Chris wood 25 million

[Greavsy 2,415]

1 hour ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

I think Wood has a £25m release clause so Burnley haven't a say in the matter

Other than when they offered him the contract initially. 

I hate release causes....... 

[Canary dwarf 221]

2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

They aren't, £20m is Chris Wood's release clause. Burnley haven't accepted an offer, Newcastle have triggered his release clause.

They won't hardly play him , they'll be buying far better strikers in this transfer window , and no fa cup now for them so he'll be picking splinters out of his ****.😄

[Google Bot 3,278]

Championship will be horrendously hard next season.  We need to go for it this window, get Aarons and Cantwell out and invest into key positions to make a difference.  We'll only be selling for less at the end of the season, and the likes of Dimi, Rashica etc. will want out.  Which leaves the likes of Sargent being valued at a few mil.

Really quite depressing.

[Canary dwarf 221]

3 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Championship will be horrendously hard next season.  We need to go for it this window, get Aarons and Cantwell out and invest into key positions to make a difference.  We'll only be selling for less at the end of the season, and the likes of Dimi, Rashica etc. will want out.  Which leaves the likes of Sargent being valued at a few mil.

Really quite depressing.

It largely depends on the offers we get for max and Todd , if anyone has watched them this season will they want to bid big money for them?

[AJ 1,221]

Todd won't be going for big money, if we get £15m for him we've done well based on his recent form.

Max I can see going for a decent sum but not sure who needs a right back at the top and I don't think he should settle for less than a top 6 side because he's good enough

[Midlands Yellow 3,984]

Is this deal signed and sealed or could we gazump Newcastle at the last minute? 

[Badger 2,405]

12 hours ago, Coneys Knee said:

Still don’t get it. Any chance of a fag packet maths example

This is my understanding:

Big club (e.g. Man U), 3 years revenue - 1.5 billion

Big club 3 years expenditure - 1.4 billion

Big club (expenditure on exempt items - like academy - £200 million).

Their rolling maximum 3 year loss is £105 million (I believe). Therefore in coming window the big club can spend £205 million. (£1.5 bn - £1.4bn = 100 million "profit" + 105 million they are allowed to lose).

 

In contrast a smaller club might have a 3-year revenue of £400 million and spend £500 million. As they have already made a loss of £100 million, they are only allowed to spend a maximum of £5 million (net of sales) in the window.

So despite the big club having spent nearly three times more in previous 3 years they are still able to spend over £200 million, whereas the smaller club can only spend £5 million.

In Newcastle's case, the new owners are likely to spend quite heavily on infrastructure + the academy. This is exempt for FFP purposes. Assuming Ashley has been running NUFC on a breakeven basis, they therefore have up to £105 million to spend on player purchases and wages in the rest of the financial year.

However, their revenue is almost certainly going to increase - bigger crowds + sponsorship deals. If this was say £50 million*, this could be added to what they are allowed to spend + any player sales (which are also likely).

* Manchester City get sponsored by Etihad airways to the tune of £67.5 million a year - the owner has links with this company. ATM, the Premier League is trying to stop NUFC from doing the same - they don't want the competition and NUFC's owner is much richer and has many more connections. I expect legal action over this.

I hope this makes sense.

[Highland Canary 76]

This is why we need new investment if we have any ambition of competing in tier one, or indeed in tier two, especially if parachute payments are removed. 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,753]

I think this transfer has slit both Burnley and Newcastle's throats.

Burnley have lost their best striker, as for Newcastle, if this is the best they can sign for all of their money, it's not going to be enough to keep them up.

The big winners here are Watford , who have the best strikeforce of any of the clubs at the bottom

[The Great Mass Debater 1,090]

Wow. 30 years old, 3 goals this season. Maybe they will take Cantwell off our hands after all.

Makes you wonder what kind of bid we might entertain for Pukki.

Bit like a relegation 6 pointer this one I feel - not only about strengthening you but also weakening your opposition

[The Great Mass Debater 1,090]

18 hours ago, Canary dwarf said:

Unbelievable , football has clearly gone mad mega rich owners buying wood for 25 mill , it weakens Burnley but doesn't really strengthen them , I bet Newcastle buy better strikers by the end of the window and hardly play wood, sheer madness.😚

Didnt Fergie try this tactic by signing David May from Blackburn!

[chicken 2,624]

1 hour ago, Highland Canary said:

This is why we need new investment if we have any ambition of competing in tier one, or indeed in tier two, especially if parachute payments are removed. 

Parachute payments won't be removed, they'll just be different. That's pretty much exactly what that article stated.

I also expect that a lot of how they change will depend upon what UEFA impose for new FFP rules as they believe the current ones don't work - NS Sherlock!!!

I'd love to see a limit on club debt. 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,090]

19 hours ago, Badger said:

According to this its £166 million. If they keep getting crowds of 50,000+ and no doubt some sponsorship deals, this will increase.

See we can spend another £92 million - I bet you 10p that we won't though!

Cantwell's not going to Villa or Everton then.

On Everton, how do they solve that?

[The Great Mass Debater 1,090]

19 hours ago, Badger said:

According to this its £166 million. If they keep getting crowds of 50,000+ and no doubt some sponsorship deals, this will increase.

See we can spend another £92 million - I bet you 10p that we won't though!

 

Will we even spend 10p?

[The Great Mass Debater 1,090]

19 hours ago, Canary dwarf said:

Is this smart by Burnley getting 25 million for a 30 year old poor man's iwan roberts , but effectively weakening their squad and chances of survival ?

If they can put that 25m to good use. We were floating the same idea regarding Aarons recently

[The Great Mass Debater 1,090]

16 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Is this deal signed and sealed or could we gazump Newcastle at the last minute? 

Swap deal for Idah and Sargent

[Coneys Knee 953]

7 hours ago, Badger said:

This is my understanding:

Big club (e.g. Man U), 3 years revenue - 1.5 billion

Big club 3 years expenditure - 1.4 billion

Big club (expenditure on exempt items - like academy - £200 million).

Their rolling maximum 3 year loss is £105 million (I believe). Therefore in coming window the big club can spend £205 million. (£1.5 bn - £1.4bn = 100 million "profit" + 105 million they are allowed to lose).

 

In contrast a smaller club might have a 3-year revenue of £400 million and spend £500 million. As they have already made a loss of £100 million, they are only allowed to spend a maximum of £5 million (net of sales) in the window.

So despite the big club having spent nearly three times more in previous 3 years they are still able to spend over £200 million, whereas the smaller club can only spend £5 million.

In Newcastle's case, the new owners are likely to spend quite heavily on infrastructure + the academy. This is exempt for FFP purposes. Assuming Ashley has been running NUFC on a breakeven basis, they therefore have up to £105 million to spend on player purchases and wages in the rest of the financial year.

However, their revenue is almost certainly going to increase - bigger crowds + sponsorship deals. If this was say £50 million*, this could be added to what they are allowed to spend + any player sales (which are also likely).

* Manchester City get sponsored by Etihad airways to the tune of £67.5 million a year - the owner has links with this company. ATM, the Premier League is trying to stop NUFC from doing the same - they don't want the competition and NUFC's owner is much richer and has many more connections. I expect legal action over this.

I hope this makes sense.

Thank you, I think I can fudge my way round the concept now. Basically for a club like us your accountants need to be able to fiddle as much expenditure as possible in the exemption categories! 

[Badger 2,405]

46 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Cantwell's not going to Villa or Everton then.

On Everton, how do they solve that?

They are only the magazine's estimates and will be using last year's information  + guesses about that they paid for players this summer. My guess is that the magazine article was written by sports journalists rather than accountants.

If the figures are correct, Everton, in particular, would need to generate some revenue quickly, player sales being the best bet. There have been concerns expressed about their ability to meet the rules, but they do have quite a lot they can "write off" - women's football, stadium development, youth and community costs etc.

 

[Badger 2,405]

2 minutes ago, Coneys Knee said:

Thank you, I think I can fudge my way round the concept now. Basically for a club like us your accountants need to be able to fiddle as much expenditure as possible in the exemption categories! 

Even if they were very good at it, it wouldn't make much difference - just one of Man City's sponsors would be about 2/3 of our total revenue 😣

It's why imo a rich donor would have to be very, very rich to make much difference - Everton have spent £566 million in the last 4 years and they are hardly flying!

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

2 hours ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Didnt Fergie try this tactic by signing David May from Blackburn!

Wasn’t there also a case where Blackburn were pushing for promotion and there was only one team chasing them ( Huddersfield?). Blackburn bought their striker off them around Easter and just stuck him on the bench. They won the league comfortably.

[Badger 2,405]

10 minutes ago, Coneys Knee said:

Thank you, I think I can fudge my way round the concept now. Basically for a club like us your accountants need to be able to fiddle as much expenditure as possible in the exemption categories! 

Funnily enough I was looking at the FT just after I replied and came across this about man City in yesterday's edition. Man City's revenue last year was 644 million Euros - about five times our revenue. their commercial revenue alone was 308 million Euros, more than twice our total revenue!

https://www.ft.com/content/e949a154-1227-418b-920c-a7310788b5f2?shareType=nongift

[Coneys Knee 953]

28 minutes ago, Badger said:

Funnily enough I was looking at the FT just after I replied and came across this about man City in yesterday's edition. Man City's revenue last year was 644 million Euros - about five times our revenue. their commercial revenue alone was 308 million Euros, more than twice our total revenue!

https://www.ft.com/content/e949a154-1227-418b-920c-a7310788b5f2?shareType=nongift

So basically, unless we found owners with wealth on the scale of the likes of Man City or Newcastle etc, our chances of competing for anything more than survival and a cup run are pretty much zero?

Depressing. I wonder how long it will take for the punters to get bored enough for the money men to retreat? My guess is never! 

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, Coneys Knee said:

So basically, unless we found owners with wealth on the scale of the likes of Man City or Newcastle etc, our chances of competing for anything more than survival and a cup run are pretty much zero?

Depressing. I wonder how long it will take for the punters to get bored enough for the money men to retreat? My guess is never! 

The same applies to nearly other club in the league. I think that we can be in the Premier league more often than not and might have the occasional excursion into Europe via Europe.

ATM many comparable clubs to us in PL are heavily loaded with debt, which is a source of some hope - they can't borrow indefinitely!