Jump to content

Official Summer 2019 Transfer Rumours Thread


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Quist said:

different that is taking into account previous offence not using same data to convict again. If a punishment has been paid on 16-17 and 17-18 years do you noy think losses in these years have been mitigated.

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quist said:

 

I will try and explain the situation.

 

Firstly the EFL did make a statement it was end of the matter.

 

The rules are you are allowed to lose up to £13 million per season and it is assessed over 3 year period.

 I hope all those who posted agree with this.

 

Secondly they were charged over previous 3 year period and were asked to a fine (points deduction for exceeding £30 million loss limit.

 

This penalty effectively levelled up Birmingham for 3 previous years to £39 million loss. Hope we can all see that. Hence they come into this season carrying £26 million loss. When this years losses are known if exceeded £13 million loss would effectively be immediately in trouble if based over 3 years. in reality losses are not an even amount but vary and when you have paid a penalty on a loss impossible to use those figures again. So effectively start new 3 year period. the rules were ill thought out and o try and impose a penalty twice on same set of losses would not stand up in any court. To show you what I mean if they broke even in first year 45 million loss 2nd year and broke even in 3rd year. They have breached rule in this period. if they broke even in next year if considering previous years they could be in breach again. Hence has yo be new period. I accept scenario is unlikely but possible.

 

I am aware Birmingham are losing money hand over fist and situation not good I have no idea what reported loss is in this years accounts they will have to be careful but will not be penalised until new period is completed.

 

If anybody thinks this is wrong find a dood solicitor and ask if you can be penalised twice for same data which is effectively situation.

 

 

 

 

s in 4th ear they could be punished again if taking two 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Groundhopping Owl said:

Interesting, will look out for him. Dundee Utd have spent a fair whack on players this summer to try and get back into the top flight so they might be amenable to a sale to balance the books.

 

The Scottish youngster I'd want is Aaron Hickey at Hearts - 17 year-old left back who made his senior debut in the Scottish Cup final and was probably the best player on the pitch, certainly out of those in a Hearts shirt. Looks like a mega talent (sorry @edinburghowl).

 

Getting desperate now. I watched him for the first time coming of the bench against Hearts. He really impressed me, but wanted to see him again before mentioning him on here. 

 

I googled his name just now and seen that he got linked with a move to Southampton.

 

Bloody hell. Can't spot anyone before those f*cking vultures from Premiership do !!!

 

Getting desperate now, they get spotted younger and younger these days. My advice will never earn Wednesday millions this way...

Edited by malek
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Groundhopping Owl said:

Interesting, will look out for him. Dundee Utd have spent a fair whack on players this summer to try and get back into the top flight so they might be amenable to a sale to balance the books.

 

The Scottish youngster I'd want is Aaron Hickey at Hearts - 17 year-old left back who made his senior debut in the Scottish Cup final and was probably the best player on the pitch, certainly out of those in a Hearts shirt. Looks like a mega talent (sorry @edinburghowl).

 

Even at this stage of his career he would cost millions if someone wanted to buy. Hickey is two footed, mature beyond his years, and I think he is destined for big big things. Hearts have produced a number of very good young players recently and he’s the best of the lot. It would be good for Wednesday but I can’t see it happening.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, edinburghowl said:

 

Even at this stage of his career he would cost millions if someone wanted to buy. Hickey is two footed, mature beyond his years, and I think he is destined for big big things. Hearts have produced a number of very good young players recently and he’s the best of the lot. It would be good for Wednesday but I can’t see it happening.

Yeah I agree - scary to think that a 17 year-old is probably already beyond our means. If Turnbull at Motherwell was worth £4 million before his injury then this lad will be worth the same, if not more. Suspect he'll have a breakout season at Tynecastle this year and then take his pick of top-flight suitors next summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 0wl18 said:

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. 

QPR, Wolves, Bournemouth, Birmingham Forest and us to name a few tried the strategy you have outlined.

I just suggest you wait and see and you will find out who is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 0wl18 said:

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. 

Two thirds of the data is the same and they have been punished for this misdemeanour. If you think I am wrong fine, wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Quist said:

Two thirds of the data is the same and they have been punished for this misdemeanour. If you think I am wrong fine, wait and see.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Quist said:

Two thirds of the data is the same and they have been punished for this misdemeanour. If you think I am wrong fine, wait and see.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Quist said:

QPR, Wolves, Bournemouth, Birmingham Forest and us to name a few tried the strategy you have outlined.

I just suggest you wait and see and you will find out who is correct.

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Groundhopping Owl said:

Yeah I agree - scary to think that a 17 year-old is probably already beyond our means. If Turnbull at Motherwell was worth £4 million before his injury then this lad will be worth the same, if not more. Suspect he'll have a breakout season at Tynecastle this year and then take his pick of top-flight suitors next summer.

 

I would like to see him stay and play at least 100 games before he moves on, I think it would be beneficial to his development (as well as beneficial to Hearts) but if he keeps progressing as he is then realistically he will likely move on to a Prem or European club with big cash. Hickey has only just turned 17 and it’s scary how composed and good he looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QPR look on course to complete the loan signing of West Ham striker Jordan Hugill.

West London Sport reported earlier this month Hugill is the man wanted to fill the void up front as QPR look to bring in a forward – and more recently reported that the club had been offered a potential deal for Sheffield Wednesday striker Jordan Rhodes but would prefer Hugill or Scott Hogan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, HOOTIE AND THE poo TU said:

What happened to Brum was wrong, but this is all caused by parachute payments

 

Wednesday are one of the few teams that never had parachute payments

 

Clubs cannot compete financially in the same division as the teams relegated from the premier, it’s not a level playing field

Dis is true, however if we got to the prem this year and relegated the season after we would be saying we want parachute payments blah blah blah. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wilyfox
4 minutes ago, Bloxwich Owl said:

QPR look on course to complete the loan signing of West Ham striker Jordan Hugill.

West London Sport reported earlier this month Hugill is the man wanted to fill the void up front as QPR look to bring in a forward – and more recently reported that the club had been offered a potential deal for Sheffield Wednesday striker Jordan Rhodes but would prefer Hugill or Scott Hogan.

 

This is the problem. Both have the legs on Rhodes, and probably for similar money. I can't really see anyone stumping up for him unless they get really desperate before deadline. He's gonna have to knuckle down here and re-invent himself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, wilyfox said:

 

This is the problem. Both have the legs on Rhodes, and probably for similar money. I can't really see anyone stumping up for him unless they get really desperate before deadline. He's gonna have to knuckle down here and re-invent himself. 

If we believe that he had been offered to the London clubs, why was he not offered to Norwich, who apparently wanted him? It’s all a bit bizarre. The thing for me, that is most bizarre though, is why Norwich wanted him in the first place. He certainly isn’t a Premier League striker, and I’d say his level now is more, bottom end Championship/top end League One. We really should have taken whatever Norwich were offering

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

If we believe that he had been offered to the London clubs, why was he not offered to Norwich, who apparently wanted him? It’s all a bit bizarre. The thing for me, that is most bizarre though, is why Norwich wanted him in the first place. He certainly isn’t a Premier League striker, and I’d say his level now is more, bottom end Championship/top end League One. We really should have taken whatever Norwich were offering

 

Has he deteriorated so badly in one post season that he’s gone from automatic promotion winner / best in the league standard (as objectively proven by his past season) to bottom end championship/top end league one standard (by your subjective opinion). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wilyfox
10 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

If we believe that he had been offered to the London clubs, why was he not offered to Norwich, who apparently wanted him? It’s all a bit bizarre. The thing for me, that is most bizarre though, is why Norwich wanted him in the first place. He certainly isn’t a Premier League striker, and I’d say his level now is more, bottom end Championship/top end League One. We really should have taken whatever Norwich were offering

 

Tbh Norwich went down other avenues with Drmic. I suspect further reported interest was probably a re-hash in the press. We all know the problem with Rhodes. He's expensive for what he is, lacks strength & mobility, and hasn't shown form for 3yrs. Unless someone gets desperate before deadline, he'll have to keep his head down here and fight for a place. No reason why he can't compete and contribute some goals here. If Fletcher can perform here, Rhodes should be asking himself why he hasn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Philb125 said:

 

Has he deteriorated so badly in one post season that he’s gone from automatic promotion winner / best in the league standard (as objectively proven by his past season) to bottom end championship/top end league one standard (by your subjective opinion). 

It appears so yes. In truth, he probably never was best in the league standard, more like a useful talisman to have on the bench. 

If, and it is only an If, he has been offered to QPR on loan, why was he not offered to Norwich first? 

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
×
×
  • Create New...