Aha! Fair enough. Sorry about that. Have you sent it to Dougie?

I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.

IMHO this is a extremely simplistic post addressing a complicated issue. As a broad strategy to reduce the age of the squad and to invest in players that may (MAY not definitely) realise a profit when sold then what you suggest would I guess work.

But let me address some of the issues I have with what you suggest:

1. It's too simplistic to say never buy a player over 26 unless they are on a free transfer. With advances in sports science and nutrition players are remaining at their peak longer. Players are no longer burnt out by the age of 30 - look at Ronaldo and Tiago Silva as examples or McArthur who is playing the best football he has in the last 3 years at the age of 34. So a player aged 27 could have 5 to 6 years left at their peak.

Furthermore you have to ask why at the age of 27 or 28 would a player be available on a free transfer? Either they're not good enough, have a history of injuries (hence shortening their career) or are looking for a big pay out because they know they can negotiate a large signing bonus and salary. What we'd save on a transfer fee we'd lose on the bonus and salary not to mention what effect this huge salary would have on the wage structure and the rest of the players.

2. What is so magical about players aged 29? As I've already said players are playing at their peak much longer than they used to. And I assume you don't include goalkeepers in this because it is accepted they don't reach their peak until they are 28/29 and can play at the top level well into their 30s.

If we had this strategy when Wilf signed his last contract he'd be about to leave on a free transfer - I know you don't rate him but how pissed off would you, the rest of the fan base and the board be if he just left now for nothing?

Or as you suggest 18 months ago we'd have "offloaded" him for, what, £50m? Do you seriously think we'd be in the Premier League now if we had done that? And who would we have have replaced him with and could you guarantee this player would have been a success?

3. See my point above about Wilf and his contract. What you suggest is we never let anyone's contract run above 29 so when they are 27/28 - probably at their peak and performing for us, we offload them when they could still perform for us for the next 4-5 years. This is nonsense.

Last year it was estimated we made £116m in prize money and TV revenue from being in the Premier League, not counting commercial revenue and gate receipts (of which there were none). Would you seriously gamble £116m by selling our best player at the time because he was 27 and hoping to find a ready made replacement?

4. And here is the fundamental flaw with what you suggest. Your whole argument seems to be based upon the premise that we can find replacement younger players that will almost immediately perform at the level of the players they are replacing.

I know what you will say - look at Olise and Eze. On the face of it, and based on what we have seen so far, we have been INCREDIBLY lucky with Olise and Eze, but that's not always the case. Example: Max Meyer, who at the time we signed him was one of the brightest young talents in German football. He wasn't up to playing in the Premier League (although I would argue that might have been Hodgsons tactics, I do wonder whether Meyer would have played better under Vieira).

In summary our transfer strategy needs to consider the players we have now, the players available in the market and our academy that can fill that role in the system we are playing, the age of those players, their value to us and to the market, our transfer budget and the wage structure, not to mention the social dynamics of the dressing room (have you not played Football Manager?)

It's not simply a case of whether the player is an asset we can sell later for a profit.

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make some other b*stard die for theirs" - General Patton

We know that John Textor invested at the right time to fund the latest round of player recruitment ( which was obviously appreciated) but we dont know that if he hadnt invested that the club wouldnt have found the money from somewhere else (i.e the existing shareholders)

It was well documented that we had just about the oldest squad in the PL some months before the end of the season so for sure the existing shareholders would have known that if fresh investment hadnt materialised they would have to cough up additional funding or sit back & watch us circle the relegation plughole / watching their investments devalue at the same time.

I do remember watching something on TV about Chelsea (This was maybe 5 / 6 years ago & my memory isn't the best these days so if I am off the point with detail please feel free to correct me) but apparently one of their transfer rules ( or guidelines if you prefer) was that any player over 30 was only ever offered new contracts in one year increments - basically the idea was that each year they would re-sign the ones that they wanted & others would be free to leave -

Their rationale was that so much could go wrong in a season once a player got to 30 it was better to only contract them season by season & risk losing them (if they became unhappy) rather than contract them for several years at xxxxx salary if things turned sour.

Rubbish, -72 million on transfer deficit in 5 years is ridiculously poor account management.

“That’s a joke son, I say, that’s a joke.” “Nice boy, but he’s sharp as a throw pillow.” “He’s so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent” “ “Son… I say, son, some people are so narrow minded they can look through a keyhole with both eyes.”__ Forhorn Leghorn

That works out a deficit on transfers of £14.5m each year against Premier income of £120m a year.
If those transfers didnt happen, the chances that we would of been relegated was very high. Then our income would be greatly reduced and we would need a fire sale.
I presume you are not an expert on financial accounting.