UNDISCLOSED

[PhatCanary 0]

Every time we sell one of our players it''s undisclosed, is it because we''ve just taken a loss on Bell or do the club want to keep all hush hush so when Gunn is allowed to spend the cash other clubs haven''t got a clue what cash he has. Or maybe it''s so the money can be put away again like every other time we sell players and the Doomcaster can come out with the usual "it''s already accounted for".I hope to god we got a good price, because Bells end must lead to new signings otherwise we should just give up now! 

[Nuff Said 5,120]

Of course, it''s possible that it was Coventry who insisted on it being undisclosed.

[Gingerpele 0]

Nearly every transfer is

[canary cherub 1]

The FA could do something useful for once by bringing in regulations requiring all transfer fees to be disclosed.  If there''s a valid reason for giving clubs the option not to disclose I''d like to know what it is.

 

[paul moy 235]

We don''t want other clubs to know that we have money to spend. 

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

its pretty much the standard these days.

[TIL 1010 4,737]

[quote user="paul moy"]We don''t want other clubs to know that we have money to spend. [/quote]

I think it has been obvious for a while how much we have to spend.   Nowt.

My sources say that as far as Bell is concerned it was £500,000.Apparently we also got £50,000 compensation for Lee Clark so we will see how much Gunny has been given by the end of the month.

 

[PhatCanary 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="paul moy"]We don''t want other clubs to know that we have money to spend. [/quote]

I think it has been obvious for a while how much we have to spend.   Nowt.

My sources say that as far as Bell is concerned it was £500,000.Apparently we also got £50,000 compensation for Lee Clark so we will see how much Gunny has been given by the end of the month.

 

[/quote]

If your sources are correct then that money might just get us another loan or two, come the end of the window we will see,i for one am not holding my breath that we will see any new and good players,bloody hell i hope we sign someone!!

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="paul moy"]We don''t want other clubs to know that we have money to spend. [/quote]Great!! So we''ve still got the thick end of the 15 million quid we''ve made since relegation in profit on player sales then. Phew for a minute I thought we were skint and this was just the stock excuse for explaining away why we perpetually fail to reinvest our transfer income into new signings. I know we really could do with a few players urgently but I can understand that if we were ever to offer a club money for a player then that club would know we had at least enough money to buy him so I guess it''s better just to keep the money in used notes and not attempt anything so silly. Let''s just hope that football clubs don''t invest a few quid on some credit reports or account statements from Companies house then, that would never do as they would easily be able to determine roughly how much money the other clubs have anyway and in a multi million pound business like football I''m surprised nobodys adopted this standard business practice to date.[:$]TBH I think the only ones beguiled by this philosophy are the fans, not all but sufficient to keep the chants of ''Where''s the money gone Delia''? down to a murmer........

[The Fish Seller 0]

Q & A with Neil Doncaster on the offy site.

"Neil, why are some transfer fees "undisclosed". Norwich

are not the only club to do this by any means but you say you wish to

show transparency to supporters. Who decides when transfer fees remain

undisclosed?"

Neil: "Football League regulations require all transfer fees to be

undisclosed, but this rule is honoured as much in the breach as in the

observance. The selling club has the final say as to whether a fee is

disclosed or not. If they wish for the fee to be undisclosed, typically

they will insert a clause in the transfer agreement binding us to keep

it secret. We are keen to be as transparent as possible to supporters,

but sometimes we are prevented from being as transparent as we would

like."

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Tommy Gunn"]Q & A with Neil Doncaster on the offy site.

"Neil, why are some transfer fees "undisclosed". Norwich are not the only club to do this by any means but you say you wish to show transparency to supporters. Who decides when transfer fees remain undisclosed?"

Neil: "Football League regulations require all transfer fees to be undisclosed, but this rule is honoured as much in the breach as in the observance. The selling club has the final say as to whether a fee is disclosed or not. If they wish for the fee to be undisclosed, typically they will insert a clause in the transfer agreement binding us to keep it secret. We are keen to be as transparent as possible to supporters, but sometimes we are prevented from being as transparent as we would like."

[/quote]

Come on Neil let''s be ''avin yer . . .

Thing is, unless the board do disclose all we''ve got to go on is the word on the street in Coventry, ie. that most of the fee went to pay Luton the balance we owed them and we got a very small amount on top, probably not more than £100,000.  If they''d prefer us to believe a rumour than tell us the truth, call me old fashioned but that''s not what I understand by transparency.

 

[canaryjock 0]

Honestly do we really need to have a thread about the whole ''undisclosed'' business every time a transfer in/out of the club is completed? [:|]

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="canaryjock"]Honestly do we really need to have a thread about the whole ''undisclosed'' business every time a transfer in/out of the club is completed? [:|][/quote]

Yes, because it''s an issue every time it happens.

 

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Potless Percy "]Thing is, unless the board do disclose all we''ve got to go on is the word on the street in Coventry, ie. that most of the fee went to pay Luton the balance we owed them and we got a very small amount on top, probably not more than £100,000.  If they''d prefer us to believe a rumour than tell us the truth, call me old fashioned but that''s not what I understand by transparency.[/quote]And I suppose that if we have got a decent amount for Bell, you''re more than happy for all our rivals to be aware of this fact and jack their prices up accordingly when we come knocking???Assuming we have made a decent sum, it strengthens our negotiating position by having the fee undisclosed as the question will be on other clubs minds as to whether or not we''ve got decent cash in, or have sold at a lower price.The only fair way to judge this situation is to wait until the window closes and see who (if any) we have brought in.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Potless Percy "]Thing is, unless the board do disclose all we''ve got to go on is the word on the street in Coventry, ie. that most of the fee went to pay Luton the balance we owed them and we got a very small amount on top, probably not more than £100,000.  If they''d prefer us to believe a rumour than tell us the truth, call me old fashioned but that''s not what I understand by transparency.[/quote]And I suppose that if we have got a decent amount for Bell, you''re more than happy for all our rivals to be aware of this fact and jack their prices up accordingly when we come knocking???

Assuming we have made a decent sum, it strengthens our negotiating position by having the fee undisclosed as the question will be on other clubs minds as to whether or not we''ve got decent cash in, or have sold at a lower price.

The only fair way to judge this situation is to wait until the window closes and see who (if any) we have brought in.
[/quote]

Sorry but that''s pure Doomyspeak.  As if there aren''t ways they can find out how much we''ve got if they really want to.

The problem in any case is not how much we''ve got, but how little.  And how little of the little the club are prepared to reinvest in the squad.  That''s what they don''t want us to know.

imho

 

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Potless Percy "]As if there aren''t ways they can find out how much we''ve got if they really want to.[/quote]If it''s that bloody easy, how about you get off your arse and find out the facts then?

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Potless Percy "]As if there aren''t ways they can find out how much we''ve got if they really want to.[/quote]If it''s that bloody easy, how about you get off your arse and find out the facts then?
[/quote]

I don''t think Bell''s agent would tell me somehow . . .

 

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Potless Percy "]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Potless Percy "]As if there aren''t ways they can find out how much we''ve got if they really want to.[/quote]If it''s that bloody easy, how about you get off your arse and find out the facts then?[/quote]

I don''t think Bell''s agent would tell me somehow . . .[/quote]I don''t understand Percy.

You stated that there were ways to find out if needed, now all of a sudden it''s not that easy anymore...

You see, unlike you, I''m not under the delusion that clubs know exactly what funds each other has before entering into transfer negotiations.

If this information WAS that readily available, there would be fans on here able to get it, and let us know with FACTS to prove this.

Any more backtracking you''d like to do?

[Chunky Norwich 0]

Well in one season we sold Francis for £1.5m, McKenzie for £1m, Ashton for £7.5m and Jonsson for £900k. The bulk of this money disapeared into a black hole, minus about £3.5m for Earnie.

The next season we got £1m for Green, £1.5m for Etuhu, our £3.5m back for Earnshaw and £500k for Safri. The bulk of this money too disappeared into a black hole.

I''m sure Bell''s ''undisclosed'' won''t make too much difference in the long run.

[ca 1]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="paul moy"]We don''t want other clubs to know that we have money to spend. [/quote]

I think it has been obvious for a while how much we have to spend.   Nowt.

My sources say that as far as Bell is concerned it was £500,000.Apparently we also got £50,000 compensation for Lee Clark so we will see how much Gunny has been given by the end of the month.

 

[/quote]

Plus we got £300k from the sale of Eventguard so Gunn should have nearly a million for a striker and defender.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Potless Percy "]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Potless Percy "]As if there aren''t ways they can find out how much we''ve got if they really want to.[/quote]If it''s that bloody easy, how about you get off your arse and find out the facts then?
[/quote]

I don''t think Bell''s agent would tell me somehow . . .[/quote]I don''t understand Percy.

If this information WAS that readily available, there would be fans on here able to get it, and let us know with FACTS to prove this.

Any more backtracking you''d like to do?

[/quote]

Indy, you were talking about the reason for disclosure is so that other clubs won''t find out and jack up their prices.

I was saying that there are ways and means for other clubs to find out, not the likes of you and me. 

My response to your post was meant to be a joke . . .