Iliman Ndiaye (Saudi Interest)

[Shogun]

Not sure I trust us to bring in a replacement for him/Moyes to play George/Dibling ahead of McNeil (or Rohl or whatever)

[Audrey Horne]

Ideal for me. Go for a shit load of money and get out the prem where I'll be devastated seeing him flourish.

I doubt he would want his girls in Saudi though surely?? He seems quite progressive?

[Trowel]

Bobble update on A View From the Bullens I imagine:

[Brownie]

If it’s true then see ya fella. I would lose a bit of respect for him as a footballer though, especially if the ‘wants to play in the CL’ claims attributed to him are true

[Kerryblueboy]

Money talks probably earn 300-400 k a week there tax free be set in a few years I would be up for selling him for 70+ if i thought for 1 minute we would invest it wisely

[Shogun]

Ideal for me. Go for a shit load of money and get out the prem where I'll be devastated seeing him flourish.

I doubt he would want his girls in Saudi though surely?? He seems quite progressive?

Muslim players are fine with Saudi

[blueToffee]

I'd love watching him play, but in a world where he does have to go, then the going abroad is the most palatable option.

Especially if Saudi are paying crazy money.

If it's happening though I hope it's done quickly so we have enough time to bring in replacements. Dragging it into the season, which can often be the way for us wouldn't be great.

[Cods]

9 digits plus, please. He's twice the player Summerville is.

I'd hate to see him go. Don't think he's reached anywhere near his peak with us.

But in one sense if it was to Saudi then he wouldn't be returning to BMD to score against us any time soon.

[Blueomar]

I know, right? Multiple people in the Jimmy G thread saying he's worth 70-80M. No way we should be selling Iliman for less than what we'd accept for Garner.

That said, selling him to a team not in the PL, and not even CL or Europa League contention would be best.

[Bluedylan1]

Under squad cost ratio, when you sell a player you can't put the entire lump sum on your books this year. It has to be divided over 3 years.

So if you sell someone for £90m, you're only putting £30m on your books this year to reinvest and you don't have as much wiggle room for reinvesting as you should have.

So it makes large sales for mid and smaller clubs more prohibitive.

The more I read about SCR, the more it seems like an even worse racket than PSR, which makes it even harder to break any glass ceilings.

[Jamokachi]

Under squad cost ratio, when you sell a player you can't put the entire lump sum on your books this year. It has to be divided over 3 years.

So if you sell someone for £90m, you're only putting £30m on your books this year to reinvest and you don't have as much wiggle room for reinvesting as you should have.

So it makes large sales for mid and smaller clubs more prohibitive.

The more I read about SCR, the more it seems like an even worse racket than PSR, which makes it even harder to break any glass ceilings.

[AjaxAndy]

Under squad cost ratio, when you sell a player you can't put the entire lump sum on your books this year. It has to be divided over 3 years.

So if you sell someone for £90m, you're only putting £30m on your books this year to reinvest and you don't have as much wiggle room for reinvesting as you should have.

So it makes large sales for mid and smaller clubs more prohibitive.

The more I read about SCR, the more it seems like an even worse racket than PSR, which makes it even harder to break any glass ceilings.

Oh wow I actually hadn't read that anywhere!

I do think the whole income all counted at once, outgoings split over a contract was a weird system though tbf. It meant clubs could get in a spiral of relying on selling key players every year to meet their transfer payment commitments, so I do understand the change.

It stops clubs having any chance of a really big window though too so as you said much hard to make any meaningful progress, especially in the short term.

[Juanito]

Unpopular opinion but I would rather he’s our starter on the left and we don’t get Grealish, despite him being a miles better player, I worry Grealish will spend most of the season injured due to his lifestyle choices.

[AjaxAndy]

If it’s true then see ya fella. I would lose a bit of respect for him as a footballer though, especially if the ‘wants to play in the CL’ claims attributed to him are true

I wouldn't lose any respect tbh.

I think some players it's a bit of a crazy way to throw away your career, but when you look at the career path Ndaiye has taken he's probably already achieved far more than he expected to.

I also don't think he's good enough to play regularly for a top team, so his biggest opportunity for a big wage increase is by going to Saudi.

Some players I find it baffling they make this kind of move, but others not so much, and in this instance I understand it.

Same with Summerville, class player who probably could play at a higher level than he has been, but he's also had so many injuries in his short career that nothing is guaranteed in his future. Going to Saudi makes whether his career derails due to his body, or not, largely irrelevant.

[Bluedylan1]

Yeah it's actually really bad, and I think it accounts for quite a lot of our problems in this transfer window.

Just to elaborate a bit more, you're allowed to spend upto 85% of your football related revenue. So you can't sell a woman's team to yourself or that kind of thing anymore. You can go over the 85% a bit, under certain circumstances but it's not worth getting into all that. On paper that sounds kinda fair, that everyone is subject to the same limit.

But a club that brings in say £700m, because they have accrued a global fanbase in a previous era, and have massive commercial deals and high ticket sale revenue can spend upto almost £600m. This accounts for Spurs and Chelsea being able to spend like they are. And they will be able to spend like that for the forseeable future, because they have massive commerical income regardless of how bad they perform. Chelsea also sell hundreds of millions worth of players every year, which is their way of giving themselves loads of wiggle room.

Whereas a club that only brings in £100m in revenue can obviously only spend upto £85m, including existing wages.

And naturally we're on the lower end of that scale. It makes it incredibly difficult for teams like us, Villa and Newcastle to bridge the gap.

In our last year at Goodison our turnover was £196.7m. People estimated that the new stadium initially brings in roughly £60m on top of that. So we don't know this yet, but say our turnover is roughly £260m, we're allowed to spend 85% of that, which is around £220m.

But that doesn't mean we can spend £220m on new players. That means our entire spend can't exceed £220m, including existing wages (both players and staff) and amortised fees that we're committed to.

We don't know what our wage bill is, and we don't know how much we owe in amortised fees to other clubs, but it's likely that the figure is somewhere between £100-150m currently. So the reality is we don't have that much room to spend money. And we've already committed £55-60m on Rohl, George and Hackney.

The Friedkins have shitloads to spend. That isn't the problem. The problem is the fiscal rules again.

The only way for a club in our position to improve their spending capability is to increase commerical income in every way imagineable (which they are trying to do with sponsorship deals, drive in movie experiences etc etc) and consistently selling lots of players for lots of money.