Viktor Johansson - gone to Stoke

[Ambitious]

24 minutes ago, InstaRam said:

Stoke it seems so can write this rumour off.

Stoke will happily chuck £20-30k wages at players and can subsidise it through B365 sponsorship. 

As a rule, any time they’re at the table for a player just walk away. 

[Caerphilly Ram]

Seems he is indeed off to Stoke

 

[Ambitious]

A good move for him and any championship player to be fair - no team without parachute payments is in a better position. 

All that being said, the rate of flops they seem to recruit and despite the riches afforded to them means they can’t seem to stay out of the bottom half. It’s created a toxic, disinterested fanbase who are often at odds with their team. The money is good, but not many players have a good word to say about the club. 

[Ghost of Clough]

42 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

A good move for him and any championship player to be fair - no team without parachute payments is in a better position. 

Other than Boro and Bristol City having a higher wage bill in the last set of accounts. There's also West Brom, who still had parachute payments in their last released set of accounts, so it's difficult to judge how much they've since reduced their wage bill.

[Rich3478]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Other than Boro and Bristol City having a higher wage bill in the last set of accounts. There's also West Brom, who still had parachute payments in their last released set of accounts, so it's difficult to judge how much they've since reduced their wage bill.

Don’t think stoke can spend what they like now, years of poor decisions have made manoeuvring difficult financially. They sack a manager a season, then have about ten unwanted players to keep paying.

Souttar was sold to Leicester 18 months ago for a good fee and that gave them room with ffp. They’re not in a good position though. Coates family will always fund the club unlike Mel, but this is reason they never trouble the top half and unlikely to do so anytime soon

[Ambitious]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Other than Boro and Bristol City having a higher wage bill in the last set of accounts. There's also West Brom, who still had parachute payments in their last released set of accounts, so it's difficult to judge how much they've since reduced their wage bill.

They can pump money through b365, though, which is obviously how they’re able to bypass any P&S - and rightfully so IMO. 

£31.1m turnover in their last accounts which £10.6m came from though sponsorship - ours was £1.4m for comparative figures.

They did curtail spending a reduce the wage bill, but by all accounts look to be investing heavily this summer in a fresh go at a run to the Premier League. 

[Crewton]

11 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

They can pump money through b365, though, which is obviously how they’re able to bypass any P&S - and rightfully so IMO. 

£31.1m turnover in their last accounts which £10.6m came from though sponsorship - ours was £1.4m for comparative figures.

They did curtail spending a reduce the wage bill, but by all accounts look to be investing heavily this summer in a fresh go at a run to the Premier League. 

Why?

[TomTom92]

7 hours ago, Crewton said:

Why?

To be fair what’s the issue with an owner splashing the cash if he so desires? 
 
Of course if you got a nut case they could leave you in the lurch and cripple you. But all this FFP lark nowadays is nonsense and just stops clubs getting lucky and actually living the dream. 
 
@Ambitious may have other reasons though.

[Crewton]

1 minute ago, TomTom92 said:

To be fair what’s the issue with an owner splashing the cash if he so desires? 
 
Of course if you got a nut case they could leave you in the lurch and cripple you. But all this FFP lark nowadays is nonsense and just stops clubs getting lucky and actually living the dream. 
 
@Ambitious may have other reasons though.

So now we've been roundly screwed by it, you want to give clubs who are dodging FFP restrictions by using yet another variation of the "cunning plan" ruse a free pass?

There's something to be said for allowing owners to inject as much cash as they like into a business as equity, and ban loans for any purpose other than infrastructure projects, but anyone breaking existing rules deserve exactly what we got (they won't though).

 

[TomTom92]

2 minutes ago, Crewton said:

So now we've been roundly screwed by it, you want to give clubs who are dodging FFP restrictions by using yet another variation of the "cunning plan" ruse a free pass?

There's something to be said for allowing owners to inject as much cash as they like into a business as equity, and ban loans for any purpose other than infrastructure projects, but anyone breaking existing rules deserve exactly what we got (they won't though).

 

Oh no, anyone even slightly misstepping I want to see in the mud. 
 
But as a general opinion I think FFP should be scrapped and if a club gets lucky with owners then good for them.

Therefore in some respects the Coates and the Gibson’s should be praised because they haven’t shafted their clubs like Mel did too us.

[Crewton]

19 minutes ago, TomTom92 said:

Oh no, anyone even slightly misstepping I want to see in the mud. 
 
But as a general opinion I think FFP should be scrapped and if a club gets lucky with owners then good for them.

Therefore in some respects the Coates and the Gibson’s should be praised because they haven’t shafted their clubs like Mel did too us.

Yet.

[Foreveram]

1 hour ago, TomTom92 said:

Oh no, anyone even slightly misstepping I want to see in the mud. 
 
But as a general opinion I think FFP should be scrapped and if a club gets lucky with owners then good for them.

Therefore in some respects the Coates and the Gibson’s should be praised because they haven’t shafted their clubs like Mel did too us.

 

54 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Yet.

That’s the thing, it’s still debt owed by the club to the owner, what happens if the owner says I’ve had enough and I want my money back.

Stoke owe £122 million to the owner even after they wrote off £120 million of debt.

Middlesbrough owe the gibbon £159 million and they recently took out a bank loan for the first time.

[Ambitious]

18 hours ago, Crewton said:

Why?

Because it’s revenue for the club, not tied to any ‘debt’ in any sense of the word. I guess it’s restricted to ‘fair market value’ loosely and they can’t just throw £60m per annum in. 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: people only really focus on the team spending money when it comes to transfers. When, in the majority of the cases, the biggest beneficiaries are the team receiving said money for their player. Watford and Peterborough got more benefit out of Mel’s money than we ever did, for example.

The EPL and EFL could really help the pyramid by making transfer fees between their clubs excluded from P&S regulation IMO. 

[Srg]

Can’t say I recall watching this guy before, but the general consensus from fans of teams he has played for is he’s pretty horrific with the ball at his feet. 15 years ago that’s no issue, but that’s always going to cap your value/market in the modern game. 

[Crewton]

2 hours ago, Ambitious said:

Because it’s revenue for the club, not tied to any ‘debt’ in any sense of the word. I guess it’s restricted to ‘fair market value’ loosely and they can’t just throw £60m per annum in. 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: people only really focus on the team spending money when it comes to transfers. When, in the majority of the cases, the biggest beneficiaries are the team receiving said money for their player. Watford and Peterborough got more benefit out of Mel’s money than we ever did, for example.

The EPL and EFL could really help the pyramid by making transfer fees between their clubs excluded from P&S regulation IMO. 

'Fair Market Value' is a hot potato though. There's also the moral angle regarding sponsorship by betting companies. It's currently legal, but should it be?

I don't get the point about transfer fees though. The restrictions are there to prevent teams gaining an unfair advantage by scooping up all of the talent, something that Stoke were engaging in when they first got relegated. By exploiting loopholes, they've so far avoided being punished for overspending and I don't see the EFL pursuing them with the same vigor that they applied to us, which doesn't seem right.

[Ambitious]

17 minutes ago, Crewton said:

'Fair Market Value' is a hot potato though. There's also the moral angle regarding sponsorship by betting companies. It's currently legal, but should it be?

I don't get the point about transfer fees though. The restrictions are there to prevent teams gaining an unfair advantage by scooping up all of the talent, something that Stoke were engaging in when they first got relegated. By exploiting loopholes, they've so far avoided being punished for overspending and I don't see the EFL pursuing them with the same vigor that they applied to us, which doesn't seem right.

Stoke are a great example of why transfer fees between English clubs shouldn’t be regulated. They spent a fortune signing bad players, so the clubs selling those players benefited far more than they ever did. 

Let’s take Jack Marriott for example: Peterborough signed him for a nominal fee, he played one season and we signed him for around £2.5m, with add-ons I think it could’ve even reached £4m. They used that money and reinvested it in Ivan Toney, Matt Godden, Siriki Dembele among others and still have well over £1m profit. 

Removing our ability to spend that £2.5m also removes their ability to reinvest. They turned that nominal signing of Jack Marriott into £10m plus through reinvesting, so really they were the comfortable winners despite us being seen as ‘hoovering up the talent’. 

[Crewton]

47 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

Stoke are a great example of why transfer fees between English clubs shouldn’t be regulated. They spent a fortune signing bad players, so the clubs selling those players benefited far more than they ever did. 

Let’s take Jack Marriott for example: Peterborough signed him for a nominal fee, he played one season and we signed him for around £2.5m, with add-ons I think it could’ve even reached £4m. They used that money and reinvested it in Ivan Toney, Matt Godden, Siriki Dembele among others and still have well over £1m profit. 

Removing our ability to spend that £2.5m also removes their ability to reinvest. They turned that nominal signing of Jack Marriott into £10m plus through reinvesting, so really they were the comfortable winners despite us being seen as ‘hoovering up the talent’. 

Sorry, but that's warped thinking that absolutely no-one applied to our situation. Bournemouth, Leicester, QPR, Wolves, Forest - all of them spent more money on buying players than FFP permitted but they avoided effective sanctions by using those players to get promoted. Also, allot of transfer spending is with foreign clubs, which doesn't benefit EFL clubs at all. Your proposition makes no financial sense at all.

[Ambitious]

Just now, Crewton said:

Sorry, but that's warped thinking that absolutely no-one applied to our situation. Bournemouth, Leicester, QPR, Wolves, Forest - all of them spent more money on buying players than FFP permitted but they avoided effective sanctions by using those players to get promoted. Also, allot of transfer spending is with foreign clubs, which doesn't benefit EFL clubs at all. Your proposition makes no financial sense at all.

My proposition is only between English clubs. Transactions between English and Foreign clubs would be applied to different rules. 

The transfer window has stagnated due to financial restrictions, but I feel people are missing the point that restrictions on transfer fees actually impact the selling clubs arguably more than the buying clubs as it means there are less clubs buying players and many have to sell to buy. It also means that buying clubs actually have leverage to say ‘we can’t pay x amount because of P&S’ so there is a barrier in place to not get optimal market value. 

[Crewton]

2 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

My proposition is only between English clubs. Transactions between English and Foreign clubs would be applied to different rules. 

The transfer window has stagnated due to financial restrictions, but I feel people are missing the point that restrictions on transfer fees actually impact the selling clubs arguably more than the buying clubs as it means there are less clubs buying players and many have to sell to buy. It also means that buying clubs actually have leverage to say ‘we can’t pay x amount because of P&S’ so there is a barrier in place to not get optimal market value. 

This just seems to be a recipe for even more club administrations. 

[Ambitious]

10 minutes ago, Crewton said:

This just seems to be a recipe for even more club administrations. 

How? A transaction is two ways so when one club spends another receives. It creates a more active, thriving transfer market. 

Wages need to be regulated, of course, but where one UK business is purchasing an intangible asset from another, theoretically there is no sporting advantage as one has gained an asset, but another monetary value.