Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

They did- see below. £4.1 million for 2020, just over £40 million from 2011-20.

Image

You cannot tell whether Sheffield Utd will continue to make a profit on player sales. As you say they spent over £60 million during the season - whether they make a profit or not depends upon what they sell them for. My point was simply in response to what someone said earlier saying that Norwich were the only club who has to profit from player sales - as I said above, I don't think it was you.

 

Jesus christ sometimes I despair. The goalposts are moving left and right all the time.

Lets keep it simple.

Sheffield United, in the window after securing promotion, did not agree to sell their best player.

Sheffield United, in the two windows after promotion agreed deals to sign players that seemingly amounted to north of £60m

In those same two windows they certainly didn't agree to sell players for fees above that £60m.

Talk of amortization and so on is just muddying the water. 

The simple fact is, as you quoted me on 'nobody else is making those player sales upon promotion.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, king canary said:

I understand how it works fine thanks.

That doesn't change the fact Sheffield United agreed to sign players for fees of north of £60m in the 19/20 season.

Sorry but the argument put forward has been based on accounts prepared using accepted accountancy practices. What Sheffield United spent is a matter of fact based upon their accounts, not what you read on the back page of a newspaper 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, king canary said:

Jesus christ sometimes I despair. The goalposts are moving left and right all the time.

Lets keep it simple.

Sheffield United, in the window after securing promotion, did not agree to sell their best player.

Sheffield United, in the two windows after promotion agreed deals to sign players that seemingly amounted to north of £60m

In those same two windows they certainly didn't agree to sell players for fees above that £60m.

Talk of amortization and so on is just muddying the water. 

The simple fact is, as you quoted me on 'nobody else is making those player sales upon promotion.'

Apart from your making up the accountancy rules as you go along you have decided to ignore the fact that Sheffield United didn't have any players of interest to other Premier League clubs when they got promoted. 

We had at least three and they all shook hands on getting us promoted in exchange for being allowed to leave if an appropriate offer was made. 

Please don't tell me that we could have kept Emi if we wanted. There was no way he was staying here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

No it doesn't work like that. The accounts for any company detail income earned whether or not actually received and expenditure incurred whether or not paid. It's an accounting principle which is commonly misunderstood. If you do understand it then you have a brain like mine which isn't a good thing. 

With the Spurs accounts, they will have deducted PAYE from wages on a monthly but that is paid to HMRC three weeks after the end of the month. And VAT is paid quarterly so all the VAT that Spurs charged in a 3 month period will be due but not paid over at the accounting date. In the Covid year there was a tax holiday so companies were allowed to hang on to it for longer. 

The other possibility with Spurs is that HMRC have caught them doing something naughty and they were in the process of negotiating a settlement at the time the accounts were submitted. I've no idea if that is the case but the figure you pointed out in your original post certainly looks large🙄

If the bonus didn't get paid,because we didn't get promoted the provision made in the accounts would simply be rolled over to the next year. 

Thanks for your patience in explaining all of this, whilst I won't profess to having "got it" fully I do certainly now have a better idea.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, king canary said:

The goalposts are moving left and right all the time.

I think you may have just discovered our main defensive tactic for the coming season. I'm even more confident now that we will let in fewer goals than last time.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

Thanks for your patience in explaining all of this, whilst I won't profess to having "got it" fully I do certainly now have a better idea.

You're welcome. I've got nothing else to do today. 

If you want a headache have a look at the link above on how football clubs account for transfer fees. 

Your common sense approach to football finance is perfectly valid. It's just a question of what year you put the money in for the purpose of the accounts. So if we sold Emi for £33m we have £33m to spend. Unfortunately 3 players costing £10m earn significantly more than one player at £30m but if you work on the basis that we have around £10m of the Emi money left you won't be far out. 

Edited by dylanisabaddog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Apart from your making up the accountancy rules as you go along you have decided to ignore the fact that Sheffield United didn't have any players of interest to other Premier League clubs when they got promoted. 

We had at least three and they all shook hands on getting us promoted in exchange for being allowed to leave if an appropriate offer was made. 

Please don't tell me that we could have kept Emi if we wanted. There was no way he was staying here. 

I'm not making up accountancy rules, I'm talking about transfer spend in the way its widely talked about. I understand it isn't as simple as 'we sell players for £30m so £30m is immediately in our bank account.' However when people talk about transfer net spend they aren't talking about what when it/out in that particular accounting period, they are talking about the deals done in that window and the total value of those deals both in and out.

There is also a delicious irony in you claiming I'm making things up when in the very next sentence you've made up details about us agreeing to sales when it was recently reported that no such agreement existed.

Edited by king canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Christ you lot are still crying over the Buendia sale? He wanted out, nobody other than Villa put a serious bid in. An unhappy player isn't worth keeping. Move on, the club did decent business with the Buendia sale, a man that hasn't actually proved himself to be a Premier League player. 

Buendia is not the second coming, we got relegated with him last time in the Prem and he scored just 1 goal all season. 

Edited by Wardogz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only Norwich would sell their best player after getting promotion and them not replace with at least the same quality

it does get tiresome making the same mistakes season after season 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm not making up accountancy rules, I'm talking about transfer spend in the way its widely talked about. I understand it isn't as simple as 'we sell players for £30m so £30m is immediately in our bank account.' However when people talk about transfer net spend they aren't talking about what when it/out in that particular accounting period, they are talking about the deals done in that window and the total value of those deals both in and out.

There is also a delicious irony in you claiming I'm making things up when in the very next sentence you've made up details about us agreeing to sales when it was recently reported that no such agreement existed.

I assume you want to talk about it in the most general of terms because you find it difficult to cope with detail. Strangely you've used Sheffield United as an example of spending big and ignored the "delicious irony" that they're in the division below us. The other big spenders that summer were Aston Villa and they only stayed up due to probably the worst refereeing decision in the history of the Premier League. 

By the way, amortisation isn't "clouding the waters". It reflects the reality of the value of players contracts. The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it should be ignored. 

PS even Delia has publicly accepted that our best players will always be sold

Edited by dylanisabaddog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uncle Fred said:

it does get tiresome making the same mistakes season after season 

And what " same mistakes" did we make last season?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Uncle Fred said:

Only Norwich would sell their best player after getting promotion and them not replace with at least the same quality

it does get tiresome making the same mistakes season after season 

Uncle Fred - sorry Emi, you've got a contract and you're staying here 

Emi - **** of Uncle Fred I'm not playing

Welcome to the world Uncle Fred. This football management is a funny old business isn't it? 

Edited by dylanisabaddog
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Uncle Fred said:

Only Norwich would sell their best player after getting promotion and them not replace with at least the same quality

 

In 2013, Crystal Palace sold Wilf Zaha and replaced him with Dwight Gayle. 😃 They have stayed up on smaller resources than we would have (although the football hasn't been great at times).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost as if the notion of selling decent players when their value is at their highest just flies over some heads like a Ronaldinho free-kick over David Seaman...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Badger said:

In 2013, Crystal Palace sold Wilf Zaha and replaced him with Dwight Gayle. 😃 They have stayed up on smaller resources than we would have (although the football hasn't been great at times).

They sold Zaha while they were still in the Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liverpool sold Coutinho and Suarez because the players made it clear they wanted to move on, the same for Man U and Ronaldo. Buendia is just another example of the same phenomena. Time for us to move on too I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, king canary said:

They sold Zaha while they were still in the Championship.

He played for them all season and the move didn't take place until after they were promoted, so they started the new season without (by far) their best player.

You are right to the extent, that like Southampton and Alex Oxlaide-Chamberlain, they were not as ambitious as us and sold their brightest star before getting promoted. Would it have been better if we had sold Buendia last year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Liverpool sold Coutinho and Suarez because the players made it clear they wanted to move on, the same for Man U and Ronaldo. Buendia is just another example of the same phenomena. Time for us to move on too I think.

But Liverpool only did that after they gave up digging their heels in over the transfer and reluctantly allowed the sales to happen. 

Is that what we did? Clearly not. 

We made him available at the start of the window with Webber's 'any bid must start with a 3...' comments about all of our star players; that was clearly to insight interest. 

In fact I would wager that there has never been a side auctioning off their talisman like that at the start of a window for cold hard cash... Certainly never for a newly promoted side to the PL anyway. 

I don't want to get into criticising it, whether it will be the right decision or not remains to be seen.

My point is just to say I don't think we can pretend that how we sold Emi is some kind of a common occurrence, it really really is not. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

But Liverpool only did that after they gave up digging their heels in over the transfer and reluctantly allowed the sales to happen. 

Is that what we did? Clearly not. 

We made him available at the start of the window with Webber's 'any bid must start with a 3...' comments about all of our star players; that was clearly to insight interest. 

In fact I would wager that there has never been a side auctioning off their talisman like that at the start of a window for cold hard cash... Certainly never for a newly promoted side to the PL anyway. 

I don't want to get into criticising it, whether it will be the right decision or not remains to be seen.

My point is just to say I don't think we can pretend that how we sold Emi is some kind of a common occurrence, it really really is not. 

So you think it would have been better to dig our heels in and sell him at the end of the transfer deadline, having allowed all the decent replacements to be bought by other teams earlier in the window? I suspect we will never agree on the strategy regarding the sale of Buendia, so I'm happy to agree to disagree and look forward to what happens next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buendia wanted to leave this window, he wanted to leave last Summer. The club wanted the money to lubricate this window. Villa were a club that were willing to pay what the club thought was a reasonable amount and the wages that Buendia and his agent thought was resonable. That is the world as it is, not how how some posters would like it to be. It is that difference that is making some posters unhappy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

But Liverpool only did that after they gave up digging their heels in over the transfer and reluctantly allowed the sales to happen. 

Is that what we did? Clearly not. 

We made him available at the start of the window with Webber's 'any bid must start with a 3...' comments about all of our star players; that was clearly to insight interest. 

In fact I would wager that there has never been a side auctioning off their talisman like that at the start of a window for cold hard cash... Certainly never for a newly promoted side to the PL anyway. 

I don't want to get into criticising it, whether it will be the right decision or not remains to be seen.

My point is just to say I don't think we can pretend that how we sold Emi is some kind of a common occurrence, it really really is not. 

Well, sort of. We dug our heels in for over a year to the point Farke couldn't even start Emi at the beginning of the Championship campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Well, sort of. We dug our heels in for over a year to the point Farke couldn't even start Emi at the beginning of the Championship campaign.

But was that off the back of serious transfer interest in Emi, or off the back of Emi and Cantwell throwing a bit of a paddy without any clubs actually making a serious bid?

I believe the club were actually expecting to sell one of Cantwell / Buendia last season, which is why we ended up with an absolute plethora of options in the midfield and a clearly much improved team despite the relegation. 

Though I do think we were a lot clearer about the possibility of selling our players this window than last window, oddly. So I guess you are right in the sense that we didn't put our players in the shop window in quite the same way. Remember our £50mil valuation of Godfrey at the end of the last PL season! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So you think it would have been better to dig our heels in and sell him at the end of the transfer deadline, having allowed all the decent replacements to be bought by other teams earlier in the window? I suspect we will never agree on the strategy regarding the sale of Buendia, so I'm happy to agree to disagree and look forward to what happens next.

I actually said:

''I don't want to get into criticising it, whether it will be the right decision or not remains to be seen. My point is just to say I don't think we can pretend that how we sold Emi is some kind of a common occurrence, it really really is not.''

I agree going beyond that at this stage is all ifs, buts and maybes. And even if we do really well your preference won't necessarily be vindicated as we could've done even better had Buendia stayed. Similarly, if we go down, I won't be vindicated as we could've done even worse if we hadn't moved Emi on. 

Was the sale and the way we conducted ourselves for the sale the absolute best we could do from the situation? We will never truly know. But at this very moment, based on our lack of ability to actually use much of the funds from the Buendia sale (that's not a criticism by the way I appreciate it has been a hard window for clubs in general), I would say probably not. fortunately we have a good 4 weeks to turn the tide and I expect we will 👍.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

But was that off the back of serious transfer interest in Emi, or off the back of Emi and Cantwell throwing a bit of a paddy without any clubs actually making a serious bid?

I don't think you need to make too much of a link to assume that the paddy would have been related to interest from other clubs, otherwise the paddy would make no sense; Farke at the time said it was down to interest from other clubs turning their head. 

So we did play hardball it's just in an admittedly unusual order - we could afford to play hardball in the division below but in the division above we quite clearly wanted it sorted early so we could do our business knowing the score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BigFish said:

That is the world as it is, not how how some posters would like it to be. It is that difference that is making some posters unhappy.

I don't understand how any could be anything other than 'unhappy' about the sale really. 

Yes you can justify, yes you can understand the club's decision to do it, yes you can applaud the incredible piece of transfer business to make £5mil into £33+ million etc etc. 

But does that mean you should be happy about losing our out-and-out best player? I don't think so.

Whichever way you cut it its always disappointing to lose your best player, it is a humbling indictment of the position of our club in the footballing ladder and we are still clearly a long way off being competitive in premier league terms - despite already sacrificing a premier league season for the 'greater good'.

We are still making progress, yes, but its saddening to see that we can't progress at the same rate as our top players too. That is not a criticism of anyone by the way. 

It's just a **** one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I don't think you need to make too much of a link to assume that the paddy would have been related to interest from other clubs, otherwise the paddy would make no sense; Farke at the time said it was down to interest from other clubs turning their head. 

So we did play hardball it's just in an admittedly unusual order - we could afford to play hardball in the division below but in the division above we quite clearly wanted it sorted early so we could do our business knowing the score.

The impression I had of the last summer window was that no club made a formal approach for either player. I would argue it was the rumours that were circling which turned their heads, rather than any money on the table. The Arsenal rumours for Buendia, and the Leeds rumours for Cantwell, I don't think I recall any mention of anything further than paper hearsay though. Not much point discussing it further though as its just a 'he said she said' debate at this point...

You are right though it does seem an unusual order, I wonder if the fact Webber had already expected to sell one of Buendia / Cantwell in the prior summer window brought the issue to a head in this window? But I definitely would've found the nature in which we done the transfer much easier to stomach a year ago than for the start of this window! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

.....it is a humbling indictment of the position of our club in the footballing ladder and we are still clearly a long way off being competitive in premier league terms - despite already sacrificing a premier league season for the 'greater good'.

It is clearly not a "humbling indictment", the club's position in the footballing ladder is what it is, and however much you want it to change it is not going to. That pretty much is the point. We can hope for good seasons and regret bad ones but the fundementals don't change.

We are still making progress, yes, but its saddening to see that we can't progress at the same rate as our top players too. That is not a criticism of anyone by the way.

Agree pretty much with this but it is not saddening, again it is what it is.

What irritates is that weeks later, after the deal is long gone posters on here just can't let it go, keep throwing up hypotheticals with no evidence, keep posting their Christmas wishes with zero liklihood of them comin to fruition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

The impression I had of the last summer window was that no club made a formal approach for either player. I would argue it was the rumours that were circling which turned their heads, rather than any money on the table. The Arsenal rumours for Buendia, and the Leeds rumours for Cantwell, I don't think I recall any mention of anything further than paper hearsay though. Not much point discussing it further though as its just a 'he said she said' debate at this point...

You are right though it does seem an unusual order, I wonder if the fact Webber had already expected to sell one of Buendia / Cantwell in the prior summer window brought the issue to a head in this window? But I definitely would've found the nature in which we done the transfer much easier to stomach a year ago than for the start of this window! 

I had heard that cantwell had practically packed his bags for Leeds before we pulled the plug on it due to something else falling through, but don't know if where I read that had any actual knowledge or was just speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...