Like every club makes perfect transfers that are guaranteed?
The club has used the same excuse for 2 January windows. Look at the fume that caused.
Look at Maupay. Absolutely horrid for us but has almost scored more goals than our strikers combined for Brentford. Averages 10 a season with...
The point is more about the structure of deals and not about the player. You can't be saying "he should have bought this player" when you've no idea what the deal is and what our limitations are.
Hudson Odoi cost Forest £5mill. He's apparently on £80k a week (from the £120k he was on at...
Of course. But any transfer is now about making the books look good first. They will be looking at similar deals in the summer.
Beto and Chermitti will no doubt be paid over their contracts. So Beto for eg will be £6mill a year over 4 years or whatever has been agreed.
We saying Hudson Odi is good now? And we went after Elanga instead but he turned us down (and looks at the agent fees Forest have paid). Could've got Barkley etc etc
Simms and Canon were both deemed not good enough and sold rather than hanging on like we have in the past.
As for...
Man has to buy players via Klarna as well as trying to shift players for profit that he can't use.
It's almost an impossible ask (and we'd be on 35 points already)
It's the league who make the rules though...and they're not stopping it.
People forget that they haven't got as far as they have if its a dead duck or breaking rules.
So 65% of £500mill then (Moshiri's asking price) which is £325mill.
It doesn't seem like buying Moshiri out is the issue to the league, but turning their current loans into equity, something £30mill cashflow in a escrow, and evidence they can pay rest of the stadium.
65% leverage to the clubs value. Forbes value us at £700mill or even Moshiri's £500mill for his shares.
Could be wrong but the league just want them to have genuine cash in an escrow and evidence the stadium is covered to be finished to give them the keys.
It's not against the prem rules. The league have never stopped owners taking over a club and indeed have let far more unsavoury characters than 777 in.
The league is only worried about it's self and it's image, not the "integrity of the sport" or indeed any of the clubs that aren't the big...
The only thing we have asset wise is the new stadium. The stadium outside the PL isn't going to generate the value that Moshiri has put on it.
It's in 777s interest to a) keep us in the PL and b) have controlling rights on the stadium.
If they have both, they'll have a breadwinner for their...
Moshiri pumped £450mill of his dirty money into it and how loaned the rest as well as turning down the city councils investment.
The equivalent is Spurs' stadium that took out £637million in loans from mainstream banks, at something like £30mill in interest per year (it's lower now). Plus...
Don't think that's the case. City, Forest, and West Ham don't own there's and rent/pay the council. Chelsea don't own there's. Council own the freehold on St James.
Spurs is owned by them...and a percentage to some parent company in the Bahamas.
I'm surprised some people think we'd fully own...