cornish sam

Can psg afford to whilst sticking in uefa's ffp after he the french TV deal collapsed? I'm not sure how they could fudge it and add that much extra expenditure unless they sold a couple of their big earners...

BBC said that Barca would need to cut £172m off their wage bill to be able to meet FFP if Messi were to stay!

I thought when this was discussed previously it was thought work permit would be a challenge? Got to admit though, I know nothing about him other than that some think he looks like he could be great and others don't understand why we'd sign him....

If you can get that off the ground it would be amazing (though agree about dropping dimi from it for flow)

The signings we've been making it looks.more and more as though it will be 4321 transitioning to a 4231 though, with gilmour, McLean, PLM, rupp and (to a lesser extent) Sorenson all seemingly able to play the front and back role (and billing if he comes). I would like to see us sign a strong sitting midfielder now just to round off the group, unless that's going to be Sorenson.

Perhaps that's why no-one has

And villa have sold graelish, spurs look like they're losing kane, Dortmund have sold Sancho and quite possibly haaland. Selling good players is not a sign of a lack of ambition, what you do after selling them shows what the ambition is.

Binner Binner

The empirical evidence actually has us definitely spending more than at least Burnley, Chelsea, Everton, newcastle and probably more than Southampton, palace, Brentford, wolves, West ham, Brighton and liverpool so far this window. Yes our wages almost certainly as high, but the model has given us the freedom to spend what we have despite covid.

It scuppers my fantasy football team, that's for sure, I had them both in there...

This is a bit of a tangent and not meant to be trivialising the issue/risks/impact, but.... I know that the club and all players will have insurance, but, I'm never sure what the insurance actually covers, for example, if a player does develop long covid would there be insurance cover for that? Obviously I would rather nobody ever had to find out.

I did, that's why I was doing IT for them 🙂

Fair point, my thinking on this was too small, the simple though of you need money, you sell stuff doesn't necessarily work when we're talking at a national level as even though the envisaged cash would come from outside the fact everyone was in the crash and we still need.foreign investment to keep the economy moving.... As I said, I wasn't on the finance side (IT is my thing) so I was collateral damage if the forced 'merger' between HBOS and Lloyds. That article is interesting in giving a contemporary perspective from outside the UK bubble, so thank you once again.

Thank you badger. Ideas that got taken on through not really paying attention at the time should always be revisited from time to time and it's not something that I have really done from that time (I was too busy doing things I shouldn't have to pay proper attention then).

So essentially you are saying that it is better to borrow than to have saleable assets or a predictable return over medium term? Thinking back now I can kind of see that, though at the time it didn't feel like there was much success in stopping the crash (and I was working for HBOS at the time, not on the financial side I'll hasten to add, so did feel the affects of it pretty acutely)...

It can invest in other governments gilts and bonds, for example US treasury securities (which we did apparently use some of the money to invest in), apologies if those aren't actually gilts or bonds, as I said to Badger I am a bit of a layperson in this, which is why I appreciate people actually try to explain the counter position rather than attack the post or poster, hence I appreciate the engagment of someone like Badger or the bad dog who take the time to try and educate or at least indicate how to reassess a position rather than just saying ''you're wrong".

Just **** off bill, I take great offense at you labelling me as a 'rightie' and your hollier than thou attitude has been getting worse and worse of late. I have tried given you the benefit of the doubt with your interactions with other posters and even explained why I wouldn't put you on ignore in another thread but you really are bringing down this board with the way you approach people and discussions. I'm also sorry for making a spelling mistake that got autocorrected without me realising, I will make sure I never ever make a simple mistake in your presence again oh righteous one.

As to what assets were sold in 2008 I couldn't tell you without looking it up, I wasn't talking about that period but rather the late 90s and start of the millennium when everything was great and we sold the gold. The short term gain, was as I perceived it, merely political capital. Looking a bit further into this and challenging my own views I can see that there has been some reassessment of this decision in the last few years which think that through the reinvestment of the money into guilds and bonds it would have actually been a sound economical move had interest rates not tanked, I can see that my view is perhaps incomplete, but this has not been helped due to your twisting of what I said and snidey digs without actually putting forwards any counter perspective or opinion other than "look others were doing it as well".

I was aware that national debt was historically low before the crash, I was viewing it as not putting in a backstop plan for when the inevitable bust came along (inevitable in the cyclical nature of markets, not that we should have expected great prescience at the depth of the crash), but I can see an argument that in keeping the debt low they were doing just that. It just left us with seemingly (remember I am a lay person in economics as the bad dog exposed on a thread the other day about balance sheets) little recourse other than borrowing when the **** hit the spinny thing...

Pray tell, where am I coming from then? I thought I knew, but, obviously I was mistaken... Also did your mother never say "if you saw Jimmy sticking his hand in the fire would you do it as well?" So please educate me on my "gross" misunderstanding. If the finances were so great why did we sell off our assets? Oh yes, short term gain instead of long term stability, which I think actually brings us quite neatly back onto the topic of Webber...

I know I shouldn't respond....but, as you are well aware, that is not what I said or meant. The damage I am referring to is more related to his failure to put provision in place for the lean years during the fat, and in actual fact reduce our ability to cope with the lean through such I'll advised policies as selling off our gold reserves when gold prices were at the lowest they had been for about 20 years.

Tbf most of the damage was done by Gordon brown before Ed came along... He is actually recognised as being a very good economist, so good that he was teaching at Harvard and the chief economics writer at the FT before becoming an MP.

Don't know if it works on the times, but, if you have an android phone and chrome you can stop the page loading between the article being loaded and the paywall kicking in on the telegraph...

The journo with the byeline is their PAOK correspondent and hasn't tweeted anything, haven't checked if sporttime have on a main account...

I've just looked and that is the latest on there about tzolis. They have run many stories about our pursuit and it does read as though they have connections and we're very close (as in they almost accepted it) so perhaps the guy who tweeted does actually know someone there and they just haven't published the story yet due to embargo or similar...