• 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

Grealish

r-u-s-x said:
what sources do you trust? do we ever get conformation until a deal is complete.

A 21 yr old post Fergie train wreak under Moyes 5 years ago seems a bit of a harsh way to judge the players current suitability. The main criticism was he needed more maturity in his game, he is now more mature.
Click to expand...

it doesn't have to be as far as a complete deal, its on the guardian website that Courtois didn't return to chelsea training, and that Bernard is having a medical at Everton for example

that's just one data point, for a player to improve us (and justify massive fees) they need to be exceptional, putting in match winning performances single handedly regularly, palace won 11 games last season, villa couldn't even get out of the championship, these are punts, which is fine if they are priced accordingly
 
Grealish should definitely be around the Madison mark and no more, this is a fair price in this market and I will be surprised if the headline figure isn't 20-25M, but reported at £40M for addons (that will not be hit).

Zaha is the best player outside the to 6 for me and is priced accordingly, there is no way he is worth £60M+ but you are paying for the fact he has experience of the league and has been successful for the past 2 years, if you want top quality PL proven it will cost you double, Coutinho was £135M and the market has moved up since then. If I had the choice between Mahrez (£60M) and Zaha I would be after Zaha.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Coutinho was £135M and the market has moved up since then.
Click to expand...

This is the reality. And Coutinho only moved in Jan!

I think the issue for us fans is that the market is escalating far quicker than we can adjust to the new "levels".

£50-60m players used to be the best of the best. Now they are "decent" or with potential. IT IS INSANE! But... its also the world we live in now.
 
DeanoAustin said:
A lender is looking for one thing - can you repay the loan? They couldn't give a sh!te if what you're buying makes you money or not if you have enough money to cover the loan anyway. If you're relying on the loan to generate revenue to pay off the loan, that's a different story and 2 and 3 become relevant. A bank doesn't refuse you a car loan (for an asset that will depreciate) if you have a house that's worth hundreds of thousands or a revenue stream (salary) that easily enables you to pay back the loan.

We don't have to break the bank to sign a couple of quality players. We have £200m in the bank according to our 2017 accounts. Given that we won't spend more than £50m to 60m on a player and we certainly won't pay it all up front either, we could do it without going to a bank. Even if we did, we could repay the loan. Given that our wages to turnover ratio is the lowest in the league, we could also afford the wages.
Click to expand...
That couldn't be less true - corporate finance doesn't work the same way as personal finance.

This is a major part of what I do for a living - I convince lenders that what I'm proposing works and they're always very clear on what they need to see before they lend.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
That couldn't be less true - corporate finance doesn't work the same way as personal finance.

This is a major part of what I do for a living - I convince lenders that what I'm proposing works and they're always very clear on what they need to see before they lend.
Click to expand...

A lender cares about being paid. If you are relying on your player generating revenue by qualifying for the CL or some other performance related reward, of course that's a different story but we're not in that position.

Of course, they probably won't lend you money for magic beans but if you buy a player, which we rarely ever overpay for, you buy an asset that is reflected in your accounts as such. They can be sold so the bank recovers their money if it went tits up unless you got into financial difficulty and the player broke both his legs. However, that's a really long shot and looking at the rest of our accounts, we're a good bet to lend money to.

We also have a lot of money in the bank. We probably don't need to go to the bank to make a couple of quality signings.

Finally, if what you are saying is true (i.e. a bank won't lend money to clubs for players because they aren't guaranteed to make money), how has any other club ever managed to borrow for a player?
 
McGINN ARRIVES FOR VILLA TALKS

Hibernian midfielder John McGinn has arrived at Aston Villa’s training ground for talks about a possible move to the Midlands, Sky Sports News understands, but Celtic are still very much in the frame to sign him.

No fee has yet been agreed between Villa and Hibs for the 23-year-old Scotland international.

Celtic have seen several bids for McGinn rejected this summer, and it’s thought both the player and Hibs prefer a move to the English Championship.


From what I know of McGinn he would be a pretty natural Grealish replacement.
 
scaramanga said:
That couldn't be less true - corporate finance doesn't work the same way as personal finance.

This is a major part of what I do for a living - I convince lenders that what I'm proposing works and they're always very clear on what they need to see before they lend.
Click to expand...
Risk is reflected on what they will offer on the $$ - there is no question we could sell our future Season ticket sales (its done all the time) its just how much of a haircut will need to be built in for it to be worth the risk. Whether its wise to do so is a different story as you are gambling your future.

You are correct that some of our other debt may have covenants that will stop us taking on debt in this manner. We also have FFP to worry about as raising funds in this manner may fall foul.
 
Last edited:
Let's not forget our predicament viz-a-viz the current premium on home-growns. If we're to mount a serious challenge for the PL we are going to need a full-squad of 25 but that can ONLY be achieved through the addition of one more home-grown over the age of 21.

Both Grealish and Zaha tick that box nicely but it seems the prohibitive asking price for the latter is why we appear to be focusing on the more affordable Grealish.

Villa will be as aware of our issue as we are of their desperate need to comply with FFP (despite Bruce bluffing about no longer needing to sell), hence the long-drawn out negotiations battle.

Odds are it will happen, but we all know Levy won't be pushed around, hence it's likely to go right down to the wire.
 
DeanoAustin said:
A lender cares about being paid. If you are relying on your player generating revenue by qualifying for the CL or some other performance related reward, of course that's a different story but we're not in that position.

Of course, they probably won't lend you money for magic beans but if you buy a player, which we rarely ever overpay for, you buy an asset that is reflected in your accounts as such. They can be sold so the bank recovers their money if it went tits up unless you got into financial difficulty and the player broke both his legs. However, that's a really long shot and looking at the rest of our accounts, we're a good bet to lend money to.

We also have a lot of money in the bank. We probably don't need to go to the bank to make a couple of quality signings.

Finally, if what you are saying is true (i.e. a bank won't lend money to clubs for players because they aren't guaranteed to make money), how has any other club ever managed to borrow for a player?
Click to expand...
Players aren't assets in the way that stadiums or cash are - there isn't a strong consensus on value that can be proven independently. If we borrowed money for Sissoko at £30M how would we pay it back? What if Chelsea had had to borrow to buy Torres? These values are so unstable that they cannot and should not be treated as a normal asset.

I don't believe clubs do borrow to buy nowadays, if they do then they have probably used something else as security and are behaving in a very risky manner.
 
Vega said:
The images of Mr Levy ringing back every 2-3 hours and upping it by £250k a time :):):) or perhaps even via fax??
Click to expand...

Carrier pigeon. Thats why we get conflicting reports, some go missing.

I wish Levy would just get with the times, take risks and offer whatever they want.

Via WhatsApp of course.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Carrier pigeon. Thats why we get conflicting reports, some go missing.

I wish Levy would just get with the times, take risks and offer whatever they want.

Via WhatsApp of course.
Click to expand...

You cant argue he doesnt treat every ££ as if it were his own.

In fact i wonder if i could hire him out to give lessons to my Mrs on that subject? Send him a WhatsApp and ask him @nayimfromthehalfwayline
 
He wants to know more about your proposal, and is putting all Spurs transfer activity on hold until he sorts this deal out.

Apparently he has been waiting all summer for your call.
 
scaramanga said:
Players aren't assets in the way that stadiums or cash are - there isn't a strong consensus on value that can be proven independently. If we borrowed money for Sissoko at £30M how would we pay it back? What if Chelsea had had to borrow to buy Torres? These values are so unstable that they cannot and should not be treated as a normal asset.

I don't believe clubs do borrow to buy nowadays, if they do then they have probably used something else as security and are behaving in a very risky manner.
Click to expand...

My understanding, and I'll stand corrected if someone else knows differently, is that if we buy a player for 30 million on a 6 year contract, it's recorded on our balance sheet as an asset at that value and amortised at 5 million each year in our accounts until the contract expires.

And to be clear, I'm not even suggesting that Levy goes to the bank to fund a couple of transfers. We have £200m in the bank according to our 2017 accounts. The outlay on a couple of £50m-£60m players would probably be less than £70m-£80m. We could fund it ourselves without borrowing. I think Levy probably wants to hold as much cash as he can to avoid drawing down much of the £400m loan facility. That's where he has a choice to make on risk from what I can see. Either keep the majority of our money for the stadium and buy cheap or spend the money now on players who might take us up a level and, worst case scenario, we have to draw down the loan to fund the stadium.

Don't get me wrong, there is an argument for the safety-first approach. I just don't think it is the right approach for us right now because, by not improving the squad, we might suffer more in the longer term (no CL football, reduced PL prize money etc.).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back