Bluto Blutarsky
Well-Known Member
- Mar 4, 2021
- 15,289
- 71,159
Dier is not HG.
In Europe we are fine with Association Trained players: Davies, Maddison, Forster, and Johnson - adding more, won't help with registering players in the UEFA competitions
Conor Gallagher
- Thread starter THFCSPURS19
- Start date
In Europe we are fine with Association Trained players: Davies, Maddison, Forster, and Johnson - adding more, won't help with registering players in the UEFA competitions
teddy1066
Well-Known Member
- May 23, 2022
- 76
- 498
If we are waiting until the summer park Gallagher and go all in on Gibbs-white
Bluto Blutarsky
Well-Known Member
- Mar 4, 2021
- 15,289
- 71,159
I am not saying thats a bad idea - but they are not similar players. It would not be one or the other.
Dier not homegrown, Lloris gone and PEH most likely mid to move on. Wouldn’t rule out likes of Phillips as number 6 option and he’s HG.
SirHarryHotspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,223
- 7,806
From today's BBC gossip, didn't think we were hampered by FFP.
Tottenham are unlikely to make a move for England midfielder Conor Gallagher, 23, in January because they are unable to meet Chelsea's £60m demands because of financial fair play (FFP) restrictions. (Football Transfers)
Tottenham are unlikely to make a move for England midfielder Conor Gallagher, 23, in January because they are unable to meet Chelsea's £60m demands because of financial fair play (FFP) restrictions. (Football Transfers)
He’s a 10. We have 3 10s and donley coming through. Plus they bought him for 40m, they likely want double that as he’s their best player.
worcestersauce
"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
- Jan 23, 2006
- 27,008
- 45,318
If everyone comes back we still won't have a full squad. We're going to be challenging across the board next season and we'll need to be stocked with quality players including those with the versatility to play different roles.
- Oct 2, 2004
- 48,330
- 47,582
- Staff
- #348
There's very little detail in that article. I suspect the reference to FFP is pure supposition.
I agree with @talkshowhost86 that it sounds like pure speculation. They’re probably right that we won’t spend £60m on him though!
SirHarryHotspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,223
- 7,806
It was just the headline that caught my eye, I never click on those articles most of them are complete rubbish.
I seem to remember some other article some time ago saying that we had the biggest leeway of any club in the PL on FFP that's why the headline surprised me.
Cavehillspur
Well-Known Member
- Jan 28, 2011
- 14,099
- 18,453
Or does it mean Chelsea demanding 60mil because of their FFP restrictions, hasn't been worded the best. No way are we hampered by FFP think someone said recently we've about 400mil to play with before we start being impacted.
SirHarryHotspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,223
- 7,806
Yes that's sounds more like it , didn't bother reading the actual article just the headline which didn't seem right.
vegassd
The ghost of Johnny Cash
- Aug 5, 2006
- 3,360
- 3,340
The 400m figure is from about 5 years ago! I'm not surprised if it was mentioned recently because it seems to be one of those things that some people have latched on to.
A move for Gallagher in January could well be effected by FFP... or rather a writer at Football Transfers could well think that is the case. It might be that there isn't enough headline profitability over 3 years to accommodate 60m, and they have incorrectly assumed that the entire transfer fee would need to fit into it. If FFP is coming in to play at all, I would imagine it's because a move for Gallagher would make far more sense in the summer because the first amortised chunk of the transfer would appear in the next set of financials.
The fact the article hasn't given any breakdown of the numbers isn't very helpful. But regardless, the club we will need to be looking at our next set of results (the 22/23 season) as well as budgeting for this current season without Europe (albeit with a Kane sale), so even if the journo was quoting numbers they would already be nearly 2 years out of date for something that addresses a 3 year period.
I personally think when it comes to FFP, we all should take a back seat and not get sucked in by football blogs who are trying to get an angle on it. It's complicated machinery that we are always going to be a few steps behind.
No doubt there will be fans in 10 years time talking about "400m wiggle room" but it's just not accurate.Led Revolver
Well-Known Member
- Dec 18, 2012
- 882
- 3,224
I’d imagine our ITK’s will struggle to get much information about this one. I’d expect this to be kept fairly in hour considering how delicate this all is.
Trix
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2004
- 19,664
- 331,934
Yeah I don't think too many people understand how FFP works unfortunately It's based over a time period of 3 years. It doesn't just keep accruing if you don't use it up. There was a point where we had like 400mil to play with but I'm sure that was because the year where we spent nothing at all in either window was part of that 3 year period. There's no way we are close to hitting restrictions though that for sure, but that 400mil number seems to have been the go to amount for the best part of 5 years now and that has certainly changed.
Trix
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2004
- 19,664
- 331,934
Or because it isn't happening.
luRRka
Well-Known Member
- Jul 27, 2008
- 3,695
- 15,620
We also made a load of money from going so deep in the champions league (final) which we obviously haven't done since
Adam456
Well-Known Member
- Jul 1, 2005
- 4,459
- 3,127
I think we can file this one under nonsense or bad wording
This page gives the situation of **football related** profit or loss going into last season. It shows that we lost a lot of money over the pandemic but returned to profitability after
Premier League FFP Table: 2023/24 Club-by-Club Report
Discover the 2023/24 Premier League FFP table to see which clubs have financial problems and restrictions and who can spend more freely.
sqaf.club
Notwithstanding that the Premier League are supposed to be lenient on pandemic losses anyway, the £-82m now drops out of the calculation and last season's results come in. We had CL football and didn't go crazy in the transfer market so I imagine that our **football related** profit/loss is at least positive.
So if we did 'only' break even last season and given you're allowed to lose £105m over 3 years then for FFP purposes going into this season we would we have *at least* £191m space (which doesn't mean we want to spend that ofc)
Then so far this season we have a net spend of probably <= zero having sold Kane for ~£85m but also no European football but it's hard to conclude that we would be much worse off
Mattspurs1982
Well-Known Member
- Aug 2, 2011
- 3,056
- 7,148
I dont think i would want Connor Gallagher for 60m anyway! Much better value out there.
Mr Pink
SC Supporter
- Aug 25, 2010
- 55,369
- 100,860
Just seems so odd.
I get Ange likes him but for me Sarr is already the better player and he's only going to get better.
I woudnt be surprised if Agne ismt as keen as he was in the summer.
Anyway being Chelsea's captain (and fan), playing everyweek to moving to a fierce rival where playing time might even be less makes no sense from the players perspective.
I get Ange likes him but for me Sarr is already the better player and he's only going to get better.
I woudnt be surprised if Agne ismt as keen as he was in the summer.
Anyway being Chelsea's captain (and fan), playing everyweek to moving to a fierce rival where playing time might even be less makes no sense from the players perspective.
Last edited:
