coolhandfox

Yes he is. I was thinking about the difference between Akgun and Praet, both are decent technical players. Akgun just has the dog in him. The players you name checked have that too, very technical but have that winners instinct. The biggest issue we had in the last 24 months is the PL was lack of desire and fight, mainly due to players having one eye on the door. Akgun massively seem to want to be here.

Or just rewarding two lads for their performances against Birmingham.

Yes, shows a lot of desire and heart.

People read to much into stuff. A game night, good win and people are asking transfer question. He's just giving it the brush off. He's was saying how happy he was with Glovers work the other day. People looking for negatives.

Massive difference in his pressing compared to Praet.

Don't be a wally.

It think with Doyle if we buy peole need to realise its about what he can become rather then what he is now. Loads of potential. Him and the Nelson in 2 to 3 years could be stellar.

Nice to give the young lads game time. Simple win. I think we find it so easy and get complacent.

Don't think that's the worse outcome.

Correct, relegated clubs often book large once-off player impairment charges in their accounts once relegation is confirmed, so you book the loss into the PL season accounts and get the benefit of reduced liability in championship accounts.

Similar Impairment is unexpected damage that results in a sudden loss in value, Depreciation is expected wear and tear that results in a gradual loss in value. So, our unexpected damage is relegation, which affects a player's value.

Impairment is a permanent reduction in the value of a company asset. Impairment writes down player values; it also has the benefit of reducing player amortisation going forward. You don't pay anyone; it is recorded as a non-cash flow expense for accounting purposes. So, in the example I gave, the club could decide to impair Daka's current value in the 22/23 accounts from 13.8m to 9m; the difference of 4.8m is recorded as a one of impairment in the accounts and his future amortisation for the remaining of his contract drops.

Not convinced by the need to sell agruement. If we need to see another player for 20-30m we would have sold him in the summer. The risk of going into a season and he gets injured or have a poor season would have been to greater risk to accept. The club would have done forecasting for the season, if there was a 20m hole in the accounts they would have know in the summer.

People have to remember transfer rumours are now a business, its fuel clicks, air time, people need stuff to talk and write about. The majority is half truths or just made up.

You'd like to think so.

I don't think anyone outside of the big 6 are paying 40m. Squeeze is on from an FFP point of view.

Still think he could do with minutes in the u21 just to give him fitness and confidence. Big ask to come straight back into the first team from an ACL. Any news on Sammy?

Hope she asked for a number 8 and a winger as a wedding gift. Congratulations Top.

What a surprise.

1 FA Cup win is priceless; if that's all we got for our 25m, who cares....

I was just choosing Daka as an example.

I don't know where to put this, so I'm starting a new thread. (Only read if you are interested in football finance) I've been reading an article on player impairment by The Swiss Ramble (If you are interested in this stuff, it is worth signing up for a small sub) As impairment is the process of writing down player values in the accounts, the main benefit is reducing player amortisation going forward. For example, we brought Daka (23m) two seasons ago on a 5-year contract his fee is amortised in the accounts as 23m divided by 5 years = 4.6m per annum in your accounts. His value in the accounts this summer would have been £13.8m, which is the remaining 3 years x 4.6m. However, the club could choose to impair Daka value to £9m and reduce the annual amortisation over the remaining three years, which would fall to £3m. So you basically take a hit in 1 year account period to make it easier for future account periods. So in the Daka example, his liability in the accounts at the end of 22/23 would be his normal amortisation of 4.6m + the impairment of 4.8m = 9.4m, but moving forward your amortisation for each season lowers According to Swiss Ramble, relegated clubs often book large once-off player impairment charges in their accounts once relegation is confirmed; due to FFP regulations, as there is a higher allowable loss in the Premier League, the amount impaired goes down as a non-cashflow expense. Fulham impaired £21m in 2020/21 and Stoke City £29m in 2017/18. So let's say we did an impairment of 10m in our 22/23 accounts, it reduces our liability on player amortisation by 10m in our 23/24 accounts. When our accounts are released for 22/23 in a couple of months, it will be interesting to see our impairment figure; in 21/22, it was only 0.7m. I was thinking maybe selling Maddison in the 22/23 window wasn't to meet FFP; It could have been to give us some extra wriggle room to impair player values and take a bigger loss in 22/23 and make this season a little easier against the stricter Championship P & L. Just found it interesting, so I decided to share, and food for thought.

They aren't going to do that whilst there are loads of seats in the rest of the ground still unsold.

Not a chance he plays a part.

Pack of cards ready to fall..... This has been coming for a while.