2019/20 Marcel Brands

[Chimpy Glassman]

Sell to buy. Correct.

Not even close. False equivalent.

 

[davek]

Not even close. False equivalent.

Is it? If you have to get shut of one to get one in, how is that anything other than sell to buy?

 

[Chimpy Glassman]

Is it? If you have to get shut of one to get one in, how is that anything other than sell to buy?

There is a distinct difference between having to fund future sales with incoming funds than there is trimming a bloated squad and replacing with better players. If future buys are less than future sales then you'll be correct in you're assumption.

 

[Goat]

Sell to buy. Correct.

Not even close. False equivalent.

No Dave is correct here, we are very much sell to buy currently.

It doesnt mean we will only buy for the same amount as we sell, but I think people forget just how many players we have out on loan.

The answer is 16, the majority of these players will not ever play for us again.

We have a 25 player squad currently, that seems to be the "magic" number, so we really cant afford to add anybody else, when I say afford I dont mean in the financial sense. There seems to be a desire to lower the wage bill and lower the squad number, which was 37 at the end of last season, so that means we need to sell 12 players before we can"afford" to buy more.

It doesnt mean that if we sell Niasse for 8m we only have 8m to buy another Striker, which is the true meaning of sell to buy. It just means that we really dont want to buy any players till we have punted the load of utter horse crap we currently have on our books, its prudent and I for am ALL for it.

 

[davek]

There is a distinct difference between having to fund future sales with incoming funds than there is trimming a bloated squad and replacing with better players. If future buys are less than future sales then you'll be correct in you're assumption.

That's just presentation. All clubs who sell to buy say they're upgrading.

Brands is part of the boardroom now. They haven't brought him on-board to ask them to spend more cash; he's there to be integrated.

 

[random]

Do we settle for second best

Usually unfortunately

 

[Goat]

That's just presentation. All clubs who sell to buy say they're upgrading.

Brands is part of the boardroom now. They haven't brought him on-board to ask them to spend more cash; he's there to be integrated.

Do you think its prudent for the club to be paying the wages of 37 first team players Dave?

Sadly everytime somebody has asked Moshiri for dough hes put his hand in his pocket, now hes basically saying sell the tosh before I dip in again.

I honestly dont see what the issue is.

 

[davek]

No Dave is correct here, we are very much sell to buy currently.

It doesnt mean we will only buy for the same amount as we sell, but I think people forget just how many players we have out on loan.

The answer is 16, the majority of these players will not ever play for us again.

We have a 25 player squad currently, that seems to be the "magic" number, so we really cant afford to add anybody else, when I say afford I dont mean in the financial sense. There seems to be a desire to lower the wage bill and lower the squad number, which was 37 at the end of last season, so that means we need to sell 12 players before we can"afford" to buy more.

It doesnt mean that if we sell Niasse for 8m we only have 8m to buy another Striker, which is the true meaning of sell to buy. It just means that we really dont want to buy any players till we have punted the load of utter horse crap we currently have on our books, its prudent and I for am ALL for it.

Most of those players were the type who would never get a first team game. We've always included them as first team squad players even though it was just beefing up the numbers.

The name of the game now is to settle down and see what the numbers are for any possible stadium deal they might thrash out; the team will be secondary to that...and so we'll see a recycling of cash generated.

Anyone doubting that needs to think again.

 

[Goat]

Most of those players were the type who would never get a first team game. We've always included them as first team squad players even though it was just beefing up the numbers.

The name of the game now is to settle down and see what the numbers are for any possible stadium deal they might thrash out; the team will be secondary to that...and so we'll see a recycling of cash generated.

Anyone doubting that needs to think again.

They were players on first team contract money, you think our wage bill is 140m plus cos its full of underpaid kids?

You can doubt the numbers all you like, im not expecting massive NET spends anymore, we didnt get Brands in to waste money, we got Brands in to spot talent, buy talent, sell talent and his ability to turn water into wine.

I love the fact that you keep doubting the God, it will make it all the more sweeter when he jus keeps buying ballers.

 

[tim cahill]

Most of those players were the type who would never get a first team game. We've always included them as first team squad players even though it was just beefing up the numbers.

The name of the game now is to settle down and see what the numbers are for any possible stadium deal they might thrash out; the team will be secondary to that...and so we'll see a recycling of cash generated.

Anyone doubting that needs to think again.

I expect most fans would prefer the club to be run sustainably. I’m sure the stadium will have an impact on our spending at some point, so be it, it’s a priority for the future of the club. If we were to lose £50m+ every year then we wouldn’t last long.

 

[Goat]

I expect most fans would prefer the club to be run sustainably. I’m sure the stadium will have an impact on our spending at some point, so be it, it’s a priority for the future of the club. If we were to lose £50m+ every year then we wouldn’t last long.

Its ok Dave was crying like a little girl when we spent 45m on Iceland, now hes demanding we spend like a "drunk sailor" again.

 

[Rob17896]

No Dave is correct here, we are very much sell to buy currently.

It doesnt mean we will only buy for the same amount as we sell, but I think people forget just how many players we have out on loan.

The answer is 16, the majority of these players will not ever play for us again.

We have a 25 player squad currently, that seems to be the "magic" number, so we really cant afford to add anybody else, when I say afford I dont mean in the financial sense. There seems to be a desire to lower the wage bill and lower the squad number, which was 37 at the end of last season, so that means we need to sell 12 players before we can"afford" to buy more.

It doesnt mean that if we sell Niasse for 8m we only have 8m to buy another Striker, which is the true meaning of sell to buy. It just means that we really dont want to buy any players till we have punted the load of utter horse crap we currently have on our books, its prudent and I for am ALL for it.

According to Moshiri FFP gives us no choice. Unless his mate sponsors the car park for 140.mill or something.

 

[Neiler]

Club is spending, about 205 - 210 million a year, it’s making 179 mill (without European football).

Selling is a nesecissity, rather then a luxury.

Current situation is unsustainable.

Outs are far more important this window then ins.

Let’s see what Marcel can do.

 

[Zatara]

Not sure this will have helped

Is that automatically undermining Silva ("little Mourinho")?

It doesn't. No way he'd mean it that way. Someone in his position wouldn't be daft enough to use his twitter account to undermine the manager.

Silva is a manager laying down his style right now and Grant's words are simply underlining that he hopes he's more like Mourinho in terms of ruthlessness.

Tony Grant has done a Leighton Baines here...

Is it? If you have to get shut of one to get one in, how is that anything other than sell to buy?

Of course it's sell to buy. I think people take issue because it's been a phrase used in the past meaning 'to generate funds' whereas now although (obviously) we will be generating funds, its more focused on getting in superior players as opposed to one big sale to cover the cost of cheaper purchases and pocket the rest.

They were players on first team contract money, you think our wage bill is 140m plus cos its full of underpaid kids?

You can doubt the numbers all you like, im not expecting massive NET spends anymore, we didnt get Brands in to waste money, we got Brands in to spot talent, buy talent, sell talent and his ability to turn water into wine.

I love the fact that you keep doubting the God, it will make it all the more sweeter when he jus keeps buying ballers.

5% of our wage bill goes on Sigurdsson.

Its ok Dave was crying like a little girl when we spent 45m on Iceland, now hes demanding we spend like a "drunk sailor" again.

Surely he's saying we need to back the manager with signings?

 

[Goat]

Tony Grant has done a Leighton Baines here...



Of course it's sell to buy. I think people take issue because it's been a phrase used in the past meaning 'to generate funds' whereas now although (obviously) we will be generating funds, its more focused on getting in superior players as opposed to one big sale to cover the cost of cheaper purchases and pocket the rest.



5% of our wage bill goes on Sigurdsson.



Surely he's saying we need to back the manager with signings?

And we will.

But first we gotta punt some players that arent contributing.

You mention Morgan 120k, then theres Sandro 105k, Mirallas 70k, I could of course go on.