Redemption
One less gobshite...
How much did we pay for Shelvey?
6m plus wages for 2.5 years I believe.How much did we pay for Shelvey?
Bring him home?
It will have cost us the price of his contract in full. I think it's more likely that we agreed a purchase option for zero cash and agreed to pay off a percentage of his wages to make up any losses, assuming they can't pay his weekly wage in full (at the end of the loan if the option is triggered).I don't understand, wouldn't terminating his contract be a good thing?
Would all the cost suddenly hit our accounts for FFP because of it?I don't understand, wouldn't terminating his contract be a good thing?
If nothing else it’s a timely reminder we can’t just readily loan players off the books in January..or mores the point there is a limit we can’t exceed.One thing I'm not sure about is whether a loan to perm changes whether it fits within the seven loans out rule? I think it's different if an option is present, but can't remember where I got that from, or if I'm mixing up rules?
Is there a limit? If so, what is it? And surely Chelsea must have more players out on loan than we do.If nothing else it’s a timely reminder we can’t just readily loan players off the books in January..or mores the point there is a limit we can’t exceed.
It's currently seven in, seven out.Is there a limit? If so, what is it?
Chelsea appear to have 20 players out on loan!Is there a limit? If so, what is it? And surely Chelsea must have more players out on loan than we do.
Did PSG have a similar challenge last January when we loaned Keylor Navas?
No. The loss would consolidate into one financial year instead of being amortised over the length of his contract, plus some the remaining salary would likely get pulled forward too.I don't understand, wouldn't terminating his contract be a good thing?
Probably just that it was agreed to be a loan but then changed to be permanent at the last minute and the twitter team didn’t know so just tweeted the originally agreed wording.What the f*** is going on? The guardian story makes us look like fools. I don't really see the issue with just stating that we terminated his contract in the summer, I don't think anyone would've been surprised. I don't know why we'd report it as loan if that wasn't the case.
Definitely this.Probably just that it was agreed to be a loan but then changed to be permanent at the last minute and the twitter team didn’t know so just tweeted the originally agreed wording.
Exactly this.Definitely this.
The media have to have a bee in their bonnet over something.
We're down to 6 international loans now with Scarpa leaving, so, theres space for another player to head off abroad.
I imagine we agreed a loan, announced it and then when it went for clearance we got a slap on the wrist for not complying with rules and so hastily terminated his contract.What the f*** is going on? The guardian story makes us look like fools. I don't really see the issue with just stating that we terminated his contract in the summer, I don't think anyone would've been surprised. I don't know why we'd report it as loan if that wasn't the case.
What the f*** is going on? The guardian story makes us look like fools. I don't really see the issue with just stating that we terminated his contract in the summer, I don't think anyone would've been surprised. I don't know why we'd report it as loan if that wasn't the case.
Unless there was a Legal reason for termination, under breach of contract, for example.It will have cost us the price of his contract in full.