Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Vazzza

Undisclosed fee

Recommended Posts

Can anyone remember, with the exception of RvW, when we last had a fee disclosed when buying a player?

I can sort of understand the mentality of not wanting other clubs to know how much of the budget has been spent, although that doesn''t make a great deal of sense, as how would another club know our budget in the first place? We seem to be one of very few clubs that adopt this tactic, and the rough fees normally leak out anyway so not sure what is achieved.

It''s all a little bit ''cloak and dagger'' and to me is all very strange. Especially with Olsson if the £2.5m figure being touted is true. I''d be singing it from the rooftops to let everyone know what they missed out on. Thats a bargain!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today. Carlo Nash advised as a free transfer :)

In all seriousness, I get your point. Probably was Grant Holt, given that it was widely reported that he was brought thanks to the season ticket rebate money and the total that was raised through that initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enough people have access to he NCFC accounts to share the info with us but it never seems to happen - i imagine it doesn''t get split down into individual players though, rather just the total revenue and money spent on players. There''s also the problem that they are a year behind.
I also think that one of the reasons our transfer fees are undisclosed and we hear more specific numbers with other clubs is that the press care more about those clubs, so will dig deeper to gather better info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the fee is pretty meaningless - unless you happen to be daft enough to believe that player registrations are bought in the same way you might buy a pint of milk.Even when they are ''disclosed'' they are inaccurate. The £6.3m (?) Bellamy quoted for turned out to be £4.75m and the £750,00 fee for David Strivka was actually his contract over three years.Payments are now far more conditional and linked to so many variables ... appearances, international games, promotions, cups etc that there is not an exact figure.Factor in the agents fees and signing on fees and the cost could be anything between those two extremes ie the initial payment and the total liability.Even then the money paid will be mostly governed by the players existing contract, which has to be bought out, which doesn''t necessarily equate to the players ability. So stop over exciting yourself about what are no more than meaningless guesses, there are no more important that how many yards a player runs in a game or how many throw ins land within four feet of him during the first 20 mins of the second half .... on the left side of the opposition half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Best not to show the world the hand you are dealing with as this would only serve to create transfer fee inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s the selling club who chooses to disclose the fee not the buying club although obviously the buying club has to abide by it. Selling clubs obviously don''t want other teams knowing how much they have to spend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ellis206"]It''s the selling club who chooses to disclose the fee not the buying club although obviously the buying club has to abide by it. Selling clubs obviously don''t want other teams knowing how much they have to spend[/quote]

 

Meant to write, NOT disclose the fee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iv always found the secrecy quite frustrating, as it does seem to be every transfer, both in and out - though I accept its probably good from a business point of view. Perhaps Purple could enlighten us as to whether it is clear from the clubs accounts from previous years what the transfer fees were for players. Accept City1st''s point that transfer fees are meaningless and the way we think of them is inappropriate - but I still enjoy the concept, and is football not about entertainment after all?

Quite annoying on that Hooper article that it said Hughton has money to spend after selling Grant Holt for 2m, again perpetuating the myth we are paupers and get excited when 2m comes our way - ooh what to do with this 2m burning a hole in our pockets?! Still, whatever allows us to not be held to ransom over players. Think with the new TV deal fees are going to become ridiculously inflated, but I think 5m for Hooper should be a no-brainer and glad to see we arent being reckless with the cash so far

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  

×