Godders

9 minutes ago, KJT123 said:

 

I thought personal terms were agreed in principle when we were going through our financial issues, I seem to remember seeing somewhere? 

19 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

Too many posters are worrying about FFP.

We have smart billionaire owners who will be paying experts a fortune to overcome or circumvent that problem.

Who have also said:

We don't have to sell players

6 minutes ago, paul1984 said:

Nah fan or no fan the massive increase in wages and career progression would be enough to kick up a fuss over 

Levy doesn't pay much in wages. Alli has only recently (as in this year) got to £100k a week I think. I don't think Jack will be on much more than what we could offer him. 

Skybet still offering 1/3 on him staying. Seems they're not convinced he's moving on. 

Just sign a contract with a release clause, take us up and go next year kid. Your career will be better off for another guaranteed 70 hours of first team action this season. 

I assume we've offered Jack a sweetener for keeping him here. New contract with a £30mill ish sell on clause and the end of this season maybe. 

5 minutes ago, Herman22 said:

It seems he is off. If the 25m that is being reported is true I am a bit disappointed. Given his age and potential, I would have thought somewhere closer to 35m would have been more reasonable. 

What makes you think we're accepting the £25mil bid? 

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

If we reject a 30m offer I wonder if grealish will think we are pricing him out of a move and hand in a  transfer request? I think we would be stupid to reject that. As I could see spurs waiting until next summer slap him up for 15m with one left

I would hope we're being as transparent as possible with him over this, so I would expect he's aware that the club have a figure in mind, which will mitigate the risk of a transfer request. 

As for seeing him leave for less further down the line, I don't have an issue with that. I'm sure if he stays we'll offer him a new contract. I wouldn't blame him if he doesn't sign it. If we get another tilt at promotion with him in the side, and he gets another season of playing week in, week out (which is no guarantee at Spurs), everyone's a winner in my book. 

2 minutes ago, Robtaylor200 said:

Looks very much like the bid will be accepted

Where are you getting that from? Rumours last night were that this is less than we value him so will be rejected. 

6 minutes ago, Kuwabatake Sanjuro said:

We might just have to sell Jack or a few others in January.

Or, perhaps our new owners have a way of meeting our FFP obligations, without having to sell players, as they've said.

Just now, Straggler said:

 

 

Why is the club tweeting press reports that a player has turned up at the club? I would hope they knew he'd turned up, rather than relying on sky sports to act as a doorbell.

"Steve, is that someone in reception?" 

"Hang on Dave, let me check sky sports..."

2 minutes ago, deeps said:

I live in Islington and got a handful of Spurs mates. Although they watch a lot of Villa and seen a lot of Jack not one of them (5 in total) want him. Even Arsenal fans I know are saying they don’t understand why Spurs want him. 

Spurs fans I think have visions of grandeur at the moment I think. They think they should be challenging for the title, but don't see ambition in the transfer market. The fans want big names and big reputations. Jack doesn't fit that vision. 

2 minutes ago, Villan4Life said:

 

Blimey, Scottish football must be incredibly poor if we have to be "awash with cash" to bid an extra £2mill! 

12 minutes ago, imavillan said:

I think Its all part of the negotiations and historically deals have always gone right up to the wire on transfer deadline day. 

I hope he stays, but i really think he's going.

Spurs are the only team in the Prem not to make a signing. Unless i have missed something i dont see them being linked with too many other players and Bruce has confirmed they are effectively in talks with Spurs.

The only difference is with the new owners being in place we can name our price, but once a players head has been turned it becomes difficult.

Levy is a cock, he could have got Jack for 10/15 mill a month ago as were were desperate. But at least if he does go now we should be getting top dollar.

 

Ah OK, so you think Spurs will stump up the cash. 

Personally I'm not so sure. Levy is Levy and will hate paying the going rate. If our owners are to be taken at their word, we won't let him go for anything less than what they feel he's worth so I don't think we'll have an offer from Spurs that meets our valuation.

There may be a last minute hijack from another club, but I'm not so sure Levy will pay what we're asking. 

Edit: there's an interesting psychological aspect at play here as well. Studies have shown that people will shy away from perceived losses, even if they're not actual losses. Here, Spurs could have had him on the cheap a few weeks ago, but they held off. Fair market value now may not look like fair market value to Spurs, it may feel like they're now being stung for £15-20million. 

4 minutes ago, imavillan said:

I'm in the 'i reckon he's gone camp'

What do you make of Bruce's comments yesterday that we haven't had a realistic offer for him yet then? 

3 minutes ago, wilko154 said:

Being linked to John McGinn this morning from Hibernian, from Youtube he looks like a poor mans Grealish... Does this tell us something?

Yes, that we've apparently made a bid for some chap called John McGinn who plays for Hibs.

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

The figures are out there for people to see. 

I don't deny that we have certain obligations to meet under FFP.

However, as I've said previously, I'm taking what our owners say at face value as we have no reason to assume they're pulling the wool over our eyes, and it's fair to assume they know more intimately what can and can't be done in our situation, with our finances, in the context of FFP. If they say we don't have to sell players, I'm taking that to mean we don't have to sell players. Hell, they may even have had some sort of undertaking from the EFL that the worst we'll see is a fine, and have taken the decision that it's worth paying rather than gutting the squad. I'm sure they have very knowledgeable accountants and lawyers advising them. 

You are obviously welcome to your opinion that we absolutely have to sell players to meet FFP. I personally can't see any real logical reasoning behind this though when our owners, who have a far greater understanding of our situation than I do, and have apparently met with the EFL to discuss this, are telling me we don't need to sell players. 

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Because facts. Ultimately don't look at what people say, look at what they do.

Today's events seem to back up that we don't have to sell players to balance the books. £6mill bid on a player without having offloaded Grealish or anyone else. If our hands were truly tied by FFP, presumably we'd be on a sell to buy basis, but it currently (as of 10:53 this morning) doesn't seem that we are. 

3 hours ago, Herman22 said:

Just read this at the bottom of an article on the BHam Mail from SB:

"As for John (Terry), that won't be happening. The owners want young, aggressive, hungry players with things to prove. That’s their vision."

Young and hungry with something to prove? I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before... 

5 minutes ago, John said:

Nobody needs to be sold and I do not have any reason to doubt them on this or anything else. We might want to sell some players though and that might include a player that might not be willing to sign a new contract for example whose value may therefore drop when their contract enters the last 12 months.  

Yes, I agree completely. If we're offered what we think is more than fair value for a player, we should look to sell. That's a good use of resources. 

The original comment was asking why we're looking at getting players in before offloading some, on account of our finances. I was pointing out that the new owners think our financial situation is comfortable enough that we don't have to sell before we get players in. Of course, we may still want to sell players, but we don't have to. 

24 minutes ago, Fight Like Lions said:

4. They’ve been told £35m + or do one. 

This is disappointing. I personally think he's worth much more than that. 

24 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

It is if the money situation is as bad as being reported. 

The reports prior to the new owners coming in? I think it was, and it's not now. 

They've said no one needs to be sold. Let's take them at their word until they prove their word isn't to be respected. It seems as though then whatever plans they have to get around FFP, it doesn't include needing to offload players. 

32 minutes ago, villan-scott said:

The problem is the deadwood costing money that Bruce doesn’t use. McCormack, Tshibola, Elphick...

Shouldn't be any reason not to bring better players in though surely. 

14 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Surely we need outgoings though before we bring 4 or 5. 

Why? We've already lost that many, and we didn't have massive strength in depth last season. 

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

I am commenting on the maths, Godders. The maths and FFP (unfortunately) means that as it stands today the club will fall a very long way short of meeting FFP. It's numbers. Numbers don't spin, they don't send coded messages to potential buyers, they don't send messages to fans.

Reading between the lines of what the new owners said, they were saying to the circling vultures, hoping to pick up players for a bargain fee, because of our impending administration

"woah there, not so fast. We no longer need to sell to stay alive. We're going to be OK. We will take our time and address things in due course, but you can forget about bargain prices for any of pur players. We'll set the price."

FFP gets determined in March. Like I said unless something comes along to make up a 10s of millions shortfall, we have to sell by end Jan to meet FFP

Disagree Blandy. If players have to be sold to meet FFP, why would the new owners say they didn't? All it serves is to royally piss the fans off immediately when players are inevitably sold, at below market prices, to get around FFP. They'd be better off saying something softer, or non-committal. 

I don't have them peg as liers at the moment, so taking their comments at face value, no one has to be sold. The message they're giving is they're comfortable we can meet FFP obligations without being forced to offload players. 

So, the maths are quite simple. Tottenham can either shit, or get off the toilet, because it doesn't matter to our finances whether Grealish stays or doesn't.