CONFIRMED | Jordan Rhodes leaves #SWFC for Norwich on loan

[Bannofan]

18 minutes ago, andymowlsdude said:

Absolutely gutted, let go of top Championship scorer. Should have built the team around him

 

Nope, we indulged him enough. Glad he's gone and both club and player can move on.

 

 

 

 

 

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

2 minutes ago, bigdan2003 said:

 

The thing is, no one wants to buy him for the amount we'd want to recoup. Instead we have to do a loan deal, which presumably comes with a nice loan fee as well. 

 

 

I'd be amazed if there wasn't another club out there willing to take a punt for £5m - especially given Norwich are paying around £1.5/2m for the season.

[WalthamOwl]

Like has been said surely with the wages saved from Rhodes, Hunt, Loovens and Wallace plus the fees received we must have a bit of money to sign a few new players!?!

[room0035]

3 minutes ago, little_orme said:

I wonder if we have an option to recall him? Seems like in the past we haven't thought to put this into some of our loan contracts and it's ended up costing us! Be great if they got him scoring and we can bring him back!

Nice idea but with Fessi and Hooper fit and Nuihu and Joao as good back up he wont get a great deal of playing time, if we can ship him out to score goals elsewhere then his value might start to go back up.

 

next season 12 months left in contract, having just scored 20+ goals might get £5m for him the same way Fulham loan Mitrovic - not good enough for Premier League but scored goals in championship.

[bigdan2003]

Just now, WalthamOwl said:

If none of this money is reinvested in new players for me this is a poor deal. Letting a proven Championship goal scorer go to a rival on loan could prove to be costly imo.

 

Its the unfortunate situation we're in though - we have got to reduce our wage bill to help with FFP and presumably to allow us to bring in one or two players.

 

If we weren't sailing close to FFP then i'd imagine the club would be willing to pay him his 35k a week to sit on our bench - because let's be honest, at this moment in time he's not starting ahead of Nuhiu, Joao, Fessi, or a fit Hooper and Fletcher. 

 

It's just not worked out for him here. I'm gutted that it hasn't - always wanted Rhodes here. But in true Wednesday fashion it went pear shaped.

[Guest wilyfox]

Glad it's done. That was a biggie. Keep'em moving... Winnall, Fox, Palmer, Boyd, Jones, Abdi. Even Fletcher if he's fit enough to generate interest. Westwood, depends on Jos' plans for our young'uns. 

[Waddlesdiamondlights]

I read it was a 1 million pound loan fee and his wages in full.I hope there's also a clause that he can't play against us.I hope for now that this levels things out regarding ffp as there only seems to be our club that worries about it.Everybody else totally blows their spending out of the water.If we could keep the main first team together now with the players coming back from injury i would take it as i believe we have enough quality to still make the top 6

[StudentOwl]

18 minutes ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said:

 

You'll have to explain this to me pal - why would selling Rhodes now, for let's say £5m, be better than loaning him out for £1.5m and ending up being in the same crap position in 12 months time?

 

I've guessed his salary based on previous reports that he was on £50k/week at Boro. Whatever it is, it's still a sh*t tonne of money that, had we sold him, we'd never have to pay again.

Hey, you won't hear me disagree about the salary thing!   Regardless of figure, it's a lot to be saved. I'll probably butcher this and someone else please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand the current FFP laws:

 

In FFP terms, the amount you buy a player for is spread across the length of the initial contract signed with the buying club. So, say Wednesday bought Joe Bloggs tomorrow for £8m on a four year deal... on our accounts we wouldn't see £8m out in this financial year, but instead it would be £2m this year, £2m next year etc. until the end of the four year period.  However, what that means is if we were to sell Joe Bloggs right at the beginning of his third year in the contract, we would then have to add the (yet unpaid in FFP terms, even though in real terms it's very much "gone") £4m we've yet to process on our accounts into money out for that year. So say we sold Bloggs for £12m at the begging of year 3, we would have to do £12m-£4m = £8m income in FFP terms. 

 

Now wages also come into account for this whole calculation. Say we paid Bloggs £10k per week... that's £520k out per year. We'll call it £500k a year for ease. If we sold Bloggs right at the beginning of year three, we would have two years' (£1m) worth of future expenditure no longer going through... we're not paying him because he's left! But we still have to add that on to year three's accounts. Again, obviously in real terms they're not funds leaving the club... but in accounting terms they have to be included in FFP (I dunno why, someone smarter than me will know). So that initial £12m we were getting as a transfer has dropped first to £8m when you account for transfer fees, and now £7m when you include wages.

 

Let's apply the same logic to Rhodes. For the thought exercise we'll make it easy... let's just say we bought Rhodes in July 2017 for £12m on a three year contract at £40k per week. Not suggesting these figures are real for even one second, I'm just using them because they make things easy. So far, we've expended £4m in transfer fees for him (Because £12m over a three year period comes to £4m per year) and £2m (plus a little extra) in wages for him. If we were to sell him to Norwich for the £5m you suggested, we'd have to deduct the "unpaid" £8m from that transfer fee, as well as the "unpaid" £4m in wages. So that £5m transfer actually turns into a £7m loss for this financial year. Again though... in very real terms, it isn't... just in FFP terms. Equally, if we made exactly the same transfer in a year's time, the loss for that financial year would be "only" £1m. 

 

I hope that explains it... please someone correct me if I'm wrong

Edited July 10, 2018 by StudentOwl

[WalthamOwl]

Seems DC has changed his stance on us not being a selling club and one big family. 

[bigdan2003]

I'd be more concerned if the club were open to losing FF, Bannan, Lees et al to be honest. 

Rhodes didn't work out here. So it's the best for all concerned given the FFP risk. 

[Adem Poric]

29 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

We've let Jordan go instead of bringing Ben home

Boooooooooo

 

IMAGINE BEN MARSHALL'S CROSSES ON BIG ATDHE HEAD THOUGH M8

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

5 minutes ago, Pilky said:

We paid roughly £9m for him (I think) which is spread over the period of his contract, if we sell him today the rest of what we owe would be due immediately.

 

No wonder football clubs are a mess. So, for ease of maths, let's say the fee was £8m and Rhodes signed a 4 year contract. We pay Boro £2m a year, but if we sell him 2 years into a 4 year contract, we owe Boro the £2m for that season, plus the remaining £4m for the other two years?

 

Bonkers. Utter bonkers.

[room0035]

For me now I would love to ee Bannan and Joao signing new longer deals. This would be very good business for what will be two importnat players this season and the ones to follow and would we have to replace them in the summer that would costs a lot more

[Adem Poric]

6 minutes ago, Waddlesdiamondlights said:

I read it was a 1 million pound loan fee and his wages in full.I hope there's also a clause that he can't play against us.I hope for now that this levels things out regarding ffp as there only seems to be our club that worries about it.Everybody else totally blows their spending out of the water.If we could keep the main first team together now with the players coming back from injury i would take it as i believe we have enough quality to still make the top 6

 

There doesn't need to be a clause, it's part of all loan deals that players cant appear against their parent club in the league. He could play against us in the cup though.

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

6 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

Hey, you won't hear me disagree about the salary thing!   Regardless of figure, it's a lot to be saved. I'll probably butcher this and someone else please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand the current FFP laws:

 

In FFP terms, the amount you buy a player for is spread across the length of the initial contract signed with the buying club. So, say Wednesday bought Joe Bloggs tomorrow for £8m on a four year deal... on our accounts we wouldn't see £8m out in this financial year, but instead it would be £2m this year, £2m next year etc. until the end of the four year period.  However, what that means is if we were to sell Joe Bloggs right at the beginning of his third year in the contract, we would then have to add the (yet unpaid in FFP terms, even though in real terms it's very much "gone") £4m we've yet to process on our accounts into money out for that year. So say we sold Bloggs for £12m at the begging of year 3, we would have to do £12m-£4m = £8m income in FFP terms. 

 

Now wages also come into account for this whole calculation. Say we paid Bloggs £10k per week... that's £520k out per year. We'll call it £500k a year for ease. If we sold Bloggs right at the beginning of year three, we would have two years' (£1m) worth of future expenditure no longer going through... we're not paying him because he's left! But we still have to add that on to year three's accounts. Again, obviously in real terms they're not funds leaving the club... but in accounting terms they have to be included in FFP (I dunno why, someone smarter than me will know). So that initial £12m we were getting as a transfer has dropped first to £8m when you account for transfer fees, and now £7m when you include wages.

 

Let's apply the same logic to Rhodes. For the thought exercise we'll make it easy... let's just say we bought Rhodes in July 2017 for £12m on a three year contract at £40k per week. Not suggesting these figures are real for even one second, I'm just using them because they make things easy. So far, we've expended £4m in transfer fees for him (Because £12m over a three year period comes to £4m per year) and £2m (plus a little extra) in wages for him. If we were to sell him to Norwich for the £5m you suggested, we'd have to deduct the "unpaid" £8m from that transfer fee, as well as the "unpaid" £4m in wages. So that £5m transfer actually turns into a £7m loss for this financial year. Again though... in very real terms, it isn't... just in FFP terms. Equally, if we made exactly the same transfer in a year's time, the loss for that financial year would be "only" £1m. 

 

I hope that explains it... please someone correct me if I'm wrong

 

Wow, so it's FFP that is totally and utterly bonkers?! And all Football League clubs voted this thing in?

 

So, from an owners point of view, it's best to make a loss on the player than recoup some money too early into their contract - just to make the accounts look better?

 

Thanks for going into all that effort, certainly makes sense why we'd play it as we have -  even though longer term it's going to cost us money!

[OxonOwl]

10 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

I hope that explains it... please someone correct me if I'm wrong

 

I think it is not quite right

 

We keep Rhodes and it is (£4m+£2m) in years 1,2 and 3 - brackets indicating expenditure or loss

 

so £6m loss each year

 

We sell him after one year it is (£4m+£2m) in year 1 , (£4m+£4m) + £2m + £5m in year 2 and +£2m in year 3

 

so £6m loss in the first year, £7m - £8m= £1m loss in the second year and £2m gain in the thrird

 

So first year is the same as it is in the past. The second year is a £6m loss going to £1m loss, a net gain of £5m and a net gain in the third year of £2m in wages we don't pay.

 

Now I too could be wrong as I am no accountant.

[RichieB]

28 minutes ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said:

 

The latter ain't going to happen - he'll be 29 and in the final 12 months of his contract.

 

Hope you're right that there is already a deal agreed to make it permanent (even though I'd rather we kept him).

 

Thought he signed a 4 year contract in july 2017? Meaning when he comes back next summer he'll still have 2 years left with us. 

[Ethel The Tree]

24 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

Hey, you won't hear me disagree about the salary thing!   Regardless of figure, it's a lot to be saved. I'll probably butcher this and someone else please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand the current FFP laws:

 

In FFP terms, the amount you buy a player for is spread across the length of the initial contract signed with the buying club. So, say Wednesday bought Joe Bloggs tomorrow for £8m on a four year deal... on our accounts we wouldn't see £8m out in this financial year, but instead it would be £2m this year, £2m next year etc. until the end of the four year period.  However, what that means is if we were to sell Joe Bloggs right at the beginning of his third year in the contract, we would then have to add the (yet unpaid in FFP terms, even though in real terms it's very much "gone") £4m we've yet to process on our accounts into money out for that year. So say we sold Bloggs for £12m at the begging of year 3, we would have to do £12m-£4m = £8m income in FFP terms. 

 

Now wages also come into account for this whole calculation. Say we paid Bloggs £10k per week... that's £520k out per year. We'll call it £500k a year for ease. If we sold Bloggs right at the beginning of year three, we would have two years' (£1m) worth of future expenditure no longer going through... we're not paying him because he's left! But we still have to add that on to year three's accounts. Again, obviously in real terms they're not funds leaving the club... but in accounting terms they have to be included in FFP (I dunno why, someone smarter than me will know). So that initial £12m we were getting as a transfer has dropped first to £8m when you account for transfer fees, and now £7m when you include wages.

 

Let's apply the same logic to Rhodes. For the thought exercise we'll make it easy... let's just say we bought Rhodes in July 2017 for £12m on a three year contract at £40k per week. Not suggesting these figures are real for even one second, I'm just using them because they make things easy. So far, we've expended £4m in transfer fees for him (Because £12m over a three year period comes to £4m per year) and £2m (plus a little extra) in wages for him. If we were to sell him to Norwich for the £5m you suggested, we'd have to deduct the "unpaid" £8m from that transfer fee, as well as the "unpaid" £4m in wages. So that £5m transfer actually turns into a £7m loss for this financial year. Again though... in very real terms, it isn't... just in FFP terms. Equally, if we made exactly the same transfer in a year's time, the loss for that financial year would be "only" £1m. 

 

I hope that explains it... please someone correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Philb125]

27 minutes ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said:

 

I'd be amazed if there wasn't another club out there willing to take a punt for £5m - especially given Norwich are paying around £1.5/2m for the season.

Isn’t it better for us to keep Rhodes longer. Not 100% on this but my understanding is players sold lose the benefit of spreading cost over term of contract. 

 

8m over 4 years = 2m per year against books. Once you sell Him it’s 3x2m so 6m  against you.

 

So in theory better to take loan deal. 

[pgmetcalf]

36 minutes ago, upperwinngardensowl said:

Should never have joined us as we were the last team around who are going to give him the type of service he needs. Same with Winnall.

Right player, wrong time.

If Norwich give him that service he will bag loads.

 

Good luck to someone who never gave less than 100%, and looks to be a decent human being.

 

 

Were but we arent now. CC shot his confidence