Jan Transfer Window
- Thread starter Red Krayola
- Start date
That's the market we're in though.
Anyway, looking at how we like to keep the ball at the other end of the pitch and also looking at how strong and confident we are and not prone to making any kind of mistakes at all and backed up by a raucous and supportive fan base at home, I can't see there being any problems with this.
Anyway, looking at how we like to keep the ball at the other end of the pitch and also looking at how strong and confident we are and not prone to making any kind of mistakes at all and backed up by a raucous and supportive fan base at home, I can't see there being any problems with this.
You are fond of saying that the likes of Abramovic and now Doughty don't actually put real money into clubs. How did Forest pay for wages, transfers etc during the Doughty years if it was a "paper debt". Even if you believe from the Forest accounts that they got their money back, where exactly did the £96 million profit come from ? As CP says, if you put £100 million into a club and get £100 million back, that certainly isn't £100 million profit ! So have you got any links to anything showing the Doughty family made a penny out of the club, never mind £96 million.
Why do the BBC say ND put over £100 million into the club before it was sold by the family ?
Why do the BBC say ND put over £100 million into the club before it was sold by the family ?
The lad at Plymouth who we are supposed to be interested in, Luke Jephcott, looks decent if his You Tube clips are anything to go by; physically strong, mobile, good with both feet and in the air and knows where the back of the net is.
Another thing stands out in those clips; how good a player Tyrese Fornah is turning into.
He is bossing the midfield for Plymouth; strong in the tackle, good passer and carries the ball well
Another thing stands out in those clips; how good a player Tyrese Fornah is turning into.
He is bossing the midfield for Plymouth; strong in the tackle, good passer and carries the ball well
We would have to sell him 5 times to get that amount.
It has to mean one of two things:
We have received an offer we cannot turn down
Hughton is planning on playing three at the back and does not fancy playing Worrall, McKenna and Figueredo together
I would guess its the former; The chances are that he would be sold in the summer any way but with how Covid is panning out there is only one way transfer fees are going to go, and that not upwards.
It could be a case of taking the money while it is there.
The timing is pretty poor though.
It has to mean one of two things:
We have received an offer we cannot turn down
Hughton is planning on playing three at the back and does not fancy playing Worrall, McKenna and Figueredo together
I would guess its the former; The chances are that he would be sold in the summer any way but with how Covid is panning out there is only one way transfer fees are going to go, and that not upwards.
It could be a case of taking the money while it is there.
The timing is pretty poor though.
We've got Soh, Blacket and Daws as back up, Duffy was ok before going to Celtic if he's cheap and gets his confidence back selling Worral wouldn't be a disastrous we have to get £10m+ though. Fig has been better but if he's unsettled we should get £4m ish, might allow CH to get a couple of his own players in.
Show 96m being paid then, it isn't complicated...
I'll ask again is this repayment or profit that you're claiming? You seem confused between the two.
As I said lots of faults with his time as chairman which I'm happy to discuss, but let's see proof of your claims that Fawaz paid 1-200m for the club.
I'll ask again is this repayment or profit that you're claiming? You seem confused between the two.
As I said lots of faults with his time as chairman which I'm happy to discuss, but let's see proof of your claims that Fawaz paid 1-200m for the club.
I posted the exact wording from the accounts, how many more times do you need to see it before you believe it?
There is no confusion 62.9m was carried over in debt and subsequent amounts borrowed from the Estate, all secured under a debenture; there has been no mention of profit - the money Fawaz and his family had to pump in to pay back the debt was in two forms - new share issues and loans.
Why go to the trouble of applying a charge if there was no amounts owing to the Estate?
If, at the time of sale, the Estate agreed to accept a nominal amount for the Club, say £1, on the condition that the debt had to be taken on and repaid, a scenario which is quite common in buy outs, are you seriously saying that the debt is not counted in the value of what the over all cost was?
There is no confusion 62.9m was carried over in debt and subsequent amounts borrowed from the Estate, all secured under a debenture; there has been no mention of profit - the money Fawaz and his family had to pump in to pay back the debt was in two forms - new share issues and loans.
Why go to the trouble of applying a charge if there was no amounts owing to the Estate?
If, at the time of sale, the Estate agreed to accept a nominal amount for the Club, say £1, on the condition that the debt had to be taken on and repaid, a scenario which is quite common in buy outs, are you seriously saying that the debt is not counted in the value of what the over all cost was?
I gave you the exert from the accounts; if you do not believe it that is your problem.
Now, back to the question:
"If, at the time of sale, the Estate agreed to accept a nominal amount for the Club, say £1, on the condition that the debt had to be taken on and repaid, a scenario which is quite common in buy outs, are you seriously saying that the debt is not counted in the value of what the over all cost was? "
Now, back to the question:
"If, at the time of sale, the Estate agreed to accept a nominal amount for the Club, say £1, on the condition that the debt had to be taken on and repaid, a scenario which is quite common in buy outs, are you seriously saying that the debt is not counted in the value of what the over all cost was? "
We don't always have that much of a choice!!
Joe doesn't want to go - but, like we have discussed many times - this could well be life changing money for Joe, an opportunity that may never come around again & thus, one he could live to regret!!
The club have to balance the books too and we're not short of players at CH.
Utopian situation would be that we get £4-£5m for Figgy (& keep Joe at least this season) - I can't imagine it would be much more for Figgy, he's prone to errors and is woefully poor at distributing the ball.
Yuri - I believe he's out of contract this summer, I'm also led to believe that whilst there is a clause to extend the contract, Yuri isn't that keen to do that - but, it depends what offers come along for him & us!!
Joe doesn't want to go - but, like we have discussed many times - this could well be life changing money for Joe, an opportunity that may never come around again & thus, one he could live to regret!!
The club have to balance the books too and we're not short of players at CH.
Utopian situation would be that we get £4-£5m for Figgy (& keep Joe at least this season) - I can't imagine it would be much more for Figgy, he's prone to errors and is woefully poor at distributing the ball.
Yuri - I believe he's out of contract this summer, I'm also led to believe that whilst there is a clause to extend the contract, Yuri isn't that keen to do that - but, it depends what offers come along for him & us!!
Blimey - if it wasn't for this being great for the post count...... I'm sure you two just argue for the sake of it.... are you married?
Mao - ND/his estate did not make a profit on sale. The money ND pumped into the club was his own money & showed as a Director's Loan, which are repayable.
Granted, there may have been salaries, interest om the debt etc & all loaded onto the club, but at the point of sale or upon redemption of the charge/debenture - the amount 'repaid' was not any higher than the debt.
CP - ND/his estate did (according to the accounts) receive settlement for the debt, which isn't a profit, as you say, as it's repayment if monies introduced. Clearly, Mao can't show monies actually changing hands - he's pointed to accounts that are bound by statute regarding the content.
Clearly all of the above is based upon what we know, hearsay & conjecture etc - it's like someone saying Fawaz pocketed personally money from the sale of players - it's unprovable.
Mao - ND/his estate did not make a profit on sale. The money ND pumped into the club was his own money & showed as a Director's Loan, which are repayable.
Granted, there may have been salaries, interest om the debt etc & all loaded onto the club, but at the point of sale or upon redemption of the charge/debenture - the amount 'repaid' was not any higher than the debt.
CP - ND/his estate did (according to the accounts) receive settlement for the debt, which isn't a profit, as you say, as it's repayment if monies introduced. Clearly, Mao can't show monies actually changing hands - he's pointed to accounts that are bound by statute regarding the content.
Clearly all of the above is based upon what we know, hearsay & conjecture etc - it's like someone saying Fawaz pocketed personally money from the sale of players - it's unprovable.
