Jump to content

January Transfers 2019/20


sne

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Mazrim said:

Where are we regarding FFP? That naughty acronym some claim stops us buying players but nobody knows the real numbers. Nobody who is going to tell anyway.

I'm sure Purslow knows. I assume it's tight 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Amazing how sure people are that a 16 year old boy is ready for first team action despite (almost certainly) never having seen him play.

 

Pretty sure if he's good enough, he'd be involved. 

I'd wager we won't see him in a first team game for a couple of years

Seems he's already quite advanced given Barca picked him up so could get a run out in one of our last games if we're already safe from relegation. Think he'll get sub games next season.

My only issue is on the main forum heralding this as a major signing when really it's the same long term situation as say when we picked up Oscar Borg and he couldn't break through despite having a promising reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, useless said:

Barry will make his debut either this season or next... Bellingham already playing for small heath, and if he goes to United make no mistake about it he will be in their first team squad as well and will make his debut, Elliot has already played for LIverpool, Karamoko Dembélé has already played for Celtic, and Barry is rated as on the same level as these players, if he'd have stayed at Albion probably would have made his first team debut for them by now, was playing for Barcelona's U19 team and was their youngest player in that team by some distant, or so I've read. 

What do you actually think of Bellingham's long term potential? I've seen a bit of him this season, he's big and gangly and can get into the box and score the odd goal but not sure on his passing range just yet. Seems Man. United eyeing him up as long term Pogba style replacement.

Was having a debate with a mate the other day about the impact SHA best youth products have had in prem in last 5 years. Demerai Gray still can't break into the Leicester team despite being there since January 2016 and now likes of Harvey Barnes have gone ahead of him in the pecking order, Butland got relegated despite looking good initally. Main one we disagreed on was Nathan Redmond. Mate think he's "brilliant" despite his 1 England cap and incredibly inconsistant seasons in all Norwich and Southampton's relegation battles. At the moment he's playing well but Southampton are in fantastic form so all players are looking good compared to how they were doing in October.

So reality is much hyped SHA young players don't really go on to have better careers at the top level than the ones we produce, see if Bellingham steps up a bit more.

Izzy Brown also another local youth product. West Brom lost him at 16 just like Louie Barry yet he's in an endless cycle of season long loans now and next to no chance of breaking through at Chelsea, been there since 2013 and 23 now.

Edited by VillaChris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VillaChris said:

Seems he's already quite advanced given Barca picked him up 

Whaaa. It's not as if Barca only pick up 11 first team ready players for their actual youth teams. Sometimes I wonder about logic in this country. I'm not sure why else I'd think anything alternative. I believe in the UK. 

Edited by Rolta
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I **** hate FFP. Without it our mega rich owners would more than likely put us in a position where we become a self sustaining PL club that performs really well consistently.

Because of FFP we are forced to take a lot of punts on players from abroad, some of which will pay off, but ultimately we could get relegated and yo-yo between the leagues, putting us in a shitter position financially.

I get why they do it. But there's a difference in protecting a club from bankrupting itself and stopping a club from building with strategic investment from willing affluent owners.

Edited by jacketspuds
Drunken rant grammar.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jacketspuds said:

I **** hate FFP. Without it our mega rich owners would more than likely put us in a position where we become a self sustaining PL club that performs really well consistently.

Because of FFP we are forced to take a lot of punts on players from abroad, some of which will pay off, but ultimately we could get relegated and yo-yo between the leagues, putting us in a shitter position financially.

I get why they do it. But there's a difference in protecting a club from bankrupting itself and stopping a club from building with strategic investment from willing affluent owners.

Well yeah there's a difference, but its not like they can know beforehand whether such investment is actually good and strategic or whether it will bankrupt the club in the future. By limiting the spending, they lower the possibility that a club spends too much that it completely bankrupts itself at the cost of stifling the ability for a club to grow.

Edited by Laughable Chimp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VillaChris said:

My only issue is on the main forum heralding this as a major signing when really it's the same long term situation as say when we picked up Oscar Borg and he couldn't break through despite having a promising reputation.

Wasn’t Oscar Borg a left back released from West Ham? I don’t think this is the same as signing a player who is considered perhaps the best current young English prospect that Barca, PSG, Man U, Liverpool etc were courting, who was scoring 2 a game for England’s youth team in an international tournament.

Who knows how he will develop but I think it’s ok to be optimistic about this lad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Laughable Chimp said:

Well yeah there's a difference, but its not like they can know beforehand whether such investment is actually good and strategic or whether it will bankrupt the club in the future. By limiting the spending, they lower the possibility that a club spends too much that it completely bankrupts itself at the cost of stifling the ability for a club to grow.

I thought that was the whole point of the "Fit and Proper Person" test, or does that not apply in the PL? Not that it seems to make much of a difference lower down the leagues where it's needed more than ever but doing shite. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Laughable Chimp said:

Well yeah there's a difference, but its not like they can know beforehand whether such investment is actually good and strategic or whether it will bankrupt the club in the future. By limiting the spending, they lower the possibility that a club spends too much that it completely bankrupts itself at the cost of stifling the ability for a club to grow.

For me, rather than restrict the ability of a club to compete with the clubs who got there before the FFP nightmare came about, it would be better to redesign the whole fit & proper test and build in some new regulations to make it impossible for an owner to invest unless the entire costing is set aside for the entirety of a players contract. Thus removing the "risk" to a club running into future issues. This could surely be done in a way that would mean any investment had to be set aside / paid in advance to some governing body or whatever so that if the owner left the club, sold up or ran into financial difficulty of any kind due to relegation or a change in the marketplace, the money would still be there to cover the entire cost of that player including any loss on transfer fee, wages for the entire contract and future relegation costs or whatever.

This could replace the fit & proper test even as basically the owner would be unable to do anything unless it was paid in advance in full and the money held accordingly so it would not be possible for that owner to renege on the arrangement. It could be optional too so a club could either choose to remain in the current system or if they decided they wanted to go for it they could apply for an extra "financial ability check" where they would need to commit to those rules. State how much they were prepared to invest for the next say 3 years (to fall in line with current FFP regs) and pay that money upfront to the governing body who could then ensure everything was safe.

Obviously i'm no accountant but surely something like that could be worked out? It would certainly be better than the current ridiculous state of affairs.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jacketspuds said:

I **** hate FFP. Without it our mega rich owners would more than likely put us in a position where we become a self sustaining PL club that performs really well consistently.

Because of FFP we are forced to take a lot of punts on players from abroad, some of which will pay off, but ultimately we could get relegated and yo-yo between the leagues, putting us in a shitter position financially.

I get why they do it. But there's a difference in protecting a club from bankrupting itself and stopping a club from building with strategic investment from willing affluent owners.

It's not there to protect clubs against bankruptcy though I think. Its there to stop other clubs overtaking the darling clubs of English football (Liverpool, Man Utd, Aresenal etc) so it doesnt disrupt the foreign interest in the premier league with clubs people have never heard of before dominating.

They could easily set up a system where owners pay for the players outside of the clubs finances, for example, transfer fee and full wages over the length of the contract set aside into an account where the Premier League manages payment of players and their contracts with the owners losing that money by having to pay the full amount up front. The club is protected and the owners can still splash the cash if they want. Plus this way only serious financially rich owners can come to the party by having to pay up front and not in instalments to make sure the contract is honoured for all players bought this way with the club not held responsible. 

Theres no other business in the world where the owners are not allowed to invest to grow their company. Can you imagine a newsagent not being allowed to install new double glazing windows until their accounts show they can afford it?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the current financial situation in football is broken. You only have to see how lower clubs struggle just to survive, I hate seeing clubs with passionate fans and a lengthy history go under. The current system benefits those that are at the top financially in football and it'll probably stay like that for decades unless things change. Don't get me wrong, I get why it was introduced but I can't see how there aren't better alternatives worth trying. It's not like some of the top clubs in the world are financially stable anyway, I remember reading a while back that Barcelona are heavily in debt.

At least we still have Football Manager to dream. 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â