Premier League ratified the new season today, with Wolves/West Ham/Burnley returning their shares and Coventry/Ipswich/Hull awarded framed share certificates.
The new league table has been reset and Forest have dropped into the bottom three. I'm sure the chief exec's departure is unrelated.
No surprise with the B team either. A move for captain Hanks, but everyone out of contract released (including all those who went out on loan with a view to buy (Hammond, Thompson, McAdam, none of whom saw the purchase option activated). Osong the only one who saw Forest first-team action.
Presume more loans planned for Gardner, Powell, McNeilly.
I'm sure if we were in the Championship more players would have had a look in.
But the pressure for results in the EPL (and from the chairman) means managers are unwilling to take a risk (although, tbf, they'll get sacked anyway).
Plus the way the academy rules are, the top prospects just get poached by bigger clubs (look at George Hemmings to Villa, Matty Bondswell to Newcastle), so the quality is not as strong. We're just picking up those deemed not good enough elsewhere, or trying to spot good players at smaller clubs, missed by our EPL rivals.
That said, there does seem to be a lack of a development plan with the young players apart from pin them down to long contracts, send them out on loan, hope they do well and then cash in. Certainly no route to the Forest first-team.
We'll probably see a few youngsters to Portugal for pre-season for the first team, to cover for the WC players given a longer summer break/departures, then once the players return/new signings join, they won't be seen again (particularly with no European fixtures to pad the bench for).
It takes years to get a decent turnover and it’s even harder when bigger clubs pluck anyone out before we can offer pro deals, like Villa did with George Hemmings.
Guess have to look at what made Villa more attractive than us and address that if possible. I'm not at all familiar with what happened to know if there was anything we could have done.
Got me thinking. Is it something like this? Someone with a better grasp can correct me.
2022: Buy for £20m on a 5 year contract. Immediate negative £20m on our books for this accounting year.
2023: Worth £16m (1 year down), but Rio are paying his wages so not costing us anything
2024: Worth £12m (2 years down), but Rio are paying his wages so not costing us anything
2025: Worth £8m (3 years down), but Rio are paying his wages so not costing us anything
2026: Worth £4m (4 years down), but Rio are paying his wages so not costing us anything. Now we sell him for £6m and book a £2m profit in this years accounts?
At the end of the day we've still spent £20m and received £6m back. So it's bad. But it at least helps with different accounting periods? i.e. maybe we didn't mind losing the £20m in 2022, and really needed the £2m profit in 2026?
(These are all totally fictious numbers of course just for discussion)
It’s possible that the player has no interest in a permanent move to Rio Ave, but doesn’t mind being loaned there if it’s his best option for getting games.
Reported that we paid £8m for him, can't imagine the £1.6m/£2m annual amortisation makes much difference, given our annual turnover is now north of £200m.