[Archived] Transfer Talk Part 3

[Rover_Shaun]

Is this a Nixon tall tale?

[gumboots]

How are they doing that?

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

If it's rejected we can read two things into it one being it's not enough up front or Venky's are desperate for a cash injection for whatever reason.... But hey Venky's are minted

Doesn't matter whether they are minted or not - a Rhodes transfer with most of the money up front is likely to take us out of the embargo on its own (especially taking into account his wages)

[chaddyrovers]

From Kamy on twitter

Reports that Boro offering £9 million up front plus £5 million in performance related add on's for JR. Wasting their time.

Venky's not interested in a deal involving performance related add on's. £12 million up front will get JR. £8 million will get Rudy.

[blueboy3333]

£12m up front and 50% of next years TV money if they go up. If they don't go up, another £12m for being shyte.

Done deal.

[Kamy100]

Reports are the Boro are willing to offer £9 million up front and £5 million based on performance related add on's (going up and then staying in the PL). Venky's not interested in that. They want £11-£12 million up front. The final £2 million payment is due to be paid to Huddersfield imminently, those funds have already been made available by Venky's. They will not budge on their determination not to have any performance related add on's in a deal involving Rhodes. I suppose a deal which involves £9 million up front and £3 million in guaranteed add on's may also stand a chance of being accepted.

[J*B]

.

[Athlete]

Doesn't matter whether they are minted or not - a Rhodes transfer with most of the money up front is likely to take us out of the embargo on its own (especially taking into account his wages)

Highly unlikely with our state of financial affairs . So we get out the embargo will the slumdogs put right what they've wronged dream on

VENKYS OUT

[Mercer]

IMV, £9m up front will see the hand snatched off.

[Ricky]

In your view he was off to Bolton, Hull and everywhere else you've fancied him going to for the last 2 seasons!!!

I'm fairly certain you'll be proved wrong again this time Mercer. As with your 'u21 star exclusive' at the end of the season.

Yes Rhodes will go if someone meets Venkys price. And I'm fairly certain that will be closer to £12m as Kamy and Nixon have stated and not the £9m you have.

[Jimmy612]

Middlesbrough are making an astonishing bid worth £14MILLION for Blackburn's Jordan Rhodes http://t.co/fdgQC3lfswhttp://t.co/SdV3KVXoKJ

Interesting to see this story come out only 24 hours after Bamford signed for Crystal Palace. Wonder if Karanka was relying on him having one more season with them.... if they're having a little panic up there then it would explain why they're willing to go so high with their offer. Squeeze them for a little bit more up front I say

[den]

It does indicate the level of incompetence by the likes of Shaw etc, when we are the only club who won't challenge FFP. It's like Venkys have told them don't challenge, accept it, sell players and it will prevent us spending more money.

That's just my feeling on the matter. The fact that we are happy not to challenge FFP, is to avoid spending money.

Every other club is challenging FFP Iceman - really? On what basis can we challenge it?

[J*B]

Only me that would rather have Rhodes than £14m with Deadly Derek and GBow left to sign a replacement?

[den]

There's no answer to this particular riddle now JOB. It's a lose-lose situation now. We should have sold him before the embargo.

[ABBEY]

Love Jordan, but for £14m it's a no brainier to sell.

And then what ?

[rovers11]

No way I'd sell. Gestede will go, we can't lose Rhodes as well.

You can't replace 40 goals when we are restricted to a replacement on 10k per week.

[ABBEY]

Rhodes is is @#/? don't ya know

[ptholt]

Every other club is challenging FFP Iceman - really? On what basis can we challenge it?

Maybe challenge is the wrong word for us.

QPR are challenging as the debt to their owner is not a loan but a gift with 0 interest and no repayment terms, so should not be classed as a debt - i believe thats the basis of their argument.

We on the otherhand should have done what 5-6 other championship clubs did and write back the players valuations (called impairment) to reduce the outgoing contractual payments based on the players value diminishing whilst not getting to the promised land, it worked for fulham, wolves, bolton and a couple of others, we just werent sharp enough to take advantage... the FA has accepted this activity as allowable, so should be something we do as well.

[beanie]

Boro just spent 7m on Downing then offered 9m for Rhodes FFP is a joke i can really see a situation where by QPR challenge FFP and it gets scrapped and the only teams punished are us and Forest (Leeds for a short time)

[JHRover]

At the end of the day selling him to try and get out of the embargo in January or next summer could be suicide. By the time the embargo is lifted our Championship status could well be at risk. So there's no point in selling him. If Gestede was 100% staying then I could see the argument, but with Gestede attracting interest from the Premier League his departure could be taken out of our hands. Rhodes to a rival is not.

The first question we should be asking is how on earth a club the size of Middlesbrough, or actually any Championship club, is in a position to be able to offer such an amount of money for one player.

Clubs are supposed to be limited to losses of £6 million for this coming year. Middlesbrough have already spent an estimated £8 million on Downing and the Spanish signing and are now talking about going beyond £20 million expenditure if they sign Rhodes.

Surely if the above happens nobody will come on here and try to defend FUP. Everyone will see once and for all what a scandal it is. Nobody outside Blackburn/Nottingham will be bothered at all. Infact most people will be really impressed at Middlesbrough spending such an amount because they are very popular with Sky Sports.

If Middlesbrough are prepared to spend £14 million on him then what does that say about those people who said an £8 million fee for him was a ridiculous waste of money that should never have happened? Clearly if we land a £6 million profit on top of what we paid for him then that doesn't stack up.

We should be trying our hardest to assemble a squad to finish above Middlesbrough next season. They are fancied because they made the play-offs last season and have kept their squad intact, but looking at it at this moment in time player for player they are not much stronger than us. Start selling the likes of Rhodes to them and its time to give up.

Boro just spent 7m on Downing then offered 9m for Rhodes FFP is a joke i can really see a situation where by QPR challenge FFP and it gets scrapped and the only teams punished are us and Forest (Leeds for a short time)

It will only be scrapped once this summers window is out of the way. By which time us and Forest will have been screwed over by the rules and QPR/Boro/Derby will have been able to assemble very strong squads costing millions of pounds in clear breach of the rules but without punishment.

It was never the Football League's intention to deal with the QPR case this summer. They probably know the likely outcome now and are delaying it as long as possible to achieve whatever agenda the people on their board have.

[Don Said]

Dooooooon't sell our Rhodes...

[den]

Maybe challenge is the wrong word for us.

QPR are challenging as the debt to their owner is not a loan but a gift with 0 interest and no repayment terms, so should not be classed as a debt - i believe thats the basis of their argument.

We on the otherhand should have done what 5-6 other championship clubs did and write back the players valuations (called impairment) to reduce the outgoing contractual payments based on the players value diminishing whilst not getting to the promised land, it worked for fulham, wolves, bolton and a couple of others, we just werent sharp enough to take advantage... the FA has accepted this activity as allowable, so should be something we do as well.

How much would that have reduced losses of £42.5m to?

I'm just very sceptical that our losses could be "massaged" to anywhere near the £5m + £3m owner input* that we were allowed.

*I think that what they were.

[Madon]

Selling Jordan Rhodes would be the final nail in the coffin for us. Rudy Gestede is pretty much as good as gone.

Even if we sell Rudy we still have a strong team at Championship level. I would play 4 - 5 -1 and play to Rhodes strengths. One thing Rhodes guarantees is goals, and lots of them.

Without Rhodes we have nothing up front and anyone we get for 10k and under would come nowhere near his goal scoring ability.

It really is that simple in my eyes, keep Rhodes and our target should be playoffs, lose him and it is avoid relegation.

[K-Hod]

IMV, £9m up front will see the hand snatched off.

Conjecture at best, especially given Kamy's track record of getting things right being spectacularly better than yours

Still, you've got some persistence, I'll give you that!

[JHRover]

Maybe challenge is the wrong word for us.

QPR are challenging as the debt to their owner is not a loan but a gift with 0 interest and no repayment terms, so should not be classed as a debt - i believe thats the basis of their argument.

We on the otherhand should have done what 5-6 other championship clubs did and write back the players valuations (called impairment) to reduce the outgoing contractual payments based on the players value diminishing whilst not getting to the promised land, it worked for fulham, wolves, bolton and a couple of others, we just werent sharp enough to take advantage... the FA has accepted this activity as allowable, so should be something we do as well.

But the sanctions have nothing to do with debt. Its all about operating losses, and specifically monies paid out on wages and transfer fees. So who clubs owe money to doesn't matter. All that matters is how much is brought in from tickets/sponsorship/revenues and how much of that is then going out on wages/fees.

It really shouldn't be that difficult to police. If a club loses more than the acceptable amount they ought to be punished, yet from my limited research I know of at least four clubs that have lost more than they are allowed and have got away with it.

The fact that loopholes appear to have been exploited by some clubs sums the rules up and clearly demonstrates that they, and the people enforcing them, are not fit for purpose.