mbncfc 1 Posted July 6, 2007 Practical question. Why are so many clubs (it''s not just us) not disclosing the transfer fees they pay?Obviously there is the fan issue. The selling club may not want to publicise the fact that they didn''t get the original value they asked for. Likewise, the buying club may not want their fans to think they have paid over the odds.But are there other reasons why? Are there financial or tax incentives in not declaring a transfer fee?Does anyone know? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hotdog 0 Posted July 6, 2007 i think it is mainly the fans, we wouldn''t be to happy if we found out that we had spent around 1Mill on Cureton would we when we could get Eastwood for 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
7rew 0 Posted July 6, 2007 I think its the endless transfer fee arguements on the internet:If the buying club sites the full cost (inc fees) the selling club then got slated for not reinvesting all of it.If they don''t include all the fees the buying club get slated as cheap skates.That coupled with how complicated the transfer payments are likely to be, its better for both clubs if no one know the actual fee. On a side note: I notice that the pink''un has transfer fees listed for Marshall and Cureton. these were undisclosed - where did the data come from or is it speculation/rumour? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canaryjock 0 Posted July 6, 2007 I think it''s basically so other clubs don''t have any clue as to how much money we have available therefore if we attempt to buy someone, we won''t get held to ransom quite as much. Obviously if we admit to offering £3m for a player which is unsuccessful, the next club we approach to buy their player will know we have at least that much money and might hold out for more than he''s worth. It is annoying but it is probably in our best interests to keep these fees quiet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blahblahblah 2 Posted July 6, 2007 Agreed Canaryjock - even if the transfer fees were published, there would still be hidden fees that would relate to the purchase, but not be shown. Don''t you just wish that Scunthorpe had kept quiet about Sharp''s fee ? [:)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellowfuture 71 Posted July 6, 2007 I agree jock, you dont reveal the size of your wad before the conquest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smudger 0 Posted July 6, 2007 Do you realy need to ask that question mbncfc?I would of thought that the answer to it was quite obvious??? [:D] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mbncfc 1 Posted July 6, 2007 [quote user="Smudger"] Do you realy need to ask that question mbncfc?I would of thought that the answer to it was quite obvious??? [:D][/quote]He he... [:D]Indeed. No, the reason I asked was I thought I''d seen on here some time in the past a post stating clubs would leave fees undisclosed because of possible tax or financial accounting advantages.Seems like it''s just the classic transfer merry-go-round of secrecy instead. All good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seb 0 Posted July 6, 2007 Sorry to the conspiracy theorists out there - It''s nothing to do with the so-called great fan swindle I''m afraid. If a club is a private or public company it means there’s implications on declaring fee’s, and if you actually have to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Branston Pickle 3,638 Posted July 6, 2007 [quote user="Smudger"] Do you realy need to ask that question mbncfc?I would of thought that the answer to it was quite obvious??? [:D][/quote]....is it so that you can moan about it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
