Jump to content

Summer Transfer Window 2023

FarehamSaintJames

By FarehamSaintJames,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

miserableoldgit

miserableoldgit

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, manji said:

TBF Bluchers Hussars won Waterloo.

No they didn't. They were part of the Allied army led by Wellington. They were driven off by the French at Ligny and Wellington held the field for most of the day at Waterloo. They managed to avoid Grouchy's attempts  to find them and managed to arrive on the battlefield toward the end of the day and it tipped the balance in the Allies favour. It was an Allied victory.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toadhall Saint

Toadhall Saint

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, miserableoldgit said:

No they didn't. They were part of the Allied army led by Wellington. They were driven off by the French at Ligny and Wellington held the field for most of the day at Waterloo. They managed to avoid Grouchy's attempts  to find them and managed to arrive on the battlefield toward the end of the day and it tipped the balance in the Allies favour. It was an Allied victory.

Says Sharpe

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JxgrSaint

JxgrSaint

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, miserableoldgit said:

No they didn't. They were part of the Allied army led by Wellington. They were driven off by the French at Ligny and Wellington held the field for most of the day at Waterloo. They managed to avoid Grouchy's attempts  to find them and managed to arrive on the battlefield toward the end of the day and it tipped the balance in the Allies favour. It was an Allied victory.

Enjoying trying to figure out how this can possibly relate to our transfer business on the previous few pages?

Dance Party GIF by RTS

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toussaint

Toussaint

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, miserableoldgit said:

It is more interesting than what is actually happening on the transfer front...

I thought this would be the week, still time but I expected more activity than this. Which isn’t necessarily a problem as the club are probably keeping a tight lid on everything, but it’s frustrating for us.

Edited by Toussaint
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, northam soul said:

Didn’t Wilcox say at the Fans forum that you can’t buy a player for 20m one season and sell him for 5m the next.

I know its related to asset depreciation and profit/loss accounts, but I really struggle to get my head around this. Isn't cash flow what really matters? Sell for £5m and you have £5m more in your bank account to spend. You also have less outgoings in terms of wages, so again, more actual money to spend. Keep Onuachu and you can depreciate his asset value from £18m to £0m (or whatever) over the course of his contract, sure, but if he is a drain on cash in terms wages (and doesn't offer any benefit i.e. he is not playing games for us), is he really an asset and actually in real life terms more of a liability/debt in terms of having to pay him wages in the future?

Not selling him makes the end of year accounts look better, as you have all these `assets', but isn't having more hard cash that can be used to buy an actual asset more sense - and doing it sooner rather than later also a good idea?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
miserableoldgit

miserableoldgit

Posted
Posted
Just now, Toussaint said:

I thought this would be the week, still time but I expect more activity than this. Which isn’t necessarily a problem as the club are probably keeping a tight lid on everything, but it’s frustrating for us.

I feel reasonably confident that they will get what we need.......I just hate when things are left to the last minute of the TW. Wish things were moving quicker.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, JxgrSaint said:

Enjoying trying to figure out how this can possibly relate to our transfer business on the previous few pages?

Dance Party GIF by RTS

I think it is a tenuous link that at Waterloo Max Aarons boarded a train bound for Southampton, unfortunately he didnt get off there and went on to Bournemouth 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, miserableoldgit said:

I feel reasonably confident that they will get what we need.......I just hate when things are left to the last minute of the TW. Wish things were moving quicker.

Likewise, but missing out on Gapko last summer is still on my mind. To be honest, I've never really worried about `missing out' on players before. What will be will be. I tend to worry more about those we have signed. Why have they joined us rather than someone else better/bigger? The Adam Armstrong move once one such incident. Why didn't anyone else fancy him?

I guess this is another reason why I like the `out of the blue, leftfield foreigner', signed due to some brilliant scouting, inside knowledge or contact etc. A Pahars, Schneiderlin, Mane...maybe this Kerber fella? Less chance everyone has looked at them and said, nah, not good enough, and more chance that they have missed him and we have got ourselves a gem.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

Pretty much the only TV series they didnt kill Sean Bean off in. He disappeared in World on Fire. 

wish they had killed him off in Ronin. Proper shite cameo in that film IMO. The less said about `When Saturday Comes' the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Atlanta Saint

Atlanta Saint

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, macca155 said:

You miss my point, I am being realistic. He can clearly score goals but in a different system, definitely not part of Martin's plans obviously. However if the club can't sell him or loan him out then Martin will have no choice but to use him, if injuries strike.

There ain't no Clearly in it, I don't think he knows where the goal even is from what I've seen of him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Fan CaM

Saint Fan CaM

Posted
Posted
On 22/08/2023 at 14:37, Chez said:

Not watched any of the games live due to a roadtrip in the southern states of america, so, no, hence me asking. 

I hate conceding those type of goals (overplaying at the back), but I fully expect to see it happen every now and then. It will hurt, but if the possession football is good to watch and we get results I (we) will learn to live with it.

One side question. Have we mixed our passes up a little or has everything been short? 

 

To answer your question, yes we have started mixing up our passes more which let’s be honest is a big positive, although the offset to this is more tendency to pass out from the back, which sometimes provides a high pressing team with an opportunity to overrun our position and score (usually against the run of play).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
macca155

macca155

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Atlanta Saint said:

There ain't no Clearly in it, I don't think he knows where the goal even is from what I've seen of him.

 

19 goals for Genk says different. Probably a player in there somewhere but we've hardly had chance to see it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mitch01

mitch01

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, woodsaint1 said:

18/19m for Archer 😮 yes he scored 11 in 20 for Boro last season, but that is pretty expensive for somebody unproven at PL level. Che for 15m would be a bargain

Sounds quite a bit like Rhian Brewster to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wild-saint

wild-saint

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, macca155 said:

19 goals for Genk says different. Probably a player in there somewhere but we've hardly had chance to see it.

Im not sure his goal scoring ability is in question, for me its more his touch and mobility that is lacking at this level. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Atlanta Saint

Atlanta Saint

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, macca155 said:

19 goals for Genk says different. Probably a player in there somewhere but we've hardly had chance to see it.

I hope you're right, But we haven't seen him anywhere near the first team this season. RM probably knows if there is a player in there somewhere.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dirkdiggler

Dirkdiggler

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Chez said:

Likewise, but missing out on Gapko last summer is still on my mind. To be honest, I've never really worried about `missing out' on players before. What will be will be. I tend to worry more about those we have signed. Why have they joined us rather than someone else better/bigger? The Adam Armstrong move once one such incident. Why didn't anyone else fancy him?

I guess this is another reason why I like the `out of the blue, leftfield foreigner', signed due to some brilliant scouting, inside knowledge or contact etc. A Pahars, Schneiderlin, Mane...maybe this Kerber fella? Less chance everyone has looked at them and said, nah, not good enough, and more chance that they have missed him and we have got ourselves a gem.

 

Gap ko was never going to sign for us anyone who think he was is delusional 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scottie

Scottie

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Chez said:

I know its related to asset depreciation and profit/loss accounts, but I really struggle to get my head around this. Isn't cash flow what really matters? Sell for £5m and you have £5m more in your bank account to spend. You also have less outgoings in terms of wages, so again, more actual money to spend. Keep Onuachu and you can depreciate his asset value from £18m to £0m (or whatever) over the course of his contract, sure, but if he is a drain on cash in terms wages (and doesn't offer any benefit i.e. he is not playing games for us), is he really an asset and actually in real life terms more of a liability/debt in terms of having to pay him wages in the future?

Not selling him makes the end of year accounts look better, as you have all these `assets', but isn't having more hard cash that can be used to buy an actual asset more sense - and doing it sooner rather than later also a good idea?

 

 

The answer is because the fair play rules are garbage. They are based on a balance sheet/P&L view of the world rather than cash. So whilst it's obvious we should sell him cheaply to get his wages off the bill it would count against us for fair play rules.

If we brought him for c. £18m then his current book value will be around £15m (amortised half a year of a 3.5 year contract). If we sell him for £5m then we will have to book a £10m loss in this years accounts. We would then save his wages (say £2m a year) but would still lose £8m from a fair play perspective.

Of course we aren't really losing £8m as we already lost that when we brought him, it's all due to the dodgy accounting rules and fair play rules.

If we are sailing close to the wind on fair play then selling Onuchu for a £8m loss could potentially mean having to sell another player to cover the loss.

 

The short answer would have been football accounts make no sense!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ashby Saint

Ashby Saint

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Scottie said:

The answer is because the fair play rules are garbage. They are based on a balance sheet/P&L view of the world rather than cash. So whilst it's obvious we should sell him cheaply to get his wages off the bill it would count against us for fair play rules.

If we brought him for c. £18m then his current book value will be around £15m (amortised half a year of a 3.5 year contract). If we sell him for £5m then we will have to book a £10m loss in this years accounts. We would then save his wages (say £2m a year) but would still lose £8m from a fair play perspective.

Of course we aren't really losing £8m as we already lost that when we brought him, it's all due to the dodgy accounting rules and fair play rules.

If we are sailing close to the wind on fair play then selling Onuchu for a £8m loss could potentially mean having to sell another player to cover the loss.

 

The short answer would have been football accounts make no sense!

Really interesting, thanks.  So, how would a swap deal work (as has been suggested in some media reports)?  Would the values of the players involved have to be assumed based on some common metric for market value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gallaghert366@yahoo.com

gallaghert366@yahoo.com

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, miserableoldgit said:

No they didn't. They were part of the Allied army led by Wellington. They were driven off by the French at Ligny and Wellington held the field for most of the day at Waterloo. They managed to avoid Grouchy's attempts  to find them and managed to arrive on the battlefield toward the end of the day and it tipped the balance in the Allies favour. It was an Allied victory.

Bad weather stalled Napoleon allowing Wellington to be assisted by Buchar.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint86

Saint86

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, miserableoldgit said:

No they didn't. They were part of the Allied army led by Wellington. They were driven off by the French at Ligny and Wellington held the field for most of the day at Waterloo. They managed to avoid Grouchy's attempts  to find them and managed to arrive on the battlefield toward the end of the day and it tipped the balance in the Allies favour. It was an Allied victory.

Thank you, i'm glad someone said this. Never understand why people feel the need to undermine the role of Wellington and the predominately Anglo (and dutch) army at Waterloo. People forget that Blucher was first routed by Napoleon who succeeded in splitting the allied armies before they could join against him, he then turned on Wellington who had held out against the French (i think under Grouchy but CBA to google) whilst the Prussians withdrew, before retreating to waterloo and making his stand against Napoleon (and the bulk of the French army/artillery). He held long enough to allow some of Blucher's forces to get past Grouchy and arrive late in the battle to complete what was an allied rout of Napoleon. Blucher didn't win that battle, the allied forces did, neither of them would have done it alone. And most of wellington's troops were not German/Prussian (although some were) as Badger claimed. The reality is that without Wellington at Waterloo it would have been a very different world history we'd be learning about today - he was arguably the greatest general of that time period, and certainly the best defensive tactician - shame we can't get him on set pieces really.

Edited by Saint86
  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Midlandsaint

Midlandsaint

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Thank you, i'm glad someone said this. Never understand why people feel the need to undermine the role of Wellington and the predominately Anglo (and dutch) army at Waterloo. People forget that Blucher was first routed by Napoleon who succeeded in splitting the allied armies before they could join against him, he then turned on Wellington who had held out against the French (i think under Grouchy but CBA to google) whilst the Prussians withdrew, before retreating to waterloo and making his stand against Napoleon (and the bulk of the French army/artillery). He held long enough to allow some of Blucher's forces to get past Grouchy and arrive late in the battle to complete what was an allied rout of Napoleon. Blucher didn't win that battle, the allied forced did, neither of them would have done it alone. And most of wellington's troops were not German/Prussian (although some were) as Badger claimed. The reality is that without Wellington at Waterloo it would have been a very different world history we'd be learning about today - he was arguably the greatest general of that time period, and certainly the best defensive tactician - shame we can't get him on set pieces really.

Fk me this is a transfer thread, not a dkswinging on who knows more useless history thread

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Scottie said:

The answer is because the fair play rules are garbage. They are based on a balance sheet/P&L view of the world rather than cash. So whilst it's obvious we should sell him cheaply to get his wages off the bill it would count against us for fair play rules.

If we brought him for c. £18m then his current book value will be around £15m (amortised half a year of a 3.5 year contract). If we sell him for £5m then we will have to book a £10m loss in this years accounts. We would then save his wages (say £2m a year) but would still lose £8m from a fair play perspective.

Of course we aren't really losing £8m as we already lost that when we brought him, it's all due to the dodgy accounting rules and fair play rules.

If we are sailing close to the wind on fair play then selling Onuchu for a £8m loss could potentially mean having to sell another player to cover the loss.

 

The short answer would have been football accounts make no sense!

Cheers. That makes sense (sort of). I forgot about FFP and also the EFL's own rules about maximum losses over 3 year periods. 

I really hope we can do a deal with Genk. I am sure Onuachu does too. Must be a bloody nightmare thinking you have achieved your dream only for it to turn out like this.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Streaky said:

Any chance you can take this napoleon dynamite bullshit somewhere else thanks.

did a customary google and there is a Lessinel Napoleon who plays football in Haiti, or at least he did in 2018. I wonder if Mobrey's scouting travel plans extends that far?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Streaky

Streaky

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, gallaghert366@yahoo.com said:

🤣  How much time did you spend in the corner at school wearing a pointed hat.

None I was too busy beating up little nerds who spent all there time playing dungeons and dragons and reading about the battle of Waterloo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

And most of wellington's troops were not German/Prussian (although some were) as Badger claimed.

I demand the right of reply:

I said that "much" of Wellington's army was German. He had 24000 British, 17000 Dutch, and 26000 German troops on the field of Waterloo. He had a few more British cavalry regiments that were guarding his communications and supply routes to the coast, that were not engaged in the battle. He also would not have fought if Blucher had not promised to march to join him, despite his defeat at Ligny, and his army was entirely German.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Streaky said:

None I was too busy beating up little nerds who spent all there time playing dungeons and dragons and reading about the battle of Waterloo.

If you had read a bit more about Waterloo you would have discovered what always happens to bullies in the end.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...