Summer Transfer Window 2025 Thread

[Clarky cat]

Werent these Leeds guys in charge when they signed Jean-Kevin Augustin?

Did they also get Raphinha?

 

[maccavennie]

Don't worry folks, it's about 4:30am in Texas so Dan is still fast asleep. Once he's up and about and the banks open at 9am (Texas time), he'll sign off on all the magnificent signings we have lined up.

 

[Mrtallywacker]

No sarcasm, it's just my sense of humour and a follow-up to my earlier quote of Jesus wept and of not wanting to read the whole of the Bible to check if it really was the shortest verse.

You are quite correct my son, John 11:35.
Give the Bible a go though, it's a real page turner. Murder, incest, heroes and villains, it's reminiscent of GOT in many ways.

God bless.

 

[Zatara]

Did they also get Raphinha?

Who was the head talent spotter then, as we dont have him.

 

[RinkyDinker]

Don't worry folks, it's about 4:30am in Texas so Dan is still fast asleep. Once he's up and about and the banks open at 9am (Texas time), he'll sign off on all the magnificent signings we have lined up.

Friedken hell, think someone best go wake him and tell him that Michael Keane is on the verge of resigning. Be like the ghost of Xmas past coming to visit him

 

[Tipp blue]

From a PSR perspective I believe it to be much more than that as incoming player transfers are amortised over 5 years (or less depending on contract). In theory a £10m windfall would allow us to buy a player for £50m as the £10m is what would be paid this year.. we’d obviously need to be able to afford the £10m next year and the following 3 years after and it may impact spending in the future, a bit like a mortgage I guess.
So in theory, a sale of £60m *could* give us some unreal spending power (assuming we are clear of any current PSR issues).

Do you have to do this? Say we sold Braithwaite for 80 million could we buy 2 players for 40 million each and account it as that, be done with it this year and not have to think about it again going forward?

 

[Clarky cat]

Who was the head talent spotter then, as we dont have him.

Kia joorabchian

 

[Neiler]

Theirno on an Air France flight then @Eggs.

 

[blueboy72]

Who was the head talent spotter then, as we dont have him.

All clubs make poor signings, even the clubs where money is no object
Even the [Poor language removed], The Ox, Kieta, Thiago, Nunez, basically about 350mil in fees and wages for them 4

 

[Zatara]

All clubs make poor signings, even the clubs where money is no object
Even the [Poor language removed], The Ox, Kieta, Thiago, Nunez, basically about 350mil in fees and wages for them 4

Not about a poor signing.

Look how they messed up the contracts.

 

[Makis]

Do you have to do this? Say we sold Braithwaite for 80 million could we buy 2 players for 40 million each and account it as that, be done with it this year and not have to think about it again going forward?

It doesn't really work like that. First, it makes no sense to pay all at once if you can pay in installments. But secondly, amortization costs are spread over the contract period no matter what. And that's what causes a loss.

Simply put: if club bought those players we would owe selling clubs 80 million but we would also have 80 million in assets. So no loss there. When club then pays back those, loans go down, but so goes cash in hand. So no loss there either, and this is irrespective whether it's paid right away or over, say, five years. What does cause loss is that danged amortization. In other words, loss of value of the assets. In five years they would be worth 0, so club loses 80 million that way. 16 million every year.

It is true that as long as club has money to actually pay it could sign players for a total sum which is five times more. This is just inherently risky because on the other hand they could also be stuck with them for that five years. Just like it has been last years. So I think a balancing act is needed. Because of the need for so many players boat has to be pushed out a bit but a big splurge at this point could be another disaster down the road.

 

[Lanolin]

It doesn't really work like that. First, it makes no sense to pay all at once if you can pay in installments. But secondly, amortization costs are spread over the contract period no matter what. And that's what causes a loss.

Simply put: if club bought those players we would owe selling clubs 80 million but we would also have 80 million in assets. So no loss there. When club then pays back those, loans go down, but so goes cash in hand. So no loss there either, and this is irrespective whether it's paid right away or over, say, five years. What does cause loss is that danged amortization. In other words, loss of value of the assets. In five years they would be worth 0, so club loses 80 million that way. 16 million every year.

Which is why sell on value is actually important, despite people still acting like it's a laughable concept every time it gets brought up.

 

[Toffe3m4n]

Which is why sell on value is actually important, despite people still acting like it's a laughable concept every time it gets brought up.

That still entirely depends on the specific player and their role though.

The Gana situation is a no brainer - for the here and now he's really important to the team, even though there will be virtually zero financial return for us over his second stint & subsequent new contracts.

Then you have your Yousef Chermiti's, who we'll no doubt be looking to turn over at a higher fee than what we paid Sporting for him, despite his lack of playing time. We did the same with Moise Kean and others.

 

[GlosBlue]

Not about a poor signing.

Look how they messed up the contracts.

That was Leeds though. We may have one of their backroom staff but he is working in a different environment now and you would hope that our owners will run a tight ship given the investment they are making.

 

[Lanolin]

That still entirely depends on the specific player and their role though.

The Gana situation is a no brainer - for the here and now he's really important to the team, even though there will be virtually zero financial return for us over his second stint & subsequent new contracts.

Then you have your Yousef Chermiti's, who we'll know doubt be looking to turn over at a higher fee than what we paid Sporting for him, despite his lack of playing time..

That's a totally different thing to be honest. Gana doesn't need sell on value because he's already out of contract, it's not the same thing at all. Obviously some players can be brought in who won't have sell on value but they need to be the minority, people continuing to make out like you shouldn't question whether it's a good idea to spend £20m on a 28 year old after everything that's happened are very, very, slow on the uptake.