We should have had 7.5 million to spend but PG talks about Bosmans

[Hog 0]

As far as I can tell, if we haven''t been lied to, we should have had around 7 million in our war chest. 2.5 that was allocated for the Varney, and later Sharp bids, plus 3.5 from Earnie and a further 1.5 from Etuhu. There is no way that these payments where staggered or based on various clauses as they were buy out clauses in the players contracts, and for that the total cash amount has to be offered or the club can refuse the bid. So if we have , or had at least 7 million to spend, then why is Grant saying we need to look at Bosmans, (source: www.rickwaghorn.co.uk) surely our transfers in so far have not cost 7 million? Thats the question I will put to Doncaster on Aug 1st

[ZLF 275]

Dont be too disappointed with the stock answer then;

It is all staged payments,  we have spen some and some it still available,  you have to cover wages etc etc etc. What else can/is he likely to say?  

[Essex_Canary 6]

Think its fair to say that the £2m for Varney and or Sharp would have come from the Earnshaw money, don''t forget that they new the state of play with regards to his clause and it looks even more like they were lining up a replacement before he''d been sold.

So instead of £7.5m I reckon we''ve got £5m to play with and given the signings we''ve made we probably have about £2m of that left. Don''t think reading the Rick Waghorn article that Grant is exclusively after Bosman''s, the quote that PG gives relates to finding bargains like Brellier, its only the text of the article that mentions "free" transfers. If we can find another centre half and a central midfielder without breaking the bank, whether they be premiership loans or from league one level then I''ll be happy!

[ricardo 7,402]

[quote user="Essex_Canary"]

Think its fair to say that the £2m for Varney and or Sharp would have come from the Earnshaw money, don''t forget that they new the state of play with regards to his clause and it looks even more like they were lining up a replacement before he''d been sold.

So instead of £7.5m I reckon we''ve got £5m to play with and given the signings we''ve made we probably have about £2m of that left. Don''t think reading the Rick Waghorn article that Grant is exclusively after Bosman''s, the quote that PG gives relates to finding bargains like Brellier, its only the text of the article that mentions "free" transfers. If we can find another centre half and a central midfielder without breaking the bank, whether they be premiership loans or from league one level then I''ll be happy!

[/quote]

In which case the claim that they did not have to sell anybody was at the very least  disingenuous.

Or to put it more plainly, a deliberate fib.

While the board see the transfer window as an opportunity to improve the bottom line rather than improve the team then things will very much remain the same.

[mr carra 0]

"In which case the claim that they did not have to sell anybody was at the very least  disingenuous.

Or to put it more plainly, a deliberate fib."

What a load of rubbish.  They said we did not need to sell players for financial reasons (i.e. to keep the bank at bay).   What that means is that money we get in from sales  (just because we don''t need to sell anyone doesn''t mean we won''t want to sell some of them or that others won''t want to leave) can go on replacements.  There is no evidence whatsoever that this is not the case.  We have recieved about £3.5m for Earnie and £1.35m for Dickson (though there will be other costs so we won''t receive that amount of cash) and we have so far spent the best part of £2.5m on Marshall, Cureton and Strihavka.  I would have thought we would have about £1.5-£2m tops available to spend (of course we don''t want to make this too obvious for negotiation purposes).

 

The Board clearly told the truth - it isn''t their fault you that can''t (or choose not to) understand it (seemed simple enough to me).

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="mr carra"]

"In which case the claim that they did not have to sell anybody was at the very least  disingenuous.

Or to put it more plainly, a deliberate fib."

What a load of rubbish.  They said we did not need to sell players for financial reasons (i.e. to keep the bank at bay).   What that means is that money we get in from sales  (just because we don''t need to sell anyone doesn''t mean we won''t want to sell some of them or that others won''t want to leave) can go on replacements.  There is no evidence whatsoever that this is not the case.  We have recieved about £3.5m for Earnie and £1.35m for Dickson (though there will be other costs so we won''t receive that amount of cash) and we have so far spent the best part of £2.5m on Marshall, Cureton and Strihavka.  I would have thought we would have about £1.5-£2m tops available to spend (of course we don''t want to make this too obvious for negotiation purposes).

 

The Board clearly told the truth - it isn''t their fault you that can''t (or choose not to) understand it (seemed simple enough to me).

[/quote]

Whatever happened to the theory that the board had a transfer kitty in place prior to any players being sold?

If we only have £5million tops to spend (as seems likely) then my oh my how easily pleased we are with the boards contribution of a BIG FAT ZERO to this years PRMOTION PUSH TRANSFER KITTY!!!!

[ricardo 7,402]

[quote user="mr carra"]

"In which case the claim that they did not have to sell anybody was at the very least  disingenuous.

Or to put it more plainly, a deliberate fib."

What a load of rubbish.  They said we did not need to sell players for financial reasons (i.e. to keep the bank at bay).   What that means is that money we get in from sales  (just because we don''t need to sell anyone doesn''t mean we won''t want to sell some of them or that others won''t want to leave) can go on replacements.  There is no evidence whatsoever that this is not the case.  We have recieved about £3.5m for Earnie and £1.35m for Dickson (though there will be other costs so we won''t receive that amount of cash) and we have so far spent the best part of £2.5m on Marshall, Cureton and Strihavka.  I would have thought we would have about £1.5-£2m tops available to spend (of course we don''t want to make this too obvious for negotiation purposes).

 

The Board clearly told the truth - it isn''t their fault you that can''t (or choose not to) understand it (seemed simple enough to me).

[/quote]

My point is this.............Essex Canary wrote

Think its fair to say that the £2m for Varney and or Sharp would have come from the Earnshaw money, don''t forget that they new the state of play with regards to his clause and it looks even more like they were lining up a replacement before he''d been sold.

Now if we were lining up a replacement for Earnie at the same time as preparing to sell him then any statement to the fans that we did not need to sell was at least misleading if not a deliberate lie. It makes you wonder what would have happened had Sharp accepted our terms and Derby not activated Earnies release clause.

 

What evidence do you have to back up this claim when we have made £12.1 million from player trading in the last 6 years. Thats not counting the £2+ million so far this season.

As to board telling the truth? You may believe that Mr Carra but I couldn''t possibly comment.

[Temp the Revelator 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

Now if we were lining up a replacement for Earnie at the same time as preparing to sell him then any statement to the fans that we did not need to sell was at least misleading if not a deliberate lie. It makes you wonder what would have happened had Sharp accepted our terms and Derby not activated Earnies release clause.

[/quote]

No, they said we didn''t need to sell any players this summer.  They didn''t say we didn''t need to sell any players if we wanted to buy other players, just that we now didn''t need to sell players.  I read this that if the Turners hadn''t loaned us the £2m, we would have needed to sell just to balance the books bearing in mind we had lost the £7m parachute payments.  Therefore, I fail to see how the board have been misleading or told a deliberate lie.  Rather your interpretation of the statement is put in such a way as to make it appear like a lie.

[ricardo 7,402]

[quote user="Temp the Revelator"][quote user="ricardo"]

Now if we were lining up a replacement for Earnie at the same time as preparing to sell him then any statement to the fans that we did not need to sell was at least misleading if not a deliberate lie. It makes you wonder what would have happened had Sharp accepted our terms and Derby not activated Earnies release clause.

[/quote]

No, they said we didn''t need to sell any players this summer.  They didn''t say we didn''t need to sell any players if we wanted to buy other players, just that we now didn''t need to sell players.  I read this that if the Turners hadn''t loaned us the £2m, we would have needed to sell just to balance the books bearing in mind we had lost the £7m parachute payments.  Therefore, I fail to see how the board have been misleading or told a deliberate lie.  Rather your interpretation of the statement is put in such a way as to make it appear like a lie.

[/quote]

I wonder how you equate a £2 million bid for Sharp with a simultaneous statement that we did not need to sell Earnie.

If the truth is that they had to sell Ernie if they were going to be able to fund sharps transfer(and you are suggesting that this is the case) then the statement was at the very least deliberately misleading.

 

[chicken 0]

Yes Ricardo it is - but who is it aimed at?

If you came out saying that Earnshaw was going the club we were trying to buy from might feel that they can up the anti in a bidding war.

I don''t believe we had as much money to spend as people think. One thing I did find funny that no one has yet brought up is that the Turners have loaned us £2million to cover a whole but according to Doncaster in the last budget we made a proffit.  Now ok I maybe nothing when it comes to accountancy but can the two be applied at once?

[Branston Pickle 3,696]

[quote user="Salahuddin"]As far as I can tell, if we haven''t been lied to, we should have had around 7 million in our war chest. 2.5 that was allocated for the Varney, and later Sharp bids, plus 3.5 from Earnie and a further 1.5 from Etuhu. There is no way that these payments where staggered or based on various clauses as they were buy out clauses in the players contracts, and for that the total cash amount has to be offered or the club can refuse the bid. So if we have , or had at least 7 million to spend, then why is Grant saying we need to look at Bosmans, (source: www.rickwaghorn.co.uk) surely our transfers in so far have not cost 7 million? Thats the question I will put to Doncaster on Aug 1st[/quote]

I can see what you are getting at, but imo you are rather missing what Grant was talking about re: Bosman signings - it was more along the lines that if you get a really good one you can pay them a load more (presumably usually as a signing on fee): I think he was referring to the Fowler sort of scenario (and possibly Kluivert), he''s gone on a free but is supposedly on c£30k a week: ie they are paying him what would have presumably constituted the transfer fee, which is c£3m over 2 years.  The transfer fee + his salary, done any other way, would have probably been well beyond Cardiff''s (or our) capabilites.

In transfer dealings the figure we only ever see is the transfer fee - if we actually see it, given that they are increasingly being ''undisclosed.  But the thing is that this is merely the amount paid to the selling club, ie it is excluding Agents fees and signing on fees, which are all part of the whole.   A ''free'' transfer is far from it - all you are missing is the fee to the selling club and whilst that is the main part, all the other constituent parts are there, and can amount to quite a bit.  I used to think otherwise, but my brother works for a legal firm who sometimes deal with player contracts, and he says the amounts in question are certainly not small.

It is certainly true, though, that we should still have a pretty decent sized kitty remaining.  IMO it is not now that we need to question the finer points of the transfers over the summer, however, surely it is bettter to see what happens in the coming weeks before the season starts - and there''s still almost 6 weeksand the transfer window shuts. 

 

[The saint 3]

While everyone accuses the board of deceit about how much money we have. Am i correct in thinking  the accounts are published in black and white so everyone can see where the money has gone?

If im wrong i apologise but i cant help thinking there are too many people on here who are getting a bit obsessive about this board and there apparent dishonesty.

 

[Cluck 0]

What''s with all of this concerned and informed financial "speak" when we discuss the club...it''s outgoings on players...supposed income....and laughable public announcements/spin?

As fan''s we shouldn''t even be remotely concerned with the "club position". What plays on the pitch is what the "spectators" pay well to see ...while others "upstairs" are all too well rewarded for handling their ticket/merchandise/etc. investment on the their behalf.

If anyone here can even begin to believe that they are getting proper value in return for what they are putting in, they are sorely deluded. Another pot of season ticket money stashed....income from players they allegedly "didn''t need to sell"....and here you are watching someone else''s unknown rejects running around in the once proud yellow shirt. It''s little short of scandalous....but then I suppose we should all just be glad Delia saved us like she did otherwise we might have ended up rubbish like Leeds...or even Hearts if she''d been Russian........

Bilge.

 

[ricardo 7,402]

[quote user="The saint"]

While everyone accuses the board of deceit about how much money we have. Am i correct in thinking  the accounts are published in black and white so everyone can see where the money has gone?

If im wrong i apologise but i cant help thinking there are too many people on here who are getting a bit obsessive about this board and there apparent dishonesty.

 

[/quote]

You are most certainly correct Saint. The accounts show a £12 million profit on player trading over 6 years but some people are happy to remain under the illusion  propogated by the board that all transfer income is re-invested in players.

If transfer income is needed simply to balance the books then why not come clean and admit it?

[Temp the Revelator 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

You are most certainly correct Saint. The accounts show a £12 million profit on player trading over 6 years but some people are happy to remain under the illusion  propogated by the board that all transfer income is re-invested in players.

If transfer income is needed simply to balance the books then why not come clean and admit it?

[/quote]

Again, this is just your negative take on it - I don''t think I have ever seen anyone from the club state that ALL transfer income is re-invested in players.  Recently we have had statements to the effect that all of the transfer income from a couple of delas will go into the transfer pot, but I have certainly never seen the club say that all transfer income does the same.

[ricardo 7,402]

[quote user="Temp the Revelator"][quote user="ricardo"]

You are most certainly correct Saint. The accounts show a £12 million profit on player trading over 6 years but some people are happy to remain under the illusion  propogated by the board that all transfer income is re-invested in players.

If transfer income is needed simply to balance the books then why not come clean and admit it?

[/quote]

Again, this is just your negative take on it - I don''t think I have ever seen anyone from the club state that ALL transfer income is re-invested in players.  Recently we have had statements to the effect that all of the transfer income from a couple of delas will go into the transfer pot, but I have certainly never seen the club say that all transfer income does the same.

[/quote]

I saw £5 million go into that pot but less than £3 million come out and I confidently predict that when the accounts are published next May we will continue to see a plus sign on the Profits from Player Trading column.

[nutty nigel 7,645]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Temp the Revelator"][quote user="ricardo"]

You are most certainly correct Saint. The accounts show a £12 million profit on player trading over 6 years but some people are happy to remain under the illusion  propogated by the board that all transfer income is re-invested in players.

If transfer income is needed simply to balance the books then why not come clean and admit it?

[/quote]

Again, this is just your negative take on it - I don''t think I have ever seen anyone from the club state that ALL transfer income is re-invested in players.  Recently we have had statements to the effect that all of the transfer income from a couple of delas will go into the transfer pot, but I have certainly never seen the club say that all transfer income does the same.

[/quote]

I saw £5 million go into that pot but less than £3 million come out and I confidently predict that when the accounts are published next May we will continue to see a plus sign on the Profits from Player Trading column.

[/quote]

I gave up looking through the accounts and then discussing it on here Ricardo. By the time we get the information it''s so far out of date it''s hardly relevent. I could be wrong but I am under the impression by the time we see a set of accounts that includes the player trading from the current transfer window it will be December 2008!

 

[Chip20 69]

Can anybody point me to all the other clubs that openly state in the press and on websites exactly how much money is available for transfers and a clear breakdown of where the monies have gone etc., as a number of people on here seem to be calling for from ours? Why do people seem to think that ours should be far more transparent than any others in terms of finances and transfer dealings?

And how stupid would it be to issue a statement in the press that reads something to the effect of "thanks to new investment we will not be forced to sell any of our players to balance the books, except player x who has a £2million release clause, player y who has one set at £1.25million; oh and player z who we''ll have to let go if somebody offers us £850K"!!!? just so that some of the more sensitive fans out there don''t feel as though they''ve been misled?

[Old Shuck 188]

Don''t you think that some of this "pot" might have gone onto paying off some debt? Or aren''t we bothering to do that with any profits that we make from player sales, or whatever? I think maybe a few people who we owe money to might be a little aggreived if we had this £7 million and then spent it all without giving them some!

I presume everyone on here, when they get their monthly salaries spends it all on holidays, fast cars, wine, women and song? Never mind the mortgage or rent, bills, council tax etc?

The clubs the same-it does have other things to worry about that cost money, not just buying players!

 

 

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Old Shuck"]

Don''t you think that some of this "pot" might have gone onto paying off some debt? Or aren''t we bothering to do that with any profits that we make from player sales, or whatever? I think maybe a few people who we owe money to might be a little aggreived if we had this £7 million and then spent it all without giving them some!

I presume everyone on here, when they get their monthly salaries spends it all on holidays, fast cars, wine, women and song? Never mind the mortgage or rent, bills, council tax etc?

The clubs the same-it does have other things to worry about that cost money, not just buying players!

 

 

[/quote]

Nearly all the clubs debt is within the £15million securitisation loan which is payable in regular, predictable instalments (same as a mortgage) designed to be comfortably covered by ordinary income (season tickets, merchandising, sponsorship etc.). So no, they are not using this bonus money to pay back debts-just as they didn`t use the Prem./Ashton/Francis/Green millions to pay back debts.

[Old Shuck 188]

Chhers Mr Carrow-I thought we were covered by our "mortgage" loan but suspected that, as our expenses still seem to esceed our income, they may have been other or increased debts to take into account.

I guess if NCFC had a Virgin Plus account they could pay off their regular monthly payment-"plus a little bit more" and lessen the debt and the time it needs to be paid!

Its boring, I know, wanting the club to focus on reducing debt and to manage that £15 Million but essential that no-one loses awareness that we still have that (relative) millstone. The Turner''s have announced that they want to look into that sort of thing and I find that reassuring, particularly if, as seems certain, they also want to develop and push the football side more alongside it.

[Hairy Canary 711]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="mr carra"]

"In which case the claim that they did not have to sell anybody was at the very least  disingenuous.

Or to put it more plainly, a deliberate fib."

What a load of rubbish.  They said we did not need to sell players for financial reasons (i.e. to keep the bank at bay).   What that means is that money we get in from sales  (just because we don''t need to sell anyone doesn''t mean we won''t want to sell some of them or that others won''t want to leave) can go on replacements.  There is no evidence whatsoever that this is not the case.  We have recieved about £3.5m for Earnie and £1.35m for Dickson (though there will be other costs so we won''t receive that amount of cash) and we have so far spent the best part of £2.5m on Marshall, Cureton and Strihavka.  I would have thought we would have about £1.5-£2m tops available to spend (of course we don''t want to make this too obvious for negotiation purposes).

 

The Board clearly told the truth - it isn''t their fault you that can''t (or choose not to) understand it (seemed simple enough to me).

[/quote]

Whatever happened to the theory that the board had a transfer kitty in place prior to any players being sold?

If we only have £5million tops to spend (as seems likely) then my oh my how easily pleased we are with the boards contribution of a BIG FAT ZERO to this years PRMOTION PUSH TRANSFER KITTY!!!!

[/quote]

The theory came from the likes of you Smudger!

It really is very very simple. As stated the Turner''s money prevented us having to sell this close season. That means that without it we would have had to sell just to manage the £7 million reduction in this years income. The money we have spent is funded from Earnies sale and presumably Grant now has Etuhu''s cash for further buys should he wish.

The Turners are on the board and have put in £2 million. It''s not huge but thats where we are. It''s not zero as you state and the board haven''t lied.

[Hog 0]

Well I cetainly didn''t expect so many replies! Not all of them very nice either!

 

 

And yes Smudger is right, where, and what was our original transfer kitty?   0 by the looks of it

[Temp the Revelator 0]

It''s probably still right where it has always been - just because Grant hasn''t spent it doesn''t mean it isn''t there!  Maybe he doesn''t want to spend it for the sake of keeping a few moaning fans happy and actually wants to wait and use it on players he actually wants?  Perhaps his main targets are not available for one reason or another and he doesn''t want to sign substandard alternatives just because he has money to spend?  Radical, I know, but a possibility, surely?

[Hog 0]

well I guess only time will tell.

[Hucks6 169]

i personally would not spend one minute with neil doncaster.the only clause in his contract is (SANTA CLAUS) because he gives everything away HA HA

[Tookie140 0]

2 million from the turners

1 million at least from the board

3.5 million for earnie

1.5 million for etuhu=8 million

Otsemobor - Free - Crewe
Matthew Gilks - Free - Rochdale

Jamie Cureton - about 750,000 - Colchester

Julien Brellier - Free - Hearts
David Marshall - 750,000 i think - Celtic
David Strihavka - about 700,000- Banik Ostrava
Jimmy Smith - Loan (December)- Chelsea = 2.2 million

we still have about 5.8 million