The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
When their electronic tag is removed!I read somewhere that allegedly Conte doesn't think young Italian or Spanish players should leave their home country before the age of about 23-24. For reasons of "emotional maturity".
I wonder what age he'd put on scousers leaving Liverpool?
![]()
If you are going to value transfers like this, then transfers in the past few years would also have leftover principle that would need to be covered by payments this year (which would impact the 100m).It would be probably £20m now and the rest over the 5 year contract so has no impact on the £100m
If they take Winks it's even less significant
If you are going to value transfers like this, then transfers in the past few years would also have leftover principle that would need to be covered by payments this year (which would impact the 100m).
In other words, You can’t say no biggie it’s only 20m upfront and only count 20m against the budget but not count installments due from previous years’ transfers.
Won't have much choice unless they can convince an oil club to pay the fee and pay it all in one go.would everton even agree installments for him considering their financial plight
I thought that for FFP purposes the full transfer value is attributed to the year in which a player is sold .
Eg Everton but Richarlison for 40m on 5 year contract.
3 years in theres 16m left on book value for accounting purposes.
However for FFP the full 40m loss was applied at the time he was bought and balanced (or not) by whatever other sales and purchases were made that season.
That is to say there is a difference between the definition of profit and loss for general accounting purposes and FFP.
Is that not correct?
So the Gordon link was a whole load of bullshit from two SSN reporters. Wankers, surely they've got better things to do with their time than just make up nonsense.
Typically clubs would agree on a lower price for straight cash and installments would just mean a higher total price. Similar to interest on a mortgage or any loan (well this doesn’t work cause an intermediary supplies the loan). But think like a furniture company that is offering financing.would everton even agree installments for him considering their financial plight
Imagine if Levy lost all 3 of his biggest ever signings for nothing.
![]()
Selling Ndombele would also mean a massive loss on player transfers as our accounting books have him as an asset that is way higher than we could sell him for. So we’d be selling the asset for a loss.Do you think anyone in their right minds will buy Ndombele off us? Lamela was part of the Gill deal but he can't have been worth much in that deal. David Bentley was a record signing or close enough iirc and we couldn't sell him. Shit happens.
I think we will see much more activity all over Europe starting July 1.With Paratici playing the field each window, why are there not more rumors around Torres? Is he not 3rd choice anymore, after Bastoni and Gvardiol?
Which brings up LoCelso and his future. Are we waiting for Atletico’s interest to drive up his value to help with a possible reduction in price for Torres in a swap deal?
Curious why this scenario has gone so quiet in the media.
luc1986
Well-Known Member
Hotspur88
Funny thing is, I work in education but don't have the time to spend 4 hours looking over every single post.
Not that I need to justify, but my posts on the whole are pretty spot on.
Anyway, to keep it on track, we do have an interest in Gordon and have explored the option of bringing him in. I know nothing more than that on the situation.
9
2
35
2
—————————————
Wow, ITKunt!!! And they are all licking his ass on there too![]()