Agreed with all your post except this bit. We don't do talking clubs up. Pretty sure the most we would squeeze out would be 2.5 mill, and tbf, that's a fair deal. With the caveat that we won't adequately replace him or spend more than a couple hundred k of that.

The only way it would make sense is if Ipswich didn't have much budget left in January, tried at 1.5 mill but were told we wanted 8 mill. Now they are getting Prem money and they inexplicably still want him (I guess his best attributes are pretty transferable to a higher level, if we ignore that his weaknesses are more exposed up there, perhaps he could end up being what he is in this league - an ok lower half squad player). Of course, the notion that we or Ipswich would put that value on him, especially at his age with a year on his deal, is pretty laughable. Perhaps a more likely explanation is they heard Ipswich were willing to pay 8 mill for a Rovers player (actually Szmodics), saw past interest in Gally and added 2 and 2 to get 8. Or, most likely of all by far, it's a load of fabricated bollocks.

That's not half bad. Another 50 miles and it would suit for any journey I care to make, and the price is borderline affordable for me (would be a big chunk of my savings though). Currently having to pump 500-800 a year into fixing issues on my 08 reg Peugeot, plus the fuel, so when you factor in savings that sort of car would almost pay for itself after a few years. What was it like in terms of things needing repairs, replacement etc?

Just browse them in incognito/privacy/secrecy mode or on a different browser/device and you'll be able to read a few more before you get locked out. Between my three phone browsers each with incognito mode, and two with incognito on my laptop it's never more than a mild inconvenience 😉

Apologies yes, ten minute walk etc. All this talk about cars must have distracted me! About your other part (btw you can use the multi-quote option instead of writing within your quote...not sure how you did what you did, what just press the '+' next to the Quote text and you can stack them then type under each. Lets anyone who is quoting you subsequently keep your comments intact unlike when I've just quoted you...apologies if you already know this) I think part of the problem for these legacy automakers is they're not committing wholesale to EVs, which is understandable given their existing infrastructure and markets, but means they're doing what you just said. Making EV versions of ICE cars. The problem with that is they're not purpose-built to be EVs, and their architecture therefore has unnecessary parts to it when converted to an EV, meaning waste and inefficiency in the design. When you look at the most successful EV makers who actually make profit on their EVs, like Tesla and BYD, they're committed fully to electric, and lots of the other successful Chinese brands are either fully EV or primarily EV, rather than simply adjusting existing combustion cars to have a battery etc. Again it's understandable, because they're already making the ICE cars and cracking the EV market is still very tough because it's a nascent market and technology. Their economies of scale are geared towards ICE, but if they take too long achieving economies of scale for EVs, they'll end up too far behind to catch up. Of course, some of them do have purpose-built EV cars and are building factories just to churn out those cars, and they're probably the ones with the best chance of competing longer term. Currently some of the Japanese firms in particular are in real danger of dying out or being bought out by someone who wants to use their badge and brand. Good point about the scaling up of EV percentages. I hate our current government but I do think they've gone about this in the right way. Pushing the requirements year on year is a better idea than expecting everyone to go cold turkey in 2035. It gives firms, customers, the market and infrastructure time to adjust without overnight disaster that could have resulted in the plans just being abandoned when it was clear uptake wasn't high enough. For those who don't know, companies will be fined for every combustion car they sell above the threshold. It's a huge fine, too - 15k I believe, or 9k for vans. It should force better price parity between ICE and EVs, though admittedly it's not good for consumers and car companies in the short term, but should get firms progressing with the transition. I hope the fines will be used to subsidise EVs or other green initiatives that could help the transition be affordable for consumers, but you never know with politicians. 6.7k for a decent used EV with decent remaining range and longevity would be very good and could be a bargain. But I suspect if you're selling one at that price in the current market it's something like an old Nissan Leaf? Not a particularly good car and whilst it would suit for some people, wouldn't suit me very well and I don't drive all that far. When you can get something like a Tesla at that price, which will eventually happen, you're probably on for a real bargain.

Pretty much all of us knew this though. We keep saying 18 mill because that's all we're guaranteed. Btw the majority of reporting I've seen said the deal could reach 23 mill, not 22 mill. Dependent on the terms of the deal (remember, our negotiators are clearly shite) we might not get the majority of those add-ons beyond the sell-on if Palace simply sell him for a huge profit this summer. In any case, the fees we ended up receiving for Raya and could receive for Wharton, before the sell-ons, are pretty much what I'd have expected us to get for the players guaranteed, before add-ons. And the reported sell-on clauses of 15% of profit are too low when selling top young talent. These should have been at least 20% of profit, or 10-15% of total sale. We've thrown away enough on these deals to pay for good Championship-level replacements for each player, likely with change left over if we had a good scouting and procurement system that we didn't need to completely reassemble every 12-24 months. Of course that said, we did get it right with Raya's replacement (albeit a year late, which meant we lost a whole season with Walton in goal), spending just 500k. Then we sold him for at least 1-2 million less than he was worth too, after alienating him by playing a shitter keeper ahead of him and reducing his market value. We're just really bad at this player trading lark. We make the occasional good bargain recruitment, but our sales expertise leaves a lot to be desired. Between selling too low and failing to renew contracts or sell when contracts are running down and the player won't sign, we've pissed away tens upon tens of millions. Then we cry poverty.

Maybe our players were kicking off because JDT told them to train Christmas Day and they weren't used to it anymore 😂 If he made them train that is. I'm sure we used to be fairly good on Boxing Day generally. Pretty certain there was a period of a few years where we would win it regularly. Maybe just when the games were at home, dunno.

Boxing Day results in the Championship under Mowbray (I think I've got this right): 2021: 3-2 defeat to Hull 2020: 1-1 draw with Sheff W 2019: 1-1 draw with Brum 2018: 3-2 defeat to Leeds We did beat Rochdale in League One in 2017 but we were easily the best side in that league. Maybe Ol' Tone should have done some fucking Christmas Day training instead of being everyone's mate.

Haaland was murdering the Bundesliga at 19, with nearly a goal a game. This lad is scoring 1 in 2 in the Danish second tier at 20. I'm not sure making such a hyperbolic comparison is helpful. We can sign a good prospect without them needing to be the new Haaland.

We would be eligible for that much? Honestly thought it would be a lot less. What happens if Newcastle just sell him on when he's made say 80 appearances though? For Elliott, Fulham also got 1.5 mill up front, which we won't. I don't know if either compensation package would include a sell on.

41 year old Zhang battered Wilder. With 4 losses in his last 5, that's essentially Wilder's career over.

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.

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.

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).

So, a Prem club won't be included in that, as the EFL is only Championship to League Two, right? Which means it's down to whether we negotiated this specifically in the transfer agreement, which means we need competent negotiators, so....well, think we all know how that usually turns out.

Sorry, what requires a change of approach and financing? I'm not one who would want to buy a car on finance personally, although I do see the appeal and I'll never say never. Just think you tend to get a raw deal overall, and I'd rather buy an older car outright much cheaper. However, I'm not close to being able to afford a half decent EV for the 2k or so I could probably afford if my Peugeot conks out tomorrow (which is always a danger, it's had a lot of issues). I could spend more than that but that's about the size portion of my life savings I'm willing to give up for moving A to B at the moment, given all the extra costs of running a car and my very low income. But this kind of drop in the used EV market is important for bringing lots more people, similar to myself but maybe earning more or willing to do finance, into EV ownership. Which has knock-on effects in pushing demand for EV infrastructure, in turn making the whole thing more viable. Yes, lots of legacy automakers are going to become bankrupt from this market disruption. That's what happens when a game-changing technology comes along, a paradigm shift. A lot of the earlier adopters who have continued developing (especially Tesla) are doing well enough from it, but due to the race to the bottom encouraged by the great ecological need for EVs, and their currently high price forcing it to need to come down to hit larger markets, many car makers are struggling to make and sell EVs at a profit. As far as I've seen, it's only really Tesla and the Chinese companies (the latter getting huge subsidies and cheap labour) cracking the code on that for now. I think one of the main problems has been legacy car makers not committing fully to EVs, meaning they're not developing the technologies nor building the economies of scale required to build profitably en masse whilst keeping the price competitive. Increasingly lower battery prices may help with this, but most of those batteries are produced in China, some of them by car makers. If governments and companies aren't careful and clever, most of the Western, Korean and Japanese carmakers could end up out of business, with Tesla and Chinese companies dominating. And then with tarrifs slapped on the EVs too so they're not as affordable here as they are for the Chinese. Subsidies and tarrifs need to be intelligently managed, and companies need to invest in the future before they become the past. On the flip side, that loss of legacy companies means lots of space for new startups etc to innovate and compete, perhaps growing into the giants of the future. Thing is, the Chinese production behemoth is reaching such alarming cost efficiency that it becomes hard to see how we overcome the advantage we have surrendered to them through inaction. And as we've seen with Russia, allowing an autocratic state to have majority control over a crucial resource is a very risky proposition. A bit scary to think Russia dominates oil and gas, and China dominates EVs and renewables, which are a key part of the alternative. We need to step up.

If he continues in the same vein til January, his value won't decrease even though he's ageing. As it will show it wasn't just a fluke. Personally I don't think it was a fluke, I think he's finally found his peak. There were no scuffed, fortunate goals a la some of Brereton's, he was goddamned clinical. They're actually better finishes than Rhodes used to consistently do, and his work rate is in no way a fluke (although it's possible it and his form will diminish slightly if he doesn't get his dream move as his motivation may dwindle...I suspect he's the type to be very resilient in that sense though).

A very misunderstood concept. Conspiracy theorists seem to have latched onto it and spread a lot of false information, suggesting the idea is for the government to trap you in a small zone of a city. Which is bollocks. The idea is that you can get nearly everything you need within a 10 minute drive of your home, not that you must. I don't see anything whatsoever to find objectionable about that, it's just good planning instead of the ad-hoc approach we currently have.

In the case of tramways, they need to be much better value than the one Blackpool Council put in near where I live...I'm struggling to find the exact length of it for some reason, all I can find is planning permission from 2017 that said it was for 422 metres, so well under half a KM. It's definitely not very long, stretching from near the train station Blackpool North to the promenade, so 422 metres sounds about right. The cost? £23.4 million! Just to appease lazy fuckers who can't walk 10 minutes or less to the train station. A couple of years ago I was told it was the most expensive tram track per metre in Europe. Obviously this country has lots of issues with planning permission, bureaucracy etc, and we need to improve those to improve our infrastructure. Oh not to mention, it massively affected footfall for businesses in the locality for quite a long time. But overall I do agree public transport infrastructure improvements are massively needed. Before I could drive about 7-8 years ago, if I was going from Blackpool to Darwen, I had to go to Preston, then Blackburn, then Darwen. The connect at Blackburn was a brief window, so if one of my first two trains was delayed by about 5 minutes, I would have to wait at Blackburn for nearly an hour to get the next train to Darwen. Even though it's a very short journey and the towns virtually bleed into each other. A total joke and one of the things that made me finally learn to drive. The train tickets for this bullshit journey also cost similar or more than the petrol. Future battery techs reaching scale production in the next few years should enable buses to go electric, and that could really help without any need for new tracks laying down. Similarly, the Tesla Semi and other developing electric lorries are a very important step. Goods transportation is a huge driver of emissions, so this could take a lot of pollution out of the equation. They can also save businesses huge amounts in the medium to long term due to the fuel savings on those beasts. The Tesla Semi has been tested with Pepsi, who have been very happy with it. I think one estimate I saw said the extra initial investment in one of them vs an ICE truck would be recouped in about 1-2 years, depending on Tesla's final launch price not changing too much.

Personally, I think depreciation is only really a big deal if you're the sort of person that likes to (and can afford to) buy new cars and switch them out for another one a few years later. If you look at your EV as a long-term investment you plan to drive for at least 10 years, and you don't feel the need to buy new cars, then instead you should look for what is the best actual car, and in particular how likely it is to need maintenance or battery replacements (newer battery chemistries won't need that inside 10-15 years, maybe much longer in some cases), and efficiency per kWh. If you're the sort of person that buys used cars, I'd say the large depreciations on some EVs are actually a huge plus as you can take advantage of them when buying.

See above.

Tell that to the person above that I quoted pointing out I myself was only assuming based on a hunch 😉 I only quoted your post to mention it because I have experience over many years on here of somebody saying something like you said, and before you know it the next 3 pages are full of people assuming it's an absolute fact. I'm not having a pop or anything. Just the way that one post was phrased and one or two reacted to it made me think it was about to happen again. You're fully entitled to speculate, obviously.

There's a fairly simple explanation to that I think (well, two) - transfer fees aren't paid all at once, and yearly accounts are complex. Granted, fees we pay aren't all at once either, but spend-shy Venkys will probably have wanted money in the bank before we committed. The accounts are what FFP is drawn from, and sometimes you have costs from a couple of years ago still weighing them down, and all kinds of other weird shit the accountants on here know more about. Amortisation, etc etc. Shouldn't be forgotten that Armstrong was sold during Covid either, when we, like everyone else, had a deficit in income. I think from memory this was around £3-5 million? Probably equal, or close, to a year of the Armstrong installments I imagine. So spending the next installment a year after that makes sense in that context. And as always some gets swallowed into other costs, and if the installments were larger than I'm assuming that probably happened to the excess too. So some should have been spent last summer...but we already know Venkys hamstrung us with their ludicrous court case. All the noise from people at the club, official and unofficial, seemed to suggest they were primed to spend a little bit until that crap happened. Again, nobody should get me wrong, the majority of fees received gets hoovered up into losses and we reinvest a pitiful amount of it. But I don't think it's true that money we receive is irrelevant, or that no matter how much we receive we won't spend anything whatsoever, as is often suggested. It will be a shit portion of what we receive and the club/owners are stupid not to recognise that modest spend has yielded huge returns in the past, but we need to maximise sales and it does contribute towards what we can spend (or sometimes just towards not having to sell even more).

I know that, thanks. In the absence of clear information, you get speculation. That's what the vast majority of this thread will be. I think my assumptions are logical though. A loan fee will be separate to a transfer fee. If Arsenal had an option rather than obligation to buy, I can't see how the loan fee will be included in calculations for the sale profit unless we've explicitly stated it in our deal with Brentford, and we're not top tier negotiators by any stretch, as it isn't a sale.