Some clubs seem to be upfront concerning their transfer dealings SSN just stated Everton have signed Oumar Niasse from Lokomotiv Moscow in a £13.5m deal - whereas some club signings are purely speculative in the amount being spent - just wondering why that happens? and should all clubs be open with their dealings?
Personally think it should be one or the other. Complete transparency to see who costs what, or everything becomes undisclosed. With FFP etc I reckon they should all be publicised, see who's spending how much and on what.
My biggest suspicion is that players contracts are at the back of it. In the case of Pantilimon who we signed for nothing but probably paid him a signing on fee based over his contract length thereby doubling his wage packet. Watford sign him by agreeing to take up the outstanding fee and a wage, but at least we get him off our wage list, or maybe even get out of paying him an annual "loyalty" bonus.
I think the main reason that transfer fees stay undisclosed is to save either team a backlash from their supporters over the amount. It also stops other clubs from knowing how much money you are spending.
Agree think where fee is only 4 figures AND swamped by wages becomes undisclosed - not in agreement with it mind - transparency needed imv -
Just google it fella. There's loads of articles from very good sources. I post them but I'd have to read them, that would boil my blood and ruin my day
