Transfer Updates

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Transfer Updates

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 92 of 205 < 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 >

doombear Too far from Selhurst Park 18 Aug 22 4.13pm
Originally posted by Nicholas91 Absolutely agree, I would have been shocked at a £25mil price tag but near £50mil really is outrageous. Wolves must be laughing themselves silly. A half decent looking English prospect in my eyes, nothing more. Absolutely, especially as they've just picked up Nunes from Sporting for £38m - a much better player and prospect.
Alert a moderator to this post

doombear

Too far from Selhurst Park 18 Aug 22 4.13pm

Originally posted by Nicholas91

Absolutely agree, I would have been shocked at a £25mil price tag but near £50mil really is outrageous. Wolves must be laughing themselves silly. A half decent looking English prospect in my eyes, nothing more.

Absolutely, especially as they've just picked up Nunes from Sporting for £38m - a much better player and prospect.

Alert a moderator to this post

BelfastEagle 18 Aug 22 4.28pm
So that’s almost 20 players Forrest have signed in last couple of months. Almost 150 million spent on a championship turnover of around 4.5 million almost spent as much as Chelsea. Where is this money coming from and how does it fit with financial fair play rules ?
Alert a moderator to this post

BelfastEagle

18 Aug 22 4.28pm

So that’s almost 20 players Forrest have signed in last couple
of months. Almost 150 million spent on a championship turnover of around 4.5 million almost spent as much as Chelsea. Where is this money coming from
and how does it fit with financial fair play rules ?

Alert a moderator to this post

sotac464 Berkshire 18 Aug 22 4.51pm
Originally posted by BelfastEagle So that’s almost 20 players Forrest have signed in last couple of months. Almost 150 million spent on a championship turnover of around 4.5 million almost spent as much as Chelsea. Where is this money coming from and how does it fit with financial fair play rules ? There owner is very rich, at the beginning when you first enter the league, you can have losses as long as the owner covers it, We know how much money clubs can earn in the Premier league, for instance £150 million in a season, the owner can then cover another £40 million in losses on top. It could all go wrong and they still end up getting relegated, then again they could stay up, in which case they won't spend anything like that at all next summer, some clubs take the chance others don't. Still comes down to how rich the owners are. My equalibrium unbalanced me. Paul Draper Brighton 19/2/2018
Alert a moderator to this post

sotac464

Berkshire 18 Aug 22 4.51pm

Originally posted by BelfastEagle

There owner is very rich, at the beginning when you first enter the league, you can have losses as long as the owner covers it, We know how much money clubs can earn in the Premier league, for instance £150 million in a season, the owner can then cover another £40 million in losses on top.

It could all go wrong and they still end up getting relegated, then again they could stay up, in which case they won't spend anything like that at all next summer, some clubs take the chance others don't.

Still comes down to how rich the owners are.

My equalibrium unbalanced me. Paul Draper Brighton 19/2/2018

Alert a moderator to this post

Hudsoneagle 18 Aug 22 4.52pm
I’m seeing the two most realistically correct fees for MGE are either 25m upfront with 17m add ones making it a deal worth 42m and the other I have read is 35m plus 9m add ons making it 44m. Madness. I laugh at Forest a little, and then realise how badly this inflates the prices of the players in the same sort of market we operate in. It’s bad news for all. It’s also possible that the actual deal is worth more like 35m overall and the mistake is the add on fees have been added on twice in the reported fees.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hudsoneagle

18 Aug 22 4.52pm

I’m seeing the two most realistically correct fees for MGE are either 25m upfront with 17m add ones making it a deal worth 42m and the other I have read is 35m plus 9m add ons making it 44m.

Madness. I laugh at Forest a little, and then realise how badly this inflates the prices of the players in the same sort of market we operate in. It’s bad news for all. It’s also possible that the actual deal is worth more like 35m overall and the mistake is the add on fees have been added on twice in the reported fees.

Alert a moderator to this post

BelfastEagle 18 Aug 22 5.58pm
Originally posted by sotac464 There owner is very rich, at the beginning when you first enter the league, you can have losses as long as the owner covers it, We know how much money clubs can earn in the Premier league, for instance £150 million in a season, the owner can then cover another £40 million in losses on top. It could all go wrong and they still end up getting relegated, then again they could stay up, in which case they won't spend anything like that at all next summer, some clubs take the chance others don't. Still comes down to how rich the owners are. Ah so effectively the financial fair play rules don’t apply to promoted clubs. If you can afford it then Forrest are doing the right think blow as much as you need to while you can.
Alert a moderator to this post

BelfastEagle

18 Aug 22 5.58pm

Originally posted by sotac464

Still comes down to how rich the owners are.

Ah so effectively the financial fair play rules don’t apply to promoted clubs. If you can afford it then Forrest are doing the right think blow as much as you need to while you can.

Alert a moderator to this post

grumpymort US/Thailand/UK 18 Aug 22 6.15pm
Originally posted by BelfastEagle Ah so effectively the financial fair play rules don’t apply to promoted clubs. If you can afford it then Forrest are doing the right think blow as much as you need to while you can. They do not it's 3rd year when it gets tough and the spending should stop 2nd year if stay in the league. I mentioned it before SP had commented about it and how Palace struggled. This is why some clubs are happy to try to up and down you can gain a lot of money if you don't spend Norwich is prime example. Forest issue will be wages you would think but we don't know the figures because football is not transparent about them the positive is didn't a fair few of the high earners sign only one year deals I believe that is the case. Anyway lets move away from what others have or will do and focus on palace unless its related to palace in some way. (VPN) - [Link] (Alt VPN) - [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

grumpymort

US/Thailand/UK 18 Aug 22 6.15pm

Originally posted by BelfastEagle

Ah so effectively the financial fair play rules don’t apply to promoted clubs. If you can afford it then Forrest are doing the right think blow as much as you need to while you can.

They do not it's 3rd year when it gets tough and the spending should stop 2nd year if stay in the league.

I mentioned it before SP had commented about it and how Palace struggled.

This is why some clubs are happy to try to up and down you can gain a lot of money if you don't spend Norwich is prime example.

Forest issue will be wages you would think but we don't know the figures because football is not transparent about them the positive is didn't a fair few of the high earners sign only one year deals I believe that is the case.

Anyway lets move away from what others have or will do and focus on palace unless its related to palace in some way.

(VPN) - [Link]
(Alt VPN) - [Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 18 Aug 22 6.50pm
Originally posted by Dubai Eagle And where does that leave the other players that play in that position that Forest have already signed during the window. On the bench and a bit peeved I guess. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

18 Aug 22 6.50pm

Originally posted by Dubai Eagle

And where does that leave the other players that play in that position that Forest have already signed during the window.

On the bench and a bit peeved I guess.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 18 Aug 22 6.53pm
Originally posted by Putitout No disrespect to this player or any of the others Forest have signed, but Forest ,their owner/ owners must have more money than sense. It could work ,but what a gamble. Oh to be one of those parasitic agents....probably booking his holiday as we speak. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

18 Aug 22 6.53pm

Originally posted by Putitout

No disrespect to this player or any of the others Forest have signed, but Forest ,their owner/ owners must have more money than sense. It could work ,but what a gamble.

Oh to be one of those parasitic agents....probably booking his holiday as we speak.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

MatchWinner Orpington 18 Aug 22 11.14pm
Good player...Silly money.
Alert a moderator to this post

MatchWinner

Orpington 18 Aug 22 11.14pm

Good player...Silly money.

Alert a moderator to this post

Dubai Eagle 19 Aug 22 7.00am
And we all thought it would be Sandcastle responsible for inflating buying prices this summer - I certainly didn't realise it would be Forest. Originally posted by Hudsoneagle I’m seeing the two most realistically correct fees for MGE are either 25m upfront with 17m add ones making it a deal worth 42m and the other I have read is 35m plus 9m add ons making it 44m. Madness. I laugh at Forest a little, and then realise how badly this inflates the prices of the players in the same sort of market we operate in. It’s bad news for all. It’s also possible that the actual deal is worth more like 35m overall and the mistake is the add on fees have been added on twice in the reported fees.
Alert a moderator to this post

Dubai Eagle

19 Aug 22 7.00am

And we all thought it would be Sandcastle responsible for inflating buying prices this summer - I certainly didn't realise it would be Forest.

Originally posted by Hudsoneagle

I’m seeing the two most realistically correct fees for MGE are either 25m upfront with 17m add ones making it a deal worth 42m and the other I have read is 35m plus 9m add ons making it 44m.

Alert a moderator to this post

PatrickA London 19 Aug 22 9.49am
I’ve just read an interview with Downes which confirms that he was on his way to Palace before West Ham’s intervention. Everything had been agreed and a medical was scheduled , but at the last minute he was informed West Ham were in for him and he changed his mind about coming to Palace. Another case of might have been , but usually these stories are not confirmed so openly.
Alert a moderator to this post

PatrickA

London 19 Aug 22 9.49am

I’ve just read an interview with Downes which confirms that he was on his way to Palace before West Ham’s intervention.
Everything had been agreed and a medical was scheduled , but at the last minute he was informed West Ham were in for him and he changed his mind about coming to Palace.
Another case of might have been , but usually these stories are not confirmed so openly.

Alert a moderator to this post

taylors lovechild 19 Aug 22 10.04am
Originally posted by PatrickA I’ve just read an interview with Downes which confirms that he was on his way to Palace before West Ham’s intervention. Everything had been agreed and a medical was scheduled , but at the last minute he was informed West Ham were in for him and he changed his mind about coming to Palace. Another case of might have been , but usually these stories are not confirmed so openly. I read that. He does also say there was more money on the table. The club he supported and they offer him more money. Certainly no sour grapes from me and good luck to the lad. Time will tell whether we missed out on a relative bargain. It does however slightly worry me that the club identified that as a position we need to fill but we are showing no signs of filling yet.
Alert a moderator to this post

taylors lovechild

19 Aug 22 10.04am

Send a Private Message to taylors lovechild

Originally posted by PatrickA

I read that. He does also say there was more money on the table. The club he supported and they offer him more money. Certainly no sour grapes from me and good luck to the lad. Time will tell whether we missed out on a relative bargain. It does however slightly worry me that the club identified that as a position we need to fill but we are showing no signs of filling yet.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 92 of 205 < 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Transfer Updates

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors