You had 11 players on the pitch and didn't look goodUnited had a back 3 vs Liverpool the other week. We didn't look good.
You had 11 players on the pitch and didn't look goodUnited had a back 3 vs Liverpool the other week. We didn't look good.
Rudiger has had one solid season, no one was talking positively about him before this season. £200K a week is laughable tbh.
In fact, I seem to remember him being trash pre Tuchel.
Think he will move next summer. Fingers crossed United aren't such a mess at that point and we can persuade him to join us.
Still very young and Dortmund don't need to sell.
You had 11 players on the pitch and didn't look good
What's wrong with NunezYea very much recency bias. I dont think he's close enough to be demanding the money he is.
Im not sure Dortmund would sell both Haaland and Bellingham but I obviously have him Liverpool bound .
The more I see of this Nunez everyones linked with the more i wouldnt want my club anywhere near him.
His link up play and passing/decision making is atrocious, can stick the ball in the net though.What's wrong with Nunez
What's wrong with Nunez
Absolutely disgusting amount of money.Apparently Mbappe is about to sign a new 2 year contract at PSG for £42.5m/year and an £85m signing on fee. God damn. Thats a weekly wage of £1.6m. They still won't win the CL either
Mbappe is costing PSG £170m odd but the moment he puts pen to paper on his contract his value increases by £170m. It's not as crazy as it seems.
Baz is talking about accounting practices I believe, so Mbappe's 'asset' value will increase if he signs a new contract.
You say nobody would pay him that but what do you think Real, Juve and Utd have paid Ronaldo or Barca were paying Messi? It's huge money and money only a handful of clubs can and will pay but somebody will pay it. He's going to be the biggest star in world football and the best player in the world too. They're paying £170m to get/keep a £200m+ player.How does that work?
I think I understand your logic but I'm not sure it makes sense.
Mbappe is going to get £85m and a salary of £800k/week. Even if PSG then immediately sold him for £120m (which is unlikely because who has that money) Mbappe wouldn't find anyone willing to match his £800k/week salary so why would he agree to the move.
PSG just want him to stay and they will spend the next 2 years trying to persuade him to sign another contract. He won't and they will be in this same position in 2 years and perhaps Mbappe will take a bit of a pay cut to move clubs.
Mbappe wins here no matter what. He will still only be 25 at the end of the extension.
Not entirely. From an accounting/ffp point of view the benefit will only be if and when they sell him but I was talking about his actual value. Yes, Mbappe is going to cost a fortune for PSG to keep but they're getting the best centre forward in the world and somebody who is or will soon become the biggest star in world football.Baz is talking about accounting practices I believe, so Mbappe's 'asset' value will increase if he signs a new contract.
Giving him this contract in isolation doesn't help with FFP. The decision to give him the contract is a football and financial decision separate from FFP. As I said above, it would cost them more to replace him so it makes sense to give him that.How does that help with FFP? Genuine question.
I'm 99.999% certain that they can't do this within FFP. As above, the only FFP benefit would be if they were to then sell him in a year.I don't know much about FFP rules, but i would imagine that a revaluation of an asset (Mbappe), would be able to be classed as "Other Income" in the P&L and thus inflate the profits they report in that year.
Effectively the opposite of depreciation of an asset.