bluebruce

I must have missed that part...

Their ground will hold 16,000 when their new stand is finished (should be by the end of the season). Which is roughly what we averaged this season, and since their demand is very high I'd expect they'll fill that most weeks (dependent on away fans). Once you add in their commercial income, which they are far, far better at managing than us, they should have a significant financial advantage over us, as depressing as it is to admit. There should be a lot more wriggle room in their wage budget too, as they currently have a League One squad. On top of this, if the rules are still how they used to be, they're effectively starting from scratch on the loss limits, meaning they have three years to pretty much spend how they want before it catches up with them.

Well, yes, potentially. The club paying 700k instead of 60k are just wasting 640k. They're just being stupid as they'll be in the exact same position, but with 640k more to offer in signing on fee or wages, if they just go the compo route. The only reason I can see to offer 700k instead is if the compo package includes a sell on fee, which I don't think they do at that age (beyond the basic solidarity payments scheme that will happen regardless).

Tbf 700k for a 13 year old, makes sense to take that. If it weren't just vanishing into the black hole of Pune of course. Plenty of highly hyped kids that age have gone nowhere, there's lots of development stages still to go. Maybe he's the next Adam Wharton, maybe he's the next Connor Mahoney (or worse). If he is actually all that, they won't be going away and will get him in some summer before he breaks in anyway, at a similar cost. Might as well develop someone else instead (so they can get poached at 16...god this is depressing)

What 13 year old?

You realise there's a link between the two things though, right?

I find that highly unlikely, they'd definitely have gone down his fat kisser.

Because the owners have been turning down interest the second it's registered, ever since they took over the club. Since everybody knows they're not looking to sell, nobody offers to buy. Hopefully that changes at some point, especially with the financial issues.

I'm fairly sure those clips are sped up a bit, some of them don't look quite right. So I wouldn't read too much into the tempo.

He won't be free, he will cost compensation due to his age. Awful goals record in League One for a striker. Never hit double digits.

It's the three club rule. Though I imagine it's done with 2 clubs on occasion.

Big risk to only give a 2 year deal as well. If he is up to the level you immediately need to start negotiating a new deal, with a significant rise, when the season ends. I think a 4 year deal would have been a risk (that said he may not be on much), but I don't think a 3 year is too much risk.

The flipside of that is he would have signed a contract if we hadn't lowballed him.

He's discovered the outside.

Because you've watched his games?

Seems strange to sub a keeper 58 minutes into a friendly. Not like keepers can't handle 90 minutes.

He's a bit old for that...

No, their starting keeper Dibusz stayed on. Sweden won 2-0.

Dunno if it's been mentioned, but De Neve appears to auto qualify for a work permit, with 18 points (15 needed). So he won't take up an ESC slot.

We'll Neve sign him

That increased wage that no fee brings just gets swallowed up by the player wanting a bigger wage because they know you're not paying a fee.

And then tells us to judge after 10 games, and then that any players who haven't been totally atrocious are good enough. Then says the next window will fix it and cycles through the exact same pattern in January.

Essential costs vs transfer costs has utterly no relevance to an anti fraud or money laundering unit. Their remit is to deal with fraud, and money laundering. As far as has been heard, there is no official allegation by them of impropriety over transfers, and even if they suspect it (which we almost all do), the judge isn't on the anti fraud or money laundering team. In theory at least, he should follow the letter of the law. Government pressure notwithstanding, he would still have to be able to justify, legally, not permitting transfer funds but allowing electricity bills. There's also a very solid argument that transfer funds are an essential cost of running a football club.

Does it not? They're doing that because of impropriety in the accounts for when they sent money here to buy Neville's house. They've no particular reason to stop us doing transfer business.

Mostly agree, but it isn't unheard of at all. However it's pretty close to it for players of his age, who were on a longer deal at their existing club. It was a very odd deal. I can only think we weren't willing to pay a wage he wanted unless he proved himself, and he took the gamble for a chance to put himself in the Championship shop window. But I also suspect we must have bought out his existing contract, in which case why not just give him a longer deal here with that money and gain security. Very strange.