coolhandfox Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 1 hour ago, K789 said: Agree on fee but also you cant shutdown a kids dream move You have to what best for the club. 2
sm1 Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 100% some of the money being mentioned for Page is pie in the sky. If Utd want him, he'll go for around 5M with a couple more for add ons 2
coolhandfox Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 8 minutes ago, sm1 said: 100% some of the money being mentioned for Page is pie in the sky. If Utd want him, he'll go for around 5M with a couple more for add ons People said Monga would go Arsenal for 5m. We aren't selling him for 5m. 4
Ric Flair Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 20 minutes ago, coolhandfox said: Doesn't include transfer fees. Only wages, bonuses, signing on fees, agent fees etc. You sure? I thought transfer fees also counted but not in quite the same way as previously where amortisation prevented clubs from making big losses.
coolhandfox Posted 10 August Posted 10 August (edited) 10 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: You sure? I thought transfer fees also counted but not in quite the same way as previously where amortisation prevented clubs from making big losses. Pretty sure. Edited 10 August by coolhandfox 1
bmt Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 43 minutes ago, MPH said: so, a bit of a reality check needed, me thinks… why would someone who didn’t even play regularly for an awful championship team be worth more than someone who didn’t play regularly in the same team but is younger than him? i absolutely would have liked to keep him and build a team round him, but we have got to stop adding a fans value to our players and realize we are just another club to the rest of the English league. If we take our blue tinted specs off, we will realize We’d be very lucky to get close to £10m for him. I am not saying he is worth more - but he has 3 years left on his contract, he's in the first team squad; we hold some cards at least in the negotiation. Depends on how desperate we are to sell (as I said before, which is dependent on us getting rid of some of the wasters which may be the issue), but if we aren't absolutely desperate I don't see why we would accept a low bid.
jayfox26 Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 21 minutes ago, bmt said: I am not saying he is worth more - but he has 3 years left on his contract, he's in the first team squad; we hold some cards at least in the negotiation. Depends on how desperate we are to sell (as I said before, which is dependent on us getting rid of some of the wasters which may be the issue), but if we aren't absolutely desperate I don't see why we would accept a low bid. Id say similar money to Monga, as they are arguably similar ability/potential wise
MPH Posted 10 August Posted 10 August (edited) 56 minutes ago, bmt said: I am not saying he is worth more - but he has 3 years left on his contract, he's in the first team squad; we hold some cards at least in the negotiation. Depends on how desperate we are to sell (as I said before, which is dependent on us getting rid of some of the wasters which may be the issue), but if we aren't absolutely desperate I don't see why we would accept a low bid. I suppose what is considered low is what is open for debate. I still maintain we won’t get more than 10m for him and I don’t consider that low, just realistic. - it already appears we won’t be able to get rid of Skipp and Okoli but Faes is open for transfer still … I understand that Fernebacè Enquired about the terms for a deal back on the 3rd of August.. Edited 10 August by MPH
markko Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 9 hours ago, FoxesWalk said: Can only sell what others are willing to buy If they have no value then terminate their contracts. Yes we will have to pay a proportion of their wages but we get them off the books and they are not stinking the place out I would start with the biggest earner/bad egg first. We need to have a better atmosphere in the dressing room.
Les-TA-Jon Posted 10 August Posted 10 August Just now, markko said: If they have no value then terminate their contracts. Yes we will have to pay a proportion of their wages but we get them off the books and they are not stinking the place out I would start with the biggest earner/bad egg first. We need to have a better atmosphere in the dressing room. You know this makes zero business sense in reality, right? You pay what you owe the player in wages anyway (potentially upfront instead of over the remaining length of the contract) and you're a body down. The only way it favours the club is if the players wants out so badly that they agree to a reduced payoff in order to be released. 4
coolhandfox Posted 10 August Posted 10 August (edited) 13 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said: You know this makes zero business sense in reality, right? You pay what you owe the player in wages anyway (potentially upfront instead of over the remaining length of the contract) and you're a body down. The only way it favours the club is if the players wants out so badly that they agree to a reduced payoff in order to be released. Amazing how many people can't grasp this. Edited 11 August by coolhandfox 3
markko Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 17 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said: You know this makes zero business sense in reality, right? You pay what you owe the player in wages anyway (potentially upfront instead of over the remaining length of the contract) and you're a body down. The only way it favours the club is if the players wants out so badly that they agree to a reduced payoff in order to be released. Not necessarily. If a player wants out he cannot go if under contract. That means we can negotiate a severance package. We get nothing but save some of the wages. Most of these need moving out asap. I don't see the point of keeping players who let us down week.
Les-TA-Jon Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 47 minutes ago, markko said: Not necessarily. If a player wants out he cannot go if under contract. That means we can negotiate a severance package. We get nothing but save some of the wages. Most of these need moving out asap. I don't see the point of keeping players who let us down week. You’re literally agreeing with me? That’s what I said? the point is, unless both parties agree a reduced package, there’s no benefit to the club. you can’t just simply pay up ‘bad eggs’ to get rid and face no consequences. You pay money you would have done (or slightly less), lose a body and don’t get a fee for the player. then what? 1
HankMarvin Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 5 hours ago, coolhandfox said: Pretty sure. Clue is in the name Salary Cost Management Protocol 😎 1
markko Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 4 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said: You’re literally agreeing with me? That’s what I said? the point is, unless both parties agree a reduced package, there’s no benefit to the club. you can’t just simply pay up ‘bad eggs’ to get rid and face no consequences. You pay money you would have done (or slightly less), lose a body and don’t get a fee for the player. then what? I would not have Faes anywhere near the first team again on principle. If we can get rid of him and save even a bit of cash I would get rid. If Madvidi does not stop sulking I would do the same with him (although I do think we might get something for him). The time has come to toughen up and to start creating a better culture before it is too late. Let's hope some of them are shifted before the window shuts. 2
kenny Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 4 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said: You’re literally agreeing with me? That’s what I said? the point is, unless both parties agree a reduced package, there’s no benefit to the club. you can’t just simply pay up ‘bad eggs’ to get rid and face no consequences. You pay money you would have done (or slightly less), lose a body and don’t get a fee for the player. then what? You do have to train the bad eggs. There are rules from the PFA that force the clubs to allow them to train with minimum numbers of other footballers. So there is more to it than just the cash. Winks cost us a lot more than just his wages when you look at the trouble he caused within the squad.
Ric Flair Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 4 hours ago, HankMarvin said: Clue is in the name Salary Cost Management Protocol 😎 So transfer fees are unlimited but in The Championship they are then included.
coolhandfox Posted 10 August Posted 10 August (edited) 26 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: So transfer fees are unlimited but in The Championship they are then included. It’s a strange one, isn't it? It seems they designed it this way because League 1 and League 2 clubs rarely spend big on transfer fees, but they’ll almost certainly have to adjust it if more clubs start spending like Birmingham. Meanwhile, Championship clubs are moving to the Squad Cost Rules (SCR) financial framework this season, which actually accounts for transfer fees. Edited 10 August by coolhandfox
HankMarvin Posted 10 August Posted 10 August 48 minutes ago, coolhandfox said: It’s a strange one, isn't it? It seems they designed it this way because League 1 and League 2 clubs rarely spend big on transfer fees, but they’ll almost certainly have to adjust it if more clubs start spending like Birmingham. Meanwhile, Championship clubs are moving to the Squad Cost Rules (SCR) financial framework this season, which actually accounts for transfer fees. They made changes because of Birmingham, Manager and staff costs were added, a reduction of 10% reduction across the league on wages to turnover and the 50% rule on equity injections. The biggest thing to stop a “Birmingham” was that EFL updated the rules to cap the reinvestment of additional football revenue. Any new commercial revenue is restricted to the exact same 50% rule as owner cash injections. Plus all new sponsorships deal signed with a company closely tied to the owners must now pass an independent assessment to prove it reflects "fair market value." The league will reject or downsize the deal's value if it looks artificially inflated just to cheat the wage cap. They brought in a record for league one £36m at the time because of stadium naming rights and partnerships linked to the Directors. 1
teblin Posted 11 August Posted 11 August Sure this has already been said, but this is most likely because Nelson got injurred. We were expecting to sell him for a decent amount.
coolhandfox Posted 11 August Posted 11 August I think the club see him as more of a crown jewel than Monga. 1
FoxesFourLife Posted 11 August Posted 11 August I don't think the club are stupid enough to let this kid leave this season he will be a future club captain.
Ted Maul Posted 11 August Posted 11 August 2 minutes ago, FoxesFourLife said: I don't think the club are stupid enough to let this kid leave this season he will be a future club captain. Depends how dire the financial situation is I suppose. On top of that, there are people within the club who absolutely are stupid enough to not see the bigger picture. 1
Recommended Posts