• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The transfer thread

They did loosen them up a bit last summer. They're allowed to spend a certain percentage of any fees they bring in and any wages they get off their books.

Thought that was always the rule. Did something change?

La liga sets out what someone can spend. They can go over that if it's matched by sales, cutting costs or raising revenue. They even had an app that would show clubs if they could sign a player.
 
Thought that was always the rule. Did something change?

La liga sets out what someone can spend. They can go over that if it's matched by sales, cutting costs or raising revenue. They even had an app that would show clubs if they could sign a player.

They increased the percentages to stimulate signings. Not sure if that was just for last season or is still in effect.
 
Chelsea and Atletico Madrid are close to finalising the deals for Conor Gallagher and Samu Omorodion after agreeing on a new fee of £38m (€42m) for each player, Sky Sports News understands
 
Chelsea and Atletico Madrid are close to finalising the deals for Conor Gallagher and Samu Omorodion after agreeing on a new fee of £38m (€42m) for each player, Sky Sports News understands
thats a bit on the low side, chelsea really do not want to sell to us
 
thats a bit on the low side, chelsea really do not want to sell to us
That’s a huge fee for a guy with a year on his contract whose best season was his one on loan

Funny bit though is their getting back a guy who hasn’t played much senior football at all
 
I reckon Skipp might move to them the following day. Both at inflated fees. Say £65m and £25m
£50m and £10m would mean Bournemouth pay £3million less to Liverpool but with the same net income.
Unlike the PSR games, there's incentive for the fees to be somewhat understated this time.
 
£50m and £10m would mean Bournemouth pay £3million less to Liverpool but with the same net income.
Unlike the PSR games, there's incentive for the fees to be somewhat understated this time.

I didn't know about the sell on thing. Would a high Skipp price not help us quite a bit with future PSR?

Maybe we could do a 3 part deal - Solonke low, Skipp high, Soloman very low?
 
Back