I wouldn't say negative, no. More eye opening about where the money funding the club is coming from. According to the ex-city player, a short term loan was apparently taken out from a Dubai based bank to buy the club at pretty high interest if left unpaid. The buying party tried to pay it back early, but before the deal was complete (which is the bit I don't understand/find difficult to believe) and were told no by the EFL. So in order to pay back the loan within the time frame deals had to be sought to finance the club, such as the Corendon airlines deal and the other sponsorships. And in order to fund our players, other players had to leave, KLP included. It makes sense when you think about it, because a man whose wealth is mostly tied up in businesses and investments isn't going to have the ready cash available to buy a Championship club outright. The CA deal is multi year, so if there's a yearly fee paid or it was all paid up front, that's plenty of money to pay back the loan and the money from KLP has provided us with money to sign almost a new squad.
Including Sinik, Tetteh a d the new 9nes coming in? Even free transfers come with a hefty signing on fee - well, I'm sure Seri did at least. Also have to factor in agents fees. Soon mounts up.
I'm aware of that, but if the owners spending is reliant on KLP money like I feel ST is implying then it's worrying for our sustainability is it not? If they don't have the funds I'd rather we aim slightly lower and protect ourselves long term
Not necessarily, but it does mean we'll have to take more of a Brentford stance in that we'll have to sell our best players to continue to progress. Which, for a club of our size, is perfectly normal but sometimes comes across as unambitious or annoying to the fans.
The KLP money doesn't cover the fees and increase in playing budget though, nor did we have anyone on high wages to really make much of a saving.
Even if the plan of the owner was always to cash in on KLP, to help fund new players, in some way it is prudent to not flaunt these FFP rules and stay well within these limits. Also, it is likely if the previous owner was still in situ, then this money for KLP wouldn't have been reinvested in the players, it would have gone largely into their pocket.
It's probably covered the bulk of what we've spent and when you consider the fact we've only paid fees for three players (Sinik included), it sort of makes sense. Add to that increased membership sales and more generous sponsorships and you can see where the majority of the money is coming from. It probably means Greaves will more than likely go if an eight figure offer comes in this season, though.
I don't understand why the EFL would block us paying off a loan? Also if we were in a position to pay it off before the takeover, what's stopping us paying it off now? I suppose it makes sense as to why we're in constant dialog with the EFL like Baz claims.
Because they tried to pay it back before the sale was completed, apparently and use assumed funds from sponsorships lined up. It's got nothing to do with FFP, we're miles into the black with that.
Baz is saying 11.5 in fees. We got 16 up front for KLP. That's 4.5 left to cover 6-8 3 year deals over 1m a year. And there's still more to come in. If Acun can be believed about. Top 10 playing budget, then KLP would only really pay for the increase in wages over the season.
I don't know, I don't know the finer intricacies of how FFP works, other than the fact that we aren't going to make anything like the losses required to trigger any penalties or wrongdoing. They might have been put on alert with the whole loan thing, might just be checking in to make sure we aren't going mad like Derby did.
No, he's right, it was £16m rising to £20m with add ons (some places have reported £22m, but I've heard more reliable ones say £20m).
So we only have 4.5m to cover all the new contracts and the 3 or so left to come in? 4.5 million only covers one player on 30k a week for 3 years. We'll have paid 7 figure signing on fees even on free transfers also. What was our wage budget last year? You can easily add 10m onto that this year with the signings we've made or planning, and those leaving won't make much of a dent as they were on Allam wages anyway.
Didn’t I read something from the City hierarchy earlier in the season suggesting increased commercial activity would cover wages. While Acun plus sales would provide transfer kitty? I have no idea if that is anywhere near plausible, but it was said.
So if there are also staged payments then it's even less likely that KLP sale is funding all current activity. And besides, we've spent more on fees and contracts than the guaranteed part of the KLP deal already.
Well not necessarily, those details are usually kept private but I can't imagine we've paid a million pounds to get somebody to sign for us. We'll have paid something, but more likely there'll be generous promotion bonuses rather than flat out million pound payments. Our wage budget last season was amongst the lowest. Wilks was our highest paid player if you're to believe some tenuous transfer sources and nobody was on more than £10k a week. The KLP money was used for the bulk of the transfer costs, but it won't be the sole source of it. The club still generates income through sponsorships and other means too.
Can the pretend accountants not worry about the finances. I’m pretty sure proper accountants are employed by the new owners to make sure the profit and loss sheets balance. They don’t need the amateurs on here for assistance
