Coentrao has had more injuries than A & E. Absolutely no way.From Despair To Where? wrote:Being a bit mischeivous, I had a look on TransferMarket at what Rio Ave players are out of contract this summer and got
Nelson Monte CB
Fabio Coentrao LB
Coentrao has had more injuries than A & E. Absolutely no way.From Despair To Where? wrote:Being a bit mischeivous, I had a look on TransferMarket at what Rio Ave players are out of contract this summer and got
Nelson Monte CB
Fabio Coentrao LB
He’s out of contract, nothing to ‘release’ him from unless we had an option on another year, which seems unlikely.Sutekh wrote:
Definitely think McShane will be released.
Snowflake Royal wrote:Depends on who is paying them. If we're still covering a lot of their wages then the sooner they're properly gone the better.
Hopefully maybe how they are funding the nelson deal. Even if it covered his fee not the 6 million we spent would be worth while.Nameless wrote:Snowflake Royal wrote:Depends on who is paying them. If we're still covering a lot of their wages then the sooner they're properly gone the better.
You would expect Aluko’s wages are being paid entirely by the Chinese, not much point him being moved there otherwise. Can’t see China having FFP rules and fully expect the plan will be to make his deal permenant in the summer for a decent fee.
As much as I’d like the Nelson deal to happen; can’t help but think we will bring Nova back from loan and link him up with Meite, Bod and Baldock as our options.linkenholtroyal wrote:Hopefully maybe how they are funding the nelson deal. Even if it covered his fee not the 6 million we spent would be worth while.Nameless wrote:Snowflake Royal wrote:Depends on who is paying them. If we're still covering a lot of their wages then the sooner they're properly gone the better.
You would expect Aluko’s wages are being paid entirely by the Chinese, not much point him being moved there otherwise. Can’t see China having FFP rules and fully expect the plan will be to make his deal permenant in the summer for a decent fee.
I can see us accepting half just to get shot of him.Nameless wrote:Snowflake Royal wrote:Depends on who is paying them. If we're still covering a lot of their wages then the sooner they're properly gone the better.
You would expect Aluko’s wages are being paid entirely by the Chinese, not much point him being moved there otherwise. Can’t see China having FFP rules and fully expect the plan will be to make his deal permenant in the summer for a decent fee.
Half?Snowflake Royal wrote:I can see us accepting half just to get shot of him.Nameless wrote:Snowflake Royal wrote:Depends on who is paying them. If we're still covering a lot of their wages then the sooner they're properly gone the better.
You would expect Aluko’s wages are being paid entirely by the Chinese, not much point him being moved there otherwise. Can’t see China having FFP rules and fully expect the plan will be to make his deal permenant in the summer for a decent fee.
When we hear about how we've got some of our loanees gratis, I struggle to see why anyone would pay full wack for Aluko. I know the circumstances are very different.
The Nigeria forward scored his maiden goal in the Chinese top-flight during his sixth league appearance on Saturday
Sone Aluko broke his Chinese Super League duck in Beijing Renhe's 2-2 draw against Shenzhen on Saturday.
Aluko cancelled out Ole Selnaes' opener in the 38th minute to draw both teams level before the interval.
The strike was the Nigerian's first effort in the Chinese Super League since his loan arrival from Reading in February.
There’s a pretty obvious reason why we would expect to get a sizeable fee for Aluko from China. Hard to see a logical reason why it would not be exactly whatever the amount we actually paid Fulham was.Snowflake Royal wrote:I can see us accepting half just to get shot of him.Nameless wrote:Snowflake Royal wrote:Depends on who is paying them. If we're still covering a lot of their wages then the sooner they're properly gone the better.
You would expect Aluko’s wages are being paid entirely by the Chinese, not much point him being moved there otherwise. Can’t see China having FFP rules and fully expect the plan will be to make his deal permenant in the summer for a decent fee.
When we hear about how we've got some of our loanees gratis, I struggle to see why anyone would pay full wack for Aluko. I know the circumstances are very different.
More to do with the fact that the buyer and seller is the same person so if they want £7 milli9n to move from one pocket to the other they don’t have to bargain too hard with themselves.....Needle wrote:cos they're mugs?
Surely there’s got to be some rules about that though. Otherwise they could just buy him for £50m and then we wouldn’t have to worry about FPP as it’s cash generated from a player sale.Nameless wrote:More to do with the fact that the buyer and seller is the same person so if they want £7 milli9n to move from one pocket to the other they don’t have to bargain too hard with themselves.....Needle wrote:cos they're mugs?
Who would step in to declare a transfer fee ‘realistic’ ? No one did it when Andy Carroll went to Liverpool, or indeed when we signed Aluko, or when NickY Hammond regularly got clubs to pay well over the odds for players. I would doubt anyone would raise an eyebrow if we sold him for what we paid for him.Hound wrote:Yes it would have to be realistic
But they could claim if he was purchased for 7m 2 years before, 3.5- 5m would be reasonable for him now
This of course ignoring he was fcuking atrocious in that 2 years, but that would be subjective, and waved through
Reckon they’ll loan him for another year after and suspect they are paying a hefty loan fee each time as well as full wages
Yeah basically agreeing with my point. If Renhe paid 10m+ for him for example, then I’m sure it would be raised by other clubs. But as long as it’s broadly reasonable then it would go through ok I suspectNameless wrote:Who would step in to declare a transfer fee ‘realistic’ ? No one did it when Andy Carroll went to Liverpool, or indeed when we signed Aluko, or when NickY Hammond regularly got clubs to pay well over the odds for players. I would doubt anyone would raise an eyebrow if we sold him for what we paid for him.Hound wrote:Yes it would have to be realistic
But they could claim if he was purchased for 7m 2 years before, 3.5- 5m would be reasonable for him now
This of course ignoring he was fcuking atrocious in that 2 years, but that would be subjective, and waved through
Reckon they’ll loan him for another year after and suspect they are paying a hefty loan fee each time as well as full wages
Where clubs have been caught out has generally been around image rights, selling your first team image rights to your ladies team for example, or paying for image rights and then never exploiting them.
The three clubs are Villa, Derby and Wednesday.King Coppell wrote:There was a very “heated” meeting between all the Championship CEO’s yesterday at The City Ground, led by Steve Gibson of Middlesborough who wants three clubs investigated for manipulating their books to avoid breaching FFP rules. Those three clubs escape me now but dot include Reading, however considering we’ve been moving players between our owners clubs, this was on topic as a way to cook books, so I image Nigel Howe was one of the many on the defensive yesterday.
I can’t See how there can be an issue with the way we have moved players. They have gone and played for the other clubs. Where there would be a problem I think would be if we sold a player then immediately loaned them back.King Coppell wrote:There was a very “heated” meeting between all the Championship CEO’s yesterday at The City Ground, led by Steve Gibson of Middlesborough who wants three clubs investigated for manipulating their books to avoid breaching FFP rules. Those three clubs escape me now but dot include Reading, however considering we’ve been moving players between our owners clubs, this was on topic as a way to cook books, so I image Nigel Howe was one of the many on the defensive yesterday.
Less negativeOne87One wrote:Latest accounts are very positive. No more Vibrac as well. Get Reading's article on them missed some key information out though. No surprise with Jonathan Low.
I think eza would have been sent back if we didn't want to sign himRanty McRantface wrote:Of those on loan I think we have a real chance of getting Baker, Oliveira and Miazga. Martinez will get a Prem offer and I don't think the club will want Ejaria or Eza.Chameleon wrote:It's more a matter of getting them to come back any way possible. Getting them to go back to their parent clubs, and them then wanting to come back on loan for next season, which in theory shouldn't be too hard, seeing as our form is decent enough that we could be fighting for something positive next year.Royal Bison wrote:
Aside from Oliveira (and even then i'm not convinced there won't be better offers) do you genuinely believe any of the others would be interested in signing for us? Every one of them would have far better offers elsewhere.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests