Westwood in demand?

[Hookowl]

Just now, dewsburyowl58 said:

So are you saying that the transfer fee will show up in next years accounts ? . Didn’t we buy him in instalments too ?

 

Transfer fees are amortized in a clubs accounts in equal amounts over the length of the initial contract.

This is a way of limiting the amount of expenditure declared in a clubs end of year accounts.

If a player is sold before his contract is up the remaining amount of money has to be declared in that end of year accounts.

 

[dewsburyowl58]

44 minutes ago, FreshOwl said:

Sell sell sell 

 

it’s a no brainer, keeper isn’t a priority. Wildsmith and Dawson offer more than enough, and more once they fully develop 

I keep saying this but what if one gets injured well anyway that’s not going to happen is it we don’t do injuries !! 

[dewsburyowl58]

2 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

 

Transfer fees are amortized in a clubs accounts in equal amounts over the length of the initial contract.

This is a way of limiting the amount of expenditure declared in a clubs end of year accounts.

If a player is sold before his contract is up the remaining amount of money has to be declared in that end of year accounts.

 

So if for example we paid £9m for Rhodes that equates to 3 years at £3m so it’s basically £3m plus wages this coming year ? If we sold him for £6m we would be £3m better off plus his wages 

[Whatahoot]

14 minutes ago, dewsburyowl58 said:

So if it was £20m last season what was it the season before around ,£10m ? if we have only got around £9m left . If we didn’t lose any money on transfer deals this coming year ,would we still be losing over £9m this season ? . Would one decent offload of say Rhodes for example be enough ? 

You have to factor in a portion of what we spent on transfer fees for Rhodes, Van Atkin etc and higher wages we have taken on with the likes of Rhodes, Boyd etc and we will do well to keep the loss below £12-15 m a reduction yes but not enough of a reduction. We actively need to sell or reduce the wage bill massively. We cannot sell Rhodes and solve the problem, due to the fact that if we do, the total of his transfer fee outstanding for accountancy purposes, paid to Middlesborough, less monies received, will get charged to the accounts, causing a larger loss,due to the fact we will not be able to recoup anything like what we paid for him.. Catch 22. This is the reality of where we are. We MUST come in with losses of less than say £7m in the next accounts, by saving wages and/or selling major asset, spending much less in the market in the process. Have in mind, given the performance this season, season ticket sales will be less too, making a larger loss more likely.

We need to cut our cloth accordingly or be prepared to take the consequences of irresponsible  management actions.

[dewsburyowl58]

1 minute ago, Whatahoot said:

You have to factor in a portion of what we spent on transfer fees for Rhodes, Van Atkin etc and higher wages we have taken on with the likes of Rhodes, Boyd etc and we will do well to keep the loss below £12-15 m a reduction yes but not enough of a reduction. We actively need to sell or reduce the wage bill massively. We cannot sell Rhodes and solve the problem, due to the fact that if we do, the total of his transfer fee outstanding for accountancy purposes, paid to Middlesborough, less monies received, will get charged to the accounts, causing a larger loss,due to the fact we will not be able to recoup anything like what we paid for him.. Catch 22. This is the reality of where we are. We MUST come in with losses of less than say £7m in the next accounts, by saving wages and/or selling major asset, spending much less in the market in the process. Have in mind, given the performance this season, season ticket sales will be less too, making a larger loss more likely.

We need to cut our cloth accordingly or be prepared to take the consequences of irresponsible  management actions.

Well thank you I’m much the wiser now , still not getting the Rhodes deal totally though but I’m no accountant !!. There must be other avenues like sponsorship where  we can reduce the outgoings , anyway we need to trim the squad in general so someone will be leaving  .

[Hookowl]

11 minutes ago, dewsburyowl58 said:

So if for example we paid £9m for Rhodes that equates to 3 years at £3m so it’s basically £3m plus wages this coming year ? If we sold him for £6m we would be £3m better off plus his wages 

 

In theory yes, but in reality we still have £3M this year plus a further £3M outstanding on his contract next year which would also have to be accounted for this coming year therefore we would only be better off by the savings in wages.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Hookowl

[WhiteOwl91]

Leeds? Jog on. 

 

Celtic would be a superb move for him though, given his roots. But really hope we hang on to him. 

[dewsburyowl58]

14 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

 

In theory yes, but in reality we still have £3M this year plus a further £3M outstanding on his contract next year which would also have to be accounted for this coming year therefore we would only be better off by the savings in wages.

Oh I see so any fee we got for selling him would firstly cover what we owe the coming year ? Are all our significant transfers done this way ?

[dewsburyowl58]

15 minutes ago, WhiteOwl91 said:

Leeds? Jog on. 

 

Celtic would be a superb move for him though, given his roots. But really hope we hang on to him. 

I’m with you , don’t want him to go but if he had to leave Celtic would be a good move it seems . 

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

Our number one by a decent distance, and probably the best GK in the league. That said, if it's decent money for a 33 year old when we have Wildsmith and Dawson developing, I'd move him on - sadly, but it makes sense for the club's longer term development.

[Whatahoot]

1 minute ago, dewsburyowl58 said:

Well thank you I’m much the wiser now , still not getting the Rhodes deal totally though but I’m no accountant !!. There must be other avenues like sponsorship where  we can reduce the outgoings , anyway we need to trim the squad in general so someone will be leaving  .

Yep this is important to understand and it helps manage the next couple of years expectations and the scale of the Head Coach's job to try achieve the balances. 

Regarding accounting for the Rhodes fee say at £8m, if he signed a 4year contract you have to divide the fee amount by 4 and starting at the year end accounts following his full time purchase, that is from 2017/18, you charge £2m to the losses each season for 4 season. But if you sell him before the 4 years is up, then you bring the uncharged portion remaining straight in to the year of sale. So if sold in year 2 then £6m would be charged to losses, less any full amount brought in by the sale. We are assuming our purchase fee was only £8m and not £10m, which would make the effect even worse, as would selling him to a club who want to spread their payments to us over a number of years, as the loss on his sale then would not be reduced by the full income of whatever fee (hard to see it being any more than £5m) was agreed. 

So you are right that the squad/wage bill needs drastically reducing and transfer fees need to come in to get the overall 3 year losses under £39m.

Sponsorship does come into the equation, but not as much as you think. Last years income for ground sponsorship was only £1.2m, plus small deals for advertising around the place. Contracts for sponsorship deals, according to regulations, must be at commercial amounts and not just inflated by the owners ability to pay. So Elev8, D Taxis and the like are not going to bring in much as they have no or little turnover. Sponsorship deals will be totally offset if season ticket numbers are down by enough non renewers. We are in a bit of a state financially, potentially buggered no matter which way we turn

[dewsburyowl58]

3 minutes ago, Whatahoot said:

Yep this is important to understand and it helps manage the next couple of years expectations and the scale of the Head Coach's job to try achieve the balances. 

Regarding accounting for the Rhodes fee say at £8m, if he signed a 4year contract you have to divide the fee amount by 4 and starting at the year end accounts following his full time purchase, that is from 2017/18, you charge £2m to the losses each season for 4 season. But if you sell him before the 4 years is up, then you bring the uncharged portion remaining straight in to the year of sale. So if sold in year 2 then £6m would be charged to losses, less any full amount brought in by the sale. We are assuming our purchase fee was only £8m and not £10m, which would make the effect even worse, as would selling him to a club who want to spread their payments to us over a number of years, as the loss on his sale then would not be reduced by the full income of whatever fee (hard to see it being any more than £5m) was agreed. 

So you are right that the squad/wage bill needs drastically reducing and transfer fees need to come in to get the overall 3 year losses under £39m.

Sponsorship does come into the equation, but not as much as you think. Last years income for ground sponsorship was only £1.2m, plus small deals for advertising around the place. Contracts for sponsorship deals, according to regulations, must be at commercial amounts and not just inflated by the owners ability to pay. So Elev8, D Taxis and the like are not going to bring in much as they have no or little turnover. Sponsorship deals will be totally offset if season ticket numbers are down by enough non renewers. We are in a bit of a state financially, potentially buggered no matter which way we turn

The way you describe our situation beggars belief  we allowed it to happen at all , I can see we threw everything at promotion in the hope we would be in the premier league by now , seems that’s what has happened . So not only have the injuries to key players cost us on the pitch they have cost even more off it !! . 

[Mountain Owl]

Let him go. He wasn't playing well before he got injured and we have two of the best up and coming keepers in the league. We can spend the money on what we do need in the side and thats some strength and pace.

[Whatahoot]

8 minutes ago, dewsburyowl58 said:

The way you describe our situation beggars belief  we allowed it to happen at all , I can see we threw everything at promotion in the hope we would be in the premier league by now , seems that’s what has happened . So not only have the injuries to key players cost us on the pitch they have cost even more off it !! . 

There is no doubt in my mind Mr C gambled in season one and even more in season two on the policy to buy/bring in older expensive players (wages included) and the fees we paid for Abdi, Rhodes, Atkin, Mattias,  etc were simply too much and added to some poor quality signings in Emanulson, Fox for example.These players have little or no resale value, compared to purchase price, Rhodes apart.

That's why the transfer policy must change. We need to look towards younger,fitter, more physically suited to the Championship. Ones who have a better chance of gaining a resale value above purchase price, if we have to sell in the future.

Players sitting in the treatment room for large amounts or regular amounts of time are always going to be expensive packages, plus they are disruptive to the team. It makes progress very difficult to achieve. Another reason why their is a call to rid ourselves of those type of player.But by itself, that won't be the total answer, as often fees are much less or non achievable for injury hit players. So again you have to turn to the thought of selling our more reliable or top players.

It will all lead to a very interesting summer.

[soldierboyblue]

6 minutes ago, Mountain Owl said:

Let him go. He wasn't playing well before he got injured and we have two of the best up and coming keepers in the league. We can spend the money on what we do need in the side and thats some strength and pace.

Do you possibly think that he was playing injured along with the rest of the side? Hence the dip in performance?

[Mountain Owl]

4 minutes ago, soldierboyblue said:

Do you possibly think that he was playing injured along with the rest of the side? Hence the dip in performance?

Possibly. However he made errors which cost us goals and the two lads we have are good enough to replace him in my opinion.

[Guest]

Didnt he play against utd with broken ribs

[dewsburyowl58]

10 minutes ago, Whatahoot said:

There is no doubt in my mind Mr C gambled in season one and even more in season two on the policy to buy/bring in older expensive players (wages included) and the fees we paid for Abdi, Rhodes, Atkin, Mattias,  etc were simply too much and added to some poor quality signings in Emanulson, Fox for example.These players have little or no resale value, compared to purchase price, Rhodes apart.

That's why the transfer policy must change. We need to look towards younger,fitter, more physically suited to the Championship. Ones who have a better chance of gaining a resale value above purchase price, if we have to sell in the future.

Players sitting in the treatment room for large amounts or regular amounts of time are always going to be expensive packages, plus they are disruptive to the team. It makes progress very difficult to achieve. Another reason why their is a call to rid ourselves of those type of player.But by itself, that won't be the total answer, as often fees are much less or non achievable for injury hit players. So again you have to turn to the thought of selling our more reliable or top players.

It will all lead to a very interesting summer.

Even taking into account all the players we have brought in under Mr C if we had left Jordan Rhodes well alone at Middlesborough and not given say Fletcher such a long contract and one other big earner a year less so we could ship them out sooner , we may have been a little closer to adhering to FFP rules perhaps 

[dewsburyowl58]

15 minutes ago, soldierboyblue said:

Do you possibly think that he was playing injured along with the rest of the side? Hence the dip in performance?

I think it’s a big possibility .

[WhiteOwl91]

8 minutes ago, Mountain Owl said:

Possibly. However he made errors which cost us goals and the two lads we have are good enough to replace him in my opinion.

He's still made less mistakes than Wildsmith and that's whilst carrying an injury earlier in the season (broken rib) which accounted for one against United. 

 

Thats not criticising Wildsmith, but he's young and is likely to make more errors as he develops