Just a little thought about trasnfer funds and loans

[Sylvain]

Obviously we've recouped quite a substantial amount of money from the Fellaini and Jelavic transfers and fans are asking where has the money gone.

I'm sure their is some left in the pot, after 'operating costs' or whatever nonsense is covered, but I think some people are underestimating the loan fees of Lukaku and Traore.

This article here says that Stoke baulked at the £1.66m loan fee for a player who'll be play just over 5 months of football (less because he's unfit).

For Lukaku, I haven't found a definite source but speculation online suggests it's at least £3m going up to as high £5m. Apparently, Chelsea wanted £3m for Ba in the summer on loan, so I'd imagine Lukaku's fee was well in excess of that.

I fear that the we're putting short-term punt at the Champions League, ahead of long-term sustainability in the top 6/7.

We know from recent years how quickly, what we believe to be a healthy transfer budget accrued from sales and tv money, can disappear. I don't think the issue of an aging squad has gone away either, with the signings of Kone and Alcaraz only exacerbating it.

We know that investing in permanent players like Arteta, Lescott, Fellaini and Mirrales when we do have the money, can be rewarding on the pitch over several seasons and pay dividends in the long term, helping us to refresh and improve the squad.

I wonder in the future, when we're selling Coleman or Barkley, if we'll rue not making more young signings akin to James McCarthy who'll have improved so much, and given us some actual depth, we won't begrudge the loss of good player and the chance to improve the squad. Like with Rodwell last summer and Fellaini this year.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think the loan fees thing is one of those unknown areas that make it very difficult to make assumptions regarding our transfer spend. People are quoting transfer fees, doing some sums and assuming we have millions to spend. I'm not sure it's that simple at all.

Oh, and operating expenses aren't really nonsense, are they? I mean 100% of the costs of running this website you're on would come under operating expenses.

 

[allen]

I'm not comfortable with the way this loan thing is going.

It'll lead to the richer clubs buying up even more talent and renting them back to the rest of the league. It'll widen the financial gulf.

 

[ganistuk]

Obviously we've recouped quite a substantial amount of money from the Fellaini and Jelavic transfers and fans are asking where has the money gone.

I'm sure their is some left in the pot, after 'operating costs' or whatever nonsense is covered, but I think some people are underestimating the loan fees of Lukaku and Traore.

This article here says that Stoke baulked at the £1.66m loan fee for a player who'll be play just over 5 months of football (less because he's unfit).

For Lukaku, I haven't found a definite source but speculation online suggests it's at least £3m going up to as high £5m. Apparently, Chelsea wanted £3m for Ba in the summer on loan, so I'd imagine Lukaku's fee was well in excess of that.

I fear that the we're putting short-term punt at the Champions League, ahead of long-term sustainability in the top 6/7.

We know from recent years how quickly, what we believe to be a healthy transfer budget accrued from sales and tv money, can disappear. I don't think the issue of an aging squad has gone away either, with the signings of Kone and Alcaraz only exacerbating it.

We know that investing in permanent players like Arteta, Lescott, Fellaini and Mirrales when we do have the money, can be rewarding on the pitch over several seasons and pay dividends in the long term, helping us to refresh and improve the squad.

I wonder in the future, when we're selling Coleman or Barkley, if we'll rue not making more young signings akin to James McCarthy who'll have improved so much, and given us some actual depth, we won't begrudge the loss of good player and the chance to improve the squad. Like with Rodwell last summer and Fellaini this year.

Good post - my sentiments exactly other than I guess whatever model you apply it is always the next game that is most important and getting 11 on the field and 7 on the bench that give you the best chance of winning it. There needs to be a long term plan alongside that - which from what I have seen I think RM has and BK supports as best he can. I think we need to give him 3-4 transfer windows before judging too much.

 

[grandjoeblue]

I hope we aren't paying 5 million to loan Lukaku for a season.

Crazy for our club to be paying large fees to loan players, we need to spend on permanent signings.

 

[Zatara]

I hope we aren't paying 5 million to loan Lukaku for a season.

Crazy for our club to be paying large fees to loan players, we need to spend on permanent signings.

So many posters would have us spending whatever we have now just to prove we have it rather that wait till summer - lukaku fee may include salay.

 

[Sylvain]

I hope we aren't paying 5 million to loan Lukaku for a season.

Crazy for our club to be paying large fees to loan players, we need to spend on permanent signings.

The thing is, he was a proven match winner at WBA and Mourinho publicly said he wanted to keep him. It's not inconceivable that £5m was the going rate, and Martinez with money burning a hole in his pocket paid up.

And Zat, if the loan fee for Lukaku included his wages then the loan for Chelsea would be worth next to nothing. His weekly wage must be at least £40k and that adds up to millions in a year.

 

[Jayhow15]

So many posters would have us spending whatever we have now just to prove we have it rather that wait till summer - lukaku fee may include salay.

Where does he play?