Summer 2022 priorities (and realistic options)

[FoxinNotts]

14 minutes ago, KFS said:

Would Levi and Noni take up squad spots?

 

Three out plus these two in is good enough for me. Just wish we’d do it. 

Don't think they would, nor does Thomas. 

 

Couldn't agree more. I'd be happy with this outcome, Especially if the three to go were out of Vestergaard, Choudhury, Soumare, Perez (and maybe Bertrand to 'Retire')

[FoxinNotts]

Can see us getting Adnan Januzaj

[Vindaloo FOX]

3 minutes ago, FoxinNotts said:

Can see us getting Adnan Januzaj

Don't see us bringing anyone in 

[An Sionnach]

This club seems highly reluctant to buy out contracts on surplus players who are not attracting any interest. Hamza, Vestergaard , Bertrand , Perez , Wright and Hirst  could be considered redundant and a pay off would cost about 12 to 15 million. We have at my count 28 senior players not including Thomas. If we keep them they get paid for doing very little anyway , if we loan them we end up covering most of their pay so why not pay them off?

[moore_94]

9 minutes ago, An Sionnach said:

This club seems highly reluctant to buy out contracts on surplus players who are not attracting any interest. Hamza, Vestergaard , Bertrand , Perez , Wright and Hirst  could be considered redundant and a pay off would cost about 12 to 15 million. We have at my count 28 senior players not including Thomas. If we keep them they get paid for doing very little anyway , if we loan them we end up covering most of their pay so why not pay them off?

Why would we pay off Wright and Hirst?

 

No reason to think we are trying to get rid of Wright at this time - if we wanted to we could easily get a loan or a permanent deal for him and he would still be on similar wages to when he first signed at 17

 

Hirst looks to be leaving permanently anyway

 

Probably looking at closer to £20m to pay off the others as well

[Finnegan]

3 hours ago, FoxinNotts said:

Can see us getting Adnan Januzaj

 

People would still have to leave. He's an odd one really, think he's a bit like an upmarket Demarai Gray, not sure he'd be all that productive but he'd probably cost wedge in wages and be another one we got stuck with. 

[Adster]

Odd one for us but I can see our deadline day (or the period leading up to it) being quite busy for us.

Edited 25 July 2022 by Adster

[An Sionnach]

1 minute ago, Adster said:

Odd one for us but I can see our deadline day (or the period leading up to it) being quite busy for us.

Probably trying to get loan deals for players we won't need . Unless we fork out for their pay , we will be lucky to get those.

[Pliskin]

This window is as dry as a nuns Ann Summers party. 

[Babylon]

3 hours ago, An Sionnach said:

This club seems highly reluctant to buy out contracts on surplus players who are not attracting any interest. Hamza, Vestergaard , Bertrand , Perez , Wright and Hirst  could be considered redundant and a pay off would cost about 12 to 15 million. We have at my count 28 senior players not including Thomas. If we keep them they get paid for doing very little anyway , if we loan them we end up covering most of their pay so why not pay them off?

Because you lose a load of players and barely save anything. A player is going to demand a good 80/90% of their wages, let alone potential bonuses and loyalty bonuses etc they could miss out on.  
 

You are likely to save more loaning them out and paying 50% of their wages. And in the case of someone like Vestergaard, you have the chance they perform and someone might want to buy them. 
 

Pay offs rarely happen because they rarely make financial sense to anyone. 

[An Sionnach]

36 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Because you lose a load of players and barely save anything. A player is going to demand a good 80/90% of their wages, let alone potential bonuses and loyalty bonuses etc they could miss out on.  
 

You are likely to save more loaning them out and paying 50% of their wages. And in the case of someone like Vestergaard, you have the chance they perform and someone might want to buy them. 
 

Pay offs rarely happen because they rarely make financial sense to anyone. 

Its not ideal I agree but we seem to be between a rock and a hard place. I don't see us getting out of it without considerable financial cost.

[dorsetboy]

Can somebody clarify im not going mad but just before the transfer window opened i am sure i seen that we had taken a 50m loan out from that aussie bank ?

 

if so what is this for if not for transfers .

[Dan LCFC]

Hit a point where I'd be genuinely surprised if anybody arrived permanently.

[Sly]

11 hours ago, FoxinNotts said:

Can see us getting Adnan Januzaj

I’ve said this for a while. However, until someone leaves, it appears nothing is happening. 

[Sly]

On 23/07/2022 at 11:04, RumbleFox said:

Have we ever had a summer where we’ve bought no one? 

No. 
 

However, Spurs did it a few years back and then got to the Champions League Final. 

[Sly]

8 hours ago, moore_94 said:

Why would we pay off Wright and Hirst?

 

No reason to think we are trying to get rid of Wright at this time - if we wanted to we could easily get a loan or a permanent deal for him and he would still be on similar wages to when he first signed at 17

 

Hirst looks to be leaving permanently anyway

 

Probably looking at closer to £20m to pay off the others as well

I think Wright actually features this season and stays with the first team. 
 

I’m a little surprised Hirst hasn’t actually gone yet, all things considered. 
 

I wonder if we’ll see Brunt move as well. 

[Sly]

5 hours ago, Babylon said:

Because you lose a load of players and barely save anything. A player is going to demand a good 80/90% of their wages, let alone potential bonuses and loyalty bonuses etc they could miss out on.  
 

You are likely to save more loaning them out and paying 50% of their wages. And in the case of someone like Vestergaard, you have the chance they perform and someone might want to buy them. 
 

Pay offs rarely happen because they rarely make financial sense to anyone. 

Only time they make sense, is if the players reaches an agreement to cut their losses. 
 

Realistically, with what we’re paying some of our players, they aren’t getting that elsewhere, so can stay here. 
 

Barcalona had a similar predicament last season. 

[Lesta2014]

2 hours ago, Sly said:

I think Wright actually features this season and stays with the first team. 
 

I’m a little surprised Hirst hasn’t actually gone yet, all things considered. 
 

I wonder if we’ll see Brunt move as well. 

Brunt’s been absent all pre season, I wonder if he’s injured? I thought Brendan rated him highly?

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, Sly said:

No. 
 

However, Spurs did it a few years back and then got to the Champions League Final. 

I can confidently state that this won’t happen on our case …

[Sly]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I can confidently state that this won’t happen on our case …

Very true my friend. We’d need to be in Europe first 

[mozartfox]

See Top´s goal at the opening of the King Power 5-a-side pitches in Thailand, gerrimin.  Him and Vards would be lethal up front.

[Muzzy_Larsson]

12 hours ago, Babylon said:

Because you lose a load of players and barely save anything. A player is going to demand a good 80/90% of their wages, let alone potential bonuses and loyalty bonuses etc they could miss out on.  
 

You are likely to save more loaning them out and paying 50% of their wages. And in the case of someone like Vestergaard, you have the chance they perform and someone might want to buy them. 
 

Pay offs rarely happen because they rarely make financial sense to anyone. 

Good post. Celtic find themselves in this position a lot with players that don't work out, we basically end up lumbered with signings that don't work out as we pay them more than any interested clubs would be able to. What often happens is they get sent out on loan perpetually with the intention of having some of their wages covered. See guys like Hendry, Barkas, etc. The only way a pay off makes financial sense if a club wants them, the player wants to go and you can strike a deal for say 50% of their remaining contract and the new club can pick up the shortfall. Very few players are going to move nowadays with the prospect of losing money.

[Chrysalis]

12 hours ago, Babylon said:

Because you lose a load of players and barely save anything. A player is going to demand a good 80/90% of their wages, let alone potential bonuses and loyalty bonuses etc they could miss out on.  
 

You are likely to save more loaning them out and paying 50% of their wages. And in the case of someone like Vestergaard, you have the chance they perform and someone might want to buy them. 
 

Pay offs rarely happen because they rarely make financial sense to anyone. 

We have apparently rejected interest to loan a couple of the fringe players, seems the club wants them completely sold only.

[mozartfox]

I am rapidly reaching the stage  whereby I think paying money out now to rid ourselves of surplus players will be laying the foundations to a better future. Even if we bring no one else in, we have a good enough squad to give top 6/7 a crack without Thursday Bingo nights in Europe to contend with. 

 

This will at least make a start on getting us out of this mess we find ourselves in.  

[MadsEmil]

3 minutes ago, mozartfox said:

I am rapidly reaching the stage  whereby I think paying money out now to rid ourselves of surplus players will be laying the foundations to a better future. Even if we bring no one else in, we have a good enough squad to give top 6/7 a crack without Thursday Bingo nights in Europe to contend with. 

 

This will at least make a start on getting us out of this mess we find ourselves in.  

We seemingly barely have money to make signings in the first place, I dont get how you come to the conclusion that us paying off about 9 players is a good idea.