Romelu Lukaku

[Gwladys St. Glory]

They've both gone with the slogan 'finger licking good' but for very different reasons.

 

[jinkyali]

The talk of FFP stinks like last Summer mate, unless we sign 8 players on 150k a week FFP isnt an issue this Summer, your gonna have to trust me on this.

I know its not an issue this summer.
But it could be next year unless we make some profit on player sales.

Hence why they do not wish to sell both in the same financial year.

 

[Goat]

I know its not an issue this summer.
But it could be next year unless we make some profit on player sales.

Hence why they do not wish to sell both in the same financial year.

Well that would depend solely on what we do this Summer, but point taken I suppose, they do currently remain our most saleable assets, from a financial POV.

 

[jinkyali]

Well that would depend solely on what we do this Summer, but point taken I suppose, they do currently remain our most saleable assets, from a financial POV.

In order to support our increase in wages, we need to profit from player trading.
The club are desperate not to lose both in the same financial year as there sales will only impact one period. Therefore they are doing everything to keep Rom as mentioned, including an option to increase one year with buy out.

If we profit on Rom and Ross in one period = our wages can increase hugely in one future period.
If we profit on them in different periods = we can increase wages hugely in two financial periods.

 

[MrGrumpy]

The talk of FFP stinks like last Summer mate, unless we sign 8 players on 150k a week FFP isnt an issue this Summer, your gonna have to trust me on this.

FFP is nothing to do with wages, it's to do with Profit over a 3 year period and as we made 127 mil last year of tv revenue alone we are a long way from that.

STCC affects wages as you can only increase your wages by 7 mil more plus what other revenue you bring in(non tv revenue) our was 89 mil so we can have 7 mil more plus USM FF money and Sportpesa Money added to the wages, so again we aren't going to be effected by that. Plus we got rid of a lot of players off the wages.

You also have player trading profits, with Clev going for 10 mil you can add 9 mil on the the above mentioned.

Financial reasons are irrelevant in the sale of Rom or Ross

 

[Goat]

In order to support our increase in wages, we need to profit from player trading.
The club are desperate not to lose both in the same financial year as there sales will only impact one period. Therefore they are doing everything to keep Rom as mentioned, including an option to increase one year with buy out.

If we profit on Rom and Ross in one period = our wages can increase hugely in one future period.
If we profit on them in different periods = we can increase wages hugely in two financial periods.

But this assumes we want rid of both of them and it also assumes we would sell Rom next Summer regardless.

You see how flawed this plan is?

 

[jinkyali]

FFP is nothing to do with wages, it's to do with Profit over a 3 year period and as we made 127 mil last year of tv revenue alone we are a long way from that.

STCC affects wages as you can only increase your wages by 7 mil more plus what other revenue you bring in(non tv revenue) our was 89 mil so we can have 7 mil more plus USM FF money and Sportpesa Money added to the wages, so again we aren't going to be effected by that. Plus we got rid of a lot of players off the wages.

You also have player trading profits, with Clev going for 10 mil you can add 9 mil on the the above mentioned.

Financial reasons are irrelevant in the sale of Rom or Ross

Only for a certain financial period.

 

[jinkyali]

But this assumes we want rid of both of them and it also assumes we would sell Rom next Summer regardless.

You see how flawed this plan is?

Agree completely. But the club are keen on not having both go in the same period, for the aforementioned reasons.

Ideally, know one goes and we increase our ability to pay bigger wages by the sales of fringe players etc. But as of now, our biggest assets are in demand and it would be a huge blow to the club to sell both in the same period and only benefit once in terms of being able to increase expenditure due to the size of player trading. Thats the situation the club is dealing with.

 

[MrGrumpy]

Only for a certain financial period.

Which part?

Should we up our wages from 89 mil add 7 add what 15 for usm and Sportpesa so that 111 mil we can spend on wages this season.

 

[Goat]

Agree completely. But the club are keen on not having both go in the same period, for the aforementioned reasons.

Ideally, know one goes and we increase our ability to pay bigger wages by the sales of fringe players etc. But as of now, our biggest assets are in demand and it would be a huge blow to the club to sell both in the same period and only benefit once in terms of being able to increase expenditure due to the size of player trading. Thats the situation the club is dealing with.

Aye makes sense, would be a pretty big kick PR wise as well, im sure Moshiri cares about such things, Ronny on the other hand I think would prefer to "cash his chips".

 

[jinkyali]

Which part?

Should we up our wages from 89 mil add 7 add what 15 for usm and Sportpesa so that 111 mil we can spend on wages this season.

In very high level terms, on this assumption and we increase our spend on wages this year, how do we go about increasing our ability to increase wages next year, except the uplift of an extra 7m?

 

[jinkyali]

Aye makes sense, would be a pretty big kick PR wise as well, im sure Moshiri cares about such things, Ronny on the other hand I think would prefer to "cash his chips".

One must remember our costs are expected to rise substantially over the next few years with a) higher wages for more profile signings and b) committment to new stadium whilst not enjoying the revenue till its built.

Its all about the books and thankfully Moshiri/Sacha seem pretty clued up. But as I have said, the club are doing EVERYTHING to keep Rom this summer.

 

[naz]

This is my take on it, but I am not an accountant or anything close

wages are part of the FFP calculation. It's revenue against expense, and transfer fees and wages would be classified as expense. And losses are considered over 3 seasons i.e they would net off.

 

[MrGrumpy]

In very high level terms, on this assumption and we increase our spend on wages this year, how do we go about increasing our ability to increase wages next year, except the uplift of an extra 7m?

Tbh I'm not sure if the new sponsors deals are broken down year on year or a whole lump sum. If it's year on year then it's 7 mil + the sponsor deals. plus FM must have other ideas for improving revenue


If it's not year on year then we have can improve wages by 80 odd mil, which seems stupid, must be year on year

 

[a bell maul]

We have already sold him and have started spending the money early.

The reason why nothing has been done? It's bloody june. If Chelsea know the deal will happen and we have agreed it all then lukaku is just on his holidays ready to be refreshed for next season. Nothing sinister, simply Chelsea don't need to have him signed right now and we know we have that money coming in so can spend some of it early to get some of our business done

All my opinion mind you but people read too much into anything and everything.

Yes, they are not employing Occam's razor: Occam's razor is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

NB: This principle cuts away, or slices and leaves aside, a host of potentially competing conclusions or arguments, leaving the simplest and most likely conclusion in place. Thus it is a “Razor”.