
Solid_Air 2 said:
why should an owner put money into the club ?
Click to expand...
Because if they dont you come 2nd quite a ****ing lot.

City have done about 500m on defenders since pep arrived

Klopp got konate and that ginger kid since vvd.

Fsg cannot and will not fund the club and they shoukd fuxk the fuxk off imo
 
Libby said:
Yeah that's what I said. The rules were changed because of City and Chelsea buying their way to the top and the big clubs here and abroad didn't like it so FFP was introduced to mitigate against that.

And I don't believe City did do anything wrong immediately post takeover. This is my entire point - owners should be allowed to invest in their clubs.

Like I said though I wouldn't want Saints ran like City myself, and I don't give them huge amounts of credit for sweeping up trophy wise either as its to be expected. But an owner investing money in their business shouldn't be taboo.
Click to expand...

if the British tax.man had half the balls of the Spanish one then city might be in a lot.more trouble due to payments under thr table that have not been taxed

but hey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Libby
Libby said:
Sorry missed out a word, should have said 'can outspend'.

Although I also wasn't talking just fees, don't you have one of the biggest wage bills in world football?
Click to expand...

I know we've just lopped off over £1m a week of our wage bill. CBA looking it up again, but I believe we're about two-thirds down the league in the wages-to-earnings table: last time I looked, Leicester and Everton were joint top of that pile, and it didn't seem to be going that well for them.
 
Evil Roy Slade said:
I know we've just lopped off over £1m a week of our wage bill. CBA looking it up again, but I believe we're about two-thirds down the league in the wages-to-earnings table: last time I looked, Leicester and Everton were joint top of that pile, and it didn't seem to be going that well for them.
Click to expand...
We now have the smallest squad in the prem.

But im sure fsg will back klopp with major funds as promised after a disaster of a season last year, which again was caused by a lack of squad improvement, you know cos they always do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quinneristops and Ivan Dobsky
Evil Roy Slade said:
I know we've just lopped off over £1m a week of our wage bill. CBA looking it up again, but I believe we're about two-thirds down the league in the wages-to-earnings table: last time I looked, Leicester and Everton were joint top of that pile, and it didn't seem to be going that well for them.
Click to expand...
not quite think it is about £850 once the new signings are taken into account
 
Solid_Air 2 said:
better line is why FSG are so reluctant to let the club take on debt to fund transfers when they have made such a huge capital gain on the club .
Click to expand...
Prefer this line
You must log in or register to see media
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
cos. debt is bad, k?
Click to expand...

I still don't know how Chelsea ran up a £1.5bn debt with Abramovich - and were allowed to simply write it off when he was forced to sell the club. So - bear with me on this - in a parallel universe where FSG are not parsimonious tight-arses - what would stop them running up £2bn of debt on players' transfers, thus adding £2bn of value to the club, then forming a shell company that buys FSG from themselves at a £2bn+ inflated price (say £6bn), and then that debt is not, evidently, subject to FFP?

Now, is that not, in a way, what Chelsea has done? :emoticon-0138-think
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solid Air
Libby said:
Well this is my point, the rules purpose isn't to stop financial mismanagement. If they were then they wouldn't allow clubs to rack up huge debts.

Bury were never charged with any FFP offences as far I remember. Which means a criminal owner was able to completely ruin the club financially without falling foul of regulations that are supposedly there to stop that.

The rules were brought in to protect the big clubs pure and simple. They didn't like the fact that Chelsea (and later City) bought their way into the top table and wanted the try and mitigate against more clubs doing the same thing.

Look at Everton and Leicester, both had rich owners willing to invest but reached a point where they were no longer able to die to the rules preventing them. Even Newcastle are starting to feel the effects of it and therefore are trying to get round it in other ways like selling players Saudi etc.

20 years ago Newcastle would have already dropped over half a billion by now and the rules were brought in to stop them doing so.

FFP is the only reason that FSG bought you too imo. It means they can own a big club without investing anything but still outspend the vast majority of the league. It's also why they wanted the super league.
Click to expand...

And that would be a good thing?
 
Sucky said:
Prefer this line
You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...

If you look back, we did this last night, but Diego ended all discussion by 'proving' net spend doesn't count. Unless it suits his argument, apparently. :emoticon-0138-think
 
Evil Roy Slade said:
I still don't know how Chelsea ran up a £1.5bn debt with Abramovich - and were allowed to simply write it off when he was forced to sell the club. So - bear with me on this - in a parallel universe where FSG are not parsimonious tight-arses - what would stop them running up £2bn of debt on players' transfers, thus adding £2bn of value to the club, then forming a shell company that buys FSG from themselves at a £2bn+ inflated price (say £6bn), and then that debt is not, evidently, subject to FFP?

Now, is that not, in a way, what Chelsea has done? :emoticon-0138-think
Click to expand...

it.wasnt real debt. it was loans converted to fake equity by abramovich.

cheslea never had to live in the real.world.of business since 2004

you are asking American business men to somehow invent money like an pup doper or Russian stooge.

it's all fine until someone has to pony up the actual cash in the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ivan Dobsky
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back