0wl18

8m for Luiz or 5m for Hector with 12 month left, they need a reality check.

They've been courting him a while, had numerous bids rejected at the start of the window so not a panic buy. Very impressive last year in Spain.

Aarons has the sort of pace that genuinely frightens teams. Everytime he got the ball last season the opposition panicked. He could be an absolute gem given a full season in the Championship.

Logistics aren't exactly brilliant are they? A deal needs to be agreed, medical and personal terms sorted by 5pm tomorrow and the player is currently in Croatia.

McKenna could be the next Webster. 7m could easily be 20m next summer. It's about investing in the right player at the right time. He's very well regarded north of the border.

I don't really know what Palace value him at! Apparently they turned down a bid of 70m + Tosun and McCarthy from Everton. McCarthy has since joined Palace. Id imagine Everton would be his destination if anywhere. Saw a graphic of his stats earlier and, he's been mesmeric in the Premier League for a while!

Jacob Murphy reminds you have Raheem Sterling? Do you watch much Premier league football? Sterling is the polar opposite of what you're describing. He's robust, uses his centre of gravity well and rides plenty of tackles when he should go down. He's had 2 phenomenal seasons now and, is arguably the first name on the Man City team sheet. You don't get 25 goals from out wide if you're always on the floor. Murphy would be a good signing for us, gives us options out wide in both flanks.

If Coleman gets it the DC really is a bit daft. He gets the fans back in side, great kit launch, gave Ashley the middle finger, gets us out of the embargo, pre season has shaped up pretty well. Coleman would kill that momentum.

I think you're getting your wires crossed with what you believe to be morally right and, what the rules actually state. In your argument you mention it would be wrong to fetch more than 26m forward why? Would it be wrong to fetch profits forward? Clubs are also allowed to make a profit. The rules are as clear as day. You aren't permitted to make losses of more than 39m in a rolling 3 year period, if you do, you're sanctioned. If you make a huge loss, that's your own problem, you need to post a profit to rectify this, that's exactly the reason we've sold our ground along with the likes of Derby. Your point about double punishment again, isn't entirely true, if a team was punished in 2018, they will still be punished in 2019 if the previous three years losses equate to more than 39m. I'll say it again, teams are allowed to post a profit to counter previous years losses. I completely agree with you with regards to it being a complete snd utter shambles. It definitely doesn't create a level playing field and, is absolutely flawed but, it is what it is and, we have to abide by that. Hopefully we'll be a lot wiser in the coming years and approach it from a more sustainable point of view like Derby. They're comercially fantastic but, they have great relationships with the top clubs, buy players at the right age at the right price and, sell them at the right time. They have a business model, we're only just finding our feet. Apologies for posting in this thread, It's rude to ignore someone, it will be my last post on this subject.

So how come we didn't take a fine and, a points deduction then start a fresh? Surely thats much easier than selling our ground to avoid such sanctions. I mean we could have 12 points deducted, then spend another 39m the following season, thats how it works right?

Exactly 2 thirds, which means in the final third they have every opportunity to post a profit and meet FFP requirements, if they don't they get sanctioned.

You've already been proven wrong. We were placed under an embargo last year. We were then placed under one this year for the same reason because, the figures are taken in a rolling 3 year basis. It really isn't that hard to comprehend.

So data from 2014/15 - 2016/17 is the same as data from 2015/16 - 2017/18? Clearly not. The parameters change every year. As for the 45 million loss situation, in the 3rd year, they'd effectively be in a position where they'd have to asset strip and post a profit or, take a punishment. The same scenario would occur the year after. The rules clearly state a 39m loss over a 3 year period, if you lose 45m in a year, you're showing a blatant disregard for the rules. It isn't complicated.

You're wrong. If this was the case then everybody would throw the kitchen sink at it for 3 years, suck up a punishment, then go again. It's a rolling 3 year period, regardless of any punishment handed out.

Is there another internet forum as bipolar as Owlstalk?! He's free He's a good age He's quick He's versatile He's spoken highly of by previous clubs fans The pros far outweigh the cons but lets have a moan anyway!