Fonte Transfer Rumours

[Saint Garrett]

Said all summer he won't go, still can't see it.

[Chez]

can imagine saying at the signing of his new deal

 

"look, I will sign this £75,000 a week contract but let me tell you this, I am not fuking happy about it"

 

get back in the real world, Jose you ***t

 

What exactly is the point of offering him a new deal? To keep him happy?

[Chez]

probably for someone better

 

Maybe we will also do that, but on the other hand...

[Lets B Avenue]

What exactly is the point of offering him a new deal? To keep him happy?

 

I believe its what numerous idiots on here call "showing ambition".

[SaintRobbie]

I agree. Fonte and JRod leaving would surely be an indication that we have some pretty substantial inbound transfers afoot, as to not have very high level replacements for both lined up would be literally moronic.

 

Mmmmmm we said that when Mané, Wanyama and Pelle left.

 

Not replaced them yet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AR-10]

There has been NO bid from Manchester United or any other club for Jose Fonte at this point in time

and neither is there expected to be.

 

I realise there are 2 threads running so I'll inlcude this one here and that is I'm led to believe that the club have virtually completed one signing

and are in advanced stages on a 2nd, nothing I have seen suggests there will be 3 signings coming into the club.

 

Keep in mind, the transfer window is coming to an end and the usual paper trash /agent spin will be heightened.

[SuperSAINT]

There has been NO bid from Manchester United or any other club for Jose Fonte at this point in time

and neither is there expected to be.

 

I realise there are 2 threads running so I'll inlcude this one here and that is I'm led to believe that the club have virtually completed one signing

and are in advanced stages on a 2nd, nothing I have seen suggests there will be 3 signings coming into the club.

 

Keep in mind, the transfer window is coming to an end and the usual paper trash /agent spin will be heightened.

 

Cheers for the update AR-10.

 

Does there need to be a BID though? There's normally a long-winded unsettling period 1st isn't there?

 

"No.10" & a forward?

[shurlock]

There has been NO bid from Manchester United or any other club for Jose Fonte at this point in time

and neither is there expected to be.

 

I realise there are 2 threads running so I'll inlcude this one here and that is I'm led to believe that the club have virtually completed one signing

and are in advanced stages on a 2nd, nothing I have seen suggests there will be 3 signings coming into the club.

 

Keep in mind, the transfer window is coming to an end and the usual paper trash /agent spin will be heightened.

 

Cheers jack

[CB Fry]

Is AR-10 the new ITK king of the forum now? Because up to a fortnight ago I thought he was that spherical rolling robot thing in the new Star Wars film.

[angelman]

Cheers jack

 

You reckon? Or you know?

[SuperSAINT]

You reckon? Or you know?

 

#ITK_Watch is an on-going process.

[Batman]

Any new signing to get us wet around the willy?

[angelman]

Is AR-10 the new ITK king of the forum now? Because up to a fortnight ago I thought he was that spherical rolling robot thing in the new Star Wars film.

 

AR-10 Bushmaster is, I believe USA's best selling wannabe commando rifle.

[AR-10]

Cheers jack

 

You sir are a moron.

[S-Clarke]

You sir are a moron.

 

You've already won me over.

[MarkSFC]

There has been NO bid from Manchester United or any other club for Jose Fonte at this point in time

and neither is there expected to be.

 

I realise there are 2 threads running so I'll inlcude this one here and that is I'm led to believe that the club have virtually completed one signing

and are in advanced stages on a 2nd, nothing I have seen suggests there will be 3 signings coming into the club.

 

Keep in mind, the transfer window is coming to an end and the usual paper trash /agent spin will be heightened.

 

Can you mention the positions?!!!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[InvictaSaint]

You've already won me over.

 

[emoji122][emoji122][emoji122][emoji106][emoji106]

[John D]

You've just blown your gasket about a conversation that took place entirely in your head.

 

Just had to explain to the wife why I was laughing - spot on reply!

[Saint-Fred]

There has been NO bid from Manchester United or any other club for Jose Fonte at this point in time

and neither is there expected to be.

 

I realise there are 2 threads running so I'll inlcude this one here and that is I'm led to believe that the club have virtually completed one signing

and are in advanced stages on a 2nd, nothing I have seen suggests there will be 3 signings coming into the club.

 

Keep in mind, the transfer window is coming to an end and the usual paper trash /agent spin will be heightened.

 

Previously you said there was interest from Man Utd, what form was that interest registered if not a bid?

[Redslo]

Sorry but i dont agree, he is at his peak not past it, he was superb for portugal....or has he suddenly got bad in your eyes in one game..?

 

If he is at his peak then he has nowhere to go but down. And even if there were no other consideration, at his age he will take longer to recover from injuries and is more likely to suffer them. We should definitely keep him, but we should also sign another starting quality CB given all the games we have to play this year.

 

He's also younger than Mo Farah, who's done a lot more miles. Nowadays, central defenders are at their best in their early 30s, which is why Real Madrid have Pepe at the heart of their defence. You could argue that strikers need pace even more. Ibrahimovich is 35 this year and that didn't stop Mourinho signing him. Fonte has at least 2 more good seasons left in him and I can understand why Mourinho would like him to fill the role at Man United that Terry had at Chelsea. We sell most of the players we buy after 2 seasons, so it's unlikely a younger player would here last any longer.

 

I think Puel knows how important Fonte is for the team so he won't want him sold.

 

I think you will find that is not true. Most players we buy are still here after two years even though, in some cases, we wish they were not.

 

() indicate player still here.

 

2012-2013 buys lasted 4 (4) 3 0.5 3 (4) (4) (4)

2013-2014 buys lasted 2 3 1

2014-2015 buys lasted 2 (2) (2) (2) 2 (2) 2

2015-2016 buys lasted (1) (1) (1) 1 (1) (0.5) (1)

 

Will be a big loss if he does go. We are giving ourselves an awful lot to do in the last week. Genuine question, have we in the last two meltdown summers had to replace such a big player this close to the deadline?

 

VVD last summer meets the requirement. True, we had identified him much sooner.

 

If this was Man City etc, it would be reported as a clear out, for us it is a meltdown

 

EDIT: No idea why I quoted this.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/08/22/arsenal-suffer-another-transfer-setback-as-west-brom-demand-25m/

 

Jeremy Wilson saying Fonte's been told he has two choices, accept the pay rise or don't accept the pay rise and stay at the club until 2018 on his current salary.

 

And Wilson is the club's go to leak source for this kind of thing.

 

If this was Man City etc, it would be reported as a clear out, for us it is a meltdown

 

EDIT: No idea why this appeared again.

 

Mmmmmm we said that when Mané, Wanyama and Pelle left.

 

Not replaced them yet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think the official position would be that Austin replaced Pelle, Redmond replaced Mane, and Hojbjerg replaced Wanyama. The only one not replaced is Juanmi. I would agree that I would have liked to see someone else come in for Mane and have Redmond be a squad strengthening move, but it might still happen.

 

 

If this was Man City etc, it would be reported as a clear out, for us it is a meltdown

 

EDIT: See above.

 

Previously you said there was interest from Man Utd, what form was that interest registered if not a bid?

 

Maybe a phone call asking if we wanted to sell him. We said no convincingly so they didn't bother bidding. But who knows. Maybe it was an inquiry from an agent trying to stir up some business. Maybe it was a newspaper article written by someone the club knows has good inside contacts with Man U.

Edited 22 August, 2016 by Redslo

[Saint-Fred]

^ it wasn't a trick question I was just interested in knowing from an ITk how interest would be registered without a bid.

There is obviously something going on and I suspect agents etc talking in the background is common, as is leaks to the press but I wouldn't consider that registering an interest.

[Saint Albert]

Sun reporting that Man U won't bid on Fonte until they have cleared out some of their surplus players, such as Rojo. Ties in with AR-10's comment that no offer has been made.

[Saint-Fred]

If this was Man City etc, it would be reported as a clear out, for us it is a meltdown

 

Slight difference- Man City sell the players they don't want and buy players for a whole heap of extra cash, who on paper should be superior to those sold. We sell some of our best players and replace them with (at the time) inferior players who we hope to develop into players capable of progressing us as a team.

[SuperSAINT]

Sun reporting that Man U won't bid on Fonte until they have cleared out some of their surplus players, such as Rojo. Ties in with AR-10's comment that no offer has been made.

 

Fonte & Mourinho have the same agent so they could have terms agreed without even making an approach.

 

I'm sure there's mileage to run on this deal yet.

[Saint Albert]

That does seem to be the nature of things these days - big old Man U will sort things out between Fonte and Mendes and then approach little old Saints with a fait d'acomplis to rubber stamp the transfer, with the window waning towards its conclusion and little time left to find a suitable replacement for our captain. It's not as if we are dealing with a squad player here. Worth telling them to get stuffed for that reason.

[angelman]

Sun reporting that Man U won't bid on Fonte until they have cleared out some of their surplus players, such as Rojo. Ties in with AR-10's comment that no offer has been made.

 

Fonte & Mourinho have the same agent so they could have terms agreed without even making an approach.

 

I'm sure there's mileage to run on this deal yet.

 

This is the bit of football that I really hate.

 

There are various scenarios possibly in play. Utd might well want him, and there have certainly been enough noises in the press to suggest that there is something to them, yet no bid has been made. Are they just ****ing with us and rattling the tree to see what falls so that they can scoop things up on the cheap? Or is it agent play to get the most for a client by trying to call our bluff? Both perfectly understandable but hardly designed to endear themselves towards SFC. Or is there something else going on?

[petts]

This is the bit of football that I really hate.

 

There are various scenarios possibly in play. Utd might well want him, and there have certainly been enough noises in the press to suggest that there is something to them, yet no bid has been made. Are they just ****ing with us and rattling the tree to see what falls so that they can scoop things up on the cheap? Or is it agent play to get the most for a client by trying to call our bluff? Both perfectly understandable but hardly designed to endear themselves towards SFC. Or is there something else going on?

Or trying to destabilise an improving year on year team

 

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

[hutch]

What exactly is the point of offering him a new deal? To keep him happy?

Due to the FFP rules, what we spend on wages is much more important than what we spend on fees. Wage increases are strictly controlled year on year. If fees lead to losses, these can effectively be averaged over several years. To build for the future, which we're told is the current 5-year plan, we should be increasing our wage bill as much as possible every year.

 

2 seasons ago and deep into the transfer window Schneiderlin was told he had to stay. We had sold all we were going to early in the window. He went the following season early but for a good fee

 

Last season and deep into the transfer window Wanyama was told he had to stay as we had sold all we were going to early in the window. He went the following year but for a good fee.

 

This time I speculate Fonte will be met with the same response. However he is much older and may not have any interest to buy him next year. I predict he will reluctantly take up the increased wage offer. Unless of course we have a better centre back coming in..............

 

Our wage increases are limited by FFP to an increase of about £7m a year. But you can add profit from player trading to that.

 

Profit from player trading will be shown in the audited financial statements. What you find on http://www.howmuchisthatplayerworth.com doesn't count. The financial year ends on 30^th June, so it makes a huge difference selling or buying before or after that date. And don't confuse profit from player sales with cash flow, they are entirely different.

 

I wasn't surprised that we sold Wanyama and Mane a couple of days before the end of last year. And I won't be surprised if we buy replacements this year.

Edited 23 August, 2016 by hutch

[whelk]

Can one of the dossers who spend all day on here trawl through previous ITK posts and rate for accuracy? Guan and Kbilly are obviously ITK. AR, Goddard, this beefy fella not so sure how accurate.

[Whitey Grandad]

Due to the FFP rules, what we spend on wages is much more important than what we spend on fees. Wage increases are strictly controlled year on year. If fees lead to losses, these can effectively be averaged over several years. To build for the future, which we're told is the current 5-year plan, we should be increasing our wage bill as much as possible every year.

 

 

 

Our wage increases are limited by FFP to an increase of about £7m a year. But you can add profit from player trading to that.

 

Profit from player trading will be shown in the audited financial statements. What you find on http://www.howmuchisthatplayerworth.com doesn't count. The financial year ends on 30^th June, so it makes a huge difference selling or buying before or after that date. And don't confuse profit from player sales with cash flow, they are entirely different.

 

I wasn't surprised that we sold Wanyama and Mane a couple of days before the end of last year. And I won't be surprised if we buy replacements this year.

 

Ah yes. Last year's player profits on this year's purchases and wages. Thanks.

[Restark19]

Edit: wrong thread

[Donatello]

You've just blown your gasket about a conversation that took place entirely in your head.

 

[stevegrant]

Our wage increases are limited by FFP to an increase of about £7m a year. But you can add profit from player trading to that.

I'm not 100% sure that's correct - while obviously the profit from player trading is useful for FFP purposes because of the way transfer fees are accounted for, I don't think there's specific allowance for player trading profits to supplement the wage bill.

 

However, there absolutely is a specific allowance that enables any increase in commercial revenue from the previous year to be used entirely towards the wage bill if the club wishes. This season sees new commercial deals with Under Armour and Virgin Media - along with a load of other partnerships that are popping up every now and then - which has added north of £10m a year to the commercial revenue, which can ALL be lumped on wages if we want to.

[hutch]

I'm not 100% sure that's correct - while obviously the profit from player trading is useful for FFP purposes because of the way transfer fees are accounted for, I don't think there's specific allowance for player trading profits to supplement the wage bill.

 

However, there absolutely is a specific allowance that enables any increase in commercial revenue from the previous year to be used entirely towards the wage bill if the club wishes. This season sees new commercial deals with Under Armour and Virgin Media - along with a load of other partnerships that are popping up every now and then - which has added north of £10m a year to the commercial revenue, which can ALL be lumped on wages if we want to.

I've read it in several places recently. This quote is straight from the financialfairplay website...

 

Clubs will be able to increase their wage spend by £7m each season from 2016/17 to 2018/19 (an increase from the £4m a season during the current TV deal). Clubs can exceed this £7m cap if they generate increased revenue from commercial income, player trading and Match Day income.

[stevegrant]

I've read it in several places recently. This quote is straight from the financialfairplay website...

Ah, fair enough.

[Saint Pete]

This is the bit of football that I really hate.

 

There are various scenarios possibly in play. Utd might well want him, and there have certainly been enough noises in the press to suggest that there is something to them, yet no bid has been made. Are they just ****ing with us and rattling the tree to see what falls so that they can scoop things up on the cheap? Or is it agent play to get the most for a client by trying to call our bluff? Both perfectly understandable but hardly designed to endear themselves towards SFC. Or is there something else going on?

 

I don't get why any of that should matter to us though?

 

Fonte is our player, under contract, and if we don't want to sell him now, we don't have to, no matter what games the player, agents or other clubs want to play.

[Greenridge]

Looks like Stoke are going to sign Phil Jones which may be the start of CB musical chairs.

[farawaysaint]

I'm not 100% sure that's correct - while obviously the profit from player trading is useful for FFP purposes because of the way transfer fees are accounted for, I don't think there's specific allowance for player trading profits to supplement the wage bill.

However, there absolutely is a specific allowance that enables any increase in commercial revenue from the previous year to be used entirely towards the wage bill if the club wishes. This season sees new commercial deals with Under Armour and Virgin Media - along with a load of other partnerships that are popping up every now and then - which has added north of £10m a year to the commercial revenue, which can ALL be lumped on wages if we want to.

 

There was last time I checked Steve :\

[verlaine1979]

I've read it in several places recently. This quote is straight from the financialfairplay website...

 

Huh, so it sounds like we could boost wages by the £6/7m allowed in the rules by default, plus the extra £5m a year Virgin are paying above Veho (assuming the £1m/£6m figure is correct) plus anything up to an extra £8m from Under Armor (depending on how our self-produced shirt income was accounted for and whether the £8m per year figure reported is accurate), plus whatever proportion of our player sales income needed to be allocated to inbound salaries. On that basis, unless we agreed to pay JWP £200k a week in his new deal, it doesn't sound like wages should be a huge constraint this year.

[trousers]

we agreed to pay JWP £200k a week in his new deal

 

Source?

 

[Andy Durman]

Expect interest as teams get desperate

[angelman]

Expect interest as teams get desperate

 

The ever reliable Express: http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/703056/Arsenal-Transfer-News-Man-United-Southampton-Jose-Fonte

[Dangermouth]

Huh, so it sounds like we could boost wages by the £6/7m allowed in the rules by default, plus the extra £5m a year Virgin are paying above Veho (assuming the £1m/£6m figure is correct) plus anything up to an extra £8m from Under Armor (depending on how our self-produced shirt income was accounted for and whether the £8m per year figure reported is accurate), plus whatever proportion of our player sales income needed to be allocated to inbound salaries. On that basis, unless we agreed to pay JWP £200k a week in his new deal, it doesn't sound like wages should be a huge constraint this year.

 

Of its own wages isn't the thing that this is about. What it is about is growing the wage bill because as we all know the ability to pay more 'attracts' those committed types (Zlagba) (yes, it's a portmanteau) that we *might* want for the CL/EL games.

 

Anyway, is it not the case that there is extra cash available for JF in addition? Probably taken from the petty cash.

[verlaine1979]

Of its own wages isn't the thing that this is about. What it is about is growing the wage bill because as we all know the ability to pay more 'attracts' those committed types (Zlagba) (yes, it's a portmanteau) that we *might* want for the CL/EL games.

 

Anyway, is it not the case that there is extra cash available for JF in addition? Probably taken from the petty cash.

 

Sure, but there are quite a number of posters saying that we can't possibly bring anyone else in at the top level because we only have an additional £6m/7m in annual wages to dispense this year, most of which has already been taken up by the boosted contracts to VVD, Tadic, Long etc. If, as the above posts suggest, our wage bill can actually be boosted massively by additional commercial and player sales revenue, the FFP wage argument about why we aren't signing (for the sake of argument) someone like Benteke seems without foundation.

[Saint-Fred]

P

Sure, but there are quite a number of posters saying that we can't possibly bring anyone else in at the top level because we only have an additional £6m/7m in annual wages to dispense this year, most of which has already been taken up by the boosted contracts to VVD, Tadic, Long etc. If, as the above posts suggest, our wage bill can actually be boosted massively by additional commercial and player sales revenue, the FFP wage argument about why we aren't signing (for the sake of argument) someone like Benteke seems without foundation.

 

Surely if last years wage bill of 70% of turnover included exceptional payments to get rid of Osvaldo ...then we can now pay 7m on top of that? so we have the money we paid to get rid of Osvaldo plus an extra 7m to play with? (Plus those leaving etc) so with regard to FFP it can't be much of a restriction especially as we already had the 9th highest wage bill.

[verlaine1979]

P

 

Surely if last years wage bill of 70% of turnover included exceptional payments to get rid of Osvaldo ...then we can now pay 7m on top of that? so we have the money we paid to get rid of Osvaldo plus an extra 7m to play with? (Plus those leaving etc) so with regard to FFP it can't be much of a restriction especially as we already had the 9th highest wage bill.

 

Sounds reasonable - whichever way you cut it, I can't see how wage restrictions under FFP would be an issue for us right now. If anything, it sounds like we have a great opportunity to push our wage ceiling higher so that we aren't held back in future seasons where we don't have such an obvious step up in commercial and player-sale revenue.

[VectisSaint]

Sure, but there are quite a number of posters saying that we can't possibly bring anyone else in at the top level because we only have an additional £6m/7m in annual wages to dispense this year, most of which has already been taken up by the boosted contracts to VVD, Tadic, Long etc. If, as the above posts suggest, our wage bill can actually be boosted massively by additional commercial and player sales revenue, the FFP wage argument about why we aren't signing (for the sake of argument) someone like Benteke seems without foundation.

I don't agree with the posters who say we only have 6/7m extra anyway. OK, so we have given increases to some players, but we have sold/released at least 8 players, including some top earners (Vic, Pelle, Mane, Ramirez), and only replaced them with 4, at least two of which are going to be relatively low earners (Pied and McCarthy). If our wage bill has gone up or even stayed the same as last season with those changes then there is something drastically wrong.

[JRM]

Tonight's Evening Standard back page;

 

ARSENAL COOL ON FONTE AS HE EYES MOVE TO OLD TRAFFORD

 

James Olley - chief football correspondent

 

Arsenal are unlikely to pursue their interest in Southampton defender Jose Fonte, with the club convinced he is set to join Manchester United. Blah blah goes on to say "the 32 year old has been offered a new contract but he is believed to be keen on a move to Old Trafford. All parties believe that the deal will happen before next Wednesday deadline. "

[SuperSAINT]

From Sam Wallace's piece on Arsenal's hunt for a centre-back:

 

"Southampton have had no contact over their captain Jose Fonte and would only entertain an exceptional bid so close to the end of the window. Wenger’s chief target remains the German Shkodran Mustafi whom they rate at £25 million but Valencia want considerably more."

 

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/08/23/man-utd-tell-phil-jones-his-future-is-at-old-trafford-as-arsenal/

[Redslo]

I've read it in several places recently. This quote is straight from the financialfairplay website...

 

European TV income can also increase allowable wage bill.