Twitter Transfer Rumours

[mod hero]

33 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

There's a good chance this window is the last one we won't be under an embargo and won't be able to pay for any transfer fee for a while. 

Que?

 

Ignore me, just read you’re reply 👍🏻

Edited 12 August 2025 by mod hero

[Brainy]

If you were to look at the "Soumare/Daka signs" threads from years ago I bet you'd find next to no negativity on either. 

 

Add in Vestergaard to that as well, not as exciting as the other two originally but think people accepted him on a squad filler level

Edited 12 August 2025 by Brainy

[Brizzle Fox]

39 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

There's a good chance this window is the last one we won't be under an embargo and won't be able to pay for any transfer fee for a while. 

Looks like we're using this window as a dry run for that then...

[Grebfromgrebland]

1 hour ago, Happy Fox said:

KPFC fire sale...

 

Fran Company reposted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fran Company

 

@fran97_cg

·

6h

 

 

Auto-translated by Grok

EXCLUSIVE VCF |  The center forward that

@valenciacf

has ALMOST SECURED IS… The Zambian from Leicester City, PATSON DAKA. The club has been negotiating his signing since the weekend. FACT: same representation agency as Ugrinic, Tárrega, Pepelu, and Cömert.

 

 

So this will leave only Andre as our only striker....

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

There's a good chance this window is the last one we won't be under an embargo and won't be able to pay for any transfer fee for a while. 

Out of interest why do you think we will be under embargo?  

[honeybradger]

Sell Daka, promote Evans from U21s, save on wages, potentially improve on the pitch as well.

 

No brainer.

Edited 12 August 2025 by honeybradger

[ACF]

34 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

This is not from any information I've been given, but based on some possibilities.

 

We are being told we need to sell a significant amount of players, which is understandable given the size of the squad, the amount of players out of contract next summer and the drop in revenue from relegation. However the latter one is a potential problem for us to comply with PSR for 25/26, which if is a real risk we can also presume 24/25 was as well and yet we did not sell a player/s before the end of June in order to mitigate that.

 

So my logic is, if we were OK for 24/25 without player sales in June, we ought to not face too big a headache for 25/26 with the sales we have had so far, the drop in wages and with a handful of other departures I'd expect at least an average Championship budget available. But we are being geared up for no transfer fees being paid out, which may suggest something.

 

If we have indeed breached for 24/25 then we will also be asked to provide a business plan on how we will attempt to comply for 25/26 and if it is not abundantly clear then a transfer embargo will be applied, likely by the January window. That is then a slippery slope to be on.

 

My other potential logical explanation for all of this is optics. We have been charged with a breach for 23/24. We have seemingly pissed both the PL and the EFL off in recent years and failing to submit our accounts on time has once again potentially aggravated this. So we are choosing now to go on the charm offensive. Point to minimal spending since the breach as evidence of the severity in which we are taking this situation and that we are proving it is impossible for clubs like us and the situation we ended up in. 

 

 

 

I genuinely think this is the case they're building.

 

• We are obviously not spending more than what we did in the last Championship season.
• We have sold players we believe are assets for less than what we think is fair value, meaning we whilst we did turn down bids, we did end up coming to agreements. We didn't receive bids (that we know of) at the end of 24/25 so couldn't cash in.
• We have let players go, including our best ever player, for free, without trying to resign them.
• Made an effort to promote youth, including playing 16 year olds in the Premier League.
• Made one very cheap signing in the January 25 transfer window, despite being in the relegation zone. 
• Delayed getting RVN a coaching staff to avoid paying compensation
• Delayed sacking RVN (even though it ended up being the same period), didn't pay compensation for Cifuentes in 24/25.
• We don't have a front of shirt sponsor, but we haven't plastered the club's owners logo on the front either, so no 'related party transactions'.

Whilst we might fail PSR for 24/25 based on revenue and not being able to shift the high earners, the club can at least point to supposed behaviour change vs the Championship season in 23/24 to try and protect ourselves from an embargo and reduce the point deduction. The elements that they got wrong from a football business point of view in 24/25 were two bad management hirings and firings, signing Skipp for the fee we did, and performance on the pitch leading to lower gate receipts and TV money. 

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, ACF said:

 

I genuinely think this is the case they're building.

 

• We are obviously not spending more than what we did in the last Championship season.
• We have sold players we believe are assets for less than what we think is fair value, meaning we whilst we did turn down bids, we did end up coming to agreements. We didn't receive bids (that we know of) at the end of 24/25 so couldn't cash in.
• We have let players go, including our best ever player, for free, without trying to resign them.
• Made an effort to promote youth, including playing 16 year olds in the Premier League.
• Made one very cheap signing in the January 25 transfer window, despite being in the relegation zone. 
• Delayed getting RVN a coaching staff to avoid paying compensation
• Delayed sacking RVN (even though it ended up being the same period), didn't pay compensation for Cifuentes in 24/25.
• We don't have a front of shirt sponsor, but we haven't plastered the club's owners logo on the front either, so no 'related party transactions'.

Whilst we might fail PSR for 24/25 based on revenue and not being able to shift the high earners, the club can at least point to supposed behaviour change vs the Championship season in 23/24 to try and protect ourselves from an embargo and reduce the point deduction. The elements that they got wrong from a football business point of view in 24/25 were two bad management hirings and firings, signing Skipp for the fee we did, and performance on the pitch leading to lower gate receipts and TV money. 

BANG ON

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, honeybradger said:

Sell Daka, promote Evans, save on wages, potentially improve on the pitch as well.

 

No brainer.

If we have confidence and not just hyperbolic negativity, sure, it’s a good idea I agree.

[Vowels]

What are Billy McKinlay and Keith Gillespie and Nicky Summerbee up to? Was it those three who played for nothing?

[ACF]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

BANG ON

love you

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, ACF said:

love you

Get a room

[Ric Flair]

2 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Out of interest why do you think we will be under embargo?  

Based on the logic that if we have struggled to comply for 24/25 we will be asked to submit a business plan on how we will comply for 25/26 and if we can't then a transfer embargo will likely be handed down to us.

 

I find it very hard to map out how we were told we had financial issues in 24/25, only to not sell any players before the end of June. So if we complied then great and hopefully limits any possibility we'll face troubles to do so for 25/26. Or if we have failed or it's touch and go then I foresee the EFL trying to hit us with an embargo.

[Vowels]

Based on the absolute nonsense we generally sign and the enthusiasm to see the kids introduced to the first xi, perhaps a transfer embargo is a good thing all round and we should be volunteering for one.

[Dahnsouff]

Does feel like we are going scorched Earth- so guess we will just wait and see. 

[CL Fox]

2 minutes ago, Vowels said:

What are Billy McKinlay and Keith Gillespie and Nicky Summerbee up to? Was it those three who played for nothing?

Keep being told on facebook about how bad the club used to be and the days of administration when the reality is were far closer to then than weve ever been.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, CL Fox said:

Keep being told on facebook about how bad the club used to be and the days of administration when the reality is were far closer to then than weve ever been.

Are we? Based on what?

[stu]

20 minutes ago, ACF said:

 

I genuinely think this is the case they're building.

 

• We are obviously not spending more than what we did in the last Championship season.
• We have sold players we believe are assets for less than what we think is fair value, meaning we whilst we did turn down bids, we did end up coming to agreements. We didn't receive bids (that we know of) at the end of 24/25 so couldn't cash in.
• We have let players go, including our best ever player, for free, without trying to resign them.
• Made an effort to promote youth, including playing 16 year olds in the Premier League.
• Made one very cheap signing in the January 25 transfer window, despite being in the relegation zone. 
• Delayed getting RVN a coaching staff to avoid paying compensation
• Delayed sacking RVN (even though it ended up being the same period), didn't pay compensation for Cifuentes in 24/25.
• We don't have a front of shirt sponsor, but we haven't plastered the club's owners logo on the front either, so no 'related party transactions'.

Whilst we might fail PSR for 24/25 based on revenue and not being able to shift the high earners, the club can at least point to supposed behaviour change vs the Championship season in 23/24 to try and protect ourselves from an embargo and reduce the point deduction. The elements that they got wrong from a football business point of view in 24/25 were two bad management hirings and firings, signing Skipp for the fee we did, and performance on the pitch leading to lower gate receipts and TV money. 

As we've seen by the Crystal Palace CAS ruling, it doesn't matter what happened since the issue occurred. The only thing thats taken into account is what the situation was when it occurred.

 

We are setting ourselves up to be a Championship club for years, if this indeed what they are planning and we aren't making efforts to ensure the squad can be promoted at the first attempt again. The authorities will try and make things so difficult for us so that we may never play premier league football again.

 

Edited 12 August 2025 by stu

[john ridley]

And you what? Once we get ****ed over we'll still hear nothing from the club .

[Grebfromgrebland]

We need new owners asap. 

[CL Fox]

23 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Are we? Based on what?

An owner who's spending cash at an alarming rate in his own business, which has implications for ours.

 

This would be fine if we weren't running at major losses every year and had a wage bill we could fulfil. In addition to this we have major interest to macquarie to repay each year.

 

Admin happened last time largely due to itv digital going bust....id say were as vulnerable now as we were then, possibly even more so as the losses are bigger in terms of scale now - a major political event in Thailand or tv money going and were toast.

[Number 6]

35 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Based on the logic that if we have struggled to comply for 24/25 we will be asked to submit a business plan on how we will comply for 25/26 and if we can't then a transfer embargo will likely be handed down to us.

 

I find it very hard to map out how we were told we had financial issues in 24/25, only to not sell any players before the end of June. So if we complied then great and hopefully limits any possibility we'll face troubles to do so for 25/26. Or if we have failed or it's touch and go then I foresee the EFL trying to hit us with an embargo.

I think the points you made make sense, though I guess there's a counter point that if we thought an embargo could be hitting us down the line we'd be looking to do MORE business now.

[VLC86]

6 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

We need new owners asap. 

Thing is, this lot have probably already done the damage to impact us for the next 2 years directly anyway, much longer indirectly.

[Bablemikey]

Lots of unsubstantiated speculation is fuelling some over the top reactions here. Calm down, and lets wait for some actual facts before we all get our panties twisted up in a bunch.

[ACF]

7 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

I think the points you made make sense, though I guess there's a counter point that if we thought an embargo could be hitting us down the line we'd be looking to do MORE business now.

We do have too many players for registration purposes though. We need the clear-out to happen!