Joao to Reading is close according to Dom

[Crofty_11]

2 hours ago, eggowl said:

 

Joao - 214 minutes per goal and 477 minutes per assist - 148 minutes per goal or assist

 

Winnall - 162 minutes per goal and 1132 minutes per assist - 142 minutes per goal or assist

 

Numbers not dissimilar, then.

 

But then bear in mind that Winnall has usually been played in his preferred position whereas Joao has usually been played more as a winger. Also consider injuries, suspensions etc.

 

I can see more of a place for Winnall if Rhodes is to leave, especially if he can get some good service into the box and some pace on the wings. However, I think we're losing something very different with Joao. 

 

Thanks

[Mr. Chow]

Great sale for all parties, not consistent with us with us. Will be readings main man and at a  great price for us whilst also still able to grow as a player for reading at his age.

[HOOTIE AND THE SHIT TU]

4 hours ago, We'llNeverBeMastered said:

How on earth are we buying hector with an £800k upfront payment? 

 

That's where I'm confused.

The fee is usually spread over the length of the contract

 

For instance, we bought Rhodes for 8 million, and gave him a 4 year contact

 

We pay Middlesborough 2 million per year

 

We still owe them 4 million, which becomes payable if we sell him

 

So letting him go for anything less than 4 million is madness

[Bluesteel]

2 hours ago, Dronfield_SWFC said:

He did not pull up any trees when on loan to Blackburn

 

That was ages ago and he came back a better player 

[StudentOwl]

1 minute ago, HOOTIE AND THE poo TU said:

 

 

We pay Middlesborough 2 million per year

 

No, we don't. 

For accounting purposes we "lose" £2m a year over the length of Rhodes' contract, but we absolutely do not pay that money to Middlesbrough (unless the transfer stipulates the fee paid in installments). As far as I'm aware, we gave Middlesbrough that money up front as a lump sum, but for accounting purposes it will appear in the accounts as being x million per year for x years.

[HOOTIE AND THE SHIT TU]

4 hours ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Of course you can it's a debtor from the other club! We only paid the final installment on the Rhodes transfer last year.

 

If the fee is £6m the full £6m is recognised immediately, and the debtor goes on the balance sheet which is them paid off in line with the agreed terms of the contract

I'm led to believe the fee was spread over the length of the contract

 

We paid Boro 2 million per season, and we still owe them 4 million

[Lord Snooty]

 

Hang on, hang on , hang on a minute!

 

I thought the great sage of our time, Nixon said we couldn't sell him because of our crazy asking prices?

 

Is it seriously being suggested he was flanneling?!

My word! 

[alanharper]

5 minutes ago, HOOTIE AND THE poo TU said:

I'm led to believe the fee was spread over the length of the contract

 

We paid Boro 2 million per season, and we still owe them 4 million

 

HIs contract's up next summer isn't it? It is according to Transfrmrkt and I thought he initially signed on loan for half a season in Jan 2017 followed by a 3 year permanent contract that summer.  So how can we still owe them half the fee?

[NeonLeon]

5 minutes ago, Lord Snooty said:

 

Hang on, hang on , hang on a minute!

 

I thought the great sage of our time, Nixon said we couldn't sell him because of our crazy asking prices?

 

Is it seriously being suggested he was flanneling?!

My word! 

 

Technically a middle ground between our crazy asking price and reality has been met. Which is what Nixon also said Bruce had requested over a month ago. 

 

The crazy asking price could’ve just been a tactic to get the most possible up until this week, where if there was no interest we were willing to negotiate.

[OxonOwl]

I really don't know about this instalments thing.

 

I feel that some people ( and I am not accusing hootie) may confuse the fact that a purchase will go through the books (amortised) over the term of the contract with paying the selling club in instalments over the term of the contract.

 

It might be that clubs agree on instalments. It helps the buying club's cash flow. It is no real benefit to the selling club unless it is the only deal they can make or if they get interest on top. It also represents a risk to the selling club. If the buyer goes into administration they may not get all the money.

 

I doubt that instalments is a common thing.

[OxonOwl]

6 minutes ago, alanharper said:

 

HIs contract's up next summer isn't it? It is according to Transfrmrkt and I thought he initially signed on loan for half a season in Jan 2017 followed by a 3 year permanent contract that summer.  So how can we still owe them half the fee?

 

I had a similar discussion with someone a while back, can't remember who but they swore blind it was a four year contract and Transfrmrkt was wrong.

[Utah Owl]

6 hours ago, Sham67 said:

As we've only sold one player in the Chansiri era .  How on earth have you come to that conclusion?

Then why conceal the fee? We've done this so many times in the past under other regimes it's ridiculous.

[Hookowl]

34 minutes ago, OxonOwl said:

I really don't know about this instalments thing.

 

I feel that some people ( and I am not accusing hootie) may confuse the fact that a purchase will go through the books (amortised) over the term of the contract with paying the selling club in instalments over the term of the contract.

 

It might be that clubs agree on instalments. It helps the buying club's cash flow. It is no real benefit to the selling club unless it is the only deal they can make or if they get interest on top. It also represents a risk to the selling club. If the buyer goes into administration they may not get all the money.

 

I doubt that instalments is a common thing.

If Championship clubs do business the same as the Prem, the norm is to pay in full, or a large part up front with the remainder paid in installments over a short period, usually 12 months.

The fee is then amortised over the duration of the contract.

[prowl]

4 hours ago, Bluesteel said:

 

Will it help in future seasons or just this one? Assuming it all goes on this year then we’d probably have north of 11m income for the accounts with Rhodes, Bruce and Joao out the door. It was suggested on here we needed to find that amount and then we’d be ok. 

It's complicated. Isn't it always.

 

We receive the credit for the sale in this years account, we also save the wages in this year. Say we get £5M for a players and his wages are £2M . Even if we are only paid £1M in year one the profit and loss account is better to the tune of £7M. £1M received, the £4M debt owed to us and the £2M we don't pay out in wages. The following year we are better off by £2M wages we won't need to pay. Obviously at the end of the contract period we won't save any more £2M wages because they wouldn't have been a liability.

 

Then there's the amortisation of the original transfer fee. In the case of Joao he has been with us a while so it has probably been amortised away. I'll not go there to save confusing myself and other people.

 

MK owl is an accountant and can cover this better than I can. I'm not an accountant just someone who's run businesses. I can do general principles he can give chapter and verse.

[prowl]

4 hours ago, OxonOwl said:

 

You can't count cash as income unless you have received it

 

 

From www.gov.uk

That's not relevant SW don't use a cash accounting basis.

 

You can't count cash until you receive it but you can count debts owed to the company, If we sell someone we can count the whole transfer fee from the date the transfer is signed. We lose the asset value of the player at whatever the amortised value is shown as in the books and there is then an entry on the other side of the transfer fee agreed .

Edited August 6, 2019 by prowl

[pazowl55]

1 hour ago, HOOTIE AND THE poo TU said:

The fee is usually spread over the length of the contract

 

For instance, we bought Rhodes for 8 million, and gave him a 4 year contact

 

We pay Middlesborough 2 million per year

 

We still owe them 4 million, which becomes payable if we sell him

 

So letting him go for anything less than 4 million is madness

That's for the purposes of FFP only I believe though. We could have paid boro a number of different ways even all the money upfront. In which case we owe them nothing for him anymore.

But in terms of FFP it is translated exactly as it is you have put it.

Edited August 6, 2019 by pazowl55

[jonesy87shef]

Just reading comments on here and twitter about Joao and how Chansiri playing a blinder. It’s not a bad fee, but feels like peanuts when you look at what bang average defenders are going for.

 

Feels like another Antonio situation to me. Some think it’s fantastic money for what we are selling. I think it’s oretty crap. Can’t replace with better anymore for the money reported. Could argue as a current bench warmer it doesn’t really matter. I won’t be happy if it goes through. 

[pazowl55]

2 minutes ago, jonesy87shef said:

Just reading comments on here and twitter about Joao and how Chansiri playing a blinder. It’s not a bad fee, but feels like peanuts when you look at what bang average defenders are going for.

 

Feels like another Antonio situation to me. Some think it’s fantastic money for what we are selling. I think it’s oretty crap. Can’t replace with better anymore for the money reported. Could argue as a current bench warmer it doesn’t really matter. I won’t be happy if it goes through. 

Difference was Antonio truly was our outstanding player that we couldn't afford to lose. 

 

Joao cant even make the team.

[Bluesteel]

5 minutes ago, jonesy87shef said:

Just reading comments on here and twitter about Joao and how Chansiri playing a blinder. It’s not a bad fee, but feels like peanuts when you look at what bang average defenders are going for.

 

Feels like another Antonio situation to me. Some think it’s fantastic money for what we are selling. I think it’s oretty crap. Can’t replace with better anymore for the money reported. Could argue as a current bench warmer it doesn’t really matter. I won’t be happy if it goes through. 

 

Yes I agree, plus I hope we didn’t spend all summer mulling on it only to accept now given that all the affordable players making the step up have done so (mostly)

[jonesy87shef]

2 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

Difference was Antonio truly was our outstanding player that we couldn't afford to lose. 

 

Joao cant even make the team.

 

Yet it feels like the same situation to me with regards to the fee we receive. I’m just saying we can’t replace like for like with better. Only positive I can see is we bring Hector in.

 

Like everyone else I don’t know what if any funds we have to spend. I’m just surprised we haven’t spent anything yet though. Embargo lifted, ground sold, Bruce compo, potential player sales. Would have thought we’d have a could of loans in by now as a minimum. Could be an exciting deadline day at least.