striker Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, owlse said: I do believe that this is the plan, but not until we reach the PL,i also suspect should we not get promoted this season, i think Mr Chansiri will be tempted to twist and just go for it Shame we can't this season as promotion is there for the taking looking at the league and competitors recruitment to date. Stoke looking strong and able to make their parachute payments count but no one else worries me (yet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, owlse said: I do believe that this is the plan, but not until we reach the PL,i also suspect should we not get promoted this season, i think Mr Chansiri will be tempted to twist and just go for it TUG emphatically stated that the purchase of SWFC was a private investment out of Dejphon Chansiri's personal funds and there is no link to TUG funds. The PLC board then released dispatches to the shareholders reconfirming this. None of this rules out commercial funding by means of sponsorship or advertising but TUG is holding company and would derive no benefit from the use of "TUG" or "Thai Union" in such deals (brands such as John West are owned by autonomous business units of TUG and would operate their own commercial budgets rather than central control). TUG would not derive commercial benefit from owning all or part of the equity in SWFC and it is highly unlikely that would change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owlse Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, ChinaOwl said: TUG emphatically stated that the purchase of SWFC was a private investment out of Dejphon Chansiri's personal funds and there is no link to TUG funds. The PLC board then released dispatches to the shareholders reconfirming this. None of this rules out commercial funding by means of sponsorship or advertising but TUG is holding company and would derive no benefit from the use of "TUG" or "Thai Union" in such deals (brands such as John West are owned by autonomous business units of TUG and would operate their own commercial budgets rather than central control). TUG would not derive commercial benefit from owning all or part of the equity in SWFC and it is highly unlikely that would change. Its TUF and there aint no links as yet , but should we get to PL i think you will they will, world wide audience for the TUF branding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owlse Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, striker said: Shame we can't this season as promotion is there for the taking looking at the league and competitors recruitment to date. Stoke looking strong and able to make their parachute payments count but no one else worries me (yet). Personally i think its been a steep learning curve for the chairman, but i do believe he is getting there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, owlse said: Its TUF and there aint no links as yet , but should we get to PL i think you will they will, world wide audience for the TUF branding It's Thai Union Group and differs in that respect from TUF. Thai Union is a holding group of companies and not a brand. Edited July 12, 2018 by ChinaOwl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owlse Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, ChinaOwl said: It's Thai Union Group and differs in that respect from TUF. Thai Union is a holding group of companies and not a brand. either way, as i said once we get to the PL , we would be a perfect marketing/advertising for there world wide brands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, owlse said: either way, as i said once we get to the PL , we would be a perfect marketing/advertising for there world wide brands But you do realise that brands such as "John West" or "Chicken of the Sea" are operated by autonomous business units with their own commercial teams and budgets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owlse Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said: But you do realise that brands such as "John West" or "Chicken of the Sea" are operated by autonomous business units with their own commercial teams and budgets? i dont see your point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, owlse said: i dont see your point The PLC Board in Thailand do not make commercial decisions related to autonomous business units. The PLC Board are strategic and are focussed on group level business development projects such as purchase of new business units or companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wilyfox Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, owlse said: i dont see your point Winner! Best reply in this thread. Answers every post. 163 pages of pure shytism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owlse Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, ChinaOwl said: The PLC Board in Thailand do not make commercial decisions related to autonomous business units. The PLC Board are strategic and are focussed on group level business development projects such as purchase of new business units or companies. Yes i understand that , but whats that got to do with TUF getting involved , even if it was shirt sponsorship , i am sure they would just use the name "TUF" on the shirts, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthndav Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Maybe because they have no products of their own to sell. Their subsidiary companies do. 1 minute ago, owlse said: Yes i understand that , but whats that got to do with TUF getting involved , even if it was shirt sponsorship , i am sure they would just use the name "TUF" on the shirts, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owlse Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, wilyfox said: Winner! Best reply in this thread. Answers every post. 163 pages of pure shytism. make that 164 pages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, owlse said: Yes i understand that , but whats that got to do with TUF getting involved , even if it was shirt sponsorship , i am sure they would just use the name "TUF" on the shirts, If there is commercial benefit from doing so, it would be discussed at PLC Board level and released to the general shareholders for comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quist Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 hour ago, frastheowl said: "Where a club extends a players' contract, the book value at the time the contract was re-negotiated would need to be amortised over the duration of the new contract." http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php And regarding the comment about offering an inferior contract...that only applies to youth players when compensation would be due. A senior player at the end of the contract would leave for free regardless of what contract has been offered. I have spent a few minutes looking through stuff on this website and the piece about amortisation of contracts is under UEFA FFP guidance which is only applicable to Champions and Europa league. He carefully explains this. The piece on Championship is far less detailed and link to EFL website no longer works. I would suspect things could get quite lively when you see a club like Wolves buy a player and immediately loan him out to a Championship club and there can be no argument it is to develop player. This is flagrant breech of spirit of FFP in championship and once one club is breaking rules difficult to impose penalties on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owlse Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, ChinaOwl said: If there is commercial benefit from doing so, it would be discussed at PLC Board level and released to the general shareholders for comment. exactly and we are not there yet and wont be till we reach the PL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owls-Fan Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 The years under Chansiri have shown us that anything is possible, I wouldn’t be surprised if we are trying to offload players but will still bring in a few gems we weren’t expecting. There’s always the January window to sell players if need be. Nixon may be in the know, but Chansiri and Jos are shrewd enough to keep our transfer plans under wraps as much as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonowl Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 19 minutes ago, Owls-Fan said: The years under Chansiri have shown us that anything is possible, I wouldn’t be surprised if we are trying to offload players but will still bring in a few gems we weren’t expecting. There’s always the January window to sell players if need be. Nixon may be in the know, but Chansiri and Jos are shrewd enough to keep our transfer plans under wraps as much as possible Assuming Jos ‘ is consulted on who we sell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthndav Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 11 minutes ago, nethertonowl said: Assuming Jos ‘ is consulted on who we sell! If anything DC has distanced himself from those decisions and details via the appointment of Katrien. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frastheowl Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Quist said: Thanks for that but that means if taken literally our book value will look better than situation actually is. I am sure middlesboro would be happy to accept payments over a longer term. The financial reality of situation is far more important than having notional write downs on players. Our instalments paid to Middlesboro wouldn't change. FFP is about value of our assets on our books and committed spending. Rhodes/Reach's fee is already committed to within our accounts. 2 hours ago, pazowl55 said: I think in principle you are right about it. however this just aplies for FFP purposes not the overall finances of the club. Other poster correct about money owed to other clubs being the same. But surely there must be more to it and it's not as straight forward as that otherwise we would just offer all our big money signings in the last 3 years extended contracts and use that to get us out of our FFP situation. It's a solution for ourselves because of the situation we find ourselves in, in my opinion. Of course, as it stands, if Bannan, Joao, Hooper, and Reach don't sign new contracts, come next summer, our FFP position suddenly looks a lot better...despite allowing £30m worth of assets leave for nothing. It wouldn't suit all clubs. But giving Bannan, Joao, Hooper and Reach new, improved contracts, actually wouldn't worsen our FFP position, because of the amortisation of their fee (Bannan aside). It may work out, that the increase in wage is nullified by the new amortisation of their fee. So, in actual monetary terms, it'll cost us more (but that isn't a problem, Chansiri wants to invest more, but isn't allowed), but in FFP terms, we improve or at worst, maintain our position, but secure our most valuable assets to long term deals, thus increasing their actual value. Edited July 12, 2018 by frastheowl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now