I have taken GC's post from the Fer thread but thought that I would start a new thread as it applies to every loan/sale we make. It is more than that. Any player on loan is still considered an asset to the parent club. Therefore the club's worth is greater but without a drain on the wage budget and also provides some income from any loan fees. This season we will have made money on the Sterling resale and will make money on Austin's exit. (If Austin had more time left on his contract he may have been loaned out too.) Add to that money received from the McCarthy sale and there is income of between £27m - £30m (plus savings in wages). Fer and Caulker (and probably Sandro) will remain on the books but loaned out. This means that we will get them back next season and play them (if we want to) but, more importantly, they can be sold in the 2016/17 season which will help balance the accounts in that year. Don't know about Phillips yet. The last thing we want to do is make millions and millions from sales and run at a profit in 2015/16. We need to break even or overspend by a little - making any future FFP payment affordable in 2016/17. The one thing that I do not know is if any FFP fine is taken into account this year. Could a large FFP payment cause us to overspend again and therefore put us in line for another FFP payment? I suspect not as the FL could then be accused of intentionally creating a situation where their fines unreasonably/intentionally cause further fines. I also do not know how payment of fines is structured. Could it be over a period of years? At this stage a mixture of sales and loans is the way to go.
Thanks for the informative post, EH. Yes, you are more than likely correct in what you say. I guess we fans are currently feeling that we have all but sold / loaned out all our 'better' players and those that have come in barely are out of nappies. Meaning, we have very little to show for ourselves in player purchases that satisfy us fans. Yes, we are, I am greedy ................. although we care about our clubs' well being and all that, ( if we are honest ) all we really want to see is right now is a solid base of players ( including defenders & strikers ) ready for the season kick off. With seem to be repeating the same crap we had last season ( Remy ) with this season ( Austin ) .......... which will put us behind the eight ball from day 1, again. Only this time, we have known about it since the end of last season, yet, done nothing to prevent it happening again. We all think highly of Charlie but in truth, giving him a time frame to either go or stay, was the only sensible thing management could do .......... they didn't.
Ref giving charlie a time frame, there has only been one official bid and it was nowhere near the mark. There's been nothing since. Can hardly give Austin an ultimatum when there are no clubs actually making bids for him.
Is there any other club that allows this 'try before you buy' policy? Slightly get the feeling we've been mugged off with the Caulker loan (although he is ****) and it would be the same with Fer. Sunderland or anyone else know his strenghts and weaknesses. Buy him or don't.
In regards to Caulker, put it this way ................ if it looks like sshit, smells like sshit, taste like sshit, fair to say it is sshit. We've got him off the books for 12 months until the they regain their sight, senses and palate ................. after that, we'll send him to the knackery.
But then it's another year closer to his contract being up. I can't see his value going up after a year on Southampton's bench.
Loans could be good options if the player has a long contract and we are undergoing a transformation,etc. However, it did not work out with either Loic Remy or Adel Taraabt. I would be very cautious about the contract lengths and we have clear facts with the current Charile Austin saga, that "only one year" of contract seems to imply a "discount". I personally would adhere to the proverb of "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
But we don't need the money now ... we WILL need it next year. FFP rules revolve around income. Pointless having extra money in the bank this year when we can put some of it off until next year which can then be counted as income in 2016/17.
I really don't think that's why we're loaning these players out. Most transfers are paid over a long period anyway.
As Eamon has said, the clubs' thinking is to be seen as running a very tight, low budget operation to show we are living within our means ............ then well get Harry back next year to splash the cash again!
Sorry Eamon, There's more sense coming out of your morning show namesake - Any profit made now can be easily offset against the massive losses we are running, have been running and will continue to run. The value of the "asset" will remain on the books at a devalued rate due to the contract on the "asset" being run down simultaneously. The value of the "asset" is figurative and can rarely be used as such in any case - for instance, no listed club has their playing staff as assets due to the desperately uncertain nature of that market. So, and your making a great job of it - what you are trying to spin is that it is far better to let someone go out on loan, alleviating other club's needs, in a market where those same clubs are awash with cash, running down their contract with us, in some vain hope that if we are promoted we can take these players back on or that they have become such outstanding players that their value has increased. Instead of - selling at the peak of the market and their values and us as a club not completely in the mire. It's amazing how Cardiff and Norwich didn't think of this when they were selling for top Dollar. Why did we then sell Mutch instead of loaning - he had a 4 year contract? The attempted spin is good but just off line and length and been whacked over your head for four at long on. Can you name me any successful loan deals for the parent club other than when it is youth players going out to garner playing time and experience? Please don't say Remy as the 2M loan fee could easily have been recouped by not selling at clause value. And furthermore, please inform of any other clubs loaning out their most valued assets - I can't think of one. And again, no Falcao's, Monaco knew he was a dud and just wanted and needed him out.
