Realistic Summer Signings | Page 6 | Vital Football

Realistic Summer Signings

PieMag said:
I did mate, although I felt it made the same points.

The positives for me is that he's an upgrade on Darlow, his age, the transfer fee and most of all, he's not rooted to his line as Dubs tends to be, in fact he's lauded for his speed of thought coming off his line as well as a command of his area which is the polar opposite of what we are used to.

The stats surrounding his distribution create a grey area for me insomuch as long clearances and the short passes which allow football playing teams to build from the back are not necessarily comparable.

The comments from some of the Burnley fans creates a wait and see reaction in my head, no where near scepticism mind as so far I have zero reason not to trust Howe and his team.
Click to expand...

He's better than Dubrovka in my opinion. After his injury, he never quite looked the same. Still made some good saves in a few games, but also had a few howlers.
Good position to be in, having 2 good keepers.
 
Oh dear! Ha

When I started work - I began the nosey-grindstone slog at 56 Westgate Road. Always gave a little amusing lift to the day endorsing mis-directed post for 56 West Road (Sven) with “(definitely) NOT County Court” before putting back in mail.

Anyway- potentially great signing as I trust the owners and their scouting/negotiating team and they’ve clearly made this lad #1 target.
 
Finn_the_Dog said:
Oh dear! Ha

When I started work - I began the nosey-grindstone slog at 56 Westgate Road. Always gave a little amusing lift to the day endorsing mis-directed post for 56 West Road (Sven) with “(definitely) NOT County Court” before putting back in mail.:grinning:

Anyway- potentially great signing as I trust the owners and their scouting/negotiating team and they’ve clearly made this lad #1 target.
Click to expand...
Aye definitely.

The only youtube clip I've paid any attention to is his game against Chelsea in the CL and he looked accomplished for such a young lad.

The media are still trying to put a negative spin on our dealings but if all goes well and Botman signs it will be a massive albeit with an element of risk attached due to him not been the finished product.

Like yourself I trust the recruitment team working on our behalf though.
 
I'm more than happy with that. He is a quality acquisition that will tighten up the defence and has the ability to lead from the back. Welcome aboard Sven, the boat is about to rock :grinning:
 
Toon_NoMatterWot said:
Aye supposedly £7.5m a year and part of PIF. Just wait until we get another 10 sponsors in to fuck the big 6 off more.
Click to expand...
£7.5M a year probably equates to the fee being paid to Lille for Botman - spread over the length of his 5-year contract. Clever stuff.

Chelsea in for Raphinha. They could look to offload some weight in their squad and recoup that outlay by selling Broja to us?
 
Last edited:
Excuse my ignorance and I know there's the FFP, but why do scribes point out that we have limited funds to buy, yet clubs like Spurs, Man City, etc are spending more than us? Especially considering that we never used to spend huge in that twats era at the Toon??
Thanks everyone
 
It's because we don't have the perceived income that those clubs have. Uefa rules dictate clubs need to balance football-related expenditure - transfers and wages - with television and ticket income, plus revenues raised by their commercial departments.

Money spent on stadiums, training facilities, youth development or community projects is exempt.

Our commercial income because of the previous regime is nowhere near what it could or should be. So you also have the challenge of Premier League FFP. The owners are only allowed to inject a certain amount of cash. From memory (which can be hazy) I'm sure Kieran Maguire calculated that NUFC will be able to spend £166m in a rolling three-year period and still operate within Financial Fair Play limits. If we're able to up our commercial revenue that could be increased to over 200 million.

Although several clubs have breached the Uefa rules (hi PSG , hi Manchester City, hi Liverpool) the vast majority get a fine. Everton are the closest to currently being in breach of Premier League rules which dictates why they have to sell Richarlison (now looking like off to Spurs) for about the same as they bought him.

This is purely my understanding of what far smarter people than me have written (mainly Kieran Maguire who's a genius) so could of course be complete bollocks.

Essentially though to me it seems FFP isn't about levelling the playing field it's about pulling the ladder up .
 
keggy_keagal said:
It's because we don't have the perceived income that those clubs have. Uefa rules dictate clubs need to balance football-related expenditure - transfers and wages - with television and ticket income, plus revenues raised by their commercial departments.

Money spent on stadiums, training facilities, youth development or community projects is exempt.

Our commercial income because of the previous regime is nowhere near what it could or should be. So you also have the challenge of Premier League FFP. The owners are only allowed to inject a certain amount of cash. From memory (which can be hazy) I'm sure Kieran Maguire calculated that NUFC will be able to spend £166m in a rolling three-year period and still operate within Financial Fair Play limits. If we're able to up our commercial revenue that could be increased to over 200 million.

Although several clubs have breached the Uefa rules (hi PSG , hi Manchester City, hi Liverpool) the vast majority get a fine. Everton are the closest to currently being in breach of Premier League rules which dictates why they have to sell Richarlison (now looking like off to Spurs) for about the same as they bought him.

This is purely my understanding of what far smarter people than me have written (mainly Kieran Maguire who's a genius) so could of course be complete bollocks.

Essentially though to me it seems FFP isn't about levelling the playing field it's about pulling the ladder up .
Click to expand...
Yep knowing full well they will throw the book at us, deduct points etc if we are deemed to have broken the poxy ffp rules
 
keggy_keagal said:
It's because we don't have the perceived income that those clubs have. Uefa rules dictate clubs need to balance football-related expenditure - transfers and wages - with television and ticket income, plus revenues raised by their commercial departments.

Money spent on stadiums, training facilities, youth development or community projects is exempt.

Our commercial income because of the previous regime is nowhere near what it could or should be. So you also have the challenge of Premier League FFP. The owners are only allowed to inject a certain amount of cash. From memory (which can be hazy) I'm sure Kieran Maguire calculated that NUFC will be able to spend £166m in a rolling three-year period and still operate within Financial Fair Play limits. If we're able to up our commercial revenue that could be increased to over 200 million.

Although several clubs have breached the Uefa rules (hi PSG , hi Manchester City, hi Liverpool) the vast majority get a fine. Everton are the closest to currently being in breach of Premier League rules which dictates why they have to sell Richarlison (now looking like off to Spurs) for about the same as they bought him.

This is purely my understanding of what far smarter people than me have written (mainly Kieran Maguire who's a genius) so could of course be complete bollocks.

Essentially though to me it seems FFP isn't about levelling the playing field it's about pulling the ladder up .
Click to expand...

Thanks mate. Sounds complicated, but hopefully in a few years time we can compete with higher funds like a ManCity etc.
Cheers
 
I'm sure I saw somewhere that 1st July is the start of a new financial fair play year, Botman was the first signing in this period....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.