B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
I didn't have left back as our key need
Because it clearly isn't...
I didn't have left back as our key need
From the independants recent report on man city and ffp.
"Some observers question whether City's Etihad sponsorship deal, worth around £400m over 10 years, is a means of the club's Abu Dhabi owners artificially injecting cash to reduce losses, but the club deny that and insist the deal is in line with market rates"
They have got away with it. No doubt forest have their escape route planned as well. Little call to a fellow investor, ask them to sponsor you. The owners will know what they're doing.
All I've seen is that Forest (who else?) had a £900k bid rejected.
Also, is a left back really a priority right now?
Fair enough. I honestly know nothing about him.
Forest are under FL FFP.
I know.
The point remains. Sponsorship is meant to be a no no in the prems FFP....but City did it spectacularly.
I'm not sure you can use one version of FFP and a different club / set of circumstances as your example, and categorically state that, under a different set of FFP rules, that a different club doing a similar thing will just get away with it.
It's an educated guess.
If he's available now then it would be ridiculous to leave the deal, miss out on him and then be searching for a left back in the summer when we knew all along we needed one. He will get 5 months with the squad and will be completely settled in time for him being number1 choice next season.