Transfer Rumours 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!
Ajbtiger said:
Could these discussions with Tan have happened more organically? I struggle with the idea of a player on a 6-month loan, scoring goals, then seeking out talks with Tan at the first sign of adversity.
Click to expand...
For some reason this post has been floating around in my mind (rent free too:emoticon-0105-wink:).
There seems little doubt that the players like Rosenior. Maybe they've tried putting their views across but got nowhere? Rosenior has come across as quite 'stubborn' (for want of a better word) in his views about our playing style. He's also relatively young and inexperienced, so possibly feels uncomfortable being challenged. On the other hand, he also comes across as quite open and communicative. A bit of a paradox. I'd find it hard to believe that certain players hadn't first tried to get their views across before taking things further like it seems now clear they did do.
Irrespective, we (fans), Rosenior, Acun / Tan should probably be very grateful to those players for caring enough, for having the balls, etc to get their views heard and acknowledged as they appear to have done. It could prove to be a massive accelerant in Rosenior's learning curve as a young, inexperienced manager, who is getting a lot right but has a lot to learn, and also a massive step forward in terms of future success on the field. At least here's hoping.
So rather than struggling with the thought of a group of players, some who may well have been only on loan, seeking out talks, I feel we should be very thankful they did?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summerof69 and Ajbtiger
SydneyTiger14 said:
I'd want more than 20m, but even then, 20m is a great price for a player people were happy to sell for 7m only a year or so ago!
Click to expand...
Agreed Syd, he’s genuinely destined for the very top imo would want a decent sell on too in any case too.

He has EVERYTHING for a modern centre back, loves to defend, can defend in wide areas, can drive forward with the ball, can play through the lines with ease, imperious in the air. I could carry on but it’ll only make it hurt more when the official news comes out that he’s leaving
 
  • Like
Reactions: rovertiger, PLT and SydneyTiger14
SydneyTiger14 said:
I'd want more than 20m, but even then, 20m is a great price for a player people were happy to sell for 7m only a year or so ago!
Click to expand...

Have to bear in mind for PSR purposes because Greaves is a home grown product he counts 1.5x against the sale amount. So £20m is essentially £30m headroom
 
HCAFCHangout said:
Have to bear in mind for PSR purposes because Greaves is a home grown product he counts 1.5x against the sale amount. So £20m is essentially £30m headroom
Click to expand...

Are you sure?? Pretty sure the entire sales price just counts towards the bottom line (there's no purchase cost to write off). Where did you see this 1.5x rule? I've never heard of it.
 
HCAFCHangout said:
Have to bear in mind for PSR purposes because Greaves is a home grown product he counts 1.5x against the sale amount. So £20m is essentially £30m headroom
Click to expand...

Are you sure you didn't just dream this?

The permitted losses are simply based on the losses a club makes, if we sell Greaves for £20m, then we get £20m towards those losses, we don't get £30m.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SW3 Chelsea Tiger and SydneyTiger14
Gone For A Walk said:
For some reason this post has been floating around in my mind (rent free too:emoticon-0105-wink:).
There seems little doubt that the players like Rosenior. Maybe they've tried putting their views across but got nowhere? Rosenior has come across as quite 'stubborn' (for want of a better word) in his views about our playing style. He's also relatively young and inexperienced, so possibly feels uncomfortable being challenged. On the other hand, he also comes across as quite open and communicative. A bit of a paradox. I'd find it hard to believe that certain players hadn't first tried to get their views across before taking things further like it seems now clear they did do.
Irrespective, we (fans), Rosenior, Acun / Tan should probably be very grateful to those players for caring enough, for having the balls, etc to get their views heard and acknowledged as they appear to have done. It could prove to be a massive accelerant in Rosenior's learning curve as a young, inexperienced manager, who is getting a lot right but has a lot to learn, and also a massive step forward in terms of future success on the field. At least here's hoping.
So rather than struggling with the thought of a group of players, some who may well have been only on loan, seeking out talks, I feel we should be very thankful they did?
Click to expand...

I think perhaps you're on to something there, highly likely players tried to speak to Rosie first and he's still very much learning with regards to tactics and man/group management which is no easy task for someone new to the role, especially at his age. It makes sense to me that Tan would be tasked with gauging where the player's heads are at, so maybe the players were seeking somewhere to vent their frustrations and Tan was equally seeking to hear those frustrations. I am of course very pleased with the outcome, just trying to make sense of it.

Side story. When I was young I worked in a retail store and the manager was very pushy and demanding getting over-involved in everything, he was rubbing all the staff up the wrong way so someone created a bit of a revolt and complained to the area manager. Some of the staff were called to the office one by one to state how they felt under his management which we were told was confidential. I told the truth about what I had experienced/observed... A few days later I was passing the manager in the corridor and he looked at me and said thanks for the feedback, I sheepishly smiled and kind of nodded walking into the staff room, realising he had tricked me into confirming I was one of the ones that talked haha. Anyway, I was expecting a rough ride from there on in but to my surprise, he took all the feedback on board and ended up being a very fair manager. The respect I had for someone who took that level of criticism, sucked it up and used it developmentally was immense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrprochull, rovertiger, TwoWrights and 2 others
As a general rule does anyone know if the player gets a percentage of the transfer fee?

I suppose each deal will be different but I was wondering if there was a standard( ish) practice in relation to players and signing on fees?
 
If Greaves and Philogene are both sold I guess that means next season we’re going all out in the transfer market to make the most of the pure profit from Greaves?
 
originallambrettaman said:
Are you sure you didn't just dream this?

The permitted losses are simply based on the losses a club makes, if we sell Greaves for £20m, then we get £20m towards those losses, we don't get £30m.
Click to expand...

Im at work at the moment so I’ll be able to check when I’m home but there was an article I’ve seen referencing this. If I’ve misread it I’ll gladly be proven wrong but I’ll try show the reference when I can
 
Carmine Galante. said:
As a general rule does anyone know if the player gets a percentage of the transfer fee?

I suppose each deal will be different but I was wondering if there was a standard( ish) practice in relation to players and signing on fees?
Click to expand...

Only after Dolan and Ehab get their kick backs.
 
HCAFCHangout said:
Despite some panicking we aren’t in a **** situation financially. The sales are needed just to maintain competitiveness.
Click to expand...

I thought the sales are required to keep within the allowable FFP losses. So if we were to make 40m on Jaden and Greaves, people shouldn't expect us to be spunking that money on new signings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: highpeak tiger
eimaj said:
I thought the sales are required to keep within the allowable FFP losses. So if we were to make 40m on Jaden and Greaves, people shouldn't expect us to be spunking that money on new signings.
Click to expand...

Without sales, we were losing circa 20.5m a year on the last set of accounts. Permitted losses are 39m in a rolling 3 years, but we'd only lost circa £12 of that in the previous 2 at least in part due to KLP being sold. Basically it seems the headroom is there to cover the current financial year, but sales are required to make those losses sustainable going forward.

Most likely some of that income will be reinvested in transfer fees, and some will be needed to offset the operating losses if the wage bill stays around the current level.
 
Last edited:
HCAFCHangout said:
Im at work at the moment so I’ll be able to check when I’m home but there was an article I’ve seen referencing this. If I’ve misread it I’ll gladly be proven wrong but I’ll try show the reference when I can
Click to expand...
You might have seen something about how it's an advantage selling homegrown players, but I don't think the 50% extra has any truth. Selling an academy product is pure profit to put against the FFP target. Seliing a player who has previously been bought would be revenue minus the amortised cost of purchase for that year (so even if they bought the player three years previously there'd still be part of the purchase price counting as part of the costs for that financial year. Accountants or smarter people may be able to explain it better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT
jhe10 said:
You might have seen something about how it's an advantage selling homegrown players, but I don't think the 50% extra has any truth. Selling an academy product is pure profit to put against the FFP target. Seliing a player who has previously been bought would be revenue minus the amortised cost of purchase for that year (so even if they bought the player three years previously there'd still be part of the purchase price counting as part of the costs for that financial year. Accountants or smarter people may be able to explain it better.
Click to expand...

Yeah I believe I’ve misread an article somewhere along the line. I’ve seen pure profit referenced but I can’t find it now.

My bad
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newland Tiger
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back