Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/09/21 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    It's best to lay out the structure of the investment first. Ipswich Town are now 87.5% owned by Gamechanger 20 Ltd (the remaining 12.5% owned by the legacy Ipswich Town Plc which is principally owned by Marcus Evans). Gamechanger is owned by the Org Az Secondary Opportunity Fund. This is an investment fund managed by investment adviser called ORG. The fund appears to be set up by ORG to invest assets on behalf of Arizona pension funds. There isn't much information on ORG, but they appear to be predominately focused on real estate investment (which makes the investment in Ipswich Town seem a little strange). ORG are listed as a consultant to the Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System pension scheme (PSPRS) , again as a real estate adviser. The fund is listed as a real estate fund. In that sense, the ultimate owner of Ipswich is now the pension scheme. But legally, and more accurately, it is the ORG fund that is the 'ultimate beneficial owner'. ORG will be looking to maximise the return on investment which will in turn be passed on to the pension scheme. According to some quick searches the pension scheme has assets under management (AUM) of $13bn (relatively medium in size in pension scheme terms). The ORG fund has AUM of c.$200-300m. In that sense, the investment in Ipswich Town is puny for the pension scheme, although relatively significant for the specific ORG fund (ORG has several other investment funds). So how can a pension scheme invest in a football club? First, PSPRS is a 'defined benefit' scheme (DB). In short, it means that individuals get a set pension on retirement based on a formula - a defined benefit. These are often referred to as 'final salary' schemes (though few schemes are based on final salaries anymore). These schemes are now rare in the UK (the public sector is one of the few remaining defined benefit pension offerers). This is in contrast to 'defined contribution' schemes (DC) in which the employee gets as a pension what they've put in plus investment return (or loss!) These are the predominant schemes in the UK. The rules on what you can invest in as a DC scheme are much stricter than for DB schemes. This is because, if investments plummet the inidivudal loses out in a DC scheme. Pension schemes must invest in the interest of the pension scheme members. Therefore a DC scheme is much less able to invest in private equity (if at all). Even for DB schemes, UK regulations are now much stricter - certainly more so than the US. PSPRS as a US DB scheme can more easily invest in private equity. In fact it does so. According to its website, 24% of its AUM is invested in private equity (i.e. investments into things like Ipswich Town). This is because it can have a long 'time horizon' to get a return on its investment (i.e. how long it can wait to make money) and private equity investments are riskier and therefore on balance are more likely to provide a higher return. Moving on to management. Pension schemes are hands-off the management of the companies in their investment portfolio. As such they will have no involvement in the running of Ipswich Town. Investment funds (like ORG) also typically do not get involved in the operations of the companies they invest in. They are in the business of identifying investment opportunities - not running companies. It may be the case they are a more 'hands-on' manager, but that appears unlikely. It seems that Brett Johnson, Michael O'Leary and Mark Ashton will running things. ORG instead will be monitoring their investment and checking it is on track. Moving to the investment / finance side, ORG can get a return through two ways: dividends/distributions; and sale (exit) of the investment. The first way can be through dividends or interest on loans. For Ipswich, the dividend route is unlikely - the club doesn't turn a profit so won't be able to pay dividends. Instead, the money would have to come from interest on loans. That interest would have to be paid out of operating income - i.e. money that would otherwise have gone on buying players, paying wages or investing in the ground. The second way is via an exit - that is selling the club for more money than you bought it for. Private equity investors will typically buy in at a 'multiple' (of revenue, or profits or assets), they then seek to increase revenue/profits/assets and exit at the same (or possibly higher multiple). That doesn't quite work for football clubs as the pricing of clubs doesn't tend to marry well to financial metrics. In short, for ORG to get a successful exit they will want to increase revenue (principally via promotion, increased commercial income - see Ed Sheeran); reduce costs (staff redundancies, 'trim the fat'); and improve the assets of the club (here Ipswich Town is light on assets, they don't own the Portman Road land for example). The economics for turning a profit on football clubs is generally awful. I saw Brentford mentioned above as an ideal investment outcome. For perspective, Brentford have racked up the best part of £100m in losses over the past decade. They made losses in each of those years (bar one where they sold the Griffin Park land and made a huge profit on player sales). As a reminder, the ORG investment fund has total assets of c.$200-300m - an investment of even half of Brentford's is not realistic unless PSPRS decides to give more money to ORG (again unlikely as the hundreds/thousands of investments PSPRS has compete against each other at any one time). Even Norwich, which balances the books generally makes losses in the Championship (albeit we usually have larger promotion bonuses). So what do I think the plan is? Immediate promotion this year is the short-term goal. Long-term, I imagine ORG were interested in getting back the Portman Road land and the other real estate assets (ORG is a real estate investment adviser after all) - ideally at a cheap price. I also imagine the goal isn't promotion to the premier league (although that'd be great if it happened, it takes a huge investment). Instead, I'd imagine something more along the lines of Mick McCarthy's reign - get in cheap players, flog players at the peak of their market value and run the club on a purse string. This would hopefully keep Ipswich in the Championship and generate enough income to get those interest payments. With the club owning the real estate again and established in the Championship, they can then work on finding an exit. A final word on Mark Ashton (as I think its important). My experience (when things go wrong) tells me to be vary wary of guys like him. I often refer to these (somewhat unprofessionally) as 'Todler CEOs'. That is they like shiny things, make reckless decisions and then get bored. They like doing M&A (or buying players, see how many players Ashton signed at Ipswich and at Bristol). They like their ego stroked (Ashton at Watford to disastrous effect, see the social media crap coming out at Ipswich). If I was a Town fan I'd be concerned with him at the helm. Apologies for the very long post.
  2. 6 points
    In a more recent thread you stated that you are usually spot on, I’m just going spend some time showing us how right you are very clever here uncle Fred, saying this HAD to be Farke’s last game, we won the league at a canter what a **** head
  3. 3 points
    Surely you pick the eleven players who you think will get the best result, regardless of current form? Southgate is picking the players he knows and trusts, and who have proven themselves in an England shirt. This coach and these players have reached England's first World Cup semi-final in 28 years and England's first European Championship final ever in their last two tournaments, and they spanked Hungary in their own backyard yesterday, which France couldn't do at the Euros. So did Southgate get it wrong last night by not picking in-form players who have started the season well, like Conor Gallagher and Demarai Gray, for example?
  4. 3 points
    Thanks for clearing that up. There's no double standard here at all. Hungarian fans have a shameful record on racial abuse and, while I find booing anthems moronic, it cannot be compared to aiming monkey chants at black players.
  5. 3 points
    Not many more seasons before Ipswich start at this level.....
  6. 2 points
    I have significantly cut down my posting on this thread, but I allow myself another bash every time Ricardo points out how Remainers are virtually the only ones who post now and then only do so to bemoan Brexit rather than offer a solution... Yes, you and others, including Remainers, have said that, and it sounds very sensible and British. Making do, making the best of it, 'Very well, alone.' All very plucky and Blitz spirit. But there is a fundamental problem. Which is (and I take this argument as read by now, not least because it has been proved by actions to be true) that the Leave vote was almost exclusively for an extreme Hard Brexit. No freedom of movement and no more EU rules and regulations. And all of the problems that have, entirely predictably, arisen stem from that straitjacket imposed by that Hard Brexit. Which by definition at best can only be very slightly be improved and certainly cannot be turned into something even remotely good. It is bound to significantly damage the economy of the UK (or what ends up being left of it) in the short-, medium- and long-term. There is no best to be made of it. The only way to achieve that would be to ignore what the majority voted for and in effect overturn the result by going back to EU rules and regulations and at least some form of freedom of movement. Certainly into a customs' union, and at least a fudge on FoM. Chances of that happening any time soon? Quite...
  7. 2 points
    Thanks Parma. Why Ipswich? Let me answer a different question that was posed here recently, why Crystal Palace? They recently had another(!) investor buy into the club - how do they keep getting so lucky? Well Palace are owned by pretty astute businessmen. They used their contact book to get in Blitzer and Harris to invest in the club several years ago. The latest investor, Textor was looking to invest in a club, the Palace investors looking to sell and the people running Palace are good businessmen. A case of the right man at the right time. Ipswich Town is similar. Marcus Evans was publicly looking to sell. In fact, pretty desperately. He has run out of patience and was no longer going to put serious money in. Regardless of how things have turned out at Ipswich, he's a good businessman. You don't create just a profitable corporation like his through sheer luck. So he's going to be reasonable to deal with, professional. And ORG are looking for someone to buy. For better or worse, they've met some guys who they trust to run football clubs. They've already tried their hand in the US with Phoenix Rising (it seems to be working out). The next logical step is England - like you say it's the current zietgeist. On the face of it though - it doesn't make much sense. Wearing my financial adviser hat - it seems like a very risky punt for a lot of the reasons you (and others) mention. However, there are some reasons why Ipswich. First, as mentioned above, Ipswich were available. Sometimes that is the most important reason. Money burns a hole in a pocket. Another example (that has gone all awry) is Sheffield United - McCabe wanted to sell, a Saudi Prince was looking to buy... Second, as much as it pains me to say, Ipswich aren't where they belong. It's pretty reasonable to say that they are punching well below their weight in League One. A little investment and they should easily be back in the Championship. An easy opportunity for a return. Third, is cashflow. As touched on by another poster, OGR didn't actually need to front much cash to takeover the club. The majority of the deal 'value' was in Marcus Evans writing off debt - he even kept a stake in Ipswich, reducing the initial outlay. Very little cash needed to change hands. Compare to, say, Norwich, you are needing to spend a lot of cash to buy out Delia and the other shareholders before even thinking of investing in the club. In addition, as opposed to a Championship club, you can overhaul the playing squad cheaply and with most of the cost backloaded (see the ton of free transfers). Overall, the less cash you need to put in upfront, the easier to generate a higher rate of return. Finally, my gut feel is the property is a key part. It's in effect an option. If things go well, Ipswich get promoted, then they can re-buy the property. If things don't go well, they haven't had to pay upfront for the expensive land in the initial deal. The other aspect is the owners of the Portman Road land (the Council) and Playford Road (Marcus Evans) are going to pretty professional to deal with (compare to, say, what happened with Wimbledon). All that said - I still don't think this is a good deal - but I've seen worse. Would a UK pension scheme even consider something like this - no chance! Thinking of one of the pension schemes I work with, it's contoversial enough that they are investing even a tiny bit into private infrastructure. This would blow their mind. My prediction is that the yanks and Ipswich Town fans are going to end up disappointed.
  8. 2 points
    Some are written in Latin
  9. 2 points
    My view is that bumping old threads like this is a delight... Only a few of this delightful threads left. This was one of the biggest threads at the time!
  10. 2 points
    You just underlined my point. They might not even be able to read the T-shirt as it's in a different language (although English is a world language, there's no guarantee that people are that well-versed in it) yet some fans still go ape for absolutely no sensible reason whatsoever. If you can't even read or understand the slogan, what kind of absolute braindead cretin do you have to be to be wound up by it? I can't read Hungarian, so I don't react to any Hungarian-language slogans until I find out what it means. The only dumb people there are those who react with racist abuse when confronted with an opposing player, celebrating the moment of scoring a goal as I'd expect them to. Sterling and the FA are bob-on in this field. Show those racist fans up for what they really are, and get it clearly shown to the rest of the world what not to do. I do essentially agree with your last sentence though, as the penalty defeat and resulting reaction showed, there are enough morons in the UK too.
  11. 2 points
    Honestly, you're giving this moron the attention he wants by doing this.
  12. 2 points
    Spot on Sonyc! History will look very unkindly indeed on a regime that enabled a referendum on an issue that they knew was massively divisive, and would inevitably leave at least half of the country bereft. Cameron's pusillaminous acquiesence to the far right ERG will be added to his post premiership corruption when he is assessed as one of the worst PMs in UK history.
  13. 2 points
    We all know that Byram is made of glass but was that remark really necessary ?
  14. 2 points
    One of the owners Brett Johnson was on an Athletic pod recently. Whilst reaching the Premier league is the obvious way to increase the value of the club and sell it on I didn't get the impression that's what they are looking to do and that they are likely happy enough getting into the championship. When questioned about how you make money for the pension fund he spoke a lot about how the potential is in taking money from transfer fees received. So, rather than our model or Brentfords whereby the money all gets reinvested into infrastructure and new signings in the aim of pushing the club on further they intend to take out part of any transfer fees received to pay back their initial investments. Then any money left over will be to buy replacements in the hope of selling them on again in the future and take more money out/invest again. He spoke about how this involves putting in a strong recruitment structure to spot the gems. So it seems strange that they let Cook pick and choose this season and perform a massive overhaul of the squad rather than go down our route of employing a Webber type to oversee it first and setting out a clear idea of what's going to happen. Webber was insistent from the start 3 transfer windows were needed before we would see progress but they seem to have thrown everything at this first one (possibly hoping to pay lower fees whilst other teams struggle financially). Johnson also spoke about football being behind the times and not yet embracing modern ways of working which are more widespread in US sports. Then handed over to Ashton who is an old school football CEO! All rather strange and felt a little like them saying the right things but offering up a slightly better funded version of what they did already under Evans and hoping they sign a couple of players they can sell on in a few years time. No idea how it will go for them but am sure it will be interesting to watch from afar.
  15. 2 points
    Had to correct that one for you
  16. 2 points
    Quite. How much would the bill for all this have reached after ten years? The club has consistently lost money even during Evans' frugal reign. There is neither the marketing potential in nor support for ITFC to suggest otherwise, unless they buy well and sell on for (big) profit (Maddison Buendia) or produce their own for selling. Both long shots as things stand, and perhaps not quite as easy as clubs like Brentford, Southampton and, of course, City have made it appear. Cook doesn't seem particularly savvy in the former respect, currently opting for many of his previous favourites or Championship rejects in the transfer market, and their Cat. 2 status combined with their apparent shelving of anything like an ambitious approach to their youth policy (eg. Liam Gibbs to NCFC for a tribunal fee) forebodes badly for the latter. Irrespective of all this, they will also be competing with a multitude of other clubs currently higher in the footballing pyramid, with greater support, equally well financed and with far greater assets who have the same goal in mind. The deluded 'binners' see it as a clear run. They are the "Pride of Anglia," after all and have all that history to call upon. From all angles this is a barmy investment, whatever the risk or perceived term, and seems the sort to get fund managers the sack, especially those responsible for people's pensions and not for the fortunes of high risk investors. Whoever pushed for this in the USA clearly has not done their homework regards the financial implications of investing in the professional game in England. It was not as if they didn't have the precedent set by Marcus Evans, with similar intentions for the club and his bank balance, to shine the red light. Selling off the training ground for housing and development of part of the Portman Road site, not the football ground ... (a hotel has already been mentioned, along with a variety of expensive space-age projects) would seem to be the only escape route should/when things go pear shaped, but this is far removed from success on the field of play, and it's Ipswich Town we are talking about here. I am truly, truly fascinated with it all. It would seem to sum up a lot of what is and will be wrong in the game, with so much throwing of good money after bad and so much risked for the Premier League dream and the perceived profit and esteem that this involves once realised. Furthermore, it's happening on our doorstep, at our rival's home. Ipswich Town Football Club, the gift that keeps on giving.
  17. 2 points
    I think your question is way off base. Biden is not a king, he has a Congress and States in "partnership" to govern America. Joe Biden is doing just fine, but the Republican Party in Congress and the States has decided to undermine every policy even if that means hurting - even killing - fellow Americans. I think your question should therefore be directed towards them, as the Tories follow their lead, you will see the same in the UK.
  18. 2 points
    'he was asking for it' Yes, mustn't upset the delicate racists, even though the shirt was a tribute message to his recently deceased friend.
  19. 1 point
    https://www.canaries.co.uk/content/ticket-news-norwich-city-v-liverpool-cup Great prices.
  20. 1 point
    Does the vaccine give you three nipples?
  21. 1 point
    Yeah, there are a number of bands from that time that I can appreciate far more now
  22. 1 point
    Probably the case, but too early to say for definite. Plenty of players have been rejected by one club, but gone on to make it elsewhere. To be fair it's rarely the case with players that we release. We let Bobby Zamora go when he was 16, but that was a long time ago. But good luck to Aidan Fitzpatrick for the future.
  23. 1 point
    Well, if you're English....
  24. 1 point
    I have studied this over the last couple of weeks and I must say those that have introduced passports are getting a much better % of vaccine uptake. If we use the examples of U.K. and Germany against Ireland and France it becomes fascinating. U.K. and Germany seem to be against introducing restrictions, consequently their new vaccinations are dropping like stones. The U.K. were considered the most likely to take vaccines throughout the world, the French as many pointed out were amongst the most sceptical in the world, they also don’t like being told what to do. In Ireland you maybe aware the restrictions also effect movement. Not only do you need a passport for lots of activities you cannot travel to another county unless you are double jabbed, the fine £1000 ( maybe Euros ). In contrast to the slowdown in other countries France are still vaccinating 4 - 500,000 a day, plenty with the one dose Johnson and Johnson and are way ahead of us on % vaccinated. It maybe coincidental but the daily cases in France are dropping as they are in Ireland, but nobody knows what to expect with this virus and those that tell us differently are simply guessing.
  25. 1 point
    AJ 390 Posted 1 hour ago It's only a matter of time before Fabio Quagliarella get's bumped as well to reunite with Cheeseboard! @AJ You asked for it
  26. 1 point
    Tyrone Mings, Conor Coady, Declan Rice, Jordan Pickford, Kalvin Phillips, Kieran Trippier, Sam Johnstone, Nick Pope and Patrick Bamford are all playing for top six clubs are they?
  27. 1 point
    A key point made by Spectre was his concern about long Covid, especially amongst the young, and the long term implications of that for the NHS and the economy. He very much shares our view that the rate of infection is way to high to be moving into the Autumn with any degree of confidence
  28. 1 point
    This is quite a funny thread though, reading back
  29. 1 point
    Hi Badger, Your maths is sound. I agree that £400m is a bit rich. However while the deal was reported as a £40m deal it wasn't £40m in cash. The deal was £38.26M but that isn't all. Ipswich has three companies; 1. The Club. 2. The stadium. 3. The finance company. The club was bough by a loan from the finance company (which is owned by the the Americans) however the Stadium is wholly owned by the same lot. The stadium is listed at a book value of £17.4m. This is a little convoluted but in effect the buyers look to have put in just over £20m in cash although that is in the form of loans. For a loan to be a genuine loan interest will be payable. The headline reported a £40m deal but it wasn't really that at all. More like £20m and even if the club goes bust they still have the stadium. Unpicking the accounts isn't that easy but it may be the case that the actual cash injected by the buyers was even less as they may have had some finance. The pension fund will only be financially exposed to the cash they put in and not money they put in on finance raised against the stadium, so any return they make is a multiple of this figure and not the reported headline figure. I hope you are all still awake. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.
  30. 1 point
    Can you expand on this point - what double standard are you referring to?
  31. 1 point
    It really boils my p1ss when people say 'hope they prove me wrong but here is some negative shoite about player x or director y' Support your club. Binners.
  32. 1 point
    The fund loans money into the club, pays itself interest. If they ever managed to get a run of results together and find themselves back in the premiership within the next 20 years. They can sell the club for a big profit? But as you point out, either way these funds look to make profit and have no interest in the sport, the players, fans just a bottom line.
  33. 1 point
    I wasn't, as I said, I know it was an anti-racist post. It was merely an attempt for education, not challenging or confronting and I apologise if it came across as such.
  34. 1 point
    So, 10 qualifying games in 30 days at the end of a long domestic season? This one's going close to the top of the "Lakey's off on one again" list.
  35. 1 point
    I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that it could be a 10 bagger or even more. It is reported that they paid 40 million for Ipswich - even if they reach the Premier League, a club that does not even own its own ground, won't sell anything like 400 million. Any further investment will mean that the 40 million cost increases, all that they have to dilute their ownership and therefore potential return.
  36. 1 point
    4-0 win away at Hungary against this crowd is an excellent result. They managed two draws in the World Cup group stages against France and Germany, so what more are you expecting exactly? And I'm surprised you would think Sterling is the one who is out-of-order in that celebration? Those fans deserved a hell of a lot more back from our players than they got, disgusting bunch of ****.
  37. 1 point
  38. 1 point
    The matter has divided people like nothing else. I'm sure it remains divisive. I have two (not really former yet) 'friends' who were Brexiters who now might vote differently. I was very surprised to hear them actually say they would given their hatred for all things European before the vote. Hatred it was too, no exaggeration. The big failure was ensuring that everyone who could have voted should have been mandated to do so. Yet we know that wouldn't have happened in the UK. Even though it was a life changing issue for many, especially for the younger and future populations (f***ing Cameron). Virtually 13m people didn't vote (72% turnout). So I guess with polls like the one above it all depends on turnout. The projections of those 12.9m indicate a stronger remain preference. But it's too late and we won't be heading back into Europe in my lifetime I'm sure. I would argue it's the most depressing thing politically to have happened in my life. By a long, long way. Nothing could be worse such is the strength of my opinion. And this is from someone VW who is as tolerant and accepting as it gets (so I reckon). Every time it comes on the news it fills me with sadness. Existential. Life should be about closer and more collaboration (even with people we dislike) not heading the other way. I realise that this is a response on the emotional / psychological level and not based on the harder nosed practicalities (those are being posted on this thread regularly)....many would snap at me and say 'grow up' or 'grow a pair' I'm very sure of that!
  39. 1 point
    How Beefy? It will need one hell of a turnaround. The costs are already piling up on top of the initial £30m and the business (ITFC) traditionally loses money to the tune of around £6m per annum. ITFC is not a particularly glamorous club, without massive support or worldwide appeal, and it was purchased with limited fixed assets ... a lease for the ground, a training ground and some unkempt stands. Goodwill virtually limited to Suffolk. It's a long shot expecting returns from that car crash, imo.
  40. 1 point
    Potential is the big word. Don't get me wrong I think we have had a fantastic window and if half the players signed live up to their potential we could have a good season. We are not signing £30 million players ready made for the premiership. I listened to a pod cast where Tzolis was a future balloon d'Or winner after 1 game up against a player who has spent the last 2 seasons on loan at Weymouth. We are in exciting times but please keep calm. Most of the players are in a new league and country and will take time.
  41. 1 point
    The Lambert promotion team for excitement and reliability takes some beating time will tell if they can be compared
  42. 1 point
    Thanks for the very kind intro, Nutty! I’m really going to need all your help PUPs, especially as I’ve agreed to do an international week! You’ve all got plenty of time as I won’t be picking until fairly late Friday evening. All picks gratefully received whether internationals or obscure lower leagues! Good Luck everyone!
  43. 1 point
    Was the club website forum still going on in the McNally era? I think of it as more something 2003-ish, I know I was using it before I evidently ended up using the Pink Un forum instead. Back then even this forum was a lot different and a very basic nested-posting style: https://web.archive.org/web/20030210054825/http://www.pinkun.com/Content/ncfc/fanzone/index.asp And here's the club website in September 2010: https://web.archive.org/web/20100918083817/http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/Home
  44. 1 point
    full of bugs, pages not loading etc...looks like nobody tested it before launch ....they had one job!
  45. 1 point
    Yes I was there, I was 12 years old. I was a season ticket holder with my dad & we sat in the south stand. I remember my dad grabbing me & we were both jumping around like a couple of lunatics. My dad has since passed away, but looking back always brings a smile to my face. The final at Wembley is something which I will never forget, my dad & me having a brilliant day together. I had a raffle ticket for us to win 1-0 & the prize was a £10, which was a lot for a 12 year old. But I nearly didn’t win, because of Mark Barhams effort, which just went over the bar. Happy times indeed.
  46. 1 point
    IF Farke has bent the truth a little, and it’s a big ‘if’, let’s just respect that he’ll only be doing it in our best interests, huh? We support Norwich, not the Greek national side. We need to remember he’s going to be a big player for Greece, and is already regarded as so, and if he’s indicated to them that he feels ok then it’s no surprise the national team boss etc want to make their own assessment on him. From our point of view, if there is a slight niggle there as Farke said, then I’d trust our reasons for not rushing him and risking turning a small issue into a bigger issue. Farke basically said he’s young and keen, and probably is naive to the reasons why we’re perhaps wrapping him in cotton wool. They’re professionals, and have obviously seen the warning signs regarding what are seemingly innocuous injuries all before. I have no problem with Farke not rushing Tzolis, whatever the reasons are. He knows what he’s doing, and he handled Buendia in exactly the same way in his nascent stages with us too. Didn’t turn out too bad, did it?
  47. 1 point
    Particularly as Rashica seem capable of taking corners
  48. 1 point
    U-P-Y-O-U-R-S You're welcome
  49. 1 point
    Yes, let's stop having faith in our top scorer.
  50. 1 point
    You've missed Rashica, but seeing as how Placheta is surplus, I guess that can be a straight swap and remain at 23 outfield players. As for Idah, I think he's stuck in limbo again. He isn't quite good enough to start matches regularly with Pukki and now Sargent ahead of him in the pecking order, but we need a third striker and he's a good option. Ultimately, this probably won't do him a lot of good in the long run and it probably would've been better to loan out Idah for a full season of Championship football and kept the (admittedly slightly inferior) Jordan Hugill as third choice striker. Idah is 20 now and has only started four matches in his professional club career and has played a total of around 800 minutes, which is less than nine full games. I'm a big fan of his and think he has a lot of potential, but these ten minute cameos won't really do much for helping him realise it.
  • Create New...