Finney Is Back
Andy Thompson
Not at that price I wouldn't have thought. I would imagine Everton would also offer higher wages than Palace.
-
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
Definitely not an out of car window Transfer Thread
- Thread starter Lemonade Money
- Start date
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
As I said, the fact the rules get changed each time shows they’re gaming them and the powers that be don’t agree with how they are operating.
It’s smart in the same way tax dodging is smart, it’s ok till you get caught, like they did with the youth players scandal and transfer ban.
Finney Is Back
Andy Thompson
No, it shows that they are operating in a clever way. If there are rules and a club operates within them then fine. If and when the rules get changed then the club will have to operate in a different way. I would love the club that we love to operate in a more clever way instead of being (e.g) £400m short of the FFP line as we were a few years ago.
Tax dodging isn't smart, it is illegal.
You mean being short £400m short of the FFP line when we were in the middle of a stadium build and hadn't got a spare 400m?
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
So is not registering youth players and getting transfer bans for it! Very dodgy
Kandi1977
Garth Crooks
Dodging tax is illegal. Amortisation over many years isn't. Not their fault no one else seems to have thought about it. Also, they're taking a big risk further down the line. If those players don't fit, they're liable to a lot of wages!
Finney Is Back
Andy Thompson
Yes, I mean when the owners should've injected liquidity (either themselves or via outside investment) when the value of their asset was increasing at pace.
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
Yea I’m aware of the difference. I was referring to the youth players and transfer ban, so clearly it was illegal.
the loan thing was not illegal at the time, but since rules have been brought in to limit that.
similarly rules are now being brought in to limit the amortization.
I mean it just isn’t debatable that they are gaming it, just like large companies set up in Luxemburg to pay less tax, it’s gaming the tax system, tax avoidance, it’s not illegal but the powers that be look to bring in rules to “try” and stop them doing that.
Finney Is Back
Andy Thompson
Regulators are always trying to bring in new rules to catch up with individuals/companies who are smarter than them and exploit the rules that exist at the time.
I agree that Chelsea's issue with youth players (I think it was poaching young players wasn't it?) is illegal and not something we should applaud. However you were originally talking about them having lots of players out on loan and their recent lengthy transfer fee amortisaton tactic, with both of these things Chelsea have operated extremely cleverly, staying within the existing rules.
Kandi1977
Garth Crooks
I really don't see how you can call operating within current rules as "gaming the rules". Rules change all the time. Some thing were allowed in yesteryears, but not anymore. That does not make those that previously operated within what was then legal, criminals now, because it's now illegal.
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
I mean, each to their own I guess. It’s pretty obvious, to me at least, that the rules changed specifically to counteract Chelsea and the way they are operating. Why change the rules if they think there’s nothing wrong with the way they are operating?
Kandi1977
Garth Crooks
I have no idea why they target this part of a business way of operating. There are far more pressing issues concerning ffp than how many years of amortisation is used. It really makes little sense.
Kandi1977
Garth Crooks
He was really promising at some stage. Wonder what went wrong, or if he just reached his ceiling and wasn't able to take the next step.
Fulham in talks to terminate Onomah's contract
Fulham are in talks with midfielder Josh Onomah to mutually terminate his contract.
Onomah's contract is up in the summer.
Once the termination is finalised, he will become a free agent and therefore can join another club outside of the transfer window.
Sky Sports News has been told a number of Championship clubs are interested in signing him.
Fulham in talks to terminate Onomah's contract
Fulham are in talks with midfielder Josh Onomah to mutually terminate his contract.
Onomah's contract is up in the summer.
Once the termination is finalised, he will become a free agent and therefore can join another club outside of the transfer window.
Sky Sports News has been told a number of Championship clubs are interested in signing him.
I always felt he was vastly over-rated by Spurs fans. Good that he's having something of a career though, even if leaving Fulham.
Our academy feels like its in a dry spell at the moment
ricky2tricky4city
Steffen Freund
Unless there has been some kind of unfathomable eureka moment, I wouldn't call it smart doing something that would have obviously been considered by many clubs down the years.
It's plainly a risky approach, has upsides but also definite downsides.
Bedfordspurs
Chris Waddle
That’s why clubs haven’t done it
It’s a brave call
What’s key here is they borrowed the money to invest which their going but they need an outcome from that investment to pay it back somehow
Everyone has thought about it and realized in the long run it's going to burn them
- I'm sure signing Dele Ali to a 8 year deal would have seemed like a smart idea (as close to fool proof as you could imagine) at one point
- Can you imagine if we had fudging Ndombele on an 8 year deal?
So they are going to end up with 8-10 players on salaries that even if you assume a 50% hit ratio is going to a mess to get off the books.
Honestly I don't think it's brave, I think it's naïve, as is this ridiculous spending.
City spends boatloads but they are subtle about it (as subtle as you can be spending >£100M for a player), Chelsea throwing around this money, clearly trying to work around rules and accounting publicly is only going to get them scrutiny (and American investors have no friends in UEFA/FIFA like say a certain club in Paris) and already rules are changing to counter them.
Bedfordspurs
Chris Waddle
But it’s owner investment
They can and will be fine with it
What I can’t work out is how they think the loan the owners took out will be paid back
Their turnover is limited by the ground and commercial revenue
They have maxed out a lot of commercial reviewing and the ground is a long long way form making decent money
They also have to pay back Clearlake some fees every year on top of the debt
There was an article about how Clearlake make money no matter what the other day … and it’s big money as part of a management fee