Babylon

Nobody knows, these lists are just a total fabrication, even when the accounts are out. Individual wages are just guess work, and always fail to take into account bonuses, other staff, players outside the normal squad etc.

If we are to get rid of a player, whether on loan or even a sale, if there is a huge discrepancy between what the buying / loaning club are willing to offer, and what we pay. We are going to have to cover that shortfall one way or another. So I'm not sure there is any particular saving to be had. The obvious benefit is that they are off the books for good, but if you can pick up loan fees and a decent percentage of wage covered, then I don't think people should be against them. It would be nice, if there were loads of clubs out there who can afford them, but the problem is, the premier league in general pays too muck, not just us. So any flops are giant financial problems for all, as the money just isn't there in Europe.

Cafe Clo in flannels, limited menu but some very nice and well done food. Sapori... what a load of shite that was. £150 on food I could have done better at home.

Can those questioning it just remember that we are likely to have a limited budget and that retaining him means you don't have to waste your budget on a replacement. There could still be plans for another CB, who is quicker and Vesty just drops down the pecking order. So we just get one CB rather than two and spread the budget thinner and thinner.

That's his arm just appearing.

And what clubs do you think we should have dealt with?

Why? Loans can be more lucrative than just flogging someone ridiculously cheap. Every player, their age, contract length, cost, wages, offers coming in (or not), shold be considered individually. The "just get rid" attitude just flys in the face of what we really want to do, which is recoup as much as we possibly can, whether that's in one transaction or multiple.

It's all clubs, outside a few champions league clubs nobody else can spend the money we'd expect.

You can loan him again.

Most clubs are in the middle of an overhaul, not just us. We'll see, not a pop but a delation in terms of wages and fees being spent, for the mid to lower half established prem teams. So that perhaps will mean we have a better chance of retaining on smaller contracts What's key is what we have to spend on fees. If we need to go out and spend money replacing Vestergarad, but only have a limited budget. You have to weigh up whether it's better value to go elsewhere and buy, or to concede on the wages a little. The replacement of players would be an ongoing process over a number of years should we go up and stay up. People expecting us to ship everyone out and buy loads will likely be disappointed.

For all the grumbles about style, which I think have been reasonable, it's not his team, he's inherited a lot of players, he's trying to play a style that is clearly better suited to more technically gifted players.

How is it inexcusable? If we want a player and it takes two weeks to reach a deal that we can actually do, because Inter wanted more than we could actually afford and it took that time to bend them, then it’s not just in the club. And you act like it was all happening deadline day, how do you know when the sheets were submitted? There is no minute by minute timeline. Love the final line, let’s just make up scenarios to bash the club

You seem to be implying this hasn't been happening for years? Laugh away, I'll continue to say take them all with a pinch of salt. As I did with this one, hence my comment already in this thread about whether you beleive it or not. But, if Ric for instance wants to use the Athletic as a source for evidence that we turned down bids on players. I'm just going to chuck exactly the same source back at him, when another article says we accepted a bid. It's not me beleiving them and using them as evidence, it's you lot, but I will use it back on you.

As I've said previously, if you lot are going to use them to castigate people. I'm just going to sit here and laugh my socks off when the exact same publications say the exact opposite of what you want to believe. You should perhaps note the post where I said "If you take the Athletic as gospel".

That's fair, I'm just not sure it's actually helpful as your average person simply won't be able to wrap their heads around those figures.

I'll repeat it, giving your grandchildren £666 a month, has got bugger all to do with a comfortable retirement. You aren't any less comfortable if you don't give them that are you, they are. If that's their definition of comfort, it's incredibly misleading from the outset. And I'm well aware of the costs of having relatives currently in care, I'm also well aware that most never end up needing long term nursing home care. More importantly from what I read in the report, their figures don't even take into account potential care home use, it's certainly not in their budget list. The top figures are nothing more than a fanciful wish list, that simply doesn't apply to most people. A "Comfortable" food shop for two people is set at £238.20 a week in 2022. That's sirloin steak for breakfast lunch and dinner every day of the week for two people, with change. Perhaps they should rename this a "luxury".

If you are submitting the terms sheet, then usually you are very close to getting the deal done, as an unofficial version or verbal offer would have been accepted before going through all of that. So I would summise we weren't "that far away". I'm not sure anyone at the club is a mind reader to know what Inter are going to do once they receive the official terms sheet, or how long it's going to take them to get lawyers to go through the document. It literally says they were shocked by the size of it. If all the parties didn't think it was exceptionally close, the guy wouldn't have been here. If you take the Athletic as gospel, they just ran out of time in the very final backwards and forwards between lawyers.

And the conversations and backwards and forwards in negotiations obviously took weeks.

Having been through this recently with my father in law, the council have a duty of care to provide a space somewhere, or at least contribute to a place somewhere. Where do you live?

I'll presume you haven't even read it. "Expectation to offer financial support to grandchildren had pushed up the income required by £8,000"... that's absolute f****** nonsense. That's got nothing to do with anyone having a comfortable retirement has it? A single person needs £3600 a month to live. WHAT! If you have paid off your mortgage at retirement age, what on earth are you spending £3600 a month on, crack? Hookers? Are they living in a 5 star hotel or something?

But that's because you've chosen to use the non council ones surely. If your Gran had no money of her own, that's then down to social care to provide. So that's not a cost that HAS to be met by you or anyone else?

Who would have thought?

Does it not clearly lay out the fact the deal was complicated and the paper work can only be done once you have said agreement in place.

Felt like I was a lone voice for a while, welcome to the club.

UAP's (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena), previously known as UFO's. I've never really been into this stuff, but the slow drip-drip of information over the last few years has caught my attention. From the renaming, to the Pentagon releasing videos of things they admit they can't explain, to first hand accounts from more than one leading serviceman (with radar and video to back it up), to groups in Congress now battling to get information released. There have been whistle blowers as well, who I did take with a pinch of salt, but it does add to everything. For the US government to admit there were things flying about they simply can't explain and to release the video is very strange, they never used to say anything really. So I do question, why now? It's intriguing, whether it's unknown tech someone here already has or something else.