Jump to content
Owlsend

van-aaken Hooper now reach Speculation

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, prowl said:

If we sell Reach this year it is income this year as far as the accounts are concerned even if we don't get all the money up front. It doesn't make any difference Cash or terms.

 

I think this is where we started. If you can't understand the point I'm afraid I can't explain it any better. My fault I'm sure. 

 

I see where your coming from, I just thought you had to make allowances in the accounts for future/further revenue, multi year season tickets being an example.

 

So there’s nothing stopping DC selling the ground for 30 million this income ALL showing in 2019 and then we pay DC ‘friend’ who we sell the ground to for 500k per year on going. Meaning we clear FFP this season and have 20 million left over to spend without selling anyone.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


10 minutes ago, Box_Man said:

 

I see where your coming from, I just thought you had to make allowances in the accounts for future/further revenue, multi year season tickets being an example.

 

So there’s nothing stopping DC selling the ground for 30 million this income ALL showing in 2019 and then we pay DC ‘friend’ who we sell the ground to for 500k per year on going. Meaning we clear FFP this season and have 20 million left over to spend without selling anyone.

 

 

Assets like the ground have a value shown in the accounts. If we sell the asset for the same amount as it is shown in the accounts for we effectively get the money but lose the asset so the 2 things cancel each other out.

 

If we sell the ground for more than it is valued in the accounts then the money we get will exceed the asset value and we make a profit. If we get less it will show as a loss. Property like the ground should increase in value over time, some companies have their property re-valued regularly, some very rarely do. I've no idea what Hillsborough is shown in the accounts as being worth.

 

 If we get a lot more for the ground than it is really worth the authorities can disallow the excess on the basis that we are just trying to get round FFP. They have sweeping powers under the sustainability regulations to try to stop clubs fiddling the system.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reach very much like brunt. I would say needs a move to the big league to see whether he can cut it.

he can hit a ball and cross, team like Fulham could use him . 12m would be a good price . 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, prowl said:

Assets like the ground have a value shown in the accounts. If we sell the asset for the same amount as it is shown in the accounts for we effectively get the money but lose the asset so the 2 things cancel each other out.

 

If we sell the ground for more than it is valued in the accounts then the money we get will exceed the asset value and we make a profit. If we get less it will show as a loss. Property like the ground should increase in value over time, some companies have their property re-valued regularly, some very rarely do. I've no idea what Hillsborough is shown in the accounts as being worth.

 

 If we get a lot more for the ground than it is really worth the authorities can disallow the excess on the basis that we are just trying to get round FFP. They have sweeping powers under the sustainability regulations to try to stop clubs fiddling the system.

 

Thanks for explaining, appreciate it, going back on topic I’d sell Reach to the highest bidder hopefully for close to 15 million.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Box_Man said:

 

I see where your coming from, I just thought you had to make allowances in the accounts for future/further revenue, multi year season tickets being an example.

 

So there’s nothing stopping DC selling the ground for 30 million this income ALL showing in 2019 and then we pay DC ‘friend’ who we sell the ground to for 500k per year on going. Meaning we clear FFP this season and have 20 million left over to spend without selling anyone.

 

 

You are right on the first bit. FFP is based on the accounts and the accounts have to be based on UK accounting standards.

 

So if you buy a player for 9m on a 3 year contract then the cost is spread out over those 3 years in equal instalments. You presume the player is worth nothing at the end of his contract which is true 

 

So after 2 years the player is now worth 3m on the books and you have a cost of 3m in year 1 and 3m in year 2. 

 

If you then sell the player for 12m in Year 3 you recognise the profit in full - which is based on the proceeds minus current carrying value would be 9m. You have made a real profit of 3m but you also get back the 6m cost that actually isn't now a cost.

 

You can see how selling a player could have a huge impact on the FFP

 

How Wolves got away with it as they had loan players to start with then bought them. So only had to include the cost of the loan not the transfer fee amortization in the key Year 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, prowl said:

Assets like the ground have a value shown in the accounts. If we sell the asset for the same amount as it is shown in the accounts for we effectively get the money but lose the asset so the 2 things cancel each other out.

 

If we sell the ground for more than it is valued in the accounts then the money we get will exceed the asset value and we make a profit. If we get less it will show as a loss. Property like the ground should increase in value over time, some companies have their property re-valued regularly, some very rarely do. I've no idea what Hillsborough is shown in the accounts as being worth.

 

 If we get a lot more for the ground than it is really worth the authorities can disallow the excess on the basis that we are just trying to get round FFP. They have sweeping powers under the sustainability regulations to try to stop clubs fiddling the system.

Without looking about 25m but includes the training ground 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact in the last accounts 23.4m was the carrying value. The training ground is shown separately at 3m or so

 

So a 30m sale would give a 6.6m profit 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few factors to consider:

 

  • Clubs know we are on an P&S tightrope so will offer less than top dollar for any of our players, they'll try it on with cheeky bids to test our mettle
  • Is it worth selling Reach for a lesser sum and losing a very good player
  • He is probably the most saleable asset at the club so if his sale goes some way to getting out of the mess it has to be considered 
  • Can the money we get for him be spent on new additions or does it just go some way to getting us back to zero losses
  • DC doesn't like to sell what he considers his assets, there seems to be some movement in the background to get other players off the wage bill (Van Aken, Hooper) so other options may be being looked at
  • I'd be happy to let FF go, too much baggage and a long time since we saw the payer he can be, the severity of his injury may prevent this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Spencerowl said:

Agree 15m plus for me, anything lower in this crazy market seems cheap 

Agree-15M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Theres two very big if's in all of this.....

 

The first being if there really is intrest, would DC actually sell him? Afterall, DC still seems to think we can still go up this year.

 

The second being if we did sell Reach, Would Bruce actually be given the money to then spend on new players? Selling Reach to fill the FFP/P&S hole makes sense. However, using that money to then buy more players doesnt. Surely doing this would actually just leave FFP/P&S still hanging over us.

 

If Reach is sold id expect no incomings and a possible meltdown on here.

Edited by OwlinOldham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres been other clubs interested in Reach for a couple of seasons now,Sean Dyche is a known admirer and at LEAST one other premier club,quite possibly Wolves by all accounts,hes our most valuable asset,and a VERY good footballer,as weve all seen hes got a good engine,is virtually injury free plays almost every game of a season,the kids a proper pro.Hel get a better move than Villa but we have to set a value that reflects the money sloshing around in the prem.15M and then some.

One trick DC has missed during his reign as chairman is speculating on lower league players to increase in value and sell on at a profit,strikers especially,they bring the largest mark up,that could have aided us with FFP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MrSoul said:

You must be absolutely stark raving bonkers! Why allow your best (young) players to leave! 

I never said I did But unlike a lot of Sheffield Wednesday fans I think realistically Adam reach is a good player but he’s not all that  either.

people think he’s A 15 20 million pound player We paid 5 million 10 million bid in my eyes would be A Fair price

And in the situation that we are in with FairPlay if it was paid in one lump sum it would solve a lot of our problems

I can only imagine what Bruce would be able to get in least 2 or 3 players in with 10 million with the same quality or better and more consistent but that’s just my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Owlsend said:

I never said I did But unlike a lot of Sheffield Wednesday fans I think realistically Adam reach is a good player but he’s not all that  either.

people think he’s A 15 20 million pound player We paid 5 million 10 million bid in my eyes would be A Fair price

And in the situation that we are in with FairPlay if it was paid in one lump sum it would solve a lot of our problems

I can only imagine what Bruce would be able to get in least 2 or 3 players in with 10 million with the same quality or better and more consistent but that’s just my opinion

Always, always build a squad around your better players. The financial value and their worth on the pitch are 2 very different things.

i would sooner have one Reach over three insignificant squad players. All day, every day! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, MrSoul said:

Always, always build a squad around your better players. The financial value and their worth on the pitch are 2 very different things.

i would sooner have one Reach over three insignificant squad players. All day, every day! 

Tell me what he brings to the team decides The 5 or 6  wonder goals he scored

Edited by Owlsend
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Owlsend said:

Tell me what he brings to the team decides The 5 or 6  wonder goals he scored

Drive, positivity, recognises the value of working the channels, can play all over the park.... and the most significant thing that’s been brought up here is that other clubs are interested in him.. not for his smile, nice hair or accent . Because they can can see his virtues

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Owlsend said:

Tell me what he brings to the team decides The 5 or 6  wonder goals he scored

Well apart from bieng the best player at the club that never hands in a sicknote and can score from midfield what other attribute would you like lol

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrSoul said:

Drive, positivity, recognises the value of working the channels, can play all over the park.... and the most significant thing that’s been brought up here is that other clubs are interested in him.. not for his smile, nice hair or accent . Because they can can see his virtues

reachey.jpg.7a2cd045a675502611f0ac34e46e7f26.jpg

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these people saying they take 10mil are crazy

 

a player who cost us potential up to 7m after add on, plus might have a sell on clause

 

Has to be 15 million minimum for a player that has without question improved since he joined us 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If big Bruce isn't taking over whilst February?

Dosent the loan window last a couple of weeks into February??? 

Thus if we're trying to avoid an FFP embargo allowing Bruce to spend in the summer the most plausible way is sell off what assets we can off setting the wage bill costs and hopefully putting us OK with FFP, but also allowing us to get loans in to compensate the loss of players as we would have freed cash up for wages due to the outgoing players. 

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

×
×
  • Create New...