Port Said Red Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 I know there was a thread on this sometime back and @Mr Popodopolous, @Davefevsand some of the finance savvy posters had their say, but I thought it might be a time to resurrect the conversation, with questions about the club having to sell the kids. My hope is that they will be able to show that we can be within FFP without selling the crown jewels. How would it look if we were for example able to: - * Sell Kalas for a 7 figure fee and save on his wages. * Sell/giveaway Moore and Bakinson * Sell/giveaway Wells (not sure we should) * Somehow find a suitor for Palmer on loan with a hefty bit of help on wages. * Release O'Dowda and save on his wages I know I am being vague and probably missing issues around amortisation over contract lengths etc, but hopefully someone can show a positive scenario where we perhaps only lose HNM at worst. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 There are several scenarios I've put in, FFP wise although not looked at it in some depth for a while. The amount that needs doing will be linked to the scenario and the shortfall that we might need to make up. My gut feeling is selling Kalas and Massengo would certainly do the job. Might not even come to that if Webster, Kelly, Brownhill yield decent sell on clauses but that very much is a bonus- ie not something we can assume. Maybe selling Kalas, releasing King and O'Dowda does the job-this would mean very limited sigings, perhaps none. Of course if we can get some good headroom then we can be creative- Moore, Bakinson, Palmer, Wells perhaps we can offer loans with a partial coverage of wages- that while not ideal still represents a saving. Decisions to make too on Cundy and Klose- will we see Baker again given his fitness issues this season...if he's released perhaps there can be some offset on FFP in his case due to medical issues. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted April 24, 2022 Author Share Posted April 24, 2022 The sell on's are as you say very much bonus money, although to be fair that's why we put them in in the first place. I think the key will be whether we will want to do our business early or play a brinkmanship game, e.g. if we think that one of those sell on deals will go through, could we hold on to the "crown jewels" until deadline day? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 The two biggest things we can do to help towards FFP which wouldn’t weaken is to find homes for Wells and Palmer. This is a must. The next one which is more arguable as would weaken us is to sell Kalas. I can’t understand anyone who wants to keep Wells considering his lack of impact this season and huge wages. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 7 minutes ago, Port Said Red said: The sell on's are as you say very much bonus money, although to be fair that's why we put them in in the first place. I think the key will be whether we will want to do our business early or play a brinkmanship game, e.g. if we think that one of those sell on deals will go through, could we hold on to the "crown jewels" until deadline day? Lots of variables and moving parts aren't there. What other clubs are allowed should also be a factor. If Stoke eg are permitted £56m in Covid losses and offsets over 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons as they're claiming then I don't see how we could be strongly punished for much lower pre tax losses but much more 'honest' Covid losses in an FFP context if they're let off. Oh yeah by bonus I just mean not to be relied on. Birmingham in summer 2018 a classic example. Butland and Gray sell on fee was what they were pinning their hopes on. Technically the EFL under Harvey let that drag on longer than it should, sounds like they were able to backdate or would have been... We don't technically have to fix the numbers until March 2023 at the earliest but if we don't do it early, we'll be under undoubted restrictions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted April 24, 2022 Author Share Posted April 24, 2022 2 minutes ago, Mr Sno said: Not on the ridiculous astronomical wages he is on. I would accept an offer of £0 for him, same with Palmer, just get them off the books. I think the problem with just giving players away mid contract is how it effects their value in the previous seasons? It's a shame with Wells as he apparently is very influential off the pitch, but clearly at a price we can't really afford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 11 minutes ago, Mr Sno said: Not on the ridiculous astronomical wages he is on. I would accept an offer of £0 for him, same with Palmer, just get them off the books. They have contracts. Getting them/Palmer to go for less of a wage is no easy task. Wells might to play as has alluded but we need a willing buyer. Palmer couldn’t get a game at Taunton Town right now so I’m not hopeful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 For me...we have to do everything we can to keep the youngsters. My preference would be for Palmer, Kalas, Wells, Baker, Odowda, Bakinson, and Moore to move on. If a young en has to go...then HNM. But as a last resort. Seeing some of these young ens come through the academy and develop this season..it would be absolutely gutting to see them move on and shine at another club....before we've even seen their best. Move them on for big fees...then what? Settle the books and replace with journeymen Championship level players going through the motions? No thanks. Everything should be done to keep them. It's the one thing that has brought some joy watching them develop. The club need to be mindful that fans will talk with their feet if we offer up mediocrity with nothing exciting. 7 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 I think some people mix up the overall losses with the FFP position. Unless Steve says he wants £xm paid off the losses we should not need to sell any of the crown jewels. To stay within FFP we need to make savings but nowhere near as much as people may think. Reducing the squad size and therefore the wage bill with sufficient fringe players leaving may be enough, especially if we make savings in non-football running costs as well. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 10 minutes ago, spudski said: For me...we have to do everything we can to keep the youngsters. My preference would be for Palmer, Kalas, Wells, Baker, Odowda, Bakinson, and Moore to move on. If a young en has to go...then HNM. But as a last resort. Seeing some of these young ens come through the academy and develop this season..it would be absolutely gutting to see them move on and shine at another club....before we've even seen their best. Move them on for big fees...then what? Settle the books and replace with journeymen Championship level players going through the motions? No thanks. Everything should be done to keep them. It's the one thing that has brought some joy watching them develop. The club need to be mindful that fans will talk with their feet if we offer up mediocrity with nothing exciting. Totally agree in principle though of that 6, would ideally want Kalas to stay. The other issue is that in terms of Moore, Bakinson, Palmer and Wells it's one thing to say move them on but how do we do this in reality? Baker's future we just don't know, can he even play again. Albeit he still has a year left on his contract. With his injuries, who is buying? King and O'Dowda I expect will be released. Kalas is saleable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, chinapig said: I think some people mix up the overall losses with the FFP position. Unless Steve says he wants £xm paid off the losses we should not need to sell any of the crown jewels. To stay within FFP we need to make savings but nowhere near as much as people may think. Reducing the squad size and therefore the wage bill with sufficient fringe players leaving may be enough, especially if we make savings in non-football running costs as well. I am thinking £4-5m in terms of a hole to fill but I am often a bit bearish in my predictions and that's possibly overstating it on my part. Have several scenarios too. Telegraph article suggested that we were losing £2m per month. £24m - £5m in normal FFP allowances - £2.5m in Covid permitted addbacks=£16.5m FFP loss. If that article is accurate (big if) then I'd be comfortable in my prediction of a £4-5m shortfall. Edited April 24, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 29 minutes ago, Port Said Red said: I think the problem with just giving players away mid contract is how it effects their value in the previous seasons? It's a shame with Wells as he apparently is very influential off the pitch, but clearly at a price we can't really afford. In the final year of the deal it can cancel out ie loss on disposal if they leave on a free vs amortisation saved. Assuming we're amortising straight line it should compute out for the last year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tin Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 (edited) Personally, I’d be content with losing any of Moore, Vyner, Baker, O’Dowda, Palmer or Wells and to a lesser extent Bentley or Kalas. Moving on Palmer and Wells would save around £60k a week and would go a long way to solving our FFP position (saving over £3m a year), especially if a windfall from Kelly or Brownhill was forthcoming. Add Moore, Vyner and O’Dowda and it could be job done. On King, he’s not on big bucks and his experience is vital and I’d keep him as a player/academy coach if he was up for that. How many times have we had a City fan who’s a PL winner and an international on our books? Don’t underestimate his experience or desire to help us. Edited April 24, 2022 by tin 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 1 hour ago, Port Said Red said: I know there was a thread on this sometime back and @Mr Popodopolous, @Davefevsand some of the finance savvy posters had their say, but I thought it might be a time to resurrect the conversation, with questions about the club having to sell the kids. My hope is that they will be able to show that we can be within FFP without selling the crown jewels. How would it look if we were for example able to: - * Sell Kalas for a 7 figure fee and save on his wages. * Sell/giveaway Moore and Bakinson * Sell/giveaway Wells (not sure we should) * Somehow find a suitor for Palmer on loan with a hefty bit of help on wages. * Release O'Dowda and save on his wages I know I am being vague and probably missing issues around amortisation over contract lengths etc, but hopefully someone can show a positive scenario where we perhaps only lose HNM at worst. There are multiple scenarios that can play out, as others have mentioned. Selling Kalas for £4m(ish) would probably bring us within FFP on its own…wages saved, profit against value and amortisation saved. 1 hour ago, And Its Smith said: The two biggest things we can do to help towards FFP which wouldn’t weaken is to find homes for Wells and Palmer. This is a must. The next one which is more arguable as would weaken us is to sell Kalas. I can’t understand anyone who wants to keep Wells considering his lack of impact this season and huge wages. Being slightly pedantic, I think losing Wells might weaken our squad, Palmer not though. The only way I’d want to keep Wells is by him accepting a lower wage and spread his amortisation over a longer period…that would cut costs. Because I don’t think you can replace him without spending money. If you think Conway can fill that void, then I’m totally happy with that. But Wells isn’t shit by any stretch of the imagination…just hasn’t been as good as WSM. If he had to play regularly he’d get a dozen goals over a season I reckon. I wouldn’t dismiss that. A number of OTIBers dissed Martin’s contribution. 10g / 5a is totally fine when Weimann is 20 / 9 and Semenyo is 7 / 10. Plus Wells has been good off the pitch too. Ideally we move him on and the finances work out nicely, but the above scenario wouldn’t be the worst. 28 minutes ago, spudski said: For me...we have to do everything we can to keep the youngsters. My preference would be for Palmer, Kalas, Wells, Baker, Odowda, Bakinson, and Moore to move on. If a young en has to go...then HNM. But as a last resort. Seeing some of these young ens come through the academy and develop this season..it would be absolutely gutting to see them move on and shine at another club....before we've even seen their best. Move them on for big fees...then what? Settle the books and replace with journeymen Championship level players going through the motions? No thanks. Everything should be done to keep them. It's the one thing that has brought some joy watching them develop. The club need to be mindful that fans will talk with their feet if we offer up mediocrity with nothing exciting. Yep, if you could play the summer out like That would be sweet. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 8 minutes ago, tin said: Personally, I’d be content with losing any of Moore, Vyner, Baker, O’Dowda, Palmer or Wells and to a lesser extent Bentley or Kalas. Moving on Palmer and Wells would save around £60k a week and would go a long way to solving our FFP position (saving over £3m a year), especially if a windfall from Kelly or Brownhill was forthcoming. Add Moore, Vyner and O’Dowda and it could be job done. On King, he’s not on big bucks and his experience is vital and I’d keep him as a player/academy coach if he was up for that. How many times have we had a City fan who’s a PL winner and an international on our books? Don’t underestimate his experience or desire to help us. Re King - would not surprise me if he got another year on a similar basis to Simpson…coaches salary incentivised by playing / making squad. I’d be fine with that. If he was being let go, I see no reason why he made the last two 18s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 (edited) Should also point out although it's probably unnecessary for me to do so, that when cost savings or profit on transfers are spoken about it certainly with the idea of a business plan moving forward with hit saving and then spend. More like say £4-5m saving or increased revenue needed, you get £7m in savings/improvement via released players and Kalas sold say. Of the £7m improvement in that scenario, you can only reinvest £2-3m back into the side that season..the remainder is to keep the right side of FFP. Saving/improvement-Existing/forecast FFP hole=Reinvestable amount. Edited April 24, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candygram for mongo Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 1 hour ago, And Its Smith said: The two biggest things we can do to help towards FFP which wouldn’t weaken is to find homes for Wells and Palmer. This is a must. The next one which is more arguable as would weaken us is to sell Kalas. I can’t understand anyone who wants to keep Wells considering his lack of impact this season and huge wages. I could be way off the mark here but I have a feeling that Pearson is not a fan of Kalas and think he could be sold if there are any takers 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supersonic Robin Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 26 minutes ago, candygram for mongo said: I could be way off the mark here but I have a feeling that Pearson is not a fan of Kalas and think he could be sold if there are any takers I think it's more that Pearson realises that Kalas poses a financial problem, as oppose to not rating him as a footballer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeAman08 Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 3 hours ago, tin said: Personally, I’d be content with losing any of Moore, Vyner, Baker, O’Dowda, Palmer or Wells and to a lesser extent Bentley or Kalas. Moving on Palmer and Wells would save around £60k a week and would go a long way to solving our FFP position (saving over £3m a year), especially if a windfall from Kelly or Brownhill was forthcoming. Add Moore, Vyner and O’Dowda and it could be job done. On King, he’s not on big bucks and his experience is vital and I’d keep him as a player/academy coach if he was up for that. How many times have we had a City fan who’s a PL winner and an international on our books? Don’t underestimate his experience or desire to help us. I’m content on losing pretty much anyone. Especially anyone signed for a decent fee pre covid. Bentley, Wells, Palmer, Dasilva and Kalas. I think in all their cases we can find 90% of the player in terms of ability for 50% of the cost. Now I doubt it’ll be easy to sell all of them but perhaps some hope with them all being in the final year of their deals. Selling them really helps the rebuild. COD going is obvious imo. I’d be hopeful we can move on from Moore. Bakinson in the Moore category. Not ready to let Vyner walk though. Let his contract expire by all means but he won’t be on much money and can cover multiple positions. I know he is usually public enemy number 1 but have seen plenty struggle in this side. He has also been part of good performances. King is a tough one but his injuries aren’t worth the wage. Think a CDM is on our radar and we still have Williams, James, Scott and Benarous to play in midfield. That’ll be 5 plus think young Kadji is a midfielder and could fill some minutes if necessary. Correct me if I am wrong on that one. I am resigned to Massengo leaving. I am guessing we’d get 4-5m for him. Think that’ll help a good deal for FFP. Especially if we can get 2-3 of the first group off the books. Then we have the saleable assets. I’d love to keep them but I also want NP to have a bit of money to sign what he wants. I want to give him a fair chance next season. Not sure that happens with 1-2 free transfers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 (edited) “Tinkering at the Edges” - a perfect description of my dance floor activities at Papillons back in the day - it’s a phrase that is also in the running for the title of my autobiography ... along with “Life as a Pedantic Pr!ck” and “Raw Meat and Malbec” ... Edited April 24, 2022 by BS4 on Tour... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, And Its Smith said: The two biggest things we can do to help towards FFP which wouldn’t weaken is to find homes for Wells and Palmer. This is a must. The next one which is more arguable as would weaken us is to sell Kalas. I can’t understand anyone who wants to keep Wells considering his lack of impact this season and huge wages. Whilst I hope we can keep hold of Kalas, if losing him means we keep our better prospects and can still replace him with a decent (but cheaper) replacement, then I'm all for it. Whilst I don't think he is the reason we have been shipping goals, we do seem better defensively in the past few games without him. I do think he has just been flogged to death, and we have been seriously light at the back for a while. I also think that as a team, we are also working better together recently, so the loss of Kalas isn't as big an issue as it would have been 6 months ago.Klose will also hopefully sign an extension to take him into next season, as his experience I think is starting to show through. On the subject of selling the prospects, Scott I think will be seen as "one to watch" until January at least, but probably next season, and Semenyo I think stays, as it seems both him and his agent are happy with how things are, so can actually see him with an improved contract, possibly a release clause if a club offers £x. If the latter hits the ground running next season though, January could be dodgy. Han Noah I think it all depends on the contract situation, but think he stays. If we have to sell, I think Kalas is a more likely option. Edited April 24, 2022 by Taz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted April 24, 2022 Share Posted April 24, 2022 5 minutes ago, Taz said: Whilst I hope we can keep hold of Kalas, if losing him means we keep our better prospects and can still replace him with a decent (but cheaper) replacement, then I'm all for it. Whilst I don't think he is the reason we have been shipping goals, we do seem better defensively in the past few games without him. I do think he has just been flogged to death, and we have been seriously light at the back for a while. I also think that as a team, we are also working better together recently, so the loss of Kalas isn't as big an issue as it would have been 6 months ago.Klose will also hopefully sign an extension to take him into next season, as his experience I think is starting to show through. On the subject of selling the prospects, Scott I think will be seen as "one to watch" until January at least, but probably next season, and Semenyo I think stays, as it seems both him and his agent are happy with how things are, so can actually see him with an improved contract, possibly a release clause if a club offers £x. If the latter hits the ground running next season though, January could be dodgy. Han Noah I think it all depends on the contract situation, but think he stays. If we have to sell, I think Kalas is a more likely option. I’m convinced Massengo is off. Agreed on Kalas 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Geoff Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 11 hours ago, Supersonic Robin said: I think it's more that Pearson realises that Kalas poses a financial problem, as oppose to not rating him as a footballer. I can't imagine that it hasn't gone unnoticed by Pearson that we have been more solid defensively since Kalas has been out of the team. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon bristol Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 8 hours ago, And Its Smith said: I’m convinced Massengo is off. Agreed on Kalas Agreed, but im not sure massengo would be a huge loss. Id like him to stay and appreciate his work rate but his goals and assists record is shocking, and his habit of giving the ball away and giving the opposition opportunities is rather upsetting. Midfield has been a major problem for us and him going would free up a place, maybe for benarous, and help out with ffp too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 18 minutes ago, Simon bristol said: Agreed, but im not sure massengo would be a huge loss. Id like him to stay and appreciate his work rate but his goals and assists record is shocking, and his habit of giving the ball away and giving the opposition opportunities is rather upsetting. Midfield has been a major problem for us and him going would free up a place, maybe for benarous, and help out with ffp too. I think it would be a big loss as he will go somewhere and get the consistency that he is currently lacking a bit. When he is on his game he is incredible. Just needs a bit more improvement which will come as he is young. I don’t think goals and assist stats matter that much for the kind of player he is. Every team needs a player doing the chasing and dirty work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 1 hour ago, And Its Smith said: I think it would be a big loss as he will go somewhere and get the consistency that he is currently lacking a bit. When he is on his game he is incredible. Just needs a bit more improvement which will come as he is young. I don’t think goals and assist stats matter that much for the kind of player he is. Every team needs a player doing the chasing and dirty work. Yep, can get too blinkered by assists and goals. He does need to improve that output though. But on Saturday although he made a couple of bad passing, i thought his introduction was a part of us finishing the game strongly. We were under a fair bit of pressure with Derby back in it at 2-1. We saw it out well, getting the 3rd goal in that period. I am resigned to him leaving now, but I really hope we can keep him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midred Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 5 hours ago, Davefevs said: Yep, can get too blinkered by assists and goals. He does need to improve that output though. But on Saturday although he made a couple of bad passing, i thought his introduction was a part of us finishing the game strongly. We were under a fair bit of pressure with Derby back in it at 2-1. We saw it out well, getting the 3rd goal in that period. I am resigned to him leaving now, but I really hope we can keep him. Is this down to advice from his agent or even his father? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 Just now, Midred said: Is this down to advice from his agent or even his father? I don’t know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 26, 2022 Share Posted April 26, 2022 One more bit that I had forgotten about but found again when looking at the Agreed Decisions for Derby and Reading. There is a rule possibly relating to FFP called 'Permitted Player'. Derby and Reading under the Business Plan were allowed 25 of each. This is separate from 'Established Player' or 'Player of Professional Standing'. Basically it means anyone who has made 3 starts or more of any age at Championship level or above. May also include equivalent level but unsure. While not as onerous as that of Professional Standing, it's definitely one we have to consider possible if we can't raise the sufficient funds etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 26, 2022 Share Posted April 26, 2022 (edited) Unsure that loaning out cuts the numbers either, doesn't with the other embargoes. As such..in theory, prior to any permanent departures. Definites. GK: Bentley, O'Leary DF: Tanner, Vyner, Kalas, Atkinson, Baker, Moore, DaSilva, Pring MF: James, Williams, Scott, Massengo, Benarous, Bakinson, Palmer FW: Weimann, Semenyo, Martin, Wells Others I don't really know this status of: Bell, Conway, Edwards, Pearson and Towler. Not included the out of contract players but I make it 21 to 26 who fit the category prior to permanent departures. Edited April 26, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 4, 2022 Share Posted May 4, 2022 (edited) May as well add to this a little. As above- but if we somehow fell into a Professional Standing Embargo then it'd be: Quote GK: Bentley, O'Leary DF: Tanner, Vyner, Kalas, Atkinson, Baker, Towler, Idehen Moore, DaSilva, Pring MF: James, Williams, Scott, Massengo, Benarous, Bakinson, Palmer FW: Weimann, Semenyo, Martin, Wells, Conway, Bell Unsure on the status of Pearson or Edwards. That would leave- exclusive of any out of contract- 25 Players of Professional Standing. If it came to that and I don't see that it should, then we would have to permanently offload a minimum of 3 to make one signing and then 1 in1 out subject to EFL limitations. Clearly there are a few on this list that we hope will leave and then some that may go if unable to agree new terms. In respect of the post above, Idehen would not I expect be considered a "Permitted Player" in the sense that he wouldn't count towards that number. Would remain at 21-26? Just had a quick check too. If SofaScore is correct then Towler, Benarous, Bell and Conway have made at least 3 starts apiece at Championship level- across this and last season, so would count towards the Permitted Player numbers. Subject to SofaScore: Permitted Players We would have 24 and therefore be permitted one more signing prior to any possibly permanent departures, one in one out should we slip into that kinda embargo- a bit of a middle ground type embargo. Quote GK: Bentley, O'Leary DF: Tanner, Vyner, Kalas, Atkinson, Baker, Towler, Moore, DaSilva, Pring MF: James, Williams, Scott, Massengo, Benarous, Bakinson, Palmer FW: Weimann, Semenyo, Martin, Wells, Conway, Bell Edited May 4, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 8, 2022 Share Posted May 8, 2022 25 of Professional Standing, 24 "Permitted Players"- unsure on the other Embargo, that is 18 I believe- ie Towler, Massengo, Scott, Benarous, Conway and Bell would all be too young to be considered as "Established Players". Squad limits for the 3 categories are 23, 25 and 24 respectively. There is a starting point anyway. Nixon suggested that we may need to spend less this season which goes a bit against what Gould was suggesting about retaining the same budget? Nixon isn't often wrong on FFP issues at EFL level. Still wondering if what Gould suggests and what the EFL will permit are two separate things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loosey Boy Posted May 8, 2022 Share Posted May 8, 2022 On 25/04/2022 at 07:23, Sir Geoff said: I can't imagine that it hasn't gone unnoticed by Pearson that we have been more solid defensively since Kalas has been out of the team. I think Kalas will be off in the summer - this could be why we took the decision for him to have his Op when we did so that he’s fully fit for his next employers. Could be wrong….time will tell 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 8, 2022 Share Posted May 8, 2022 “Budget” and “spending less” are two separate things in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted May 8, 2022 Share Posted May 8, 2022 9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: 25 of Professional Standing, 24 "Permitted Players"- unsure on the other Embargo, that is 18 I believe- ie Towler, Massengo, Scott, Benarous, Conway and Bell would all be too young to be considered as "Established Players". Squad limits for the 3 categories are 23, 25 and 24 respectively. There is a starting point anyway. Nixon suggested that we may need to spend less this season which goes a bit against what Gould was suggesting about retaining the same budget? Nixon isn't often wrong on FFP issues at EFL level. Still wondering if what Gould suggests and what the EFL will permit are two separate things. You are such a pessimist! What Nixon is missing is that we are already spending rather more than a bit less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 8, 2022 Share Posted May 8, 2022 1 minute ago, chinapig said: You are such a pessimist! What Nixon is missing is that we are already spending rather more than a bit less. I rib him too on this….the reality is he’s right to err on the side of caution. Keep us honest Mr P 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 8, 2022 Share Posted May 8, 2022 (edited) 7 minutes ago, chinapig said: You are such a pessimist! What Nixon is missing is that we are already spending rather more than a bit less. I am a little but I assume he hears stuff. We have cut costs but I assume me might mean into next season- I hope he is erring on the side of caution. 5 minutes ago, Davefevs said: I rib him too on this….the reality is he’s right to err on the side of caution. Keep us honest Mr P It's no bad thing Dave- you're slightly more optimistic, I counterbalance it out with caution. Good balancing act. Edited May 8, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 11, 2022 Share Posted May 11, 2022 (edited) This is IF at this stage, IF but covering a few bases. Seems to have been a bit of a flurry of activity and speculation. May as well update assuming Sykes joins and all of the ooc leave. Professional Standing embargo feels like a non starter at this stage. I'll assume that if it reaches that stage then it would be with the Permitted Player one which was used in both the Derby and Reading settlements. New addition is in bold. Quote GK: Bentley, O'Leary DF: Tanner, Vyner, Kalas, Atkinson, Baker, Towler, Moore, DaSilva, Pring MF: James, Williams, Scott, Massengo, Benarous, Bakinson, Palmer, Sykes FW: Weimann, Semenyo, Martin, Wells, Conway, Bell Would be capped at 25 and yes 25 it would be. Clearly when players are sold- and moved on ie released, settled up that number would be increased but covering all bases, if we were under the Permitted Player rule then we would be at our limit at this precise second. Prior to sales of course- that would include all of the ooc moving on. This is conjecture on my part- nobody but the Football League and those inside the club know what parameters we are working under but if it was a Business Plan and monitoring and this type of Embargo then this would be it at this second. Then it would be a case of 1 1 subject to finances. Based on the Established Player rule... Quote GK: Bentley, O'Leary DF: Tanner, Vyner, Kalas, Atkinson, Baker, Moore, DaSilva, Pring MF: James, Williams, Bakinson, Palmer, Sykes FW: Weimann, Semenyo, Martin, Wells We would be permitted to make 5 more signings/contract renewals- prior of course to permanent outgoings and subject of course to the financial situation as a whole. Then it would be a case of 1 1 subject to finances. Not bothering to go back and look at Morton, Edwards, Janneh etc as unsure any fit the criteria. Towler, Scott, Massengo, Benarous, Conway and Bell would all be under 21 by June 30th 2022 so would not count. Edited May 11, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.