Transfer discussion thread

[Bianconeri]

If Forest don't stay up, surely they're absolutely *ed financially?

I doubt any club from the premier league can be ****ed financially

 

[SM]

I doubt any club from the premier league can be *ed financially

But if they get relegated they won't be a club in the PL.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

But if they get relegated they won't be a club in the PL.

They'll still get there parachute payments though and could sell a few players to sort themselves out.

 

[SM]

They'll still get there parachute payments though and could sell a few players to sort themselves out.

Well sure but the comment that 'clubs don't have financial issues' is a pretty dumb one. They've spent a lot of money.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Well sure but the comment that 'clubs don't have financial issues' is a pretty dumb one. They've spent a lot of money.

I must have missed that. Who said that?

 

[SM]

I must have missed that. Who said that?

The person I quoted? He's saying they can't have financial issues because they're in the PL. Parachute payments or not, it's still a massive gamble.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

The person I quoted? He's saying they can't have financial issues because they're in the PL. Parachute payments or not, it's still a massive gamble.

yeah but there is a difference between having financial issues and being ****ed. They've spent about £100m I think. TV rights cover that even if they finish last. If they go down then they can probably recoup half of that and get parachute payments.

 

[Bianconeri]

Well sure but the comment that 'clubs don't have financial issues' is a pretty dumb one. They've spent a lot of money.

I never said that

 

[Bradesmaen]

yeah but there is a difference between having financial issues and being *ed. They've spent about £100m I think. TV rights cover that even if they finish last. If they go down then they can probably recoup half of that and get parachute payments.

And they have a low wage bill in comparison to the rest. Fulham did the same a few years back... twice.

 

[SM]

yeah but there is a difference between having financial issues and being *ed. They've spent about £100m I think. TV rights cover that even if they finish last. If they go down then they can probably recoup half of that and get parachute payments.

It covers the transfer fees, not the wages.

 

[SM]

And they have a low wage bill in comparison to the rest. Fulham did the same a few years back... twice.

Do they? Lingard on over 100k? I can't imagine the other new signings would be on a whole lot less.

 

[Cruyff14]

Bojan KantKick Garner linked with Forest and Spurs.

 

[SM]

I doubt any club from the premier league can be *ed financially

I never said that

Clubs in the PL can be ****ed financially. Clubs leaving the PL can be ****ed financially.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Do they? Lingard on over 100k? I can't imagine the other new signings would be on a whole lot less.

They had a low wage bill to begin with from the Championship. The others have generally come from lower wage leagues so they wouldn't require a huge uplift to be encouraged to come across. Lingard is the exception.

 

[SM]

They had a low wage bill to begin with from the Championship. The others have generally come from lower wage leagues so they wouldn't require a huge uplift to be encouraged to come across. Lingard is the exception.

What relevance is their Championship wage bill when they have 16+ new players from that squad?

I'd be interested to see their wage bill, but saying the 160m PL money covers their 100m+ of transfer fees AND wages is a big assumption.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

yeah but there is a difference between having financial issues and being *ed. They've spent about £100m I think. TV rights cover that even if they finish last. If they go down then they can probably recoup half of that and get parachute payments.

Reckon far more clubs get in financial problems gambling on promotion to the premier league and failing than those who get relegated from it.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

It covers the transfer fees, not the wages.

Their two highest salaried players will be off the wage bill next year if they down. Forest will make money elsewhere to cover most of their operating costs.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Bojan KantKick Garner linked with Forest and Spurs.

It is a disgrace. The club need the money and Garner is easy to sell. In true Glazer style we are going to replace Garner with ****ing Rabiot and at least double the wages.

 

[Swallow_Wood]

It is a disgrace. The club need the money and Garner is easy to sell. In true Glazer style we are going to replace Garner with ******* Rabiot and at least double the wages.

Double? Try quadruple.

 

[SM]

Their two highest salaried players will be off the wage bill next year if they down. Forest will make money elsewhere to cover most of their operating costs.

Guess we'll see. Think it's a gamble that would hamstring them on relegation, and they have numerous priors of splashing on a high number of incomings with little success.

 

[manureid]

It is a disgrace. The club need the money and Garner is easy to sell. In true Glazer style we are going to replace Garner with ******* Rabiot and at least double the wages.

If they sell Garner and buy Rabiot everyone involved needs to be shot in to the sun.

 

[Bradesmaen]

It is a disgrace. The club need the money and Garner is easy to sell. In true Glazer style we are going to replace Garner with ******* Rabiot and at least double the wages.

What has that got to do with the Glazers? They're probably going to spend more with Rabiot there than Garner because of the wage difference let a lone the fee. This is to do with the manager and the higher ups of the club that are involved in the day to day running.

 

[Bianconeri]

Clubs in the PL can be *ed financially. Clubs leaving the PL can be *ed financially.

Different from “clubs don't have financial issues”. Work on your comprehension.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

What has that got to do with the Glazers? They're probably going to spend more with Rabiot there than Garner because of the wage difference let a lone the fee. This is to do with the manager and the higher ups of the club that are involved in the day to day running.

If the Glazers didn't pull out in excess of £100m per annum then we wouldn't need to sell young high potential players to fund new signings.

 

[chef]

It is a disgrace. The club need the money and Garner is easy to sell. In true Glazer style we are going to replace Garner with ******* Rabiot and at least double the wages.

Ross Barkley is available