Jump to content
Site Downtime ×


Full Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

129 Excellent

About mrjc

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. First touch was phenomenal last night, pretty much every time. He stands out so highly, against virtually everyone he plays against. Interestingly he said there was interest, Smith said (I think, as it was quick) that no bids were received (both of which are probably true). Either way, as some of those have said above, I don't think you can blame him for considering his options, but he seems genuinely excited to stay - here's to a massive season ahead!
  2. Haha, very random but made me laugh for some reason. Maybe getting him confused with Paul Warhurst?!
  3. For the second CB (assuming #5 is a given), are people more #4 or #6? I've always thought of #4 as a defensive midfielder, #6 as a CB. Good chat
  4. Helpful for players to have a few mates in the press....I'll dish out the odd bit of gossip / team news...you then treat me well, decent write-ups, more importantly don't sell me out if there's anything negative going on.
  5. Yes, the Championship figure includes the stadium sale. Basically our exceptionals virtually netted out that year for accounting purposes (+£36m stadium, +£14m from land (BMH?), -£30m Xia payment, -£16m promotion bonuses), but I am presuming that all were included in the FFP calc apart from the Xia payment. Don't know for sure though. Totally agree on the cloudiness (although it's definitely helped us!). PL income - sounds about right, although I'm not sure on our share of the repayments to Sky et al for disruption, which I think are spread over 2 / 3 years.
  6. I think, from an initial look: - From the PL rules, it looks like we aren't allowed to lose more than £105m over a rolling three-year period. - For this coming season, that will therefore cover the last year in the Championship, and 2 x years in the PL. - In that last year in the Championship, we had a loss of -£69m...but I'm pretty sure from that you can exclude the £30m we paid off the Doc with, and £9m of youth development expenditure. So maybe a £30m loss for the test. - That leaves £75m of losses allowed for the two years in the PL...and here it's just really hard (impossible) to know. Clearly revenue's gone up massively (although this is maybe partly repayable I think, due to Covid disruption)....unconfirmed rumours of a reduced wage bill....and a lot of transfer fees paid without (so far) many meaningful ones in. I suspect we're okay as the club seem to know what they're doing on this, but there's not really enough public information to conclude.
  7. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's left out. Two main reasons - firstly, the lockdown incident. Yes, it was a while ago now, but it was still really really bad imo. Secondly - for most of the period post lockdown, he wasn't anywhere near his best. He grabbed the headlines on the last day, but was otherwise below par for the month or so below that. I hope he is picked as I think he is clearly good enough (despite recent form), but it feels like Southgate has doubts, and the above could be easy reasons he uses to leave him out.
  8. I thought he'd come back from the break raring to go, effectively having had a decent rest (from looking drained / losing heart with some pretty average performances pre-lockdown), and basically having got away with the lockdown issue as cleanly as he could have done (obviously speculating, but I imagine that could have been a whole lot worse had the circumstances behind the car crash fully come out, rather than being quietly managed away). But he's looked laboured, like he knows the game is up, like he has no faith in his teammates any more (maybe fair!), and like he's conceded we've gone. Which sadly, we now probably have. I don't think he doesn't care at all....but that is how it's panned out. There was a short spell towards the end of the Newcastle game where he looked unplayable, but other than that it's been a really disappointing return - and with short term sentiment weirdly meaning a lot, it's probably cost us a few £m and him potentially an England call up soon.
  9. mrjc

    Tom Heaton

    Happy with that at £8m (swayed by reading Burnley post above!)
  10. Let's hope so. I guess the difference with that £45m is that (a) you could tell from the accounts that something had happened, as it showed up as a huge exceptional item, which we haven't had since and (b) it made our losses bigger before we could 'save' it, if that makes sense, so didn't really help the underlying position. There is obviously stuff we don't know though, so I hope you're right
  11. I agree, I think he's credible and he knows what he's doing. I doubt they are lying about it, or just hoping we'll be okay. But...other than signing a new contract (which we know can be done to help manage a selling price), I don't think there's been any guarantee of not selling JG this summer, although I could easily have missed this. So the most feasible outcome I know of...based on the publicly available information, what seems like the size of the gap, and being able to avoid a breach...is that we do have to sell him this summer. That would be consistent with Purslow saying we are okay, would have made sense last summer when we could turn Spurs down, and would make more sense of our continued spending, knowing we had a £25m+ pure profit up our sleeve that we are technically allowed to put towards this season's losses. Obviously I hope it's not, and that Purslow has some better way up his sleeve - I just have no idea, and have seen no real suggestion, of what that might be.
  12. No probs. Honestly, he might be wrong. But I've read up on the rules a fair bit myself (not to the same level of detail as him), and have a finance background, and what he says / writes makes a lot of sense to my understanding of how it works. That said, it's only based on publicly available information, so don't have the full picture - and in fairness, he doesn't claim to be ITK, he just analyses what is available to us all, including reading FFP small print! Re the rest of it....I had struggled to understand why we didn't need to sell Jack last summer, to be compliant for this season....and then was even more confused when we signed Bolasie and Tammy in particular, given the wages. I don't actually think the January moves will make that much difference to this season's numbers...the £7m transfer fee doesn't totally hit our profit this year, and while we have Mings / Hause, we have sent some more out on loan and returned some loans. The only thing that has made sense to me, as to how we can avoid a breach this season, is the theory about having to sell Jack post-season, and put it towards this season's losses. Obviously I hope this is wrong and there's something big we're missing...but sadly not sure what that is...
  13. Yep, agreed. Although...not to put more bad news on it...but even if we get promoted, we will still have maybe failed the test for our time in the Championship (if we don't sell Jack). Previous clubs have done that, got promoted and it's been ignored (not close to the detail, but I think Bournemouth, Brighton, Leicester maybe). But I think now the PL has said it will work with the EFL to put sanctions on clubs...so it may even be that we need to sell him even if we get promoted. I guess they'd basically be saying that you can't gain an unfair advantage by spending loads to get promoted, without there being some punishment. That's a bit of an unknown though, so hopefully I'm wrong!
  14. This isn't quite right unfortunately. Basically, they allow £35m of losses for each year a club was in the PL, and then £13m for each year a club has been in the Championship. So in our first year down, we were allowed to have lost £83m ((2x£35m) + (1x£13m)) in the three years up to that point. This season, given it's our third year down, we are only allowed to have lost £39m (3 x £13m) in the last three seasons. From what Swiss Ramble said a couple of weeks ago, it sort of ties up with what a few (seemingly informed) people said in the summer - that we would likely 'breach' the test by quite a lot this year - c£25m, from memory. Sadly, he also said that one legitimate way around this is to sell Grealish in the summer...the FFP small print allowing "post year-end sale proceeds which can be demonstrated to have been used to fund previous losses".
  15. Good question, and we can't be sure ultimately. Coming off the back of last season, with what we know from published accounts, the published FFP limitations, and some assumptions, it looked like we had huge problems. There was plenty of analysis done (not pure speculation, just inclusive of some sensible assumptions in my opinion), which suggested we would need to significantly alter the financial direction of the club from where it was last season. That would have seemed to suggest needing to sell Grealish to recognise a significant profit, as well as reducing the wage bill considerably. Clearly that sort of swing isn't happening, as you've highlighted. My thinking is one of three things is going on: 1. The calculations / assumptions were massively wrong. Personally, I think this is unlikely - we pretty much know the revenue as the largest amounts (parachutes and EFL money) are known to a good degree of accuracy, and I don't see what other material 'upsides' we would have missed. The accounts will show in the next couple of years I guess, but against the FFP test, I cannot see how we don't have an issue this season. 2. The owners have gone to the EFL and effectively negotiated some sort of deal. This could be along the lines of 'the previous losses weren't our fault, we have plenty of cash, making us sell our assets would weaken the club further, we will work to demonstrate that we are taking steps to run the club more responsibly, etc etc...'. This would be my preferred option as it's managing the situation, but it's speculation and I have no idea how likely it is. It has seemed increasingly unlikely with the Bolasie / Abraham / Grealish news, all of which must be adding to the wage bill considerably. 3. The new owners are gambling and hoping we can get up and then avoid sanctions. To me, this would be madness. Partly because we are the prime example of spending not equaling success. And partly because I think the rules have changed, such that the PL can now support the EFL in enforcing penalties (which I don't think they could for the likes of Leicester, Bournemouth, Brighton). So basically, who knows...?!
  • Create New...