Popular Post Ric Flair Posted 30 June Popular Post Share Posted 30 June 4 minutes ago, Viva said: If we spend all our transfer budget on 29 year olds on long contracts, then I’ll criticise them. I think it would have been tricky negotiating contracts for new players when Vardy and Schmeichel were sat on £140k a week deals. Those times are changing now though and we are currently not chasing a top 4 spot. So I would imagine we can rebuild a bit more sustainably. If people want that though, then they can’t criticise when we sell our best players. That’s what we would need to do. What would it take for you to defend them? Ideally I'd like to hear and see more from them. That doesn't help when we've declined massively and there's absolutely no communication. Whether thst would go anyway to soften the ramifications for what's happened I don't know but the silence and disconnect has made me very disillusioned with my club. Ideally I'd like to have seen changes made at board level to remedy the failings but the status quo remains untouched. If in time that proves to be successful then I'd unequivocally acknowledge that but that wait and see approach does not discount the validity of wanting a shake up. I find it astonishing there hasn't been. 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox_favourite Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June (edited) 3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: Ideally I'd like to hear and see more from them. That doesn't help when we've declined massively and there's absolutely no communication. Whether thst would go anyway to soften the ramifications for what's happened I don't know but the silence and disconnect has made me very disillusioned with my club. Ideally I'd like to have seen changes made at board level to remedy the failings but the status quo remains untouched. If in time that proves to be successful then I'd unequivocally acknowledge that but that wait and see approach does not discount the validity of wanting a shake up. I find it astonishing there hasn't been. This I totally agree with. The time for change was when we were relegated if not before. A fresh approach was needed, but it seems stale and the same mistakes are likely to happen again and again. Edited 30 June by fox_favourite 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankMarvin Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 2 minutes ago, Viva said: If we spend all our transfer budget on 29 year olds on long contracts, then I’ll criticise them. I think it would have been tricky negotiating contracts for new players when Vardy and Schmeichel were sat on £140k a week deals. Those times are changing now though and we are currently not chasing a top 4 spot. So I would imagine we can rebuild a bit more sustainably. If people want that though, then they can’t criticise when we sell our best players. That’s what we would need to do. What would it take for you to defend them? That’s not what’s happening, the club has always had to sell its best players since being promoted. Kante Drinkwater Mahrez Maquire Fofana The criticism is because of the dire financial situation we find ourselves in. whilst for example having an excess of defenders and 4 GKs on the books despite knowing full well this was coming last July. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SafewayFox Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 35 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said: It’s far too easy to criticise without information, but each to their own. Our PSR breaches/losses are pretty damning information against our business model/planning to be fair mate. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahnsouff Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 1 minute ago, SafewayFox said: Our PSR breaches/losses are pretty damning information against our business model/planning to be fair mate. They are yes, but that’s a symptom and I would rather know the cause, and high wages seems likely, so I am not disagreeing with people saying change is needed, I would just like to know where the change needs to occur. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viva Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 7 minutes ago, HankMarvin said: That’s not what’s happening, the club has always had to sell its best players since being promoted. Kante Drinkwater Mahrez Maquire Fofana The criticism is because of the dire financial situation we find ourselves in. whilst for example having an excess of defenders and 4 GKs on the books despite knowing full well this was coming last July. You can only sell players if there is a buyer. Would you have preferred not to buy Mads and have stuck with Ward? Enzo changed the style and didn’t want anything to do with Souter. You can’t just get rid of him either. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGLCFC Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 4 minutes ago, Viva said: You can only sell players if there is a buyer. I agree, but giving Ward an extension of his contract a couple of years ago and excessive wages was ludicrous. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosbehFox Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 8 minutes ago, Viva said: You can only sell players if there is a buyer. Would you have preferred not to buy Mads and have stuck with Ward? Enzo changed the style and didn’t want anything to do with Souter. You can’t just get rid of him either. For info, there was an offer on the table for Iversen last summer to make away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viva Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 1 minute ago, MGLCFC said: I agree, but giving Ward an extension of his contract a couple of years ago and excessive wages was ludicrous. I agree that was a mistake. I assume they thought he would take over Kasper’s number one spot though like he did. Unfortunately he was poor, although not helped by a non existent centre mid and defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahnsouff Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 3 minutes ago, CosbehFox said: For info, there was an offer on the table for Iversen last summer to make away. Would this then be a question of the offer not clearing the remaining amortised value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smudger63 Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 1 hour ago, Sankey93 said: All gone quiet hasn’t it! Praying it’s not Casadei! If we hadnt already seen Casadei, I think he is very likely someone that the club would be interested in, but as we have seen him, surely there isn't anyone stupid enough at the club that would want to revisit that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozartfox Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 10 minutes ago, MGLCFC said: I agree, but giving Ward an extension of his contract a couple of years ago and excessive wages was ludicrous. Ward must have some pretty interesting photographs of someone or some people at the Club. That can be the only explanation for his contract extension. I suspect it involved a sheep may have been involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJGrant Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June Didn’t Casadei cost Chelsea a decent amount? Probably isn’t a lot of profit versus book value on selling him so won’t meaningfully help their PSR compliance (if that’s a consideration for them). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post DezFox Posted 30 June Popular Post Share Posted 30 June It’s sad that nearly all threads come back to PSR and people analysing accounts and technicalities. State of football today. 😔 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 10 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said: Would this then be a question of the offer not clearing the remaining amortised value? Iversen came through the academy. What's absolutely wild is Iversen's wages had reduced last summer as we'd been relegated and that was absolutely the time to sell. Allegedly offered £4m by Palace and the opportunity of saving the remaining 2 years wages on his contract and yet we rejected it despite him being 4th choice. Nothing to see here 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankMarvin Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 27 minutes ago, Viva said: You can only sell players if there is a buyer. Would you have preferred not to buy Mads and have stuck with Ward? Enzo changed the style and didn’t want anything to do with Souter. You can’t just get rid of him either. There was interest in iversen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahnsouff Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June (edited) 3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: Iversen came through the academy. What's absolutely wild is Iversen's wages had reduced last summer as we'd been relegated and that was absolutely the time to sell. Allegedly offered £4m by Palace and the opportunity of saving the remaining 2 years wages on his contract and yet we rejected it despite him being 4th choice. Nothing to see here Ah of course, fair enough edit: that would suggest we had a figure in mind and stuck to it, which is nuts in this instance. Edited 30 June by Dahnsouff 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJGrant Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 4 minutes ago, DezFox said: It’s sad that nearly all threads come back to PSR and people analysing accounts and technicalities. State of football today. 😔 Even if transfer values aren’t being artificially inflated, the fact that swapping players - especially youth players - can satisfy the fair spending requirements is a joke. Accounting regulations should not be driving the game, even if we do want to control overspending. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankMarvin Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June The deal doesn’t have to happen today, it can go through in the next couple of days and be adjusted with a post balancing sheet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 2 minutes ago, HankMarvin said: The deal doesn’t have to happen today, it can go through in the next couple of days and be adjusted with a post balancing sheet Is that definitive is there precedent ? company accounts can have amendments made post end date but that’s usually where events actually happened pre date but weren’t identified until post date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosbehFox Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June (edited) 33 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said: Would this then be a question of the offer not clearing the remaining amortised value? No issue with Iversen as his transfer fee was minimal from Esbjerg as a youth player and then had two years within the academy Edited 30 June by CosbehFox 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankMarvin Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 6 minutes ago, st albans fox said: Is that definitive is there precedent ? company accounts can have amendments made post end date but that’s usually where events actually happened pre date but weren’t identified until post date. As long as the transfer has been signed off by June 30th advanced talks can conclude in the coming days. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moore_94 Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June 24 minutes ago, st albans fox said: Is that definitive is there precedent ? company accounts can have amendments made post end date but that’s usually where events actually happened pre date but weren’t identified until post date. https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-chelsea-psr-deadline-transfer-9378556 Football finance expert Kieran Maguire told The Athletic: “What you can argue is that it might fall under the definition of an adjusting post-balance sheet event. Under those circumstances, you could say you’ve agreed a sale of player X from one club to another — ‘We’ve broadly agreed the fee, all of the main issues have been dealt with, but there are still a couple of issues outstanding with regards to personal terms’. “The clubs had broadly agreed a fee but were still waiting for the player to sort it out. Therefore you can back-date it to June 30. An adjusting post-balance sheet event is where you’ve got evidence of something that had broadly been agreed before the balance sheet date. You would need to have evidence of that, but it shouldn’t be that difficult.” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozleicester Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June Thanks Brighton for adding a couple of mill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluetintedspecs Posted 30 June Share Posted 30 June (edited) 1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said: They are yes, but that’s a symptom and I would rather know the cause, and high wages seems likely, so I am not disagreeing with people saying change is needed, I would just like to know where the change needs to occur. This I totally agree with as a sensible and pragmatic approach. The amount of pitchfork wielding 'sack the board' comments, coming from people who clearly do not know the full picture,I find incredulous! A herd mentality of overt negativity, bordering on rabble rousing, will not help. I'm not saying there's not massive issues that need addressing, however , there has to be balances re the importance of us getting back up and surviving coupled with the righting and complying after the damage Rodgers and Co appear to have been behind? 🤷♂️ Edited 30 June by Bluetintedspecs Typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts