Freebies

[Nameless]

Alan Nixon claiming to know what we are probably already aware of. Sounds like we’re struggling to make signings which again is hardly a surprise. I still think it’s harsh that we can’t spend a small proportion of any transfer fees that we receive on new players. I assume the player we have received an offer for is Joao. Good news if there’s no point in selling him.

I heard Nixon speaking on R5L telling Derby fans that that takeover would go through that he’d personally seen proof of funds. We all know what happened with that one.

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/conce ... erges/amp/

The article doesn’t say we can’t spend any money
It makes the frankly daft suggestion that if we sell a player we can only replace them with a player that costs less.
So in theory we could sell Joao for £10 million and replace him by paying £9,999,999.99 for a new striker.
As I understand it our first restriction is we have to stick to the business plan getting us to compliance with P&S rules as top priority. So any income has to contribute to that. If we are ahead of that and can show we have surplus funds the EFL can approve spending on a case by case basis. Which might make it harder to compete in the market, but doesn’t stop us paying fees. So if we sold Joao for £10 million we might be able to show that £5 million of that moves us ahead of the business plan. We could then ask for £3 million to be allocated for player signings with £2 million to cover wages, agent fees etc. The EFL might agree but limit single fees to max £750k and wages would need to meet the existing limit for new signings.

[blythspartan]

Alan Nixon claiming to know what we are probably already aware of. Sounds like we’re struggling to make signings which again is hardly a surprise. I still think it’s harsh that we can’t spend a small proportion of any transfer fees that we receive on new players. I assume the player we have received an offer for is Joao. Good news if there’s no point in selling him.

I heard Nixon speaking on R5L telling Derby fans that that takeover would go through that he’d personally seen proof of funds. We all know what happened with that one.

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/conce ... erges/amp/

The article doesn’t say we can’t spend any money
It makes the frankly daft suggestion that if we sell a player we can only replace them with a player that costs less.
So in theory we could sell Joao for £10 million and replace him by paying £9,999,999.99 for a new striker.
As I understand it our first restriction is we have to stick to the business plan getting us to compliance with P&S rules as top priority. So any income has to contribute to that. If we are ahead of that and can show we have surplus funds the EFL can approve spending on a case by case basis. Which might make it harder to compete in the market, but doesn’t stop us paying fees. So if we sold Joao for £10 million we might be able to show that £5 million of that moves us ahead of the business plan. We could then ask for £3 million to be allocated for player signings with £2 million to cover wages, agent fees etc. The EFL might agree but limit single fees to max £750k and wages would need to meet the existing limit for new signings.

Thank you for the explanation, I wasn’t reading the article properly. It’s good that we can potentially spend some money albeit on a case by case basis.

[Snowflake Royal]

Alan Nixon claiming to know what we are probably already aware of. Sounds like we’re struggling to make signings which again is hardly a surprise. I still think it’s harsh that we can’t spend a small proportion of any transfer fees that we receive on new players. I assume the player we have received an offer for is Joao. Good news if there’s no point in selling him.

I heard Nixon speaking on R5L telling Derby fans that that takeover would go through that he’d personally seen proof of funds. We all know what happened with that one.

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/conce ... erges/amp/

Ffs, this is getting annoying now. There is nothing barring us spending money on signings if it fits with our business plan.

If we shift Moore and sell one of the others for good money, we'll probably be able to spend some of that on signings.

At the moment, we still have to pay Moore an obscene amount and haven't sold anyone, so there's nothing to spend.

Hell, the article literally says if we sold someone we could use some of the money to make a signing.

[blythspartan]

Alan Nixon claiming to know what we are probably already aware of. Sounds like we’re struggling to make signings which again is hardly a surprise. I still think it’s harsh that we can’t spend a small proportion of any transfer fees that we receive on new players. I assume the player we have received an offer for is Joao. Good news if there’s no point in selling him.

I heard Nixon speaking on R5L telling Derby fans that that takeover would go through that he’d personally seen proof of funds. We all know what happened with that one.

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/conce ... erges/amp/

Ffs, this is getting annoying now. There is nothing barring us spending money on signings if it fits with our business plan.

If we shift Moore and sell one of the others for good money, we'll probably be able to spend some of that on signings.

At the moment, we still have to pay Moore an obscene amount and haven't sold anyone, so there's nothing to spend.

Hell, the article literally says if we sold someone we could use some of the money to make a signing.

Yep, was reading early this morning after too many drinks last night. I also did very poorly at the quiz.

[Nameless]

Alan Nixon claiming to know what we are probably already aware of. Sounds like we’re struggling to make signings which again is hardly a surprise. I still think it’s harsh that we can’t spend a small proportion of any transfer fees that we receive on new players. I assume the player we have received an offer for is Joao. Good news if there’s no point in selling him.

I heard Nixon speaking on R5L telling Derby fans that that takeover would go through that he’d personally seen proof of funds. We all know what happened with that one.

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/conce ... erges/amp/

Ffs, this is getting annoying now. There is nothing barring us spending money on signings if it fits with our business plan.

If we shift Moore and sell one of the others for good money, we'll probably be able to spend some of that on signings.

At the moment, we still have to pay Moore an obscene amount and haven't sold anyone, so there's nothing to spend.

Hell, the article literally says if we sold someone we could use some of the money to make a signing.

Yep, was reading early this morning after too many drinks last night. I also did very poorly at the quiz.

It’s not easy to get your head round it all. We’re operating under 2 sets of restrictions and lots of caveats and unknowns. When journalists who should be fact checking print stuff that is wrong it muddies the water further. I’ve tried to understand it as best I can but I probably get stuff wrong, and some of the info is not in the public domain (for good reasons, and because it changes according to circumstances).

[Royal_jimmy]

This stuff with the EFL is a joke now. They are trying to get us relegated despite us co-operating with them on getting back within the profit and sustainability guidelines.

It shouldn't matter what we do in regards to incomings and outgoing players and fees as long as we stick to the wage bill and get back to the £39m in 3 years loss cap. They're just spitefully punishing us.

[SouthDownsRoyal]

This stuff with the EFL is a joke now. They are trying to get us relegated despite us co-operating with them on getting back within the profit and sustainability guidelines.

It shouldn't matter what we do in regards to incomings and outgoing players and fees as long as we stick to the wage bill and get back to the £39m in 3 years loss cap. They're just spitefully punishing us.

In what wAy?

[Nameless]

This stuff with the EFL is a joke now. They are trying to get us relegated despite us co-operating with them on getting back within the profit and sustainability guidelines.

It shouldn't matter what we do in regards to incomings and outgoing players and fees as long as we stick to the wage bill and get back to the £39m in 3 years loss cap. They're just spitefully punishing us.

They aren’t punishing us. We are just having to stick to wage restrictions and our business plan. You seem to think there are other things going on, which there aren’t.

[Snowflake Royal]

The budget we're having to stick to is how we get back within FFP.

We don't have any money spare to payout at the moment without risking breaking it.

Moore is still our player. Taking up 1/25th of our squad size and more than 1/10th of our finances.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

This stuff with the EFL is a joke now. They are trying to get us relegated despite us co-operating with them on getting back within the profit and sustainability guidelines.

It shouldn't matter what we do in regards to incomings and outgoing players and fees as long as we stick to the wage bill and get back to the £39m in 3 years loss cap. They're just spitefully punishing us.

We got ourselves into this situation, not them. I did think it was a bit strange when we were originally placed under our soft transfer embargo that we went and spent nearly £15m on a bunch of new signings within a matter of days, but again, that's on the club's head more than the EFL's.

If anything, we've had the most lenient punishment of the 4 Championship clubs to have had points deducted. Birmingham and Derby both got -9 for similar reasons and Sheffield Wednesday originally had 12 points deducted, later reduced to just 6, which was worse than what we had.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Alan Nixon claiming to know what we are probably already aware of. Sounds like we’re struggling to make signings which again is hardly a surprise. I still think it’s harsh that we can’t spend a small proportion of any transfer fees that we receive on new players. I assume the player we have received an offer for is Joao. Good news if there’s no point in selling him.

I heard Nixon speaking on R5L telling Derby fans that that takeover would go through that he’d personally seen proof of funds. We all know what happened with that one.

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/conce ... erges/amp/

The article doesn’t say we can’t spend any money
It makes the frankly daft suggestion that if we sell a player we can only replace them with a player that costs less.
So in theory we could sell Joao for £10 million and replace him by paying £9,999,999.99 for a new striker.
As I understand it our first restriction is we have to stick to the business plan getting us to compliance with P&S rules as top priority. So any income has to contribute to that. If we are ahead of that and can show we have surplus funds the EFL can approve spending on a case by case basis. Which might make it harder to compete in the market, but doesn’t stop us paying fees. So if we sold Joao for £10 million we might be able to show that £5 million of that moves us ahead of the business plan. We could then ask for £3 million to be allocated for player signings with £2 million to cover wages, agent fees etc. The EFL might agree but limit single fees to max £750k and wages would need to meet the existing limit for new signings.

Ultimately it depends on what that limit is though really. If we were to receive a bid of £5m for Joao, but were only allowed to reinvest £500k from that figure, there may be little point in doing so, or it would take some excellent recruitment to poach anybody at that price to come in and compete at this level, which seems to be what Nixon is saying in the article, which I could completely understand.

[Snowflake Royal]

We've basically never spent the entire fee we receive for a player on replacing them anyway.

The article has absolutely zero useful or new information in it.

[URZZZZ]

At least Evans was a free. At an alleged £3.75m, Ilori was no great ugrade on what we already had.

Whilst it's fair to say a lot of our signings were hung out to dry by a string of tactically gormless managers, one of the fundamental flaws of Gourleynomics was that if we're going to spend close to £4m on a player, they need to be significantly better than what we've already got.

When we bought Ilori, we already had McShane, Cooper, Moore and Blackett who could play CB (not counting Jules, Hyam, Andresson, Keown and Dickie who were all 18 or older, 2 of whom are making a more than decent career for themselves in the Championship, not to mention Cooper) and we then brought in Reece Oxford from West Ham.

Do agree with this. I guess we got some (£?) money back from Ilori unlike a couple of other big hitters but not sure how much due diligence was done on the player

He had strengths to his game but simply not as a Champ defender, didn’t deal with the physicality of it at all and he was so sloppy at times. Ironically think he’d have been a better Prem defender than Champ one

On a free, as you say, Evans was OK but never did enough to convince he should be given a regular run of games. Given he’s moved from manager to manager and club to club and is still facing the same problem, would suggest he’s closer to L1 level

Popa was another one linked to your description of Ilori in that he was bought in a position where we didn’t need him as we had options and he didn’t improve on them. Aside from running around like a headless chicken, he offered nothing

[Notts Royal]

This stuff with the EFL is a joke now. They are trying to get us relegated despite us co-operating with them on getting back within the profit and sustainability guidelines.

It shouldn't matter what we do in regards to incomings and outgoing players and fees as long as we stick to the wage bill and get back to the £39m in 3 years loss cap. They're just spitefully punishing us.

We got ourselves into this situation, not them. I did think it was a bit strange when we were originally placed under our soft transfer embargo that we went and spent nearly £15m on a bunch of new signings within a matter of days, but again, that's on the club's head more than the EFL's.

If anything, we've had the most lenient punishment of the 4 Championship clubs to have had points deducted. Birmingham and Derby both got -9 for similar reasons and Sheffield Wednesday originally had 12 points deducted, later reduced to just 6, which was worse than what we had.

Precisely. Anger should be directed at Dai Yongee & not the EFL. Breaking the rules is our fault. The only aspect of the punishment I disagree with is not being able to sign players for >1 season.

[Snowflake Royal]

At least Evans was a free. At an alleged £3.75m, Ilori was no great ugrade on what we already had.

Whilst it's fair to say a lot of our signings were hung out to dry by a string of tactically gormless managers, one of the fundamental flaws of Gourleynomics was that if we're going to spend close to £4m on a player, they need to be significantly better than what we've already got.

When we bought Ilori, we already had McShane, Cooper, Moore and Blackett who could play CB (not counting Jules, Hyam, Andresson, Keown and Dickie who were all 18 or older, 2 of whom are making a more than decent career for themselves in the Championship, not to mention Cooper) and we then brought in Reece Oxford from West Ham.

Do agree with this. I guess we got some (£?) money back from Ilori unlike a couple of other big hitters but not sure how much due diligence was done on the player

He had strengths to his game but simply not as a Champ defender, didn’t deal with the physicality of it at all and he was so sloppy at times. Ironically think he’d have been a better Prem defender than Champ one

On a free, as you say, Evans was OK but never did enough to convince he should be given a regular run of games. Given he’s moved from manager to manager and club to club and is still facing the same problem, would suggest he’s closer to L1 level

Popa was another one linked to your description of Ilori in that he was bought in a position where we didn’t need him as we had options and he didn’t improve on them. Aside from running around like a headless chicken, he offered nothing

I liked Ilori, but the argument that he wasn't significantly better than we had and therefore massively overpriced for his contribution is absolutely fair.

We were firmly in the phase where more expensive and from a big club automatically meant someone would be miles better than an Academy lad or a lower league freebie according to those in charge.

[Snowflake Royal]

This stuff with the EFL is a joke now. They are trying to get us relegated despite us co-operating with them on getting back within the profit and sustainability guidelines.

It shouldn't matter what we do in regards to incomings and outgoing players and fees as long as we stick to the wage bill and get back to the £39m in 3 years loss cap. They're just spitefully punishing us.

We got ourselves into this situation, not them. I did think it was a bit strange when we were originally placed under our soft transfer embargo that we went and spent nearly £15m on a bunch of new signings within a matter of days, but again, that's on the club's head more than the EFL's.

If anything, we've had the most lenient punishment of the 4 Championship clubs to have had points deducted. Birmingham and Derby both got -9 for similar reasons and Sheffield Wednesday originally had 12 points deducted, later reduced to just 6, which was worse than what we had.

Precisely. Anger should be directed at Dai Yongee & not the EFL. Breaking the rules is our fault. The only aspect of the punishment I disagree with is not being able to sign players for >1 season.

Which we can. Holmes and Yiadom prove it

[From Despair To Where?]

At least Evans was a free. At an alleged £3.75m, Ilori was no great ugrade on what we already had.

Whilst it's fair to say a lot of our signings were hung out to dry by a string of tactically gormless managers, one of the fundamental flaws of Gourleynomics was that if we're going to spend close to £4m on a player, they need to be significantly better than what we've already got.

When we bought Ilori, we already had McShane, Cooper, Moore and Blackett who could play CB (not counting Jules, Hyam, Andresson, Keown and Dickie who were all 18 or older, 2 of whom are making a more than decent career for themselves in the Championship, not to mention Cooper) and we then brought in Reece Oxford from West Ham.

Do agree with this. I guess we got some (£?) money back from Ilori unlike a couple of other big hitters but not sure how much due diligence was done on the player

He had strengths to his game but simply not as a Champ defender, didn’t deal with the physicality of it at all and he was so sloppy at times. Ironically think he’d have been a better Prem defender than Champ one

On a free, as you say, Evans was OK but never did enough to convince he should be given a regular run of games. Given he’s moved from manager to manager and club to club and is still facing the same problem, would suggest he’s closer to L1 level

Popa was another one linked to your description of Ilori in that he was bought in a position where we didn’t need him as we had options and he didn’t improve on them. Aside from running around like a headless chicken, he offered nothing

I liked Ilori, but the argument that he wasn't significantly better than we had and therefore massively overpriced for his contribution is absolutely fair.

We were firmly in the phase where more expensive and from a big club automatically meant someone would be miles better than an Academy lad or a lower league freebie according to those in charge.

And the other issue with a £3m fee is the £3m over 4 years in wages. Absolutely fine for a regular first teamer but with 4 other senior CBs on the books, it's pissing money up a wall. We're not Chelsea, we can't stockpile potential and I think too many in charge were blind to that.

[Winston Biscuit]

many deals, especially in the Champ, include a big chunk based on promotion, so the number you see reported is often not what is paid. Some are a very long way from what is paid (see Aluko for a good example)

[Hound]

many deals, especially in the Champ, include a big chunk based on promotion, so the number you see reported is often not what is paid. Some are a very long way from what is paid (see Aluko for a good example)

Can’t imagine many clubs will agree to a selling to us on that basis considering our prospects for the season!

[Snowflake Royal]

Do agree with this. I guess we got some (£?) money back from Ilori unlike a couple of other big hitters but not sure how much due diligence was done on the player

He had strengths to his game but simply not as a Champ defender, didn’t deal with the physicality of it at all and he was so sloppy at times. Ironically think he’d have been a better Prem defender than Champ one

On a free, as you say, Evans was OK but never did enough to convince he should be given a regular run of games. Given he’s moved from manager to manager and club to club and is still facing the same problem, would suggest he’s closer to L1 level

Popa was another one linked to your description of Ilori in that he was bought in a position where we didn’t need him as we had options and he didn’t improve on them. Aside from running around like a headless chicken, he offered nothing

I liked Ilori, but the argument that he wasn't significantly better than we had and therefore massively overpriced for his contribution is absolutely fair.

We were firmly in the phase where more expensive and from a big club automatically meant someone would be miles better than an Academy lad or a lower league freebie according to those in charge.

And the other issue with a £3m fee is the £3m over 4 years in wages. Absolutely fine for a regular first teamer but with 4 other senior CBs on the books, it's pissing money up a wall. We're not Chelsea, we can't stockpile potential and I think too many in charge were blind to that.

Yep. Every time we change manager (every season) the newbie wants to bring in their own players, but the last two guys players are still under contract. So we stack em up.