Farhad Moshiri

[Milk]

The use of a "sugar daddy" be that Moshiri or others will depend upon the extent of our ambition and the cost of executing it.

Without over-egging things the scale of ambition is huge and regularly I hear "money is not an issue" for personnel or projects.

Ultimately it will have to be self sustaining but I do believe we are about to go on an expansionary phase which will not be limited by that condition. Given the amount of development required on infrastructure as well as personnel then this phase will last for (as a minimum) a similar time frame as you suggested.

Where do we sit in terms of Financial Fair Play (seems a bit odd to use that phrase in terms of EFC!) as surely we have to live within our means and only accrue relatively small losses amortized over 3 years?

 

[roydo]

Where do we sit in terms of Financial Fair Play (seems a bit odd to use that phrase in terms of EFC!) as surely we have to live within our means and only accrue relatively small losses amortized over 3 years?

Pretty sure Esk mentioned a pretty large chunk of wonga could be spent and it wouldnt be a problem.

Not a clue how it all works, but think he mentioned a figure of £300m before we got lobbed in the stocks.

 

[Matty_j1878]

Pretty sure Esk mentioned a pretty large chunk of wonga could be spent and it wouldnt be a problem.

Not a clue how it all works, but think he mentioned a figure of £300m before we got lobbed in the stocks.

**over 3 years** Iirc

 

[roydo]

**over 3 years** Iirc

Like I said, not a clue me.

I know building a/the stadium doesnt count mind.

 

[summerisle]

Need somebody to find the pic of Keith Wyness somebody photoshopped to make him look like Desperate Dan from the Dandy eating a bull pie.

Being computer illiterate I'll leave it to somebody whose savvy with Photoshop.

 

[Efcjake]

What in gods name would Esk know about it? Are you on the wind up?

Haven't seen anything to suggest Esk has a shred of Itk and you're suggesting 'Esk speaks well of him' - well that's a relief! I hope Moshiri gave him a ring before appointing Ryazantsev to the board.

Ohhh I could think of one thing to suggest a shred of Itk

 

[The Esk]

Where do we sit in terms of Financial Fair Play (seems a bit odd to use that phrase in terms of EFC!) as surely we have to live within our means and only accrue relatively small losses amortized over 3 years?

We really won't have a problem - we will probably have to sell (which is likely to be either Lukaku or Stones) in order to create an increase in non broadcasting revenues given our commercial/sponsorship revenues are so small, but given that may happen anyway it doesn't present us a problem.

I'll be doing a front page article on this in the next few days

 

[Toffeelover]

We really won't have a problem - we will probably have to sell (which is likely to be either Lukaku or Stones) in order to create an increase in non broadcasting revenues given our commercial/sponsorship revenues are so small, but given that may happen anyway it doesn't present us a problem.

I'll be doing a front page article on this in the next few days

If we had to sell the choice for me would be for Lukaku to depart. I was not happy about the way he and his dad were mouthing off showing utter disrespect to the club. If he wants to go so badly then put in a transfer request.

 

[kithnou]

We really won't have a problem - we will probably have to sell (which is likely to be either Lukaku or Stones) in order to create an increase in non broadcasting revenues given our commercial/sponsorship revenues are so small, but given that may happen anyway it doesn't present us a problem.

I'll be doing a front page article on this in the next few days

That's actually rather worrying to me.

 

[The Esk]

That's actually rather worrying to me.

It's a technical matter rather than a cash requirement. We need to boost revenues in order to increase our wage bill. We can only boost revenues by increasing sponsorship/commercial income (difficult in short term) or by booking a trading profit on selling a player (easily done with either Lukaku or Stones). It has nothing to do with an ability to fund player acquisitions, just to meet the cost control measures implemented by the PL.

 

[kithnou]

It's a technical matter rather than a cash requirement. We need to boost revenues in order to increase our wage bill. We can only boost revenues by increasing sponsorship/commercial income (difficult in short term) or by booking a trading profit on selling a player (easily done with either Lukaku or Stones). It has nothing to do with an ability to fund player acquisitions, just to meet the cost control measures implemented by the PL.

I understand all that mate, but is selling a Lukaku or Stones the only way we will be able to fund the 100m, or whatever the amount that Koeman will have available for transfers, as to meet the control measures?

Just preparing myself if that is the case, as I was confident we would keep them all.

I'll await your upcoming report.

 

[Coffee and TV]

I understand all that mate, but is selling a Lukaku or Stones the only way we will be able to fund the 100m, or whatever the amount that Koeman will have available for transfers, as to meet the control measures?

Just preparing myself if that is the case, as I was confident we would keep them all.

I'll await your upcoming report.

I think Esk is talking about player wages not the money available to spend on buying players

 

[kithnou]

I think Esk is talking about player wages not the money available to spend on buying players

Would still involve selling one of our best players though.

 

[lesbattersby]

It's a technical matter rather than a cash requirement. We need to boost revenues in order to increase our wage bill. We can only boost revenues by increasing sponsorship/commercial income (difficult in short term) or by booking a trading profit on selling a player (easily done with either Lukaku or Stones). It has nothing to do with an ability to fund player acquisitions, just to meet the cost control measures implemented by the PL.

Would we have to sell one of the top players. Would the wages saved on the players released so far and trying to shift the other dead wood like mcgeady, kone etc not be sufficient ?

 

[The Esk]

I understand all that mate, but is selling a Lukaku or Stones the only way we will be able to fund the 100m, or whatever the amount that Koeman will have available for transfers, as to meet the control measures?

Just preparing myself if that is the case, as I was confident we would keep them all.

I'll await your upcoming report.

The amount we spend on transfers is not the relevant point (until we get beyond approximately £300 million) - it's the increase in salaries. We cannot increase salaries beyond £7 million without a corresponding increase in non-broadcasting income. That increase can only come from an increase in sponsorship/commercial income, match day income or player trading profits.

There's funding way beyond this notional £100 million transfer war chest, but we need to keep within the cost control limitations set by the PL - my view is that this year we can only achieve that by one significant player sale. That shouldn't be a concern, it's a tactical decision, bit like in chess, sometimes you have to sacrifice a piece to win the game.