On the pre tense we will have the full fee in the future. Do we have that? Or are we juggling balls based on earnings down the line.
Of course everyone pays in instalments. But we've got to look at where this phantom transfer fees are gonna come from.
It could be scary imo. If we had paraded we had no money, fine. But yesterday we were throwing about double figures like it was a regular thing. I couldve done that years ago
It's odd.
Sorry to labour this mate, but here precisely is the point. You nor I nor 99% of the posters on here have any clue what the real financial position is, what cash is committed now, what will be available in the future, how much of what we spend now is a gamble (committing money we don't definitively know will appear). You have no right to call them 'phantom' transfer fees unless you really are on the inside at the table with Elstone,
Moyes and Kenwright. And I'll assume you're not.
You can speculate that they are spending money they don't have, and that's your right. I wouldn't agree with you personally, and if someone proved it then of course we'd all see, but we're never likely to get that public disclosure. I simply don't think the banks, who now surely must have such a hold on what we can spend, would allow them to play fast and loose with money they don't have, given the amount they're already owed.
Banks may take a view on known future cashflows (eg Sky / TV money that is committed) and lend against it - that's what they do (take risks, and get paid for it). Sure, the banks will protect themselves first (ie. take a senior charge over future receivables), but even so it's a long stretch to believe they'd allow the club to endanger itself financially while they're funding.
Unless there's ANOTHER source of cash in play.....
