To summise Wage bill down from £83m to £30m All funds from transfers £33m and parachute payments £45m have gone on running costs and legacy payments for players bought in previous years. We paid £10m to Inter for Alvarez All our loaned out players are having their wages covered in full. Lens and Borini deals have obligations to but with an appearance activation clause. See you in July Fabio
£10m for Alvarez - FFS!!! Should we not be getting a fee from the club he went to. It's a fecking joke of a club that we support. Bart
Good read mate and I'm still impressed with what he's doing for us. It's a long term strategy which is why all the bed wetting has to stop from some of our fans - we're going nowhere over the next couple of seasons and are consolidating. Sounds to me like previous managers and the transfer fee instalments are the real reason we're being held back. I suppose if we're shelling out £30m or so to clubs for players such as Borini and Lens in say a quarter of their initial reported fees they sharp add up. Get used to it because the cost cutting will continue until we have a sustainable football club again.
Considering he went to Sampdoria for free (stand to be corrected there as I cba to google it) then I don't think we stand a chance!!
All of that sounds fairly positive and Bain does sound like he knows what he's doing, unlike most people previously involved with Short's ownership. I take some of it with a pinch of salt though as it is essentially pro-Short propaganda.
Doesn't tell us much that we didn't know although it does clarify why people praise Bain for those who don't see why. I like the transparency from the club on this, it will only help.
Why? First thing they'll ask is for the books before they even talk price, they need to form their own valuation. Seems pointless withholding info they've got to share anyway.
Plus the Press will be shouting 'Take over' from the roof tops making sound further along than it is, then they see the books and say no, then the media shout' break down', fans shout 'incompetence' and the whole thing just descends into another PR disaster with more unrest throughout the club. I think they should just be honest personally.
You gotta coat the stick with honey. I'm not disagreeing with you at all by the way Bri. At the end of the day, any decision on buying the club will be based on cold hard financial data. Rate of return on investment, all that financial ****, blah, blah, blah. We all know that. My point was, if you don't get them sniffing around the door to begin with, there's no chance of a sale anyway. Anyway, lights off now, early morning
See I can#'t work out the Alvarez thing - we were obliged to pay a £10m fee for him according to that interview. Then why wasn't he contracted to SAFC when he signed for Sampdoria - therefore meaning they have to pay us to take him? I feel heartily sorry for the lad for the disaster that was his contractual situation - not his doing and whoever did that (Maggie?) should be hauled over the coals for it. But surely if you are forced to pay a fee for someone then there's got to be a contractual obligation in place in return for that fee - basically we've paid Inter Milan £10m to give Ricky Alvarez to Sampdoria? Makes no sense to me legally
Because There was two court cases. Alvarez Vs SAFC and Inter and then there was Inter Vs SAFC. First was Alvarez freeing himself to play for somebody else as neither club would acknowledge ownership, and neither club would pay him, so regardless of who owned him, neither team had upheld their contractual obligations to the player so Fifa made him a free agent. The second was the clubs payment dispute.
