Money already budgeted for...

[Grando 260]

To quote from the story on the site today regarding the new money from the Premier:

"The money, plus the £2m loan from new directors Andrew and Sharon Turner, were both vital components in allowing manager Peter Grant to go through the summer without being forced to sell players..."

Sorry, am I reading this right!? What about Etuhu and Earnshaw? And yes, I know they had to be sold because of the release clauses (won''t go there again), but this kind of statement really riles me. (Unless I''m being unkind and it''s a clever and ironic piece of journalism, which is just about possible, I suppose...)

[The Judge 0]

How could they have budgeted for it when they didn''t know how much it was going to be...

The article goes on to say that that the money spent on signing the 6 new players and one on loan has been "partly offset" by the sales of Earnshaw and Etuhu. "Partly offset" ??? - what a load of rubbish the money recieved for Earnie and Dixon far outweighs the money spent on the new ones and you can bet that the salaries of the new players as a group are far less than those sold/released this summer (i.e. Earnie, Thorne, McVeigh and Etuhu - will all have been on high salaries for this division). There is no doubt our transfer dealings to date this summer have the club in a far better financial position than it was in before it - despite the fact we didn''t have to sell....

Poor piece of journalism in my view

 

 

[Smeg 0]

i was about to post the same thing

what really has me concerned with all this spin is

"But without it there would have been a gaping hole in Grant''s spending powers, which have seen him bring in six new players on permanent deals plus one on a short-term loan - offset in part by the sales of Robert Earnshaw and Dickson Etuhu, which brought in £5m."

So basically we`ve spent the earnie money on the new players before he was sold? so his fee has paid the wages of the new players??? what about the fairley hefty wages released by the removal of MLY, WLY and thorne? between them must be nearly £1m a year? are you telling me Gilk, ostembour et al are on that sort of money?

would jimmy smith as a player who has only 1 app to his chelsea name be on serious cash? would chelsea be bothered about a loan fee?

and how long have they known about the 775k? to enable them to budget it in already?, this smells like oh great more money, lets not get the fans hopes up a bout a new signing by putting out this spin saying its already gone so we dont have to spend it.

Ive got a feeling that the interest on the Loans is biting, but i dont think many would mind if they came out and said, we`ve got this 5mill we are going to pay off 5mill of debt, at least we would know where we were and looking better for the future, instead of the money disappearing in the accountancy

 

Rant over

[Unlucky Fried Kitten 0]

Just when I begin to feel a bit more positive about the coming season, Doomcaster has to release another piece of depressing news. As you alluded to, Doomy seemed to overlook, or conveniently forget, the latest round of player sales in this unnecessary piece of SH and one T in the EDP. The sooner the season gets underway so that we can concentrate on the playing side of things, instead of all the financial mumbo jumbo, the better.

[lobster catcher 0]

Maybe the club should rephrase the"no players will have to be sold" statement to "the only players that maybe  sold are the ones with release clauses".At least then the supporters don''t have to feel misled.

[ricardo 7,384]

[quote user="The Judge"]

How could they have budgeted for it when they didn''t know how much it was going to be...

The article goes on to say that that the money spent on signing the 6 new players and one on loan has been "partly offset" by the sales of Earnshaw and Etuhu. "Partly offset" ??? - what a load of rubbish the money recieved for Earnie and Dixon far outweighs the money spent on the new ones and you can bet that the salaries of the new players as a group are far less than those sold/released this summer (i.e. Earnie, Thorne, McVeigh and Etuhu - will all have been on high salaries for this division). There is no doubt our transfer dealings to date this summer have the club in a far better financial position than it was in before it - despite the fact we didn''t have to sell....

Poor piece of journalism in my view

 

 

[/quote]

They take us for fools Judge. We have recieved £5 million in fees and we have paid out no more than £3 million.

As I stated in an earlier thread, this has been a very successful transfer window for the club. (Financially)

To spin the story in this way is an insult to the intelligence of the fans and simply gives ammunition to those who critisize the board.

Why do they find it so difficult to tell the truth..

All they need to say is "we have made a substantial profit on this seasons transfer activity which will help susidise the loss of parachute payments".

 

 

 

[Ginja 26]

Once again people get the wrong end of the stick, we did not have to sell any players, but that does not stop players leaving the club, end of story.

[Grando 260]

No, but Grant was forced to sell two players regardless, so this spin (or poor journalism) is a bit hard to take...

[ricardo 7,384]

[quote user="UEA Graduate Canary"]Once again people get the wrong end of the stick, we did not have to sell any players, but that does not stop players leaving the club, end of story.
[/quote]

With respect Graduate, thats not what we are arguing about.

The point is the deliberate spin which hides the fact that the club have made a £2 million profit on transfer dealings.

[7rew 0]

The club have made a (not neccesarily upfront) profit of 2.2m on permanent transfer fees paid to other clubs.

What profit/loss they have made in total over all the tranfer dealings is unknown - and probably will remain so for a while.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="7rew"]The club have made a (not neccesarily upfront) profit of 2.2m on permanent transfer fees paid to other clubs.

What profit/loss they have made in total over all the tranfer dealings is unknown - and probably will remain so for a while.

[/quote]

Pretty much all transfers are in staged payments therefore if other clubs commit £5million for our players over 2-3 years, we should be able to commit the same- over the same time frame- if the "all transfer monies are re-invested in the team" policy is actually true.

Of course it has been proved to be complete rubbish over the last two years but it is still only a small minority who question the board about it. Its the same old misleading spin and the same old 95% of doughnuts will fall for it and then scratch their heads wondering why the team is getting progressivly weaker.

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="7rew"]The club have made a (not neccesarily upfront) profit of 2.2m on permanent transfer fees paid to other clubs.

What profit/loss they have made in total over all the tranfer dealings is unknown - and probably will remain so for a while.

[/quote]

Right on the nail 7rew. No one on this thread knows how much money has come in and gone out this year - it is all guesswork. It will all come out in the accounts next Summer. What the club is honestly saying here is that it is not swimming in cash. Which considering in the last year of published accounts NCFC made a profit of £2.5m on the back of parachute payments of £7m any fool could have worked out. It will all be clear when the accounts are published next year so why would Doomcaster lie or spin it???[:^)]

[7rew 0]

Mr Carrow the point I was making is that while there has been a profit

in strictly in terms of fees paid, there are (and always have been)

hidden costs associated with transfers (wages, signing on fees, agent

fees, hospitality, travel, etc etc).  What these are are unknown -

as is the difference they make to any noiminally titled transfer

budget. 

In fact the transfer fees paid are also unknown as they were undisclosed, but I used the commonly accepted estimates for these.

A "Profit" of £2.2m is certainly an overestimate.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Pretty much all transfers are in staged payments therefore if other

clubs commit £5million for our players over 2-3 years, we should be

able to commit the same- over the same time frame- if the "all transfer

monies are re-invested in the team" policy is actually true.[/quote]The largest part of employing players is the cost of wages.  You don''t know the full cost of bringing new players in, when only headline figures are given.  Without access to the figures it''s pointless arguing over, as no-one knows the true financial state.  That said I expect that the wage bill is lower now than last season, it would have to be now that we have 7 million less from Sky.[quote]Its the same old misleading spin and the same old 95% of doughnuts will

fall for it and then scratch their heads wondering why the team is

getting progressivly weaker.[/quote]Speaking as one of those doughnuts, it''s down to opinion.  You can look at the accounts all you like, they only give a snap-shot of the business at year end.  You can use headline transfer figures as a stick to beat the board with, but again, it''s not the full picture.  Very few people think of the board as devious or incompetent, why do you think that is, Mr Carrow ?

[Snakepit Boy 0]

You should all have learned by now that all money that comes in is already budgeted for.

In the same way that all transfer fees we receive are actually less than we expected while all transfer fees we pay out actually cost us more than we first thought.

[The Judge 0]

[quote user="7rew"]Mr Carrow the point I was making is that while there has been a profit in strictly in terms of fees paid, there are (and always have been) hidden costs associated with transfers (wages, signing on fees, agent fees, hospitality, travel, etc etc).  What these are are unknown - as is the difference they make to any noiminally titled transfer budget. 

In fact the transfer fees paid are also unknown as they were undisclosed, but I used the commonly accepted estimates for these.

A "Profit" of £2.2m is certainly an overestimate.

[/quote]

I agree with what you are saying to a certain degree 7rew. However even you must concede that the term used by the journalist i.e. "partally offset by the sales" is incorrect and misleading. What that phrase suggests is that the new players and loan of Jimmy Smith exceeds the £5m we recieved for E & E. Sorry even without knowing the true figures I don''t buy that. 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]Pretty much all transfers are in staged payments therefore if other clubs commit £5million for our players over 2-3 years, we should be able to commit the same- over the same time frame- if the "all transfer monies are re-invested in the team" policy is actually true.[/quote]

The largest part of employing players is the cost of wages.  You don''t know the full cost of bringing new players in, when only headline figures are given.  Without access to the figures it''s pointless arguing over, as no-one knows the true financial state.  That said I expect that the wage bill is lower now than last season, it would have to be now that we have 7 million less from Sky.

[quote]Its the same old misleading spin and the same old 95% of doughnuts will fall for it and then scratch their heads wondering why the team is getting progressivly weaker.[/quote]

Speaking as one of those doughnuts, it''s down to opinion.  You can look at the accounts all you like, they only give a snap-shot of the business at year end.  You can use headline transfer figures as a stick to beat the board with, but again, it''s not the full picture.  Very few people think of the board as devious or incompetent, why do you think that is, Mr Carrow ?
[/quote]

Yes, and it`s a very handy for people to point out how much a new player costs in wages whilst conveniently forgetting the large wages saved from the players departed. As far as the other fees go, they are miniscule compared to the millions recieved. Again, its spin.

I base my opinion on the fact that the board have been saying since relegation that all transfer fees received go straight back into the squad and yet it clearly hasn`t happened. If people honestly think the profit made has gone on agents fees and other signing-on expenses they really need to get a grip. We paid the highest agents fees in the league a year or two ago and it only amounted to £300k.

On whether or not the board are devious or incompetent, i came to the conclusion a long time ago that people believe what they want to believe. Reality is an unneccessary inconvenience if someone has a big enough emotional investment in their belief.

[ricardo 7,384]

[quote user="The Judge"]

[quote user="7rew"]Mr Carrow the point I was making is that while there has been a profit in strictly in terms of fees paid, there are (and always have been) hidden costs associated with transfers (wages, signing on fees, agent fees, hospitality, travel, etc etc).  What these are are unknown - as is the difference they make to any noiminally titled transfer budget. 

In fact the transfer fees paid are also unknown as they were undisclosed, but I used the commonly accepted estimates for these.

A "Profit" of £2.2m is certainly an overestimate.

[/quote]

I agree with what you are saying to a certain degree 7rew. However even you must concede that the term used by the journalist i.e. "partally offset by the sales" is incorrect and misleading. What that phrase suggests is that the new players and loan of Jimmy Smith exceeds the £5m we recieved for E & E. Sorry even without knowing the true figures I don''t buy that. 

[/quote]

Nor do I Judge but it seems that many posters do.

I wonder why Doomcaster bothers to spin it when so many people are prepared to believe this guff.

I wonder if any of you actually read the accounts when they are published? I know I do and so does Mr.Carrow. Page 9 clearly shows that profits on player trading for the last 6 seasons total £12.1 million. To suggest wages and agents fees make up the difference between the in and out fees is also nonsense. We have made at least £2 million during this transfer window. If the club admitted that they were putting the money by to cover the loss of parachute payments then fair enough.

As I have said on here before, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can''t fool all of the people all of the time.

[7rew 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="The Judge"]

I agree with what you are saying to a certain degree 7rew. However even you must concede that the term used by the journalist i.e. "partally offset by the sales" is incorrect and misleading. What that phrase suggests is that the new players and loan of Jimmy Smith exceeds the £5m we recieved for E & E. Sorry even without knowing the true figures I don''t buy that. 

[/quote]

Nor do I Judge but it seems that many posters do.

I wonder why Doomcaster bothers to spin it when so many people are prepared to believe this guff.

I wonder if any of you actually read the accounts when they are published? I know I do and so does Mr.Carrow. Page 9 clearly shows that profits on player trading for the last 6 seasons total £12.1 million. To suggest wages and agents fees make up the difference between the in and out fees is also nonsense. We have made at least £2 million during this transfer window. If the club admitted that they were putting the money by to cover the loss of parachute payments then fair enough.

As I have said on here before, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can''t fool all of the people all of the time.

[/quote]Judge: I don''t believe that we have spent over 5 million, but Ricardo, nor do I believe we have spent under 3 million.However the phrasing comes from the journalist, so how is it Doncaster spinning the figures.

[tilly 0]

 Please be warned B.B. that a couple of seasons back when in a pink un NCISA article i used the expression "mumbo jumbo" in the same breathe as our Chief Executive he copped a big time hump with me and was accussed of being rude and anti club !

[Mark .Y. 352]

[quote user="tilly"] Please be warned B.B. that a couple of seasons back when in a pink un NCISA article i used the expression "mumbo jumbo" in the same breathe as our Chief Executive he copped a big time hump with me and was accussed of being rude and anti club !
[/quote]

Well, there was no need to get personal with him was there. And even if there was, just restrict yourself to calling him "fatty" next time.

Mark .Y.