January transfer thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Chunksafc said:
I read something yesterday that Grumpy posted about FFP, the wages etc and as usual it is dismissed by a fair few as unimportant, but it's actually very important and makes perfect sense.

Our turnover isn't amazing and a good guess at the wage bill (based on accounts etc) is that we are running at around 70/80% wages to turnover.

Spreading it out over the squad, it would put our upper limit at 20k per week down to the average of £7k per week.

To me that is very sensible financial planning, we don't get into situations like West Brom who have had to take out loans for running costs, we don't run the risk of breaking FFP and the small amount the owners can put in can be used for new signings or improvements.
Click to expand...

The people moaning that we aren’t just handing Stewart a premier league contract are the same people who’d whinge if we got put under a transfer embargo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: COYCS, Bank of England 2, Blond Bombshell and 7 others
Southern A said:
Our stadium name already lends itself perfectly to sponsorship opportunities as well without taking away from its "proper" name.

No need to name it the "The Nissan Stadium" for example. It would just become "The Nissan Stadium of Light". Everyone would still immediately know exactly where and what it is.
Click to expand...
If there was a worthwhile amount to be made it wouldn’t bother me a single jot if we changed the name completely. I feel no connection at all to the daft name Murray gave it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Southern A
Sunderpitt said:
Of course I agree no player is irreplaceable, we easily replaced Kevin Phillips did we not?

Also why would we expect our owner to provide extra funds to keep a key player, that's just silly?
Click to expand...

Any idea how much that would be, bearing in mind FFP puts controls on wages and that we don't know if Stewart would stay for treble ...

.. . he was ambitious enough to leave Scotland and come to a desperate L1 outfit, he might have the confidence to think he can play in the PL.

Is he on a par with Toney?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cumbrianmackem
Chunksafc said:
I read something yesterday that Grumpy posted about FFP, the wages etc and as usual it is dismissed by a fair few as unimportant, but it's actually very important and makes perfect sense.

Our turnover isn't amazing and a good guess at the wage bill (based on accounts etc) is that we are running at around 70/80% wages to turnover.

Spreading it out over the squad, it would put our upper limit at 20k per week down to the average of £7k per week.

To me that is very sensible financial planning, we don't get into situations like West Brom who have had to take out loans for running costs, we don't run the risk of breaking FFP and the small amount the owners can put in can be used for new signings or improvements.
Click to expand...
Some people can't see the forest for the trees.

Sure we caould go down the Derby route but that model has got so many clubs in trouble in the past. I think it says a lot for KLD's maturity that he's not an "I want it now" type of person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Montysoptician, COYCS, cumbrianmackem and 3 others
Oliver's Army said:
Would like us to get a sponsor for the SoL to get a few quid in. It would have had big exposure this season so far via Sky.
Click to expand...
Even that isnt the great cash cow it used to be.

They closed that loophole, like they closed the selling the ground to the owners loophole (Stoke only just did it in time or they would be crippled)

The value of the naming rights / sponsorship has to be a sensible / commercially accepted value and is verified / evaluated by the league.

The mags will soon find this out as they are expecting 17 trillion pound for the naming rights for their **** tip and it's not allowed
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blond Bombshell and The Exile II
Chunksafc said:
Even that isnt the great cash cow it used to be.

They closed that loophole, like they closed the selling the ground to the owners loophole (Stoke only just did it in time or they would be crippled)

The value of the naming rights / sponsorship has to be a sensible / commercially accepted value and is verified / evaluated by the league.

The mags will soon find this out as they are expecting 17 trillion pound for the naming rights for their **** tip and it's not allowed
Click to expand...

Aye but its SOMETHING. Not expecting game changing amounts but if there's any way to increase turnover in a painless way we should.

I think its possible we even have an open policy on it... and perhaps have put a commercially appropriate price tag on sponsoring the stadium, and its just sitting there waiting for a company to want to buy it. So rather than actively looking and just taking the highest bidder, we've set a target amount and until its met we don't take it. That would make some sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robertson and Chunksafc
Southern A said:
Aye but its SOMETHING. Not expecting game changing amounts but if there's any way to increase turnover in a painless way we should.

I think its possible we even have an open policy on it... and perhaps have put a commercially appropriate price tag on sponsoring the stadium, and its just sitting there waiting for a company to want to buy it. So rather than actively looking and just taking the highest bidder, we've set a target amount and until its met we don't take it. That would make some sense.
Click to expand...
I'm sure we have various plans in place for increasing all the revenue streams.

Like everything though, it's going to take time
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jarca, TopClub and The Professor
Chunksafc said:
Even that isnt the great cash cow it used to be.

They closed that loophole, like they closed the selling the ground to the owners loophole (Stoke only just did it in time or they would be crippled)

The value of the naming rights / sponsorship has to be a sensible / commercially accepted value and is verified / evaluated by the league.

The mags will soon find this out as they are expecting 17 trillion pound for the naming rights for their **** tip and it's not allowed
Click to expand...
Hmm, there's a loophole in itself... How much did Man City get for naming rights? Whatever the figure wouldn't that become a precedent for "commercially accepted" :)
 
Ozzymac said:
Hmm, there's a loophole in itself... How much did Man City get for naming rights? Whatever the figure wouldn't that become a precedent for "commercially accepted" :)
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that was one of the main reasons for changing the rules around it
 
  • Like
Reactions: young2077
Hudson92 said:
Is there anything in the anderlecht lad link or just guess work?
Click to expand...

my "research" on twitter showed that it came from one of those weird journalist accounts where the person who posted it isn't an actual journalist but somebody retweets it then somebody says "oh they got something right once" which gives it credibility and then before you know it, its real.

Thats not saying it isn't. As usually those "journalist' accounts get it from an ITK on a forum somewhere, be it at this end or that end. And I only spent literally 2 mins looking into it.

I've reached the point where I don't believe anything in football unless the Athletic, Times, Telegraph or Guardian report it. Sky Sports as well sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sunderlad, Hudson92 and Chunksafc
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back