Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chicken

Transfer Confusion

Recommended Posts

Some people seem to be getting confused over possible transfer funds. Some people have suggested that because we had bid £2.5million for Sharp and £1million for Eastwood that our transfer kitty must be between £5 and £6million.

The problem with this is that they have done their maths wrong.

They were two targets but it does not mean that the club and Grant intended to sign both. The problem in previous seasons is that we seemed to only have one big target in the summer which we ended up paying for when they failed to materialise and plan B had not had any groundwork done. This year Grant has his finger on the pulse and has from the word go tried to sign the good players out there.

Eastwood and Sharp are similar players in their role and I doubt very much that we would have bought both but as they say if you don''t buy a ticket don''t expect to win. To sign either we would have to put in a bid. There is no point putting in a single bid for one only to see it fail for various reasons and then to go to plan B to find that he has just been unveiled as a signing at another club.

To add to this the totals quoted may well not be lump sums. It was mentioned a lot that the Scunthorpe wanted £2.5million including various add ons for him, this suggests that the initial outlay was less and in some cases this is paid for over a period of time and not in one lump sum.

So the only thing you can come to in conclusion is that we had possibly £1.5-2million of real hard cash in the kitty, as in money that is there here and now. Add on the sale of Earnshaw which again may not be in one lump sum. So I think an estimate of between £4-5million is about right.

Then you have to total up the players signed.

Marshall - £1million

Cureton - £800k

Strihavka - £800k

Total - £2.6million

Lets total that up to £3million for the other costs involved in transfers plus those for the other free transfer players.

That leaves between £1-£2million left. Now if it is the lower end of the scale you can understand why Grant has said that he wants to give it a week or so and a couple of friendlies before deciding on who to shop for next. However if you read into it on the various articles it does sound like there are a couple of other players they might still be working on and assessing including loans.

You can''t blame him for holding back some funds and at least he is being a little cautious. It is also one of the largest outlays of money in a close season that I can remember City putting out.

I fully expect Smudge to say this post is pointless and for Arthur Whittle (either incarnation) to claim that I must be the secret lover of one of the board members!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="chicken"]

Some people seem to be getting confused over possible transfer funds. Some people have suggested that because we had bid £2.5million for Sharp and £1million for Eastwood that our transfer kitty must be between £5 and £6million.

The problem with this is that they have done their maths wrong.

They were two targets but it does not mean that the club and Grant intended to sign both. The problem in previous seasons is that we seemed to only have one big target in the summer which we ended up paying for when they failed to materialise and plan B had not had any groundwork done. This year Grant has his finger on the pulse and has from the word go tried to sign the good players out there.

Eastwood and Sharp are similar players in their role and I doubt very much that we would have bought both but as they say if you don''t buy a ticket don''t expect to win. To sign either we would have to put in a bid. There is no point putting in a single bid for one only to see it fail for various reasons and then to go to plan B to find that he has just been unveiled as a signing at another club.

To add to this the totals quoted may well not be lump sums. It was mentioned a lot that the Scunthorpe wanted £2.5million including various add ons for him, this suggests that the initial outlay was less and in some cases this is paid for over a period of time and not in one lump sum.

So the only thing you can come to in conclusion is that we had possibly £1.5-2million of real hard cash in the kitty, as in money that is there here and now. Add on the sale of Earnshaw which again may not be in one lump sum. So I think an estimate of between £4-5million is about right.

Then you have to total up the players signed.

Marshall - £1million

Cureton - £800k

Strihavka - £800k

Total - £2.6million

Lets total that up to £3million for the other costs involved in transfers plus those for the other free transfer players.

That leaves between £1-£2million left. Now if it is the lower end of the scale you can understand why Grant has said that he wants to give it a week or so and a couple of friendlies before deciding on who to shop for next. However if you read into it on the various articles it does sound like there are a couple of other players they might still be working on and assessing including loans.

You can''t blame him for holding back some funds and at least he is being a little cautious. It is also one of the largest outlays of money in a close season that I can remember City putting out.

I fully expect Smudge to say this post is pointless and for Arthur Whittle (either incarnation) to claim that I must be the secret lover of one of the board members!

[/quote]

Sorry Chicken but I can''t see where this is true. We have spent (on your figures) £3 million but we we have sold £3.5 million. I make that a profit of half a million so please tell me where my maths is wrong.

Your partial excuse that the Earnshaw money may be phased payments does not hold water because in all probability our own purchases will likely be phased.

The transfers of Ashton, Green and Mckenzie were phased (as stated in 2006 accounts). We will be recieving substantial payments from these this season and next.

Hopefully your reading that we are still working on a couple of players is true because it certainly needs to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was reported that we had bid £2m for Sharp and £500k for Marshall, and this was before the sale of Earnshaw for £3.5m. We have had a poster claiming to be close to the Turners and stating we have a kitty of circa £5m, again before the sale of Earnie for £3.5M. The point of this post, simple really, you have an opinion on the clubs finances as does Mr Whittle, he could be right and you totally wrong and vice versa, neither of you know for sure because you do not have access to the relevant information, so please do not post as if you are factually correct an everyone else is totally ga ga.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Said Chicken.

There''s also no point spending for the sake of it, yes i expect there is another £2 Million there but theres stiull time to spend it, time to asses whether we need to.

We''ve signed Brellier on a free, we could have signed someone instead of him for £1Million who wouldnt have been as good. It isnt all about spending money, we arent a rich club, so we need to sign the best option, not the most expensivce we can afford becasue they arent always the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed SoB, none of us knows how much there is, only that there is probably some money left from the Earnie sale.  It boils down to whether you''re willing to believe that we''ll keep looking for players, or whether you think that''s us done.  I prefer to believe that we''re still looking, Bryan Gunn strikes me as a hard-working kind of bloke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chicken you may be right.  That said there could be all sorts of reasons behind the money such as holding back for the new year.  I do agree that we were never gonna sign Eastwood and Sharp and the Eastwood bid went in purely because it was clear sharp wasm''t interested.  It''s also not beyond belief that we may have bid for those players with the knowledge that Earnshaw will be sold or we could always sell earnshaw.  I would also add that spending out the entire sum after selling someone is rare to say the least.  Therefore even if we don''t spend any more money it has been a productive period.  Personally I am more concerned with quality of squad we are left with than the money spent and in that regard we are getting there.  Nice post Chicken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am getting at is not who is right or wrong but that people are not being lodical here.

If we bid £2million a piece for four players it does not mean we have a transfer kitty of £8million. This is how Arthur and some others have explained how we have a massive transfer kitty - and I am afraid to say it but this is just totally incorrect and UNTRUE.

They are welcome to their opinion but if it is based upon ideas such as this then its clear to see that its just totaly unfounded.

Sure my total of the amount left is also a guestimate but at least one that attempts to take into account most factors.

As some people have said there are other factors involved in this that perhaps my opinion did not cover and I am willing to suggest other things to cover that.

For example Ashton. We agreed to pay Crewe in installments did we not? I should imagine that when he was sold the initial money may have been kept and the installments from West Ham used to pay the installments for Crewe.

If you then also take into account our anual wage bill  - Tony Warner must have been on a fair wage for example then you could see some of this money going on players in this way too.

Now my theory is not soundproof and I am not suggesting it is but it is far more solid than we should have £6million to spend still because we sold Earnshaw and didn''t sign Sharpe.

That simply does not balance as it deliberately misses out massive pieces of detail there for the public to gleam!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="chicken"]

Some people seem to be getting confused over possible transfer funds. Some people have suggested that because we had bid £2.5million for Sharp and £1million for Eastwood that our transfer kitty must be between £5 and £6million.

The problem with this is that they have done their maths wrong.

They were two targets but it does not mean that the club and Grant intended to sign both. The problem in previous seasons is that we seemed to only have one big target in the summer which we ended up paying for when they failed to materialise and plan B had not had any groundwork done. This year Grant has his finger on the pulse and has from the word go tried to sign the good players out there.

Eastwood and Sharp are similar players in their role and I doubt very much that we would have bought both but as they say if you don''t buy a ticket don''t expect to win. To sign either we would have to put in a bid. There is no point putting in a single bid for one only to see it fail for various reasons and then to go to plan B to find that he has just been unveiled as a signing at another club.

To add to this the totals quoted may well not be lump sums. It was mentioned a lot that the Scunthorpe wanted £2.5million including various add ons for him, this suggests that the initial outlay was less and in some cases this is paid for over a period of time and not in one lump sum.

So the only thing you can come to in conclusion is that we had possibly £1.5-2million of real hard cash in the kitty, as in money that is there here and now. Add on the sale of Earnshaw which again may not be in one lump sum. So I think an estimate of between £4-5million is about right.

Then you have to total up the players signed.

Marshall - £1million

Cureton - £800k

Strihavka - £800k

Total - £2.6million

Lets total that up to £3million for the other costs involved in transfers plus those for the other free transfer players.

That leaves between £1-£2million left. Now if it is the lower end of the scale you can understand why Grant has said that he wants to give it a week or so and a couple of friendlies before deciding on who to shop for next. However if you read into it on the various articles it does sound like there are a couple of other players they might still be working on and assessing including loans.

You can''t blame him for holding back some funds and at least he is being a little cautious. It is also one of the largest outlays of money in a close season that I can remember City putting out.

I fully expect Smudge to say this post is pointless and for Arthur Whittle (either incarnation) to claim that I must be the secret lover of one of the board members!

[/quote]

I dont know where you got those transfer fees from, my understanding is that they are all undisclosed. 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...