by YorkshireRoyal99 »
11 Jul 2022 12:35
Snowflake Royal YorkshireRoyal99 Nameless
Same tune.
There is nothing that says we can’t pay a transfer fee, subject to EFL approval
There is a clause that says we can’t make commitments to make future payments (because that would be a way of wriggling round restrictions)
So two different things really.
Bowen himself has said we can't pay transfer fees.
Probably because we haven't sold anyone or got shot of Moore.
It's about how much wiggle room we have in the finances. Without either / both of them we have no wiggle room.
There's two different things. Being barred from paying transfer fees and not having enough money to pay transfer fees. We are in the latter, not the former.
Quoting Bowen here:
"Secondly, from a financial point of view, it doesn't matter if we get £50million for him, we can't use that money this year (because of the financial restrictions). We can use his wages because that comes off the wage bill but we can’t use the money. With that said, Mr Dai (the owner) is not in the habit of accepting money for his players. He considers them almost like his babies. They are here to stay and he wants them to stay.
"Football changes week in week out, but at the moment I’d like to think that there is no chance of Lucas Joao going anywhere because the owner wants him to stay, I want him to stay, the fans want him to stay. And even if it was an extraordinary amount of money, I don’t know how we could use it to the best effect."
Potentially slightly contradicting depending how you see it, the first line or two says we can't use that money this year bar the wages but he then mentions in his last sentence "I don't know how we could use it to the best effect", which may imply something different. Currently, I think I'm going off the basis of we just can't spend any money on transfer fees this year, but that could be open to change.