Summer 2017 non-mega transfer thread

[Geoffrey]

1 minute ago, Liamswfc92 said:

So much for the 4/5 signings that Carlos stated we needed.

 

Comments like this shows we lack ambition in the transfer market to prepare a team ready for the new season. Good clubs get the players they want, and we're falling behind. To me, it looks like no more players will be coming in due to the mismanagement of keeping a lot of players we don't want or need but no we're "not a selling club." That's the mentality we have at the moment, and it stems from the top.

 

I really do question our recruitment policy, last seasons especially. Not one signing was a success. We massively overspent on Rhodes, a player we didn't need as other areas were more important.

 

 

That appears to be the case regarding Rhodes although a substantial number of posters on here like to downgrade his reported fee by 40% without any evidence.

[striker]

Personally I think FFP is a smokescreen, DC seems to be a canny negotiator on fees, so suspect this public press release reminds selling clubs we will not pay over the odds. He has shown he is willing to wait until the last minute to get a deal on his terms and think this year looks like it will be the same. 

 

Just hope this does not cost us as it did last season, with a slow start.

 

 

[theowlsman]

For those who have missed it, our spending will be comparitively modest this summer, so adjust your wild predictions accordingly.

 

What a waste of a thread.

[Rogers]

5 minutes ago, theowlsman said:

For those who have missed it, our spending will be comparitively modest this summer, so adjust your wild predictions accordingly.

 

What a waste of a thread.

The sauce discussion mid way through was quite good

[Spookone]

23 minutes ago, Liamswfc92 said:

So much for the 4/5 signings that Carlos stated we needed.

 

Comments like this shows we lack ambition in the transfer market to prepare a team ready for the new season. Good clubs get the players they want, and we're falling behind. To me, it looks like no more players will be coming in due to the mismanagement of keeping a lot of players we don't want or need but no we're "not a selling club." That's the mentality we have at the moment, and it stems from the top. If we do, it'll be a panic buy i.e resigning Sasso as we left it late to get anyone else.

 

I really do question our recruitment policy, last seasons especially. Not one signing was a success. We massively overspent on Rhodes, a player we didn't need as other areas were more important.

 

 

 

 

I think / hope you will be proved wrong regarding Rhodes - I think he will be ur top goal scorer this coming season.

[matt68owls]

what happened to QPR when they went £50 million over FFP, have they been charged over it?

[Rogers]

11 minutes ago, matt68owls said:

what happened to QPR when they went £50 million over FFP, have they been charged over it?

Queens Park Rangers are set to avoid a crippling fine from the Football League that relates to the club exceeding financial fair play rules in 2013-14, with the punishment expected to be around a more manageable £8m.

The Championship club’s figures for the period in question, which was their promotion season back into the Premier League, showed losses of £9.8m, although the chairman, Tony Fernandes, and the other shareholders wrote off a further £60m in loans. The manner in which they did so raised questions and they have been at the heart of the FFP discussions between the club and the Football League.

For QPR the worst-case scenario was that the League did not accept the write-off and applied a fine based on them losing around £70m. The fine would have been one of more than £50m but discussions have been positive from the club’s point of view and they now expect to be docked around £8m.

QPR have made a similar sum this summer following Raheem Sterling’s £49m move from Liverpool to Manchester City. Sterling began his career at QPR and when he left for Liverpool – in a deal initially worth £600,000 but potentially rising to £5m – the club negotiated a 20% sell-on clause that related to the profits from any subsequent sale.

The details of how many of the add-ons Sterling triggered have not been made public but it is understood QPR received £8.8m after his transfer to City.

QPR recorded losses of £65.4m in 2012-13 but they were able to show they reduced their expenditure in 2013-14 by £22m.

Fernandes has argued the FFP rules were unfair on QPR, in that it was impossible for them to bring down their overheads to the required levels after their relegation from the Premier League in 2013.

The squad have undergone radical surgery after their relegation to the Championship, with a number of high-earning players removed from the payroll. The director of football, Les Ferdinand, has overseen new signings but has refused to pay wages of more than £20,000 a week.

 

Basically spend as much as you want; FA threatens you with a fine.

 

FA "You've been naughty and overspent, what have you got to say about it?'

 

Club 'Sorry'

 

FA ' Well sorry is not good enough, we'll have to fine you and set an example'.

 

Club 'That fine is a lot of money, we'll go broke if we have to pay that'

 

FA ' Ok then, sorry. Well don't do it again'.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Rogers

[owls-swfc]

5 minutes ago, matt68owls said:

what happened to QPR when they went £50 million over FFP, have they been charged over it?

Only applies to clubs outside the M25 I think... 

[owlZfan84]

6 minutes ago, matt68owls said:

what happened to QPR when they went £50 million over FFP, have they been charged over it?

 

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye said:

 

Itd be down to P&L at that point. Im not an accountant, so there will be people much better qualified to answer this..

 

You could spread the costs out which i believe would show as liabilities/debt in the balance sheet - likewise, you would have assets showing on the balance sheet which would depreciate over time. The money out will be depending on how we make the payment to the club - so it'll either show as a cost, or as a trade liability.

 

Its a tricky balancing act, but the losses will need to be accounted for in some way. Even if we evade the rules on FFP, we cant justify being in a pile of debt again.

 

If we paid £10m for Rhodes and valued him at £10m as an asset, would there even be any debt?

 

In terms I can understand - I bought a house for £225,000 and currently owe the bank £167,000 for it. However, it is valued now at £278,000. Surely, I'm not considered £167,000 in debt when I have an asset of £278,000?

[matt68owls]

7 minutes ago, Rogers said:

Queens Park Rangers are set to avoid a crippling fine from the Football League that relates to the club exceeding financial fair play rules in 2013-14, with the punishment expected to be around a more manageable £8m.

The Championship club’s figures for the period in question, which was their promotion season back into the Premier League, showed losses of £9.8m, although the chairman, Tony Fernandes, and the other shareholders wrote off a further £60m in loans. The manner in which they did so raised questions and they have been at the heart of the FFP discussions between the club and the Football League.

For QPR the worst-case scenario was that the League did not accept the write-off and applied a fine based on them losing around £70m. The fine would have been one of more than £50m but discussions have been positive from the club’s point of view and they now expect to be docked around £8m.

QPR have made a similar sum this summer following Raheem Sterling’s £49m move from Liverpool to Manchester City. Sterling began his career at QPR and when he left for Liverpool – in a deal initially worth £600,000 but potentially rising to £5m – the club negotiated a 20% sell-on clause that related to the profits from any subsequent sale.

The details of how many of the add-ons Sterling triggered have not been made public but it is understood QPR received £8.8m after his transfer to City.

QPR recorded losses of £65.4m in 2012-13 but they were able to show they reduced their expenditure in 2013-14 by £22m.

Fernandes has argued the FFP rules were unfair on QPR, in that it was impossible for them to bring down their overheads to the required levels after their relegation from the Premier League in 2013.

The squad have undergone radical surgery after their relegation to the Championship, with a number of high-earning players removed from the payroll. The director of football, Les Ferdinand, has overseen new signings but has refused to pay wages of more than £20,000 a week.

 

Basically spend as much as you want; FA threatens you with a fine.

 

FA "You've been naughty and overspent, what have you got to say about it?'

 

Club 'Sorry'

 

FA ' Well sorry is not good enough, we'll have to fine you and set an example'.

 

Club 'That fine is a lot of money, we'll go broke if we have to pay that'

 

FA ' Ok then, sorry. Well don't do it again'.

I tend to think that it only applies to certain teams. were they put on a transfer embargo like forest?

[LiamK2292]

13 minutes ago, Spookone said:

 

 

I think / hope you will be proved wrong regarding Rhodes - I think he will be ur top goal scorer this coming season.

 

I'd love nothing more than to be proved wrong. His contribution/performances last season were poor to say the least.

 

If he does his job on the pitch, no one will be complaining. A full pre-season should get him up to speed if he's to get to the level we know he can get to.

[pazowl55]

4 minutes ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said:

 

If we paid £10m for Rhodes and valued him at £10m as an asset, would there even be any debt?

 

In terms I can understand - I bought a house for £225,000 and currently owe the bank £167,000 for it. However, it is valued now at £278,000. Surely, I'm not considered £167,000 in debt when I have an asset of £278,000?

Correct. 

But I am sure your find it alot easier getting £278,000 for your house then we will getting £10 million for Jordan Rhodes.

Assets are only really worth what someone is willing to pay. pretty impossible to assess the value of players as assets in football terms

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

59 minutes ago, Rogers said:

I wonder if the FFP (who ever they are? The FA?) can dictate what they think is the going market rate for something.  Knowing how weak these organisations are. 

 

Do they inspect the books every year or just look at the total loss/profit and then dig further if they need to? How does it work? 

 

Assume the club has to prove it received offers of X, Y and Z for sponsorship, for example, and went with Z. If X and Y were half £50k a year and Z was £1m a year, then we would be found to be flaunting the rules.

 

But as you say, whoever implements FFP - do they have the resources and the power to inspect the accounts and force through a punishment?

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

4 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

Correct. 

But I am sure your find it alot easier getting £278,000 for your house then we will getting £10 million for Jordan Rhodes.

Assets are only really worth what someone is willing to pay. pretty impossible to assess the value of players as assets in football terms

 

 @ Rhodes!!

 

In that case, as football player assets are difficult to value, surely would could inflate the valuation of the player - ie say Rhodes is actually worth £20m to us and reason why (he's a 20+ goal a season striker and 95% of the world believes these win you promotion, which is worth £200m)...

[pazowl55]

2 minutes ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said:

 

Assume the club has to prove it received offers of X, Y and Z for sponsorship, for example, and went with Z. If X and Y were half £50k a year and Z was £1m a year, then we would be found to be flaunting the rules.

 

But as you say, whoever implements FFP - do they have the resources and the power to inspect the accounts and force through a punishment?

Course they would. Probably got a specialist panel dedicated to looking at it.

 My guess would be like if you are self employed and you have to submit all you paperwork to the tax man.

[StudentOwl]

3 minutes ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said:

 

Assume the club has to prove it received offers of X, Y and Z for sponsorship, for example, and went with Z. If X and Y were half £50k a year and Z was £1m a year, then we would be found to be flaunting the rules.

 

But as you say, whoever implements FFP - do they have the resources and the power to inspect the accounts and force through a punishment?

Bit of a mystery that

I'll ask my Nottingham Forest mates and see if they have any ideas

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

52 minutes ago, Bluesteel said:

 

I think for the purposes of his fee it is probably calculated across the time of his original contract for consistency but obviously his wages will change with the contract. Not sure though. 

 

Selling Clubs will want the full amount of cash up front as that helps FFP which has created a business opportunity for lenders. I'm not sure whether it makes any difference whether the club does this or whether it is just split anyway under FFP.

 

That's what I suspected, it would become far too messy if FFP wasn't connected to the original contract!

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

1 minute ago, StudentOwl said:

Bit of a mystery that

I'll ask my Nottingham Forest mates and see if they have any ideas

 

Can you also ask them what was Forest's punishment and did Forest challenge it as far as they could?

 

Don't suppose you have any QPR fans you can ask too? Don't recall their punishment for having a bigger wage bill than the then Champions League finalists, Borussia Dortmund.

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

3 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

Course they would. Probably got a specialist panel dedicated to looking at it.

 My guess would be like if you are self employed and you have to submit all you paperwork to the tax man.

 

And that's the key part - whoever is responsible for FFP, do they have the clout that the tax man at the HMRC has?