I'm not saying we should get him, even though he was brilliant against us in the CL.Now there is a guy that we should look into.
Sounds too good to be true
Fuck it. Needs must. We can afford it.Trouble with that tweet is the selling club will totally rinse us if that was the case.
wait till we overlook such a thing as him sitting on chelseas bench andnmaybe unatainable and buy rashford because he's avalable ;-)I'm not saying we should get him, even though he was brilliant against us in the CL.
Just pointing out, that the you can't sign top players to be squad players narrative on here is bullshit, and smalltime.
FFS, it's not that long ago we had 4 top strikers all in the same squad.
Often people on here argue from the position of the club has made a certain decision, so they try justify that decision without looking at other teams.I'm not saying we should get him, even though he was brilliant against us in the CL.
Just pointing out, that the you can't sign top players to be squad players narrative on here is bullshit, and smalltime.
FFS, it's not that long ago we had 4 top strikers all in the same squad.
Was for more than a sentimental decision, come on now. He was unarguably one of the top midfielders in La Liga last season. And we didn't have to pay a fee, and we needed depth at the position. And we missed out on bringing in our main targets. The transfer couldn't have made more sense.
Selling Nunes for £25m would realise a loss.I like the sounds of this. But I think whenever a player is involved now they're sold for cash for the benefit of both teams PSR headroom.
We pay Newcastle for Bruno G for £75m, they pay us £25m for Nunes (essentially the £50m + player valued at £25m. Both teams get to add the values to PSR calculations. Writing off Nunes for £0 won't happen.
Sounds too good to be true
Another thing while listening to multiple podcasts about Man City during the last month was the interesting buy of Gvardiol. He was bought because he was available and Leipzig was willing to sell. In short an easier transfer negotiation.
A LB like Robinson would have been better investment in half the money but the board decided to take the easier option that they often tend to do in the last 4-5 years. There is a reason we only do release clauses because they are easy.
In order to revive the club into another cycle of stupendous success, we need to alter our playbook as most organisations do after a down period.
It would, this financial year. But this deal is only going to happen if it would be something like 100m (Bruno G) & 50m (Nunes). Thats what would help Newcastle with their PSR problems, which is the whole reason to why they could be open to selling.Selling Nunes for £25m would realise a loss.
Barca can't afford anyone they may lose Dani olmo as they can't register himI know he gig discounted before but luis Diaz would rip that wing apart . Very good player but Barca bound .,
Player costs are spread over years so City might take less than they paid for Nunes for the right player but they won’t want to make a loss in the accounts even if it means paying more for the incoming player. We have seen this before with clubsIt would, this financial year. But this deal is only going to happen if it would be something like 100m (Bruno G) & 50m (Nunes). Thats what would help Newcastle with their PSR problems, which is the whole reason to why they could be open to selling.
But for us, if the fee in reality would be 50m + Nunes, the financials will over a 5 year period be the same regardless if it's 50m & 0m or 100m & 50m. Any loss in the books this year would be money saved other years.
If we pay 20m more than we think Bruno G is worth just so we can get 20m more for Nunes so we wont make a book loss on him, it's essentially a 20m loss anyway. The only difference is what financial years that will be affected.
Not the end of the world making a book loss on a player, thats the cost of doing bad business. In the end of the day, selling a 50m signing thats failed after 1 year for 30m, meaning a 10m book loss is still "better" business then selling a 50m signing for 20m after 3 years, even if it means no book loss. Since 30m in is more than 20m in.
Yes this is basically what I wrote. I just said that over a 5 year period the cost for the club will be the same regardless if it's 100m & 50m or 50m & 0. With other words, not the end of the world to make a book loss on a player unless you have immediate problems of meeting PSR.Player costs are spread over years so City might take less than they paid for Nunes for the right player but they won’t want to make a loss in the accounts even if it means paying more for the incoming player. We have seen this before with clubs