17 Jan 2026 15:33:39
ED01, Liverpool were in for Guehi but he has gone to Man City, I read that it was due to the reported absurd wages of £300,000 per week being offered that quite frankly I find staggering that Man City can pay when everyone else, Chelsea, Liverpool etc just can't compete with, how are Man City able to do this?

{Ed001's Note - that wasn't what happened. Liverpool were his preference, he was still happy with the deal from the summer and was expecting Liverpool to come in for him but they didn't. When Citeh stepped in, his agent even contacted Liverpool to ask if they would be making a move and were told no. So he signed for Citeh. The wages were not the issue at all.

As for how they can pay that, it is because they have so many 'sponsorships' and they did clear out some of the higher paid players to free up wages. The likes of Khusanov are not on massive money and they have a lot of academy products on smaller salaries for the Prem. That gives them the ability to pay big for a few.}

1.) 17 Jan 2026
17 Jan 2026 17:28:28
Ed001, we pay big for a few: Sterling and Fofana hardly kicked a ball and when “fit” can’t play two consecutive games: he has more penalty points on his licence than appearances this season.

{Ed001's Note - I think that has been a big reason for the change to recruiting younger and cheaper players. They realised that it was just not viable to buy big and pay big salaries while there are measures in place to reduce spending.}

2.) 17 Jan 2026
17 Jan 2026 18:27:55
Ed001, I accept what you say, all clubs must have an eye on PSR. However, as you said Citeh also bring in young players on lower wages but if you want to succeed you might have to cover areas of weakness and splash the cash. Chelsea have not had a prolific striker since Costa and spent a total of £80 million on Delap and Pedro who won’t score 20 goals between themselves.

I don’t consider Gittens cheap at £47 million. The PSR issue would be mitigated by securing a front of shirt sponsorship deal. The excuses for the lack of a deal are spurious.

{Ed001's Note - I have to say, I really don't understand the lack of front of shirt sponsor.}

3.) 17 Jan 2026
17 Jan 2026 18:55:15
Ed001, absolutely. Securing a Champions League place and winning the CWC would, to me, have been the prime time to secure a deal. The way the league is going we could end up anywhere between 4th and 8th.

4.) 17 Jan 2026
17 Jan 2026 18:55:20
Nor do I ED001 and I have said so many times.

5.) 17 Jan 2026
17 Jan 2026 19:12:29
None of us understand and we have all made lots of guesses. I assume there must be a reason why the clubs owners haven’t given us a clue.

6.) 17 Jan 2026
17 Jan 2026 21:05:03
Thanks ED for your reply, I wonder why Liverpool did not follow up their summer interest? He is a good player but for me not elite.

{Ed001's Note - I don't know, to be perfectly honest. Made no sense to me to not have the deal done 1st of Jan. Liverpool are desperate for a centre back right now. I know Slot's job is hanging by a thread, but a centre-back is needed whether he is there or not.

I was not convinced by him at all, but this season he has risen up a level and has been excellent. I think we missed a trick there.}

7.) 17 Jan 2026
17 Jan 2026 21:32:23
Tom, usually when people don’t give you a clue it’s down to incompetence .

8.) 17 Jan 2026
17 Jan 2026 22:05:28
Is it?

9.) 18 Jan 2026
17 Jan 2026 22:57:30
Really?

10.) 18 Jan 2026
17 Jan 2026 23:44:33
Tom. Yes.

11.) 18 Jan 2026
18 Jan 2026 08:34:04
Jimbo, out of all the the things that could be a reason for us not having a FOS sponsor, I personally think incompetence would be the least likely but hey ho.

12.) 18 Jan 2026
18 Jan 2026 08:39:58
Absolutely been incompetence. And the fact they criticised the previous owner on this subject after they took over is laughable.

13.) 18 Jan 2026
18 Jan 2026 09:14:21
It is amost 100% certainly not incompetence in my opinion and I'm sure the real reason will come out in due course.

14.) 18 Jan 2026
18 Jan 2026 09:58:03
Someone will have to explain that to me. I can’t imagine any reason “why” the current owners would “choose” not to have a FOS sponsor? They have also shown themselves to be willing to act against any person who they consider to be incompetent.

I personally haven’t see any references from our current owners towards our previous owner as a reason for us not having a FOS sponsor.

I do remember a fellow poster (I think RPD) putting up a reasonable argument that the delay is being caused by potential Sanctions against the club. If that is the case I “guess” there would be a legitimate link with our previous owners. That would not then be “laughable? ”

I’m not happy that we haven’t been told the treason by the owners but they may well have been legally advised not to comment until after the potential sanction process has been completed. Why not wait until the facts fully emerge before rushing to apportion blame.

15.) 18 Jan 2026
18 Jan 2026 14:39:47
‘ They have also shown themselves to be willing to act against any person who they consider to be incompetent. ’ THEN WHY ON EARTH DOES JOE SHIELDS STILL HAVE A JOB.

16.) 18 Jan 2026
18 Jan 2026 15:06:31
Because they don’t consider him incompetent. They not you pay his wages and although you obviously have a different view, them paying his wages gives them to right to make that decision.

17.) 18 Jan 2026
18 Jan 2026 15:17:18
Tom, the club have held firm on a price but it hasn't worked. Whoever is working in that department has thought a fair price was X, but no companies seen to think that's a fair price and therefore we still have no shirt sponsor and have missed out on 2 (or is it 3 now) years of income. Its incompetence by the looks.

18.) 18 Jan 2026
18 Jan 2026 16:04:08
Standard, you haven’t got a clue what the reason is and neither have I but if you think your guess is with the description of “incompetence” that’s up to you.

I would like to think at some stage the real reasons will come out in the public domain but I very much doubt it will be due to “incompetence. ”.

19.) 18 Jan 2026
18 Jan 2026 18:08:06
I doubt very much that the real reasons will ever come out. I would “guess” that we have ideas above our station and have been asking too much. It will be be very interesting to see how much we eventually get.

20.) 18 Jan 2026
18 Jan 2026 18:28:07
We all often express opinions without real knowledge.

I personally believe that the RPD theory may well hold some water and if it is only partially true then what follows might well become very interesting.

21.) 18 Jan 2026
18 Jan 2026 20:25:29
Tom, you said: “It is almost 100% certain…. ” . Surely that is more than an opinion: or is it expressing an opinion with no knowledge?

22.) 18 Jan 2026
18 Jan 2026 20:44:42
Jimbo, good spot. I’m “almost” 100% certain that it is “not” incompetence. That is my opinion.

23.) 18 Jan 2026
18 Jan 2026 22:25:21
Tom, is that like being almost pregnant?