The Undisclosed Transfer

[patvandenhowdareyou]

I am sure someone can explain, but how can clubs still state undeclared transfer. Especially in the days of FFP. I know we’ve done it a few times and i’m still noticing it now. Our perennial “target” sarr has just gone to Marseille on one. Anyone clued up on this?

 

[Nymzee]

Isn't it just undisclosed to the public? It's not undisclosed to the people that matter. All the paperwork includes the figures.

 

[patvandenhowdareyou]

Isn't it just undisclosed to the public? It's not undisclosed to the people that matter. All the paperwork includes the figures.

Why are some transfers allowed to be undisclosed and some not?

 

[Nymzee]

Why are some transfers allowed to be undisclosed and some not?

I guess it's up to the discretion of the clubs what is made public.

 

[lancs blue]

It's a way of saving face

Should be stated so fans can hold clubs to account

 

[patvandenhowdareyou]

Why are some transfers allowed to be undisclosed and some not?

I guess its another blag for clubs to “pretend” what a great job they are doing

 

[patvandenhowdareyou]

I guess it's up to the discretion of the clubs what is made public.

But why declare some transfer fees and not others

 

[Goat]

Why are some transfers allowed to be undisclosed and some not?

I honestly dont recall the last time I saw a club say the Transfer fee.

Clearly, I only pay attention to Everton.

 

[Nymzee]

But why declare some transfer fees and not others

Maybe a club doesn't want the world to know they overspent on someone, maybe the player doesn't want the fee to be public and add extra pressure.

 

[Goat]

Speaking on his Price of Football Podcast, leading football finance expert Kieran Maguire explained: "In terms of individual deals, let's say people believe you have a budget of £50m this summer and you go and sign a player for £40m, selling clubs know that you've not got a lot of money left.


"So by keeping the fees undisclosed, you create a bit of uncertainty. I know practically all of Brighton's deals when we buy players are for undisclosed fees. We are owned by a poker player, and he will say, 'never reveal anything of your hand'. And that's why we see so many individual deals for undisclosed fees.

"Nobody is entitled to know what you and I earn because that is private information. In the same way, these are private limited companies and therefore they can argue that in terms of individual transactions, 'we're not going to give anything away'.


"It's the same as individual wage packages, they don't give anything away. Where there is a statutory obligation, for example, to disclose the total amount of money paid in wages, that's when the club will show it. Similarly, clubs are obliged to show the total amount paid for transfer fees in a financial year in their yearly accounts.

"It's simply a case that there is no legal obligation to show things on a forensic or granular level in terms of individual purchases or sales. Sometimes they might choose to do it. That can often be in an attempt to send out a message, maybe to the fanbase - like, 'look at us, we've just spent X amount of millions on this player'. But most of the time they would rather keep it closer to their chest."

In the same way, as Maguire explains it above for the buying club, it works for the selling club too. If Boro were to sell somebody this summer that would need replacing, it wouldn't be advantageous to them for it to be public knowledge how much they'd just received in selling a player.

If the selling club of the player Boro were looking at as a replacement were aware of a significant transfer fee just received by Boro then there would be nothing stopping them adding a little extra money to their valuation of the player in question, making negotiations more complicated.

 

[patvandenhowdareyou]

Maybe a club doesn't want the world to know they overspent on someone, maybe the player doesn't want the fee to be public and add extra pressure.

That may be the case, but in world of accountability to fans ( i know ) surely a rule on transfer fee transparancy is a must. Based on how much of fans from multiple clubs end up banging on about FFP. I know we all say it, but what a load of bowl licks

 

[Nymzee]

That may be the case, but in world of accountability to fans ( i know ) surely a rule on transfer fee transparancy is a must. Based on how much of fans from multiple clubs end up banging on about FFP. I know we all say it, but what a load of bowl licks

Fan opinion on this means nothing I'm afraid lol

We always roughly know the figures anyway and the figures we get for FFP are always correct anyway because they do use proper fees.

 

[patvandenhowdareyou]

Speaking on his Price of Football Podcast, leading football finance expert Kieran Maguire explained: "In terms of individual deals, let's say people believe you have a budget of £50m this summer and you go and sign a player for £40m, selling clubs know that you've not got a lot of money left.


"So by keeping the fees undisclosed, you create a bit of uncertainty. I know practically all of Brighton's deals when we buy players are for undisclosed fees. We are owned by a poker player, and he will say, 'never reveal anything of your hand'. And that's why we see so many individual deals for undisclosed fees.

"Nobody is entitled to know what you and I earn because that is private information. In the same way, these are private limited companies and therefore they can argue that in terms of individual transactions, 'we're not going to give anything away'.


"It's the same as individual wage packages, they don't give anything away. Where there is a statutory obligation, for example, to disclose the total amount of money paid in wages, that's when the club will show it. Similarly, clubs are obliged to show the total amount paid for transfer fees in a financial year in their yearly accounts.

"It's simply a case that there is no legal obligation to show things on a forensic or granular level in terms of individual purchases or sales. Sometimes they might choose to do it. That can often be in an attempt to send out a message, maybe to the fanbase - like, 'look at us, we've just spent X amount of millions on this player'. But most of the time they would rather keep it closer to their chest."

In the same way, as Maguire explains it above for the buying club, it works for the selling club too. If Boro were to sell somebody this summer that would need replacing, it wouldn't be advantageous to them for it to be public knowledge how much they'd just received in selling a player.

If the selling club of the player Boro were looking at as a replacement were aware of a significant transfer fee just received by Boro then there would be nothing stopping them adding a little extra money to their valuation of the player in question, making negotiations more complicated.

Cheers for this

 

[Bedfordblue]

Speaking on his Price of Football Podcast, leading football finance expert Kieran Maguire explained: "In terms of individual deals, let's say people believe you have a budget of £50m this summer and you go and sign a player for £40m, selling clubs know that you've not got a lot of money left.

I think he’s bit of that fella. Sounds feasible until you consider the whole premise is based on other clubs knowing what a teams transfer budget is. Why / how would they know that?

 

[Goat]

I think he’s bit of that fella. Sounds feasible until you consider the whole premise is based on other clubs knowing what a teams transfer budget is. Why / how would they know that?

Yeah, that didnt make sense to me, cos no clubs says what their budget is.

The other bits make sense tho.