Summer Transfer Window 2021/2022

[One More Solo]

The owners have to put the money in there and then, some sort of buffer bank account for players amortisation. They get bored, they don't leave the club in any debt what so ever. They wouldn't have to fiddle the books to lie about C.R, if they'd allow the owners to put just move money across.

That's just the way it is now, states are sportswashing and it's not going to end any time soon.

Err, what? Amortisation is a non cash expense so how is a buffer bank account meant to deal with that? The resulting accounting losses of the transfer fee are largely meaningless if the cash has been paid up front by the owners. The club would de facto have zero debt.

Assuming you mean debt repayments, if clubs borrow to fund transfers then it’s going to be a burden of the club and banks will only lend to the extent clubs will be able to repay it. If the owners leave, the club should in theory still be able to afford the debt payments. If the owners have guaranteed the debt then it’s their problem even if they walk away.

 

[DrToffnar]

Good to see the Bailey deal has been completed. We're going to need all the help we can get if Grealish decides to go

 

[Robbo]

Good to see the Bailey deal has been completed. We're going to need all the help we can get if Grealish decides to go

Given the cost of him and Buendia, I'd be surprised if that doesn't mean Grealish is leaving.

 

[BaZ87]

Given the cost of him and Buendia, I'd be surprised if that doesn't mean Grealish is leaving.

It's like the Bale to Real summer all over again when cm was convinced that Spurs were signing all those players and Bale was going to stay.

As soon as Villa signed Buendia I suspected Grealish was off (and was insulted on here for saying so too). The fact that around the same time they were being heavily linked with bids for Ward Prowse and Smith Rowe made it fairly obvious that Grealish was going but Villa based journos kept saying he was going to sign a new deal.

It's all a big pr game with clubs (and players) wanting to protect themselves from a fan backlash. Villa didn't want to be seen by their supporters as willingly accepting City's bid and they also wanted to get as much of their business done before the Grealish deal was done, to stop them getting ripped off. I think we're seeing the same with Kane to City. Spurs are going to make Kane be the bad guy before he can leave and they'll be getting their incomings sorted as we speak.

Anyway, a few papers are reporting that Grealish will complete his move to City today.

 

[omnomnom]

Yes and yes. They make circa £250m from PL and CL TV money, £50m odd from matchday revenue and comfortably £100m+ from legit commercial revenue. City are now in a position where they could comfortably turnover £450m without any dodgy UAE deals. It wouldn't be enough for them to sign Kane and Grealish but equally they wouldn't go bust without AD.

They make that revenue now because they flirt with Messi and co every year. Do they make that when they cant sign these players? Are they attractive to sponsorships when they aren't linked/signing to global superstars?

 

[fez]

City buying Grealish and Kane in one season is madness. The wages to go with their fees will be super high and I would imagine the fees will be well over £200m combined. Mad in the current climate.

 

[DrToffnar]

@BaZ87 Don't know why you'd have been insulted for that suggestion. Even fans knew it was only a matter of time, new contract or not. You can't have that much promise as a player and stay at a middling PL club, doesn't matter if it's your home side or not. It my eyes he did his duty when he stayed with us in the Championship. Will still be sad to see him go though, given how we played last season when he was injured...

 

[BaZ87]

They make that revenue now because they flirt with Messi and co every year. Do they make that when they cant sign these players? Are they attractive to sponsorships when they aren't linked/signing to global superstars?

Yes, City will continue to make well in excess of £100m per year in commercial revenue even if AD turn the taps off. They are no less commercially attractive than Chelsea (£170m per year commercial revenue), Spurs (£160m per year) and Arsenal (£140m per year). Your implication about what will happen to City if AD get bored was wrong. City will be fine, comfortably turning over around £450m, the 3rd or 4th highest revenue in the League. There would be no Kane and Grealish bids (not without major sales anyway) but they'd still be one of the richest clubs in the League and wouldn't go bust.

 

[Robbo]

As expected:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1422855251204493313

 

[fez]

Still think its an odd signing for City but money isn't really a concern so even if he wins them another 2pts in a season thats worth it for them. Could be the difference between a title and a 2nd place finish as well. Kane makes far more sense for them but they are probably buying both!

 

[omnomnom]

Yes, City will continue to make well in excess of £100m per year in commercial revenue even if AD turn the taps off. They are no less commercially attractive than Chelsea (£170m per year commercial revenue), Spurs (£160m per year) and Arsenal (£140m per year). Your implication about what will happen to City if AD get bored was wrong. City will be fine, comfortably turning over around £450m, the 3rd or 4th highest revenue in the League. There would be no Kane and Grealish bids (not without major sales anyway) but they'd still be one of the richest clubs in the League and wouldn't go bust.

Chelsea cant just spend £250mil and not break FFP like City look likely to be doing. As soon as that tap is turned off they cant spend outrageous amounts and they simply arent attractive to sponsors.


100 milion for Grealish is just hilarious tbh. Transfer fees should be coming down not going up. Fair play to Villa.

 

[Ayahuasca]

 

[adam cool dude]

City buying Grealish and Kane in one season is madness. The wages to go with their fees will be super high and I would imagine the fees will be well over £200m combined. Mad in the current climate.

Just when you thought we were getting that one step closer to City they go out and just go splash the pocket money. I understand United always spent in the 90's and 00's but that born from success. All we are doing is creating a 1 team league.

In reality the Championship has turned into the old Division 1 and is what true football supporters should be following.

Cities forward line of Grealish, Kane, Mahrez, Sterling, Torres and Jesus just makes me want to cry .

 

[BaZ87]

Chelsea cant just spend £250mil and not break FFP like City look likely to be doing. As soon as that tap is turned off they cant spend outrageous amounts and they simply arent attractive to sponsors.


100 milion for Grealish is just hilarious tbh. Transfer fees should be coming down not going up. Fair play to Villa.

What? You're making no sense. Arsenal and Spurs aren't spending £250m on new signings and are bringing in around £150m per year from commercial revenue. City are now big enough in their own right that at the very least they'll be able to generate similar amounts without the help of AD. That revenue, combined with their matchday and tv money will more than cover their outgoings. Your initial point was simply wrong. City would not go bust without AD, they'd still be one of the richest clubs in the League, just not the richest.

 

[fez]

Just when you thought we were getting that one step closer to City they go out and just go splash the pocket money. I understand United always spent in the 90's and 00's but that born from success. All we are doing is creating a 1 team league.

In reality the Championship has turned into the old Division 1 and is what true football supporters should be following.

I don't know. Maybe they will be a 10% better team but I don't think it will work out like that. Liverpool beat them recently to the title. Chelsea will fight for it. There are still plenty of games they could lose.

Yes they haven't had an out and out striker who bangs in goals for fun for a while but that has allowed their other players to score far more goals. Signing Kane will reduce the contribution of the other midfielders.

 

[adam cool dude]

I don't know. Maybe they will be a 10% better team but I don't think it will work out like that. Liverpool beat them recently to the title. Chelsea will fight for it. There are still plenty of games they could lose.

Yes they haven't had an out and out striker who bangs in goals for fun for a while but that has allowed their other players to score far more goals. Signing Kane will reduce the contribution of the other midfielders.

What Liverpool did during those two seasons was exceptional but will they be back to that this season? I highly doubt it. They still haven't replaced Gini. A lot of their workhorse type players like Milner and Hendo are getting old fast as is their front line. VVD we still need to see the player that comes back after a year out injured.

Chelsea haven't fared that well. Ole still got more points in the league than Tuchel when he took over even though he won the champions league which lets face it City lost rather Chelsea won.

After these two transfers the league is pretty much Cities and I wouldn't put it past them to do the Quad. With Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd and Leicester all fighting for that top 4.

 

[fez]

Chelsea haven't fared that well. Ole still got more points in the league than Tuchel when he took over even though he won the champions league which lets face it City lost rather Chelsea won.

What do you mean? Tuchel managed to win the CL and get more points from the 16 league games he was in charge of that Ole did in that same time. 30 vs 35 I believe. Yes we beat them in the overall league standings but that is unlikely to have happened if fat frank didn't leave them miles adrift after the first 2/3rds of the season.

I would be amazed if Chelsea, Liverpool and City don't all have really good seasons this year. We should have a good season as well but I still think Ole is a massive weak link in whatever team we put out there. I think we will slowly fall away from the top 3 over the course of the season despite our signings.

Its going to be interesting to see if City do get Kane because if they pay £100m for Grealish then Levy asking £130-150m would be entirely sensible.

 

[BaZ87]

Adam your defeatist mentality never ceases to amaze me. Haven't Utd just spent £100m+ in the last few weeks themselves? You seem to think that unless Utd are spending double the amount of everybody else then it's not fair and that we should all just give up and hand City all the titles. Thankfully not everybody shares your view or else Chelsea wouldn't have beat them in the CL final (and FA Cup), nor would we have beat them to the League the season before last or knocked them out the CL.

When Utd went out and signed Veron & Van Nistelrooy and Chelsea signed Sheva & Ballack we heard the same things about how everybody should just give up because nobody could compete but both times things never worked out that way. Maybe Kane will be the missing part of the puzzle for City (lets not forget they had Aguero for the previous 10 years and couldn't win a CL) or maybe, like Veron at Utd, fitting him into the City side isn't as easy as you think. Maybe Grealish will kick on even more and become a superstar or maybe the extra fame and £200k per week will go to his head and he'll make more headlines for getting drunk and passing out in the street or crashing his car on the way home from a party.

There's enough very good players available for other clubs to build squads that can challenge City's, certainly if you're spending as much as Utd are.

 

[Ayahuasca]

City walk the league if they get Kane, United finish 2nd imo if Chelsea and Liverpool don't make any major signings.

 

[Robbo]

I think Varane and Sancho (even individually) for us are much better signings than Grealish for City. Depends on how things play out, of course... but I don't think he'll add that much to them.

Kane would though.