Popular Post Ric Flair Posted 8 June 2022 Popular Post Posted 8 June 2022 Not that fussed, everyone talks about wages offset by being on a free + big signing on bonus but we have a real issue with our wage to revenue ratio and we can't afford too many players on £100k a week without a knock on effect. Rather let Everton bury themselves and never learn. 18
Popular Post Buzzell Posted 8 June 2022 Popular Post Posted 8 June 2022 I’d rather trust our scouting team and hope they find another Fofana. 6
Ric Flair Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 Another thing to consider is that Soyuncu is on quite low wages as he never signed a new deal since he joined and is supposedly only on about 50k a week. Replacing him like for like isn't easy and is another factor when we've got to sort this rebuild, we need a good chunk of dead money off the wage bill. 2
CloudFox Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 (edited) Well at least we can finally put this one to bed. Completely agree with others in here - would have liked him a couple of seasons ago, but no way should we be signing 30 year olds fresh into the club on 4 year deals of £100k+ per week. That's insane, he's not proven he can play at top half level yet, let alone maintain it into his mid-thirties. Edited 8 June 2022 by CloudFox 2
SafewayFox Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 Wasn’t Lampard obsessed with signing him and Rice at Chelsea? The board allegedly shot down the idea of paying silly money for a CB from Burnley springs to mind. Lampard clearly is a long term admirer, we need a more athletic CB able to play in a high line anyway 😎 1
Jobyfox Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 2 hours ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said: Surely it's only a worry if (assuming we were in for him, I doubt we were) we matched whatever contract Everton put forward and he opted for them? Yep - that’s more or less what I meant
murphy Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 (edited) On 24/05/2022 at 09:14, BrummieFOX said: Thank you! They're relegated for a reason. Obviously you get the odd good player from a relegated side but it's a pretty good general rule to follow to avoid them. I disagree. I think it makes great sense to cherry pick the best from relegated teams if you can get them. It usually represents great value (ie Evans) and players that are keen to move. Some players that have been relegated: Jack Grealish, James Milner, Harry Maguire, Joe Cole, Roy Keane, Andy Roberson, Paulo Di Canio, Jonny Evans, Muzzy Izzett, Wijnaldum...etc The first thing I think when relegated teams are confirmed, is who can we nab? As for Tarkowski on a free. Of course. it's a no brainer. Edited 8 June 2022 by murphy 1
An Away Move Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 Didn’t we use Tarkowski as a decoy in our bid for Fofana? If so, he probably didn’t appreciate it.
RumbleFox Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 He’s a good player and would probably improve us in the short term. But not hugely upset. Hardly a long term investment.
dannythefox Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 3 hours ago, 4everfox said: Not necessarily. Players already at the club on less money will probably want to be on similar terms, which can cause serious financial problems or disharmony within the squad. I prefer our model personally, you don't just walk into Leicester with a cushy £100k a week contract, you have to earn it, and rightfully so in my opinion. Yes I’m not saying I’d be happy with him on 100k but it definitely allows you to pay more. I also think if we wanted him he’d come to us over Everton so I can’t see us wanting him in the first place. 1
murphy Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 (edited) I don't get it. People getting worked up about age and wages? Centre-halves are coming into their prime at 29 and at £100k per week we would still get three years out of him for the same price we paid for a seven foot lump of Danish bacon, not even taking into account Jannick's wages. We should have gone for this one. What is the opposite of dodging a bullet? Whatever it is, we did that. Edited 8 June 2022 by murphy 2 1
MPH Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 2 hours ago, Ric Flair said: Not that fussed, everyone talks about wages offset by being on a free + big signing on bonus but we have a real issue with our wage to revenue ratio and we can't afford too many players on £100k a week without a knock on effect. Rather let Everton bury themselves and never learn. 2 hours ago, Ric Flair said: Another thing to consider is that Soyuncu is on quite low wages as he never signed a new deal since he joined and is supposedly only on about 50k a week. Replacing him like for like isn't easy and is another factor when we've got to sort this rebuild, we need a good chunk of dead money off the wage bill. but the fee we could potentially get for Soyuncu would more than cover the increase in wages. but there’d be no sell on value, of course
Tielemans63 Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, murphy said: We should have gone for this one. What is the opposite of dodging a bullet? Whatever it is, we did that. Er...deliberately ensuring you get hit by a bullet, which seems significantly worse to me Edited 8 June 2022 by Tielemans63 3
Ric Flair Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 13 minutes ago, MPH said: but the fee we could potentially get for Soyuncu would more than cover the increase in wages. but there’d be no sell on value, of course We have an issue with our wages to turnover ratio, we have to be careful. Money is going to be stretched to the max once again as we try and get the players we feel we need. 1
LFox99 Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 1 minute ago, Ric Flair said: We have an issue with our wages to turnover ratio, we have to be careful. Money is going to be stretched to the max once again as we try and get the players we feel we need. I mean that 105% number isnt the case anymore though is it, wasnt our latest number something around 80%? Its still not brilliant but definitely not as bleak as the numbers we had during that covid season
Ric Flair Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 8 minutes ago, LFox99 said: I mean that 105% number isnt the case anymore though is it, wasnt our latest number something around 80%? Its still not brilliant but definitely not as bleak as the numbers we had during that covid season But we've got to lower it even further due to the new UEFA rules if we want to qualify for Europe any time soon, its brutal.
LFox99 Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 10 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: But we've got to lower it even further due to the new UEFA rules if we want to qualify for Europe any time soon, its brutal. Oh I mustve missed that, in a nutshell, what do those new rules say and when do they kick in?
moore_94 Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 1 minute ago, LFox99 said: Oh I mustve missed that, in a nutshell, what do those new rules say and when do they kick in? https://theathletic.com/news/uefa-approves-new-financial-regulations-to-replace-ffp-new-squad-cost-rule-of-70-per-cent-of-revenue/nStOjscm115G/ "a club’s total expenditure on transfers, wages and agent fees cannot exceed 70 per cent of its revenue."
LFox99 Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 1 minute ago, moore_94 said: https://theathletic.com/news/uefa-approves-new-financial-regulations-to-replace-ffp-new-squad-cost-rule-of-70-per-cent-of-revenue/nStOjscm115G/ "a club’s total expenditure on transfers, wages and agent fees cannot exceed 70 per cent of its revenue." Argh shit, that super league thing still going? Asking for a friend. This seems iffy to me at best, surely all the oil clubs can just massively inflate their revenue with fake sponsorships
coolhandfox Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, moore_94 said: https://theathletic.com/news/uefa-approves-new-financial-regulations-to-replace-ffp-new-squad-cost-rule-of-70-per-cent-of-revenue/nStOjscm115G/ "a club’s total expenditure on transfers, wages and agent fees cannot exceed 70 per cent of its revenue." That's 2025/26. The ceiling will drop as current contracts expire: 90 percent of club income in 2023/24, followed by 80 percent the season after and then 70 percent in 2025/26 Giving clubs time to get their house in order. Edited 8 June 2022 by coolhandfox 2
moore_94 Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 Just now, LFox99 said: Argh shit, that super league thing still going? Asking for a friend. This seems iffy to me at best, surely all the oil clubs can just massively inflate their revenue with fake sponsorships That is by the 2025/26 season though It is being scaled year by year to give clubs time to reach it Will be 90% in 2023/24, 80% in 2024/25 1
moore_94 Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 Just now, coolhandfox said: That's 2025/26. The ceiling will drop as current contracts expire: 90 percent of club income in 2023/24, followed by 80 percent the season after and then 70 percent in 2025/6 Yeah just posted that as well haha 1
murphy Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 47 minutes ago, Tielemans63 said: Er...deliberately ensuring you get hit by a bullet, which seems significantly worse to me Not if it's not a bullet. The opposite of a bullet. Getting hit by a good thing so to speak. Obvious really.
Raw Dykes Posted 8 June 2022 Posted 8 June 2022 28 minutes ago, murphy said: Not if it's not a bullet. The opposite of a bullet. Getting hit by a good thing so to speak. Obvious really. What would you like to be hit by?
Recommended Posts