Our transfer kitty (and loans)

[Roberty]

If someone is any good in the PL, the club they are at now is not going to let them go

If we are only going to recruit players with "an established track record in the PL" it will be the cast offs.

This was the case with Mawson, who everyone on here wanted TK to buy, but who turned out to be a dud

Mawson wasn't a cast-off. His team had been relegated and could no longer persuade/afford him to stay.

Glad you agree that Mawson was a cast off who didn't make a difference for Cardiff

His much vaunted PL experience did nothing for us and we were relegated too.

I notice that he's now been shipped off to Bristol to play in the Championship

[Sting of the North]

If someone is any good in the PL, the club they are at now is not going to let them go

If we are only going to recruit players with "an established track record in the PL" it will be the cast offs.

This was the case with Mawson, who everyone on here wanted TK to buy, but who turned out to be a dud

Mawson wasn't a cast-off. His team had been relegated and could no longer persuade/afford him to stay.

Glad you agree that Mawson was a cast off who didn't make a difference for Cardiff

His much vaunted PL experience did nothing for us and we were relegated too.

I notice that he's now been shipped off to Bristol to play in the Championship

What a dishonest post.

Firstly Statto didn't agree. Secondly, just because a team is relegated doesn't mean that no player made any difference whatsoever. Thirdly, there is every reason to believe that Mawson being sent out on loan has less to do with his ability than it has to do with off the field issues.

By the way, Mawson did not play for Cardiff, so that also fits with the rest of this post.

You do have a point though, in that it is difficult for us to recruit proven PL players unless there is a downside to the deal (relegated team, previous injuries, age, lack of form etc.). That doesn't mean that those deals are not out there, but it is definitely not so easy as some people on here seem to believe.

[Roberty]

If someone is any good in the PL, the club they are at now is not going to let them go

If we are only going to recruit players with "an established track record in the PL" it will be the cast offs.

This was the case with Mawson, who everyone on here wanted TK to buy, but who turned out to be a dud

Mawson wasn't a cast-off. His team had been relegated and could no longer persuade/afford him to stay.

Glad you agree that Mawson was a cast off who didn't make a difference for Cardiff

His much vaunted PL experience did nothing for us and we were relegated too.

I notice that he's now been shipped off to Bristol to play in the Championship

What a dishonest post.

Firstly Statto didn't agree. Secondly, just because a team is relegated doesn't mean that no player made any difference whatsoever. Thirdly, there is every reason to believe that Mawson being sent out on loan has less to do with his ability than it has to do with off the field issues.

By the way, Mawson did not play for Cardiff, so that also fits with the rest of this post.

You do have a point though, in that it is difficult for us to recruit proven PL players unless there is a downside to the deal (relegated team, previous injuries, age, lack of form etc.). That doesn't mean that those deals are not out there, but it is definitely not so easy as some people on here seem to believe.

As I read it, he said Mawson was not a cast off and then went on to explained that he was ?

It was somewhere in Wales and they were relegated which was my point.

The only off field issue I'm aware of is that SP wants to keep him off the field, by one hundred and twenty miles or so.

In any event my original point that Statto took exception to was that the PL players that we could attract are mostly damaged goods, which you seem to agree with too

[Statto]

As I read it, he said Mawson was not a cast off and then went on to explained that he was ?

You read wrong then.

Try again  :003:

[Statto]

I think we're always close to it. We made a £22m loss in 18/19 (take £5m out of that for academy costs)

I've realised on looking again that your figures assume we'll sign Marlon for £15m.

Then if Seri's sold, that potentially makes room for another £30m signing (amortised over four years) depending on whether we recover his book value, as you say.

Then at that point, we're in the same position that we were in 18/19 which, if we made a £22m loss and indeed can take £5m out for academy costs, would still leave us £18m under the maximum permitted losses (£35m).

Those further permitted losses would allow us to make what, £70m-£90, worth of additional signings if they were amortized over 4-5 years?

All in all, another £115m-£135m worth of transfers from this point in time (Marlon + Seri's replacement + spending further permitted losses).

I'm not saying that's how much we'll spend. It wouldn't be prudent to push the limit like that, clearly. But it shows how much more room we have if we need it.

[The Rational Fan]

I think we're always close to it. We made a £22m loss in 18/19 (take £5m out of that for academy costs)

I've realised on looking again that your figures assume we'll sign Marlon for £15m.

Then if Seri's sold, that potentially makes room for another £30m signing (amortised over four years) depending on whether we recover his book value, as you say.

Then at that point, we're in the same position that we were in 18/19 which, if we made a £22m and indeed can take £5m out for academy costs, would still leave us £18m under the maximum permitted losses (£35m).

Those further permitted losses would allow us to make what, £70m-£90, worth of additional signings if they were amortized over 4-5 years?

All in all, another £115m-£135m worth of transfers from this point in time (Marlon + Seri's replacement + spending further permitted losses).

I'm not saying that's how much we'll spend. It wouldn't be prudent to push the limit like that, clearly. But it shows how much more room we have if we need it.

People often misunderstand that we actually only spent £44m (£44,062k) in 2018-19, as the £120m (£120,108k) was just the amount to be amorized over five seasons (including this one). We will surely spend the maximium amount on amoritising player transfer fees this season, but we can spend it on existing players (impairment) or new players (amoritization). Impairment will help us get long-term and Amotization will help us short-term.

If we spend the transfer budget on devaluing existing players, then the exising squad will cost a lot less when in the Championship and that will help us get back up. I would advise buying the players we need for the championship, getting a few loans to try to keep us up and writing off players in the second half of the season if we don't need winter transfer window reinforcements.

The point is the decisions are hard, teams promoted from the championship though the playoffs rarely stay in the league for more than two seasons unless promoted in the 2011-13 period.

Of the Ten Championship teams promoted though the playoffs from 2006-to-2010 and 2014-to-2020; Fulham 2018 is so far the only one to be in the Premier League two seasons later, so much for Tony Khan being rubbish when nine other DOFs have done worse and none promoted though the playoffs in this period have done better.

And, despite what pundits make you believe it is likely the two most successful playoff teams (Fulham and Aston Villa) in this period (2006-to-2010 and 2014-to-2020) are likely to have both invested more than £120m upon going up.

[Roberty]

As I read it, he said Mawson was not a cast off and then went on to explained that he was ?

You read wrong then.

Try again  :003:

I know that you are a font of knowledge, like the original Statto, but in this instance I just read what you wrote:-

Mawson wasn't a cast-off. Statement of your view, that was clearly different to mine

His team had been relegated and could no longer persuade/afford him to stay. Qualifying remark that says that he had to go. If he had to go, surely he was a cast-off, which is what I said and you had disagreed with me about.

Or did I miss something ?   :beer:

[Statto]

As I read it, he said Mawson was not a cast off and then went on to explained that he was ?

You read wrong then.

Try again  :003:

I know that you are a font of knowledge, like the original Statto, but in this instance I just read what you wrote:-

Mawson wasn't a cast-off. Statement of your view, that was clearly different to mine

His team had been relegated and could no longer persuade/afford him to stay. Qualifying remark that says that he had to go. If he had to go, surely he was a cast-off, which is what I said and you had disagreed with me about.

Or did I miss something ?   :beer:

Yes you missed the definition of a cast off being a player that is unwanted

For example:
Bettinelli to Middlesbrough = Fulham cast off
Van der Sar to Man Utd = NOT a Fulham cast off

Get it?

[filham]

Surely the two big factors in our transfer budget are whether or not Seri and Anguissa are staying with us or not. Their combined transfer value must be about £50m.

[Roberty]

As I read it, he said Mawson was not a cast off and then went on to explained that he was ?

You read wrong then.

Try again  :003:

I know that you are a font of knowledge, like the original Statto, but in this instance I just read what you wrote:-

Mawson wasn't a cast-off. Statement of your view, that was clearly different to mine

His team had been relegated and could no longer persuade/afford him to stay. Qualifying remark that says that he had to go. If he had to go, surely he was a cast-off, which is what I said and you had disagreed with me about.

Or did I miss something ?   :beer:

Yes you missed the definition of a cast off being a player that is unwanted

For example:
Bettinelli to Middlesbrough = Fulham cast off
Van der Sar to Man Utd = NOT a Fulham cast off

Get it?

Yes, you made it clearer than I ever could. What you said was so helpful

definition of a cast off being a player that is unwanted

We didn't want Bettinelli so he's a cast off, but did want to keep VDS so he's not cast off

Mawson, was not wanted by Swansea so therefore a cast off

You made it so simple to work it out

[Sting of the North]

As I read it, he said Mawson was not a cast off and then went on to explained that he was ?

You read wrong then.

Try again  :003:

I know that you are a font of knowledge, like the original Statto, but in this instance I just read what you wrote:-

Mawson wasn't a cast-off. Statement of your view, that was clearly different to mine

His team had been relegated and could no longer persuade/afford him to stay. Qualifying remark that says that he had to go. If he had to go, surely he was a cast-off, which is what I said and you had disagreed with me about.

Or did I miss something ?   :beer:

Yes you missed the definition of a cast off being a player that is unwanted

For example:
Bettinelli to Middlesbrough = Fulham cast off
Van der Sar to Man Utd = NOT a Fulham cast off

Get it?

Yes, you made it clearer than I ever could. What you said was so helpful

definition of a cast off being a player that is unwanted

We didn't want Bettinelli so he's a cast off, but did want to keep VDS so he's not cast off

Mawson, was not wanted by Swansea so therefore a cast off

You made it so simple to work it out

I have never seen any evidence that Mawson was not wanted by Swansea. I am sure that they would have loved to keep him, but surely either their financial situation made it impossible or he really wanted to stay in the PL. Very much comparable to the VDS situation. Which is also what Statto said, but I am starting to suspect that you are just trolling at this point but I am giving you the benefit of doubt. 

[The Rational Fan]

As I read it, he said Mawson was not a cast off and then went on to explained that he was ?

You read wrong then.

Try again  :003:

I know that you are a font of knowledge, like the original Statto, but in this instance I just read what you wrote:-

Mawson wasn't a cast-off. Statement of your view, that was clearly different to mine

His team had been relegated and could no longer persuade/afford him to stay. Qualifying remark that says that he had to go. If he had to go, surely he was a cast-off, which is what I said and you had disagreed with me about.

Or did I miss something ?   :beer:

Yes you missed the definition of a cast off being a player that is unwanted

For example:
Bettinelli to Middlesbrough = Fulham cast off
Van der Sar to Man Utd = NOT a Fulham cast off

Get it?

Yes, you made it clearer than I ever could. What you said was so helpful

definition of a cast off being a player that is unwanted

We didn't want Bettinelli so he's a cast off, but did want to keep VDS so he's not cast off

Mawson, was not wanted by Swansea so therefore a cast off

You made it so simple to work it out

Does Ryan Sessegnon count as a cast off? Yes or No.

If Yes, then "Why did Tony Khan offer Sessegnon a new contract before selling him?"

If No, then "How is Sessegnon sale and Mawson's sale much different?"

Are Ollie Watkins and James Maddison also casts offs? If they are, then Alfie Mawson is a cast off too.

If a £90m bid for Mitrovic comes in, Tony Khan will be casting him off in a flash.   

I would define a cast off, as someone that is sold on a free transfer or not offered a new contract even though they could afford to.

Mawson was sold, because Swansea needed money and he wanted to leave, not really a cast off based on the above definition.

[Roberty]

1. Does Ryan Sessegnon count as a cast off? Yes or No.

2. If Yes, then "Why did Tony Khan offer Sessegnon a new contract before selling him?"

3. If No, then "How is Sessegnon sale and Mawson's sale much different?"

4. Are Ollie Watkins and James Maddison also casts offs? If they are, then Alfie Mawson is a cast off too.

5. If a £90m bid for Mitrovic comes in, Tony Khan will be casting him off in a flash.   

6. I would define a cast off, as someone that is sold on a free transfer or not offered a new contract even though they could afford to.

7 Mawson was sold, because Swansea needed money and he wanted to leave, not really a cast off based on the above definition.

I take it this is for me
1.   No
3a. RS forced his departure by not signing a new contract and was sold to a high bidder by a club who wanted to keep him. In fact TK is on record as saying that if they didn't stump up the cash he would let the contract run down and accept the cost
3b, AM was part of a relegation fire sale and there is no evidence that Swansea wanted or could afford to keep him
4a.  OW was sold for full value by a club who thought that they'd got more than full value out of him
4b.  JM I think is still with Leicester, but has allegedly been the subject of increasing bids that have so far been rejected 
4c.  AM see answer for 3b, he was a cast-off
5    I refer you the Statto definition - "a cast off being a player that is unwanted" an offer of that magnitude overvalues the player to the point of even TK not being able to refuse.
6   Refer to Statto definition in 5 and can add that it is player who the selling club goes to some effort to move on
7   The scenario in 6 fits perfectly to the AM situation

[Sting of the North]

This has to be one of the more absurd discussions in a while, trying to bend over backwards to redefine something to become something else for the sake of it.

[ByTheRiver]

As I read it, he said Mawson was not a cast off and then went on to explained that he was ?

You read wrong then.

Try again  :003:

I know that you are a font of knowledge, like the original Statto, but in this instance I just read what you wrote:-

Mawson wasn't a cast-off. Statement of your view, that was clearly different to mine

His team had been relegated and could no longer persuade/afford him to stay. Qualifying remark that says that he had to go. If he had to go, surely he was a cast-off, which is what I said and you had disagreed with me about.

Or did I miss something ?   :beer:

Yes you missed the definition of a cast off being a player that is unwanted

For example:
Bettinelli to Middlesbrough = Fulham cast off
Van der Sar to Man Utd = NOT a Fulham cast off

Get it?

Yes, you made it clearer than I ever could. What you said was so helpful

definition of a cast off being a player that is unwanted

We didn't want Bettinelli so he's a cast off, but did want to keep VDS so he's not cast off

Mawson, was not wanted by Swansea so therefore a cast off

You made it so simple to work it out

Does Ryan Sessegnon count as a cast off? Yes or No.

If Yes, then "Why did Tony Khan offer Sessegnon a new contract before selling him?"

If No, then "How is Sessegnon sale and Mawson's sale much different?"

Are Ollie Watkins and James Maddison also casts offs? If they are, then Alfie Mawson is a cast off too.

If a £90m bid for Mitrovic comes in, Tony Khan will be casting him off in a flash.   

I would define a cast off, as someone that is sold on a free transfer or not offered a new contract even though they could afford to.

Mawson was sold, because Swansea needed money and he wanted to leave, not really a cast off based on the above definition.

Pretty much textbook here, TRF. Well played.

Can we move on now? Very obviously Mawson was not a cast off.

[rebel]

On a side note, say just as an example we buy Marlon from XXXX club for £50m. That £50m would be payed over many years. Even the £100m plus we spent in our relegation season would be payed over many years. Clearly the other club has to agree to it. 

[Roberty]

This has to be one of the more absurd discussions in a while, trying to bend over backwards to redefine something to become something else for the sake of it.

I so agree with you. I have refrained from commenting on here for some time. I think I will be taking another sabbatical