Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

The Summer/Autumn transfers thread 2020 aka TURN DOWN FOR WHAT(more)


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/54284735

That's something, at least.

This bit in that article is great:  'The Premier League said it's clubs are losing £100m a month'.  Somebody should mention to the good people of the Premier League that their clubs are currently running a transfer net spend of £645m, in this summer transfer window alone.  Pwease help us, we're so very pwoor 🙄

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi guys! PAOK fan here from Greece. You are getting a really hard worker in Akpom. He is a top lad and a good professional. When he first came, he was considered a bench player. It was the 2018-19 sea

Morsy nearly done

Williams fee nearly agreed. 1.75million rising to 2.5 (So 1.75 then 😂).

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

This bit in that article is great:  'The Premier League said it's clubs are losing £100m a month'.  Somebody should mention to the good people of the Premier League that their clubs are currently running a transfer net spend of £645m, in this summer transfer window alone.  Pwease help us, we're so very pwoor 🙄

Don't get me started on that, mate. I can't understand how the Premier League can justify asking for a similar level of support as those who are at threat of no longer existing. The Premier League will be fine and really, given the nature of the situation and how really, regardless of how the government handles it, there was gonna be some sense of struggle at a certain level and below, I actually agree that it would be nice if the top level lends a hand to help keep those football clubs alive. Otherwise, they're just helping to confirm what some people have thought about the football pyramid in this country for a long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Brunners said:

I am willing to bet that half the league is bankrupt by the end of the season. Clubs already operate at a huge loss & that's with the benefit of gate receipts.

How much would you like to bet?  £1m, £2m or should we make it interesting? 🙃

I can't speak about other clubs as much without looking at their accounts and doing research but I thought we were talking about Boro anyway?

Championship clubs should/will be making appropriate decisions based on various scenarios.  I'd be surprised if any of them have just cracked on this summer as though there's nothing to worry about.  Looking at some figures it appears that the Championship clubs have a net transfer income of about £130m so far this summer, which is on a par with last year, and much higher than previous years.  I would say that is evidence of the clubs being circumspect because of the virus and it's ramifications.  Total spending is £100m lower, which backs this up.

Edited by Changing Times
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

Don't get me started on that, mate. I can't understand how the Premier League can justify asking for a similar level of support as those who are at threat of no longer existing. The Premier League will be fine and really, given the nature of the situation and how really, regardless of how the government handles it, there was gonna be some sense of struggle at a certain level and below, I actually agree that it would be nice if the top level lends a hand to help keep those football clubs alive. Otherwise, they're just helping to confirm what some people have thought about the football pyramid in this country for a long time.

I think I've said this before on here, the Premier League's ideal number of football clubs in England is 20.  They'd be more than happy if there were no other professional clubs around to get in their way.  In fact, some of them would be happier if it was just 5 or 6 and they could get started on a global league.  Having said all of that, they are the clubs generating the income in this country and they do at least share some of that with the rest, which really they are under no obligation to do (other than a moral one, possibly).  They shouldn't need support in the same way that others do but I'm also not one to tear them down for not doing more for the other clubs as they already do more than they have to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and gents, we are not going broke this season. I'm sure our finances are somewhat tight, but there's no way we're spending £3m+ on players in the midst of the pandemic if we're emptying the penny jar. That would be worse money management then the early-mid 80s & earlier, even given our current business flaws there's just no way that we're mirroring anything that short-sighted.

A few other clubs, on the other hand, have plenty to worry about.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

I think I've said this before on here, the Premier League's ideal number of football clubs in England is 20.  They'd be more than happy if there were no other professional clubs around to get in their way.  In fact, some of them would be happier if it was just 5 or 6 and they could get started on a global league.  Having said all of that, they are the clubs generating the income in this country and they do at least share some of that with the rest, which really they are under no obligation to do (other than a moral one, possibly).  They shouldn't need support in the same way that others do but I'm also not one to tear them down for not doing more for the other clubs as they already do more than they have to.

On a normal day, week, month or year, I'd agree with you pretty much entirely. But we're really living in what is hopefully a period which won't last much longer but could make a huge difference in saving some clubs from disappearing. There are clubs out there who may disappear as a result of this because they can't just budget their way through a situation they never saw coming the way we could survive it, for example.

Nobody in football can be held accountable for not predicting a global pandemic but plenty might suffer as a result of it, so it would be a tremendous gesture of support for English football as a whole if the Premier League could share a bit more for the foreseeable future until they can reasonably generate the revenue that will keep them alive and allow them to budget. That's all it can be though, a gesture. As you say, there's no obligation for it.

We even see in that clip from the Peterborough owner the other day, they're happy to pay it back with interest if needs be because for some clubs, that might be their only option to survive. Whether Peterborough themselves are the best example, I'm not so sure...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brunners said:

Mate we absolutely have to worry about not having a club next year. Half the championship, if not more, has to worry about it, not to mention all the clubs in the leagues below. If we don't get fans back this year clubs will go bust and we're likely one of them.

There is no chance that 12 championship clubs will go bust. I don’t even think we are going to see 12 teams combined in the Championship, L1 and L2. We certainly won’t be. If we are even remotely in danger in any scenario there is no chance we would have spent money on Morsy and Akpom and we would actively have tried to flog any sellable player. We’re fine. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Borodane said:

There is no chance that 12 championship clubs will go bust. I don’t even think we are going to see 12 teams combined in the Championship, L1 and L2. We certainly won’t be. If we are even remotely in danger in any scenario there is no chance we would have spent money on Morsy and Akpom and we would actively have tried to flog any sellable player. We’re fine. 

🙄 guess we'll wait and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, estonpidge said:

Sky sports saying that Arsenal and Man Utd will lose close to £200m in game day revenue between them, didn't catch if it was gate receipts or concourse sales included.

Now that's an eye opener.

No surprise when they've got big stadiums with extortionate ticket prices and big global fanbases.

Man United, even wrongly using their very cheapest adult ticket prices (£36) in every one of their near 75,000 seats, would lose out on £51m just from league matches without fans this season. Likely much more considering some of their tickets go for £58 a person.

They'll be absolutely fine, their rich owners and TV money mean it won't make a dent, not in a way that actually matters anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TeaCider24 said:

No surprise when they've got big stadiums with extortionate ticket prices and big global fanbases.

Man United, even wrongly using their very cheapest adult ticket prices (£36) in every one of their near 75,000 seats, would lose out on £51m just from league matches without fans this season. Likely much more considering some of their tickets go for £58 a person.

They'll be absolutely fine, their rich owners and TV money mean it won't make a dent, not in a way that actually matters anyway.

Clubs and Sky are only talking about revenue and are ignoring costs. The only number that matters is net profit from a gameday, and that will be significantly lower. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, estonpidge said:

Sky sports saying that Arsenal and Man Utd will lose close to £200m in game day revenue between them, didn't catch if it was gate receipts or concourse sales included.

Now that's an eye opener.

It certainly is, when you consider the likes of Arsenal and Tottenham have to pay the mortgage on their new builds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

United are still trying to negotiate deals for players worth as much as that revenue when they have more than enough quality players in their ranks to survive during this time. If they do somehow manage to negotiate a deal or two in any region of the supposed Sancho fee, they can get in the bin complaining about their lost £110m match-day revenue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Posts

    • I'm surprised that Gestede has actually managed 178 games in his career so I just checked and according to Wiki he has managed 284 games over his entire career which for a 32 year old isn't many. Smith at three years younger has played 410 games so at least he may be available for selection instead of sending in a sick note. They both seem to have a 1:4 ratio which isn't great but much more useful if fit and available and that's before we consider the respective costs involved for fees and wages.
    • There was an astonishing story in the Guardian about why Magath bombed at Fulham, shortly after he left. It sounds like we dodged a bullet by not appointing him. https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/sep/20/fulham-farewell-magath-felix-madcap That said, it's extremely narrow-minded and parochial to dismiss a German manager because he'd supposedly turn the town of Middlesbrough into an enclave of ze Faterland. Wonder what changed in the run-up to Aitor's arrival?
    • Yeah, you have no idea. I had it all written out, it's crazy. I also just realised I have the very last scenario wrong. If Denmark win 1-0, Finland lose 2-1 and Denmark get only 1 disciplinary point more than Finland, Denmark will still finish 2nd. It's only if Denmark get 2 or more greater than Finland that they will finish 3rd. Basically, that scenario with those scores and only 1 yellow card more than Finland goes all the way to the last tiebreaker. Which goes all the way back to the qualifying groups and compares position, then points, goal difference etc. But even though Finland got more points than Denmark in qualifying (they finished in the same position), Finland got 6 of those points against the 6th placed team. Because some of the groups have 6 teams (Finland) and some groups have 5 (Denmark), they re-do the tables as if nobody ever played the 6th placed team. So Denmark would retain their 16 points, Finland would drop from 18 to 12 as if they never played Liechtenstein.
    • Well it could be, if they haven't been recommending the kind of players he is looking for. Or else it speaks to more poor communication if they haven't been given the right instructions. Some people adopt the, "If you want something done properly...do it yourself..." philosophy if they find others aren't doing what they want. Maybe thats whats going on here...unless Warnock has had the same approach at his other clubs. 🤷‍♂️  
    • come on the danes, the incentive must be if you get though in second. wales in the last 16. surely u guys can beat that lot.  Danish power come on u reds.

×
×
  • Create New...