Transfer Fees

[Fuglestad 0]

I''d just like to say how annoying it is when people say we haven''t spent much this summer, becuase a lot have been free transfers and loans. Transfer fees are not that important.

For a start I would rather not donate large sums of money to other clubs.

Also for example a player on say 15,000 pounds a week, on a three year contract is going to cost us over 2 million quid. What we pay in transfer fees is not the full price of a player.

So please stop harping on about how much money other teams have given to other teams. I think we have a very good squad compared to last season. Rome wasn''t built in a day etc.

 

 

[Be Smart & sell to Cullum 0]

Well said,  For example with Tiny Taylor his wage demands were £1 million a year over a 3 year contract + the fee to Birmingham + agents fees etc meant he would cost £4.2 million. The problem is people to see it like that, but thats the hard facts.

[The Butler 0]

Players wages, as in any business, are taken as part of the running costs. Budgeted for and thats were a lot of the income from tickets etc goes to.

Player purchase is funded seperately from "profits" or further investment. So a transfer fund should be to cover the cost of the transfer agents etc.

At present we have removed more players (some expensive) than we have recruited so SHOULD be well within player wage budget.

[Fuglestad 0]

[quote user="The Butler"]

Players wages, as in any business, are taken as part of the running costs. Budgeted for and thats were a lot of the income from tickets etc goes to.

Player purchase is funded seperately from "profits" or further investment. So a transfer fund should be to cover the cost of the transfer agents etc.

At present we have removed more players (some expensive) than we have recruited so SHOULD be well within player wage budget.

[/quote]

We released Huckerby (highest paid player) and a load of kids who were paid peanuts. Are you seriously suggesting that the combined wages of the players we released is more than the combined wages of all the signings (loan and otherwise) we''ve brought in?

[Be Smart & sell to Cullum 0]

Very true,  that is the correct way to do things but I think that money has been used to pay off debt and on the refurbishing of parts of Carrow Road (directors offices etc).

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="Fuglestad"][quote user="The Butler"]

Players wages, as in any business, are taken as part of the running costs. Budgeted for and thats were a lot of the income from tickets etc goes to.

Player purchase is funded seperately from "profits" or further investment. So a transfer fund should be to cover the cost of the transfer agents etc.

At present we have removed more players (some expensive) than we have recruited so SHOULD be well within player wage budget.

[/quote]

We released Huckerby (highest paid player) and a load of kids who were paid peanuts. Are you seriously suggesting that the combined wages of the players we released is more than the combined wages of all the signings (loan and otherwise) we''ve brought in?

[/quote]

Not that I disagree with you as such

but you have to consider that the wages of Strihavka, Brellier,

Murray & Brown would have been included in the wage budget for

last year.  Not forgetting the alleged £1m we saved by not

taking Strihavka on and suddenly it''s not as clear cut as you first

think.

[Fuglestad 0]

[quote user="Saint Canary"][quote user="Fuglestad"][quote user="The Butler"]

Players wages, as in any business, are taken as part of the running costs. Budgeted for and thats were a lot of the income from tickets etc goes to.

Player purchase is funded seperately from "profits" or further investment. So a transfer fund should be to cover the cost of the transfer agents etc.

At present we have removed more players (some expensive) than we have recruited so SHOULD be well within player wage budget.

[/quote]

We released Huckerby (highest paid player) and a load of kids who were paid peanuts. Are you seriously suggesting that the combined wages of the players we released is more than the combined wages of all the signings (loan and otherwise) we''ve brought in?

[/quote]

Not that I disagree with you as such but you have to consider that the wages of Strihavka, Brellier, Murray & Brown would have been included in the wage budget for last year.  Not forgetting the alleged £1m we saved by not taking Strihavka on and suddenly it''s not as clear cut as you first think.

[/quote]

Fair point, but it is also worth considering that in getting rid of some of those players we free transfered them. Therefore I''m led to believe we would have had to pay up their contracts or at least a portion of them. Also, the wages spent on the loan players last season. It is all very unclear. However I stand by the fact that many people just want to hear 2 million pound striker and fail to realise the true cost of buying players. I would be surprised if our gate receipts covered our entire wage bill.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="Fuglestad"][quote user="The Butler"]

Players wages, as in any business, are taken as part of the running costs. Budgeted for and thats were a lot of the income from tickets etc goes to.

Player purchase is funded seperately from "profits" or further investment. So a transfer fund should be to cover the cost of the transfer agents etc.

At present we have removed more players (some expensive) than we have recruited so SHOULD be well within player wage budget.

[/quote]

We released Huckerby (highest paid player) and a load of kids who were paid peanuts. Are you seriously suggesting that the combined wages of the players we released is more than the combined wages of all the signings (loan and otherwise) we''ve brought in?

[/quote]

I''m sure Dion would love to have been called a kid. Plus several pro''s not kids although we have replaced our kids with someone elses!!

In essence our wage bill since relegation has decreased with the standard of player recruited even though our ticket sales atc has increased. therefore there should be room in the player wages budget to accomodate the new signings

[Grando 336]

Look, it''s one thing to be satisfied with the signings Roeder''s made so far, but don''t kid yourself we''ve spent a lot in the transfer market - including on wages. It''s been reasonably prudent stuff. And I know that doesn''t necessarily mean they''ll be bad signings - far from it I hope - but all we''ve done is plugged the gaps that were created after last year''s clear-out.

[GMF 1,010]

[quote user="The Butler"]

Players wages, as in any business, are taken as part of the running costs. Budgeted for and thats were a lot of the income from tickets etc goes to.

Player purchase is funded seperately from "profits" or further investment. So a transfer fund should be to cover the cost of the transfer agents etc.

At present we have removed more players (some expensive) than we have recruited so SHOULD be well within player wage budget.

[/quote]

Seperate funds? Surely not?

It''s all about cashflow, whether it''s from season ticket sales, match day ticket sales, selling merchandise from the club shop, programmes, or transfer receipts from previous player sales. It''s all cash in and has to be balanced with cash out in terms of players wages, the day to day costs of running the Club, transfer payments out to players already recruited etc. 

[Felixfan 53]

It has been said many times and is clearly shown in the annual accounts that bums on seats do not cover players wages. Without ancilllary sources of income and well structured loans we would be struggling instead of looking to rebuild the squad.

[Grando 336]

We are struggling, if you hadn''t noticed...

[CiderkiddCanary 0]

[quote user="Be Smart "]Well said,  For example with Tiny Taylor his wage demands were £1 million a year over a 3 year contract + the fee to Birmingham + agents fees etc meant he would cost £4.2 million. The problem is people to see it like that, but thats the hard facts.[/quote]So Tiny wanted about 19200 grand a WEEK, if my calculations are correct.

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Be Smart "]Very true,  that is the correct way to do things but I think that money has been used to pay off debt and on the refurbishing of parts of Carrow Road (directors offices etc).[/quote]

There is no point in paying off debts that have affordable repayments over a long period of time, it would be a bit like starving yourself to pay extra on your mortgage each month. I''d be very surprised if any money has been used to pay off debt, my guess would be that any money spent on players this year apart from wages has come from the directors. That''s why I''m amazed that Cullum wasn''t somehow accomodated onto the board, the talks broke down far to easily as far as I''m concerned and I can see the board being given a hard time if we start badly.