The Summer Transfer Window (Press Submit)

[Herbie6590]

12 hours ago, bluebruce said:

Suits both clubs. The deal was going to happen, so doing it this way enabled Arsenal to dodge FFP better, and Brentford to make a larger portion of the sale. The fact both sides have something to gain from it doesn't diminish it as a 'conspiracy', it enhances it. I'm not saying they did it with a malicious intent to fuck us, but I suspect (not know, suspect) it was done this way to benefit both clubs in these ways, with zero concern for how it affected us (obviously what Brentford would have wanted from it would have directly negatively impacted us, but of course they won't care about that part).

I don't see how a keeper who still has probably 7 years of career left would depreciate notably inside a season. He's only reaching his theoretical peak years now. The market constantly inflates, so at this stage of his career I don't see his value dropping much if at all from that. Playing and becoming number one for a much more promiment club on the other hand, has probably boosted his transfer value. But all of that is immaterial if the deal was always going to happen anyway (unclear from past and present reports if this was guaranteed, but it seems to be at the very least a gentleman's agreement to buy).

Raya’s value in Brentford’s books depreciates each year in line with the terms of his contract. If they send him to Arsenal for a year, he’s worth less in their books when he returns. Consequently, the loan fee is to offset this accounting (not footballing) valuation.

[wilsdenrover]

16 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Raya’s value in Brentford’s books depreciates each year in line with the terms of his contract. If they send him to Arsenal for a year, he’s worth less in their books when he returns. Consequently, the loan fee is to offset this accounting (not footballing) valuation.

I think you mean length not terms as only that affects the amortisation rate.

(I’m sure you knew this, i just thought I’d clarify!)

[Commondore]

FWIW, Ayari was interviewed in Swedish media ahead of a couple of pre-Euros frendlies this week, and he claimed that he enjoyed his time at Rovers and that Eustace wants him back. All up to Brighton's incoming manager apparently. 

[Exiled_Rover]

1 hour ago, Ossydave said:

Fulham very keen on Rory apparently.

Looks like he’s off one way or another, which is a shame given most of us have barely seen him play. 

Must be nice to be a nothing London club and just cherry pick the best talent at 16 for free.

Great system you've got set up here FA.

[roversinmyblood]

3 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Must be nice to be a nothing London club and just cherry pick the best talent at 16 for free.

Great system you've got set up here FA.

Perhaps someone can have a word with Tim Faron, our famous liberal MP supporter, to bring it up with the people in govt looking into football matters.

 

 

[J*B]

32 minutes ago, Commondore said:

FWIW, Ayari was interviewed in Swedish media ahead of a couple of pre-Euros frendlies this week, and he claimed that he enjoyed his time at Rovers and that Eustace wants him back. All up to Brighton's incoming manager apparently. 

Distinctly average - hope not. 

[Torgeir]

1 minute ago, J*B said:

Distinctly average - hope not. 

I think there's something there and wouldn't mind getting him back, but prefer loans with a view or permanent transfers where we can develop our own players instead. 

[tomphil]

I'd have no probs having Ayari back because imo recently year on year the loans are dropping in quality so before long we'll be borrowing off league 1 clubs instead of Prem.

Hill bucked the trend last year but he was called back as soon as he hit some form.

[Wheelton Blue]

I thought that Ayari had a little something about him. At least he played with his head up and was positive.

[Neal]

I'd like Ayari back only on a view to buy basis. If we've developed him for 2 seasons then it would be nice to make him our own if he hits form. 

[TheRevAshton]

4 minutes ago, Neal said:

I'd like Ayari back only on a view to buy basis. If we've developed him for 2 seasons then it would be nice to make him our own if he hits form. 

Fully agree.

In an ideal world, this would be the case for the majority of loanees. Only making exceptions for very highly rated young prospects who we'd never be able to afford (such as Elliott, Tosin etc).

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Must be nice to be a nothing London club and just cherry pick the best talent at 16 for free.

Great system you've got set up here FA.

Not for free (but as good as)

[Ricky]

3 hours ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Must be nice to be a nothing London club and just cherry pick the best talent at 16 for free.

Great system you've got set up here FA.

Although it’s a bit harsh on using Fulham for this example after what happened with Elliot and Liverpool.

[Mashed Potatoes]

3 hours ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Must be nice to be a nothing London club and just cherry pick the best talent at 16 for free.

Great system you've got set up here FA.

Aren't the FA hamstrung here by the fact that under 16 year olds can't by law sign employment contracts ?

[rigger]

2 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Aren't the FA hamstrung here by the fact that under 16 year olds can't by law sign employment contracts ?

Couldn't the FA make a rule, stopping clubs taking young players from another club until they have signed at least one professional contract with their original clubs.

[bluebruce]

11 minutes ago, Ricky said:

Although it’s a bit harsh on using Fulham for this example after what happened with Elliot and Liverpool.

You mean when they got about 4.3 million for a 16 year old player they'd had for one year who played 3 games for them?

Us getting a few hundred k for a 16 year old who has played a game for us doesn't sound too similar.

[bluebruce]

13 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Aren't the FA hamstrung here by the fact that under 16 year olds can't by law sign employment contracts ?

There are already rules about what compensation is given though. Those could be enhanced significantly. They don't need to sign employment contracts for that.

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, bluebruce said:

You mean when they got about 4.3 million for a 16 year old player they'd had for one year who played 3 games for them?

Us getting a few hundred k for a 16 year old who has played a game for us doesn't sound too similar.

Was the £4.3 million the initial fee or appearance based?

Edit - just looked it up, to get to the £4.3 million involves him making over 100 appearances for Liverpool.

If Finneran makes 100 PL appearances the total compensation would be around £3.3 million - so fairly similar.

 

 

Edited June 4 by wilsdenrover

[Mashed Potatoes]

1 hour ago, rigger said:

Couldn't the FA make a rule, stopping clubs taking young players from another club until they have signed at least one professional contract with their original clubs.

I think that would constitute restraint of trade.

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

I think that would constitute restraint of trade.

and even if it didn’t it might make youngsters (or at least their parents) think harder about which academy they join in the first place.

[Mashed Potatoes]

1 hour ago, bluebruce said:

There are already rules about what compensation is given though. Those could be enhanced significantly. They don't need to sign employment contracts for that.

I don't know the answer but if they were enhanced significantly is there not a risk that a challenge in the courts would rule that out if the compensation was at a level that effectively deterred the club that a player wished to sign for ?

As I say, I don't know but I think this is not an easy area because the football authorities do have to be mindful of the law.

[windymiller7]

7 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Was the £4.3 million the initial fee or appearance based?

Edit - just looked it up, to get to the £4.3 million involves him making over 100 appearances for Liverpool.

If Finneran makes 100 PL appearances the total compensation would be around £3.3 million - so fairly similar.

 

 

According to this, there's also a full England cap in the mix as well.

Wiki shows him as having 119 apps for Liverpool's first team so I assume all clauses have been met other than the England cap.

Looks like it was only finally sorted whilst he was on loan with us.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/4223896/2021/02/10/liverpool-told-to-pay-fulham-around-4-million-for-harvey-elliott-by-tribunal/

[Penwortham Blue]

5 hours ago, Commondore said:

FWIW, Ayari was interviewed in Swedish media ahead of a couple of pre-Euros frendlies this week, and he claimed that he enjoyed his time at Rovers and that Eustace wants him back. All up to Brighton's incoming manager apparently. 

I have to say that I think with a full pre season, he could be a very good loan. Bit unlucky with injuries and the poor form of the team but to me, he looked like he has a hell of a lot of potential.

[Tugayisgod]

Seeing things are a bit quiet at the moment, just thought I'd put a couple of names out there that would be good signings 

Omari Forson and Shola Shoretine at Utd both look they will be allowed to leave having turned down contracts. Not sure what wage demands would be for a couple of youngsters but both good players

[KentExile]

8 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

Raya’s value in Brentford’s books depreciates each year in line with the terms of his contract. If they send him to Arsenal for a year, he’s worth less in their books when he returns. Consequently, the loan fee is to offset this accounting (not footballing) valuation.

Raya apparently signed a 2 year extension with Brentford before his loan to Arsenal so that Brentford were protected in case the loan didn't work out

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12936962/david-raya-brentford-goalkeeper-moves-to-arsenal-on-initial-gbp3m-loan-with-gbp27m-option-to-buy#:~:text=The £27m option could,for an additional 12 months.