Silly Season January 2014

[davek]

Analogous? Only if you mean equally silly. For us to have a conversation on this, we'll have to consider other items as well.

First, the budget to run a football team is larger than just players and wages.

Yes it is. We have operating costs which staff costs is one part of. Point being?

Second, player sale proceeds does not equal purchasing budget (although this appears to be your basic presumption). Maybe clubs like Tottenham and Everton need to sell players to buy new (because of limited resources), but when have Chelsea or City not pursued a player because they were waiting to sell dead weight? To assume that incoming and outgoing transfer budgets should be equal (for any club ) is an inane assumption at the very least.

No, it's not inane. How can you describe it as inane when football clubs and the media continuously link the comings and goings of players with each other...the relationship is strong, maybe not perfect fit, but strong. How does the word inane cover that?

Third, you presume that "transfer budget" losses are fueling hidden profits for select executives. As entirely possible as this may be, where's the evidence suggesting this is a reasonable conclusion? All I see is a club that is broke; look around and see that most clubs sell their assets (talented players) to fund operating losses.

No, I dont. What led you to that conclusion?

Fourth, players signing contract extensions (unless they resign for the same wage) naturally consume transfer budget (or is there a separate wage budget I should be aware of?). A £20,000 weekly wage increase is £1,000,000 annually; unless I'm missing something quite essential, a "transfer budget" that does not consider player wages, etc, is not any kind of budget at all.

Yes, that's a point to bear in mind, the wage bill does go up each year. But we've taken possession of 25m in extra tv revenue. This is over and above the cash brought in from player sales, and it's why Kenwright was able to make the (idle as it turned out) boast that Martinez 'would get the cash from Fellaini and a few bob more'. The extra tv cash is a game changer...or not as it turns out in our case. 'Funny' that. This is the crux of the matter. Any increase in wages (and there's a commitment to get on top of that now in any case) isn't beholden to digging into the cash from player sales. It also takes care of the interest payments of 4m p.a. too. As the manager was told: there's no need to sell anyone to buy. Ergo in that event the cash is entirely recyclable. No?

I could probably go on, but that's unnecessary. Of course there has been more money coming in from player sales than there has been going out with incoming transfer. Any person with two lobes can see that. It's the conclusions drawn from this that are entirely cynical.

You may be entirely right that some board members are sucking money out of the club through player sales. You may even be right that they secretly fancy a Newcastle--6th place and a Cup Final loss keeps you from spending extra money--so that they can suck dry the club without unnecessary interference. But logic suggests that the club is broke. Logic suggests that the board is unable to capitalize on other revenue streams to help support the club. Logic suggests that the club is fundamentally conservative when it comes to transfer budgets and top-four aims, having observed the lesson of Leeds. You may be entirely correct with your conclusions, but logic does not suggest them.

Where's the VIBRAC money Bill?

That's not logic you tapped out there, it's a bizarre oversight of the facts. The fact of the matter now is that we have a club that has (and dont take my word for it, take the CEO's) cash each year that it can choose exactly what it pleases with. There is no pressure on cash coming into the club from player sales that results in it trickling through the managers fingers and into other areas of the club.

And why is the burden on me to tell you where the cash goes when it comes in from player sales if it doesn't go to more players coming in? I'm not the one suggesting a destinantion for it, you are attributing that to me. I'm merely asking the question why this should be. So let me ask you: where do you think this player trade surplus is going to?

 

[Librarian]

There is base income from the PL TV rights, and there is additional income for finishing position. And there is further income received for competing in Europe. How much future income are you willing to leverage against debt to make it work out? Maybe the board are pansies, unwilling to spend what they have, but a 1-year increase in TV money doesn't necessarily mean an increased budget. It may instead mean more debt payment--which may have the effect of stabilizing future budgets, which although not as sexy as a transfer splash, can be just as beneficial in the long term.

It's not a one year increase, it's ongoing. It's a big enough increase to do a bit of both.

 

[tonka1878]

Give Conor Mcaleny a go

What makes you think he'd be a good Chairman?

 

[Gerbs]

Remember how excited we were supposed to be a couple weeks ago? I'm not feeling it

 

[Dooguk]

Bill is knocking around with the wrong bunch.
They are taking advantage of him. To paraphrase Count Arthur Strong.
"You think your funny down the pub with your mates.
But I bet it's always your round"

 

[griffla]

Remember how excited we were supposed to be a couple weeks ago? I'm not feeling it

The confidence pre sunderland game seems a looooong time ago.

 

[davek]

The confidence pre sunderland game seems a looooong time ago.

Chasing that game like mad men set the ball rolling, imo. It had a domino effect spilling into fatigue, injuries and absentees from later games. It might be seen as a watershed game in the same way that Fulham away last season was: Moyes reacting to a late set back by going all conservative again from that point.

 

[TheBear]

Oh how I dream of the day we have oil rich pockets and are constantly linked with rubbish players who have a price tag of 30M.

 

[Omarza]

Analogous? Only if you mean equally silly. For us to have a conversation on this, we'll have to consider other items as well.

First, the budget to run a football team is larger than just players and wages.

Second, player sale proceeds does not equal purchasing budget (although this appears to be your basic presumption). Maybe clubs like Tottenham and Everton need to sell players to buy new (because of limited resources), but when have Chelsea or City not pursued a player because they were waiting to sell dead weight? To assume that incoming and outgoing transfer budgets should be equal (for any club ) is an inane assumption at the very least.

Third, you presume that "transfer budget" losses are fueling hidden profits for select executives. As entirely possible as this may be, where's the evidence suggesting this is a reasonable conclusion? All I see is a club that is broke; look around and see that most clubs sell their assets (talented players) to fund operating losses.

Fourth, players signing contract extensions (unless they resign for the same wage) naturally consume transfer budget (or is there a separate wage budget I should be aware of?). A £20,000 weekly wage increase is £1,000,000 annually; unless I'm missing something quite essential, a "transfer budget" that does not consider player wages, etc, is not any kind of budget at all.

I could probably go on, but that's unnecessary. Of course there has been more money coming in from player sales than there has been going out with incoming transfer. Any person with two lobes can see that. It's the conclusions drawn from this that are entirely cynical.

You may be entirely right that some board members are sucking money out of the club through player sales. You may even be right that they secretly fancy a Newcastle--6th place and a Cup Final loss keeps you from spending extra money--so that they can suck dry the club without unnecessary interference. But logic suggests that the club is broke. Logic suggests that the board is unable to capitalize on other revenue streams to help support the club. Logic suggests that the club is fundamentally conservative when it comes to transfer budgets and top-four aims, having observed the lesson of Leeds. You may be entirely correct with your conclusions, but logic does not suggest them.

Where's the VIBRAC money Bill?

I understand that there are other factors regarding finances etc...BUT...that's what the club financial experts gets paid for...to bring all of that into account and plan. HOWEVER...do not tell the fans that finances are there to bring in new players OR that we have enough money to strengthen etc AND then not do that. That is the part I am interested in...that the club ONLY act according to what they said. Thus I fully expect them to strengthen the squad...window after window by making use of the cash they said they had for transfers. IF for some reason Martinez feels he would keep some of the budget for the end of the season to increase his total kitty that's fine...BUT then it should happen and not just disappear as the season continues. In other words...I then expect one or two very good signings...as the budget should be able to support that (according to what was told to us the fans). Thus don't come and say the money disappeared into running costs, wages, signing on fees etc as they KNEW roughly what that would be BEFORE we were told the money is there for transfers etc...thus this whole argument above for me...although valid...should NOT affect our budget drastically (We were told the money is there) for strengthening the squad.

“I’ve got plenty of money, don’t worry. It’s not about the finances”

 

[SerenityNigh]

Second, player sale proceeds does not equal purchasing budget (although this appears to be your basic presumption). Maybe clubs like Tottenham and Everton need to sell players to buy new (because of limited resources), but when have Chelsea or City not pursued a player because they were waiting to sell dead weight? To assume that incoming and outgoing transfer budgets should be equal (for any club ) is an inane assumption at the very least.

No, it's not inane. How can you describe it as inane when football clubs and the media continuously link the comings and goings of players with each other...the relationship is strong, maybe not perfect fit, but strong. How does the word inane cover that?

We may largely agree on all but the direction of the causal relationship (wrong cause = inane relationship). All football clubs have budgets. A select few have incomes that greatly exceed their expenses. These few can spend inordinate amounts on transfers without regard to the budget. All other clubs have budget restraints. While it’s quaint for the media to simplify the budget to incoming = outgoing, and clubs will often speak of the relationship between the two, the reality is that player sales balance the budget for most teams. The link between budget restrictions and transferring players into the team is easy to establish. Whether a team’s transfer budget = player sales is less reasonable. If a team has budgetary constraints, whatever they may be, the constraint limits the transfer budget, not the outgoing player sales.

Third, you presume that "transfer budget" losses are fueling hidden profits for select executives. As entirely possible as this may be, where's the evidence suggesting this is a reasonable conclusion? All I see is a club that is broke; look around and see that most clubs sell their assets (talented players) to fund operating losses.

No, I dont. What led you to that conclusion?

Maybe I misinterpreted your previous posts

Q. Do they make a profit from player sales in transfer windows?

Q. Would qualifying for the EL involve squad spending beyond the normal requirements?

Q. Would buying more and selling less eat into/wipe out profits from player sales?

The truth is indeed out there.

Needs hammering home this point. Of course, a perfectly reasonable argument could be made that this would suit the board of directors to slip out of the European spots. That would necessitate a big enough squad that could cope with the extra responsibility - and they really wouldn't want that now would they? Not when the name of the game is to make a profit from player sales.

No doubt the club will spin Lukaku's injury as 'a few weeks' but he's going to be miles off - Chelsea aren't going to let that 'asset' be rushed back.

We're crying out for decent players to come in, but just watch these people run the clock down now, having just seen two first teamers crocked in the last five days.

Incredibly this is a window where they are intent on making a profit. It's criminal neglect.

Good summary.

The first part of any solution is to identify and accept something is wrong in the first place, so hat's off to you.

If you're asking how fans can impact then we've seen what happens when a lead is given: it's simply rebuffed when it crashes into the rocks of a handful of decent results. There's no long term analysis. It's all short term.

Of course, the supporters could get rid of this lot very quickly indeed if there was a boycott of the club to force a sale. But the drug addiction is too great for that to take hold.

I hate to admit it, but we are in a situation where most are happy (after a grumble when matches like this result in a humiliation) with also ran status...as long as we trouble the big boys once in a while and get a pat on the head off the media. That's been Kenwright's achievement: to lower the expectations that much they'll see his tenure of utter failure as acceptable....and he'll still walk away with tens of millions in profit and the good wishes of the majority of mugs he's exploited.

If you are not suggesting that there is a "profit" to be made from player sales, then I am utterly confused by what you've posted.

That's not logic you tapped out there, it's a bizarre oversight of the facts. The fact of the matter now is that we have a club that has (and dont take my word for it, take the CEO's) cash each year that it can choose exactly what it pleases with.

What’s the club’s debt burden? And what are the annual payments? Unless net income is greater than these, I don’t understand how any annual surplus can be free to do exactly as pleased, no matter who makes the remark.

There is no pressure on cash coming into the club from player sales that results in it trickling through the managers fingers and into other areas of the club.

We might have addressed this above, but still…

And why is the burden on me to tell you where the cash goes when it comes in from player sales if it doesn't go to more players coming in? I'm not the one suggesting a destinantion for it, you are attributing that to me. I'm merely asking the question why this should be. So let me ask you: where do you think this player trade surplus is going to?

Are you not inferring that the transfer budget be increased to match player sales? If not, then I have two suggestions: the club is broke; executives are siphoning money. If you deny that you believe the second, then must we agree on the first?

 

[Brennan]

This season's player trading:

OUT

Fellaini - £27m
Anichebe - £6m
Jelavic - £6.5m (perhaps including addons)

IN

Kone - £5m
McCarthy - £13m
Barry - £2m
Lukaku - £4m
Deulofeu - £2m
Robles - £2m
McGeady - £2.5m

I've taken all of the purchases as the worst case scenario, as expensive as they would likely be. I've also left out the 'Fer money' which was apparently left over from January.

Even so, i'm still seeing a surplus of £9m.

Bill ?

 

[SerenityNigh]

I understand that there are other factors regarding finances etc...BUT...that's what the club financial experts gets paid for...to bring all of that into account and plan. HOWEVER...do not tell the fans that finances are there to bring in new players OR that we have enough money to strengthen etc AND then not do that. That is the part I am interested in...that the club ONLY act according to what they said. Thus I fully expect them to strengthen the squad...window after window by making use of the cash they said they had for transfers. IF for some reason Martinez feels he would keep some of the budget for the end of the season to increase his total kitty that's fine...BUT then it should happen and not just disappear as the season continues. In other words...I then expect one or two very good signings...as the budget should be able to support that (according to what was told to us the fans). Thus don't come and say the money disappeared into running costs, wages, signing on fees etc as they KNEW roughly what that would be BEFORE we were told the money is there for transfers etc...thus this whole argument above for me...although valid...should NOT affect our budget drastically (We were told the money is there) for strengthening the squad.

Don't disagree with you or Davek that the club lying about the budget is inappropriate and reprehensible.

 

[Dymak]

The new TV money means that our income now exceeds our costs before player sales. We are no longer due to make an operating loss. It means players don't need to be sold to cover the operating losses, as had been done previously. And it means more money should be available to spend on squad improvement through purchasing new players.

Our debt is comparatively low and long term in it's nature. Our debt repayments are low, they will have previously contributed to our operating losses, just like any other form of expenditure will have done. But our income now considerably exceeds our expenditure as a result of the new TV money alone, never mind player sales. So debt isn't a problem for us.

Using our surplus to pay down debt wouldn't benefit us a football club, it would only benefit the owners. And it isn't happening anyway, I maintain that our debt will increase rather that decrease.

 

[Big Fat Sam]

This season's player trading:

OUT

Fellaini - £27m
Anichebe - £6m
Jelavic - £6.5m (perhaps including addons)

IN

Kone - £5m
McCarthy - £13m
Barry - £2m
Lukaku - £4m
Deulofeu - £2m
Robles - £2m
McGeady - £2.5m

I've taken all of the purchases as the worst case scenario, as expensive as they would likely be. I've also left out the 'Fer money' which was apparently left over from January.

Even so, i'm still seeing a surplus of £9m.

Bill ?

You're being generous mate.

Can't see us having paid 8m on loan fees for Barry and Lukaku and Deulofeu.

And Kone wasn't 5m if you believe those ITK.

Plus you're forgetting Kone/Robles money must surely have come from the failed transfer of Leroy Fer the board wanted us all to forget about.

So take your 9m, and add on about another 10m, and you're probably then closer to the mark.

It's disgusting.

 

[Brennan]

You're being generous mate.

Can't see us having paid 8m on loan fees for Barry and Lukaku and Deulofeu.

And Kone wasn't 5m if you believe those ITK.

Plus you're forgetting Kone/Robles money must surely have come from the failed transfer of Leroy Fer the board wanted us all to forget about.

So take your 9m, and add on about another 10m, and you're probably then closer to the mark.

It's disgusting.

I mentioned the Fer money mate