TRANSFER NEWS: #SWFC ‘have made an approach’ for fast-emerging Sunderland talent

[Walt]

7 minutes ago, striker said:

From memory I think the wording was to maintain investment, in other words to avoid a firesale of our prized assets? 

 

That's how I interpreted  it anyway.

 

Suspect this summer will see a balancing of balancing the books in terms of tny transfer fees paid. 

I quoted questions 11 nd 12 further up mate.

12. “Extend our ongoing strategy geared towards promotion...”

That reads only one way to me. 

Personally I’ve no problems whatsoever with selling players, any player if it allows us to reinvest and make the team stronger.

 

[mogbad]

The only way DC can fund further sizeable transfers without selling players is to bring in a partner/investor to the club. In other words create "x" number of shares in the club which the partner/investor buys therefore reducing the debt.

[Southie_Owl]

6 minutes ago, mogbad said:

The only way DC can fund further sizeable transfers without selling players is to bring in a partner/investor to the club. In other words create "x" number of shares in the club which the partner/investor buys therefore reducing the debt.

 

Supposidly there was the new Asian investor at the game on Saturday. Or was it Obi Mikel 

[striker]

59 minutes ago, Walt said:

I quoted questions 11 nd 12 further up mate.

12. “Extend our ongoing strategy geared towards promotion...”

That reads only one way to me. 

Personally I’ve no problems whatsoever with selling players, any player if it allows us to reinvest and make the team stronger.

 

Be interesting to see how this plays out in the summer. 

[Buxtongent]

Whilst not being a giant, I have never felt particularly 'small, and in my youth was quite a fair 'jump in the air 'bloke, having played in goal regularly and not being overawed by 6'6" forwards. Where on earth do people get the idea that Honeyman is a 'midget' in the way that Bannan is (No offence meant to anyone) The chap is officially 1.79metres (5feet 10inches). Whilst this does not make him a giant, he is a good 4inches taller than Bannan. I am using Bannan as a comparison only. A medium height person who can stamp his authority on games, surely. fast , mobile and able to score f necessary, which he has shown on at least two occasions this season, against no less than Sheff. Wed.  FF is no giant, but when he sets his stall out he can out govern any of the defence. The physical height is not the measure of the man, but how he can influence the game.Larger men can often be outdone by the average size man  It's not his physical size, but his desire to win that want from a player.

[ChinaOwl]

2 minutes ago, Buxtongent said:

Whilst not being a giant, I have never felt particularly 'small, and in my youth was quite a fair 'jump in the air 'bloke, having played in goal regularly and not being overawed by 6'6" forwards. Where on earth do people get the idea that Honeyman is a 'midget' in the way that Bannan is (No offence meant to anyone) The chap is officially 1.79metres (5feet 10inches). Whilst this does not make him a giant, he is a good 4inches taller than Bannan. I am using Bannan as a comparison only. A medium height person who can stamp his authority on games, surely. fast , mobile and able to score f necessary, which he has shown on at least two occasions this season, against no less than Sheff. Wed.  FF is no giant, but when he sets his stall out he can out govern any of the defence. The physical height is not the measure of the man, but how he can influence the game.Larger men can often be outdone by the average size man  It's not his physical size, but his desire to win that want from a player.

 

A long winded way of saying "It's not the size that matters - it's how you use it". 

[BC1867]

1 hour ago, Standidno said:

100% this

 

Can see potentially FF and Westwood and certainly Rhodes going. 

 

Rhodes? Who would be stupid enough to buy him?

[Guest Xxxxxxxxcxcc]

1 hour ago, BC1867 said:

 

Rhodes? Who would be stupid enough to buy him?

Possibly a team who think they've got the players and system to provide the service for a proven goal scorer.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Xxxxxxxxcxcc

[BC1867]

44 minutes ago, Xxxxxxxxcxcc said:

Possibly a team who think they've got the players and system to provide the service for a proven goal scorer.

 

A slightly disingenuous point, but well made.

 

[RichSheffWeds]

3 hours ago, Walt said:

Read the question in the survey. My eyes are wide open, please do not patronise me.

 

I did laugh - tells me not to patronise and then asked if I read the question.

 

So you think because we are willing to support current pricing etc that this means we don't have a FFP problem?

 

From memory, in the last accounts we lost circa £20m which will have included income from ticket sales etc.

 

That is not a sustainable position. Doesn't matter what the survey said, common sense tells you we need some other form of income in quickly (stadium name rights, increased level of sponsorship, more commercial income etc) or we are in a financial mess - no matter what we paid for tickets as fans.

 

Logically we will be looking for Bosman frees this summer and probably offload a least one or two big earners, hopefully for some ££££ to get us out of the mire.

[Tamworthowl]

3 hours ago, mogbad said:

The only way DC can fund further sizeable transfers without selling players is to bring in a partner/investor to the club. In other words create "x" number of shares in the club which the partner/investor buys therefore reducing the debt.

 

Can you explain the difference between:

creating X number of shares which a new investor buys; and

creating X number of shares which an existing investor buys?

 

As I understand it, FFP rules limit the extent that money can be pumped into a club through the creation of new shares (which has the effect of diluting the value of existing shares). Who buys these shares is irrelevant: the limit is the limit.

 

Chansiri has said that he can (and would) finance the club himself but FFP constrains him. If that is true, a new investor is irrelevant to the club's financial position as he would only be able to buy (a proportion of) Chansiri's shares, i.e. the new investor's payment would be to Chansiri, not the club.

[Guest Xxxxxxxxcxcc]

50 minutes ago, BC1867 said:

 

A slightly disingenuous point, but well made.

 

An admirable double edged riposte!

[Walt]

16 minutes ago, RichSheffWeds said:

 

I did laugh - tells me not to patronise and then asked if I read the question.

 

So you think because we are willing to support current pricing etc that this means we don't have a FFP problem?

 

From memory, in the last accounts we lost circa £20m which will have included income from ticket sales etc.

 

That is not a sustainable position. Doesn't matter what the survey said, common sense tells you we need some other form of income in quickly (stadium name rights, increased level of sponsorship, more commercial income etc) or we are in a financial mess - no matter what we paid for tickets as fans.

 

Logically we will be looking for Bosman frees this summer and probably offload a least one or two big earners, hopefully for some ££££ to get us out of the mire.

I have no interest in the accounts or FFP, I wouldn’t pretend to know any different or speculate on something that I don’t know anything about. You may well be bang on the money regarding FFP but all I know is that as a fanbase we were presented with two options for the way forward next season and neither mentioned FFP.

We apparently chose “Extend our ongoing strategy geared towards promotion” that in no way (in my book) equates to offloading big earners and signing Bosnans, If we wanted that we would have voted for option 11.

You say it doesn’t matter what the survey said, well it obviously does to me

 

[mogbad]

44 minutes ago, Tamworthowl said:

 

Can you explain the difference between:

creating X number of shares which a new investor buys; and

creating X number of shares which an existing investor buys?

 

As I understand it, FFP rules limit the extent that money can be pumped into a club through the creation of new shares (which has the effect of diluting the value of existing shares). Who buys these shares is irrelevant: the limit is the limit.

 

Chansiri has said that he can (and would) finance the club himself but FFP constrains him. If that is true, a new investor is irrelevant to the club's financial position as he would only be able to buy (a proportion of) Chansiri's shares, i.e. the new investor's payment would be to Chansiri, not the club.

 

Looks as though you've probably got a better understanding of FFP than me. I was aware there was a limit to the level of investment that DC as the current owner could put into the club, I wasn't aware the limit also included any outside investment.

[Tamworthowl]

3 minutes ago, mogbad said:

 

Looks as though you've probably got a better understanding of FFP than me. I was aware there was a limit to the level of investment that DC as the current owner could put into the club, I wasn't aware the limit also included any outside investment.

 

Im no expert. That's why I asked.

 

If additional outside investment is allowed, but more personal investment is not, I'd expect any new investment to come from Chansiri's wife, his son, his dad, his dog etc., before a total newcomer. 

 

An external investor, if indeed there is one, suggests, to me, that Chansiri is prepared to sell up (at least in part, if not totally). But I don't believe Chansiri wants to dilute his investment, so that's a non-starter.

[BC1867]

1 hour ago, Xxxxxxxxcxcc said:

An admirable double edged riposte!

 

My riposte was cheap and unexplained.

 

what I should have explained is that your point imo lacked complete truth in that Rhodes has manifestly not done at Hillsborough what many expected of him and so the prospect of him commanding a fee would be dubious, but I must in the same breath concede to you that had he been used (and if he is used by another club) in the right way, that goal scoring prowess may have been (and will perhaps be) more on display.

 

either way it’s a shame.

[mogbad]

1 hour ago, Tamworthowl said:

 

Im no expert. That's why I asked.

 

If additional outside investment is allowed, but more personal investment is not, I'd expect any new investment to come from Chansiri's wife, his son, his dad, his dog etc., before a total newcomer. 

 

An external investor, if indeed there is one, suggests, to me, that Chansiri is prepared to sell up (at least in part, if not totally). But I don't believe Chansiri wants to dilute his investment, so that's a non-starter.

 

It would strange if a club owner can sell up lock stock & barrel to a new owner who as part of the deal clears all debts, as DC did when he bought the club from MM but an additional investor isn't allowed to do so.

 

Is there anything in the rules to prevent a current owner funding a new investors purchase. As an example DC lends his mate £15m to purchase shares in the club with the agreement that the loan is paid back if the shares are ever sold.

[swfctc1]

6 minutes ago, mogbad said:

 

It would strange if a club owner can sell up lock stock & barrel to a new owner who as part of the deal clears all debts, as DC did when he bought the club from MM but an additional investor isn't allowed to do so.

 

Is there anything in the rules to prevent a current owner funding a new investors purchase. As an example DC lends his mate £15m to purchase shares in the club with the agreement that the loan is paid back if the shares are ever sold.

Or DC might do a Wolves and go for it !!! 

[mogbad]

47 minutes ago, swfctc1 said:

Or DC might do a Wolves and go for it !!! 

 

Too late if we've already reached embargo levels.

 

If he was going to do a Wolves it should have been from the start of year 1, not at the end of year 3.

[Treborowl]

7 hours ago, Buxtongent said:

Whilst not being a giant, I have never felt particularly 'small, and in my youth was quite a fair 'jump in the air 'bloke, having played in goal regularly and not being overawed by 6'6" forwards. Where on earth do people get the idea that Honeyman is a 'midget' in the way that Bannan is (No offence meant to anyone) The chap is officially 1.79metres (5feet 10inches). Whilst this does not make him a giant, he is a good 4inches taller than Bannan. I am using Bannan as a comparison only. A medium height person who can stamp his authority on games, surely. fast , mobile and able to score f necessary, which he has shown on at least two occasions this season, against no less than Sheff. Wed.  FF is no giant, but when he sets his stall out he can out govern any of the defence. The physical height is not the measure of the man, but how he can influence the game.Larger men can often be outdone by the average size man  It's not his physical size, but his desire to win that want from a player.

Hear hear from a short house...