Chez

can't do any harm. Hope they can see ways of making the money go further. In the end, that's what its all about. Buying the right players within the available budget. Doing that hasn't got any easier though.

have to say, what does a previous owner care who the next owner is? They just want the maximum amount of return. Feels strange when they talk about finding the right buyer. Funding the biggest offer more likely.

14-16 that was just a perfect storm. So many top players all wanted, but without CL to keep them. However, I guess the real problem is when you don't have any that are sellable.

can you explain why you feel that way? I mean, it's an incredibly low bar - but even so, what do you think will change for the good?

I had zero issue with us selling Ings when he refused to sing a new deal and said at he time that it was a no brainer decision. A self sustaining club MUST not let talent leave for nothing. Financial suicide.

is there any `self sustaining' club (in the Prem) that doesn't need to sell a player to balance the books? Unless the wage bill goes down somehow, we'll need to sell to buy going forward.

keep Shaw (the rest would have stayed) and we'd of been a CL side...maybe...possibly...

if we `continue as we are', that would be selling Ings to fund our summer transfers, wouldn't it?

Agreed. I'd like to see the debt paid off, as it is going to increase to over £100m before we MUST start paying it back, and that £8m+ interest accrued could be better spent on wages etc.

I explained my thoughts in a few earlier posts. Basically, why spend £70m clearing the debt when you don't have to? The club own that debt not the owners and it can pay that off out of earnings. That £70m expenditure (basically a shareholders loan) would earn zero back. Better to invest that on something else (another club for example). I might be wrong. Others will know better.

you don't ever see a situation where the women's game has parity with the mens, or do you think esports will wipe the physical game off the map before that has chance to happen? 😉

I hope so too, but I doubt it. However, if they haven't spent £70m+ paying off the loan, then they are £70+ richer for not having done so - so that money might be available. Doubt it will be provided though. It will be a self sustaining business model, and with £100m+ income, no reason why it shouldn't be too.

better position because an outgoing boss wanted to spend zero as he wont see the benefits of that investment, while the new owners will see the benefits, however, they don't intend on gifting the club any money, so it's the self sustaining model. Which is fine by me, unless self sustaining means £70m bank loans every few years!

what makes you think 99% of our debt is shareholder debt? Isn't the £70m loan (the lions share of our debt) taken out by the company (SFC) from MSD capital?

but as an investor that just means he has £70m tied up making hi zero money. He may as well allow the club to retain the debt and then stick his £70m to good use - maybe as anther loan to the club or indeed to buy something else. Can't see him clearing the debt, but perhaps the finances peeps on here will be able to provide some input. I know jack.

is there any reason the new owner would do that (pay the debt off, I mean) unless he had to? Id of thought he prefer to keep the £70m in his own pocket and let the club manage the repayments. I guess he could reduce the outgoings of the club, but that doesn't make him money for his extra £70m investment, which he could invest elsewhere.

How big is our debt these days? Might explain the relatively low asking price (in addition to Gao's desire to sell).

decent chess player

so Stephens (and McCarthy) haven't signed new contracts as reported earlier in the year by The Athletic then? What's going on there. Very strange.

not sure MLG provides player attribute figures for Real Valladolid.

Bentley or Johnstone?

Daniel Bentely (Bristol City) was linked yesterday, via a twitter rumour, but there didn't seem much to it. With Forster fit and Cabellero providing `ample' cover, assuming they get the contract extension sorted, I doubt we will sign a keeper in January. That's unless there is some sort of early run on Johnstone (and assuming we are actually interested).

I know there is a lot of luck involved, but perhaps teams with lots of injuries should not be rewarded with the opportunity to postpone. It's maybe up to teams to sign younger players, players that aren't injury prone and then maximise their fitness and manage game time etc. The best form of ability is availability. Obviously illness, COVID-19 and the connected protocols are a different matter, but shouldn't this be viewed separately from injuries? If one team has 10 players out with injuries and one with COVID, should that be seen as the same as a team with say 2 injuries and 9 with COVID?

I was wondering what the criteria was relating to u23 players and why they could not just fill the gaps left by senior pros. Give a young player a few minutes from the bench and they effectively become experienced, expanding your squad size and potentially removing the option of calling a game off.

How is it my blind whataboutery, when it was you that said `we did it differently against United'. We didn't. We had no choice but to play. Why do you think we would not take advantage of the new rule if we were struggling to field 13?