[azul]

Dave In Footie Heaven, on 08 February 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

Yes but is it to be paid in installments.

Therefore it can be budgeted for

I think you are just being a contrary old duffer

[jack bauer]

whatever the actual figures on these transfers are, it seems to me looking at it from that outside that the money is not being put back into the playing squad even 30% of it, nor paying off the debt as that seems to be climbing, apologies if i'm way off the mark or simply don't get it, if someone can shed light to the contrary that would be useful.

[Andy Spireite]

dim view, on 08 February 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

From the horse's hoof.....

acarson
Posted 20 October 2015 - 02:15 PM

The main reason for the increase in the Trade Debtors is that £450,000 was owed from Cardiff City FC at 30.6.15 in respect of the sale of Doyle
£400,000 was due on 1 July 2015 and more is due in January 2016


So, Cardiff should have paid £450k before 30/6/15 (but didn't), and also owe us £400k and an unspecified amount paid last month. That's presumably definite income excluding add ons.

It's cash flow (which it sounds like we desperately need) but it won't make us any more profitable as transfer fees are recognised in full in the P&L in the year in which they happen (i.e. in the last accounts as far as Doyle is concerned).

The way to fix the problems at town isn't rocket science. We annually incur expenses that are £1-£1.5m above our income (excluding exceptional items), for any business that is unsustainable.

We have to analyse our expenses and determine the areas that we can go without so that we can ensure our expenses are no higher than our income (an income figure which is likely to drop from next season with the general expectation that crowd numbers will fall).

The reality is that our recent player sales should have significantly improved our business through debt reduction but in reality they have just papered over the cracks in our business model.

[BlueDay]

Andy Spireite, on 08 February 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

It's cash flow (which it sounds like we desperately need) but it won't make us any more profitable as transfer fees are recognised in full in the P&L in the year in which they happen (i.e. in the last accounts as far as Doyle is concerned).

The way to fix the problems at town isn't rocket science. We annually incur expenses that are £1-£1.5m above our income (excluding exceptional items), for any business that is unsustainable.

We have to analyse our expenses and determine the areas that we can go without so that we can ensure our expenses are no higher than our income (an income figure which is likely to drop from next season with the general expectation that crowd numbers will fall).

The reality is that our recent player sales should have significantly improved our business through debt reduction but in reality they have just papered over the cracks in our business model.

Agree totally.

[martatcross]

Andy Spireite, on 08 February 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

It's cash flow (which it sounds like we desperately need) but it won't make us any more profitable as transfer fees are recognised in full in the P&L in the year in which they happen (i.e. in the last accounts as far as Doyle is concerned).

The way to fix the problems at town isn't rocket science. We annually incur expenses that are £1-£1.5m above our income (excluding exceptional items), for any business that is unsustainable.

We have to analyse our expenses and determine the areas that we can go without so that we can ensure our expenses are no higher than our income (an income figure which is likely to drop from next season with the general expectation that crowd numbers will fall).

The reality is that our recent player sales should have significantly improved our business through debt reduction but in reality they have just papered over the cracks in our business model.

what business model ?

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

jack bauer, on 08 February 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

whatever the actual figures on these transfers are, it seems to me looking at it from that outside that the money is not being put back into the playing squad even 30% of it, nor paying off the debt as that seems to be climbing, apologies if i'm way off the mark or simply don't get it, if someone can shed light to the contrary that would be useful.

I think the board just moved the goalposts.

If I remember rightly the initial talk was that 30% would be available for the transfer kitty, this became 'available for wages' at a later date.

[martatcross]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 08 February 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

I think the board just moved the goalposts.

If I remember rightly the initial talk was that 30% would be available for the transfer kitty, this became 'available for wages' at a later date.

The board not telling the truth shock horror 😀

[fishini]

martatcross, on 08 February 2016 - 06:33 PM, said:

The board not telling the truth shock horror 😀

Truly horrifying. Who would have thought it?

[valemadness]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 08 February 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

I think the board just moved the goalposts.

If I remember rightly the initial talk was that 30% would be available for the transfer kitty, this became 'available for wages' at a later date.

Just a query, once you've paid to bring a player here in the form of a transfer, how do you expect the club to pay for them? Or do you expect them to work for free once they're here? It was never "into the transfer kitty" it was always into the player budget.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

valemadness, on 08 February 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

Just a query, once you've paid to bring a player here in the form of a transfer, how do you expect the club to pay for them? Or do you expect them to work for free once they're here? It was never "into the transfer kitty" it was always into the player budget.

I disagree. The implication was that the money would go into transfers.

I won't dignify the 'do you expect them to work for free' nonsense with a reply.

If you're not prepared to pay a fee then you end up with the kind of crocks we've ended up saddled with. Rather than the types of players we sold for big profit. We'll be getting nada back from the likes of Herd, SEB & Novak financially. And we've had little from them on the pitch.

Pinching a penny to lose a pound.

[DIFH]

azul, on 08 February 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

Therefore it can be budgeted for

I think you are just being a contrary old duffer

Thanx for the ageism assessment.

[azul]

valemadness, on 08 February 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

Just a query, once you've paid to bring a player here in the form of a transfer, how do you expect the club to pay for them? Or do you expect them to work for free once they're here? It was never "into the transfer kitty" it was always into the player budget.

We have sold a minimum £3M worth of players since last Jan, at 30% that is a minimum £900K into the "transfer kitty" for the manager to spend how he likes

Assuming we have spent a nominal amount on transfer fees, if you offering 2 year contracts that would be an extra £450K p/a on the player wages over that period

Do you think this is happening ?

[azul]

Dave In Footie Heaven, on 08 February 2016 - 08:04 PM, said:

Thanx for the ageism assessment.

No problem, as I'm probably around your age, I'm well qualified.

Oh and while we are at it, spelling Thanks with and x doesn't make you seem any younger

This post has been edited by azul: 08 February 2016 - 08:47 PM

[tedspireite]

Bowzer spirey, on 07 February 2016 - 10:14 AM, said:

Been saying for weeks, get rid of those 2 and get a couple of younger hungry players in. Cheaper too.

Bowzer spirey, on 07 February 2016 - 10:14 AM, said:

Been saying for weeks, get rid of those 2 and get a couple of younger hungry players in. Cheaper too.

[tedspireite]

Really.if we get rid of Novak who's got about 10 goals.and probably are best bet of a few more.who do you think is gonna get us the goals so we at least have a chance of staying up .

[jack bauer]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 08 February 2016 - 08:03 PM, said:

I disagree. The implication was that the money would go into transfers.

I won't dignify the 'do you expect them to work for free' nonsense with a reply.

If you're not prepared to pay a fee then you end up with the kind of crocks we've ended up saddled with. Rather than the types of players we sold for big profit. We'll be getting nada back from the likes of Herd, SEB & Novak financially. And we've had little from them on the pitch.

Pinching a penny to lose a pound.

absolutely and on the wages front, as a for instance, we were paying Sam Clucas wages, so when replacement lets say Liam O'Neil (same shirt number) comes in, he has Sam's wages, the transfer fee of 1.3m goes where? does that make sense?

[azul]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 08 February 2016 - 08:03 PM, said:

I disagree. The implication was that the money would go into transfers.

I won't dignify the 'do you expect them to work for free' nonsense with a reply.

If you're not prepared to pay a fee then you end up with the kind of crocks we've ended up saddled with. Rather than the types of players we sold for big profit. We'll be getting nada back from the likes of Herd, SEB & Novak financially. And we've had little from them on the pitch.

Pinching a penny to lose a pound.

Think the term was "reinvested in the squad", which could mean anything from transfer fees to high quality frees with potential

Not sure how many people expected big transfers, I wasn't but I expecting high quality signings such Morsy, Ryan, Cooper, Roberts, Clucas etc. etc.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

jack bauer, on 08 February 2016 - 08:53 PM, said:

absolutely and on the wages front, as a for instance, we were paying Sam Clucas wages, so when replacement lets say Liam O'Neil (same shirt number) comes in, he has Sam's wages, the transfer fee of 1.3m goes where? does that make sense?

It makes absolute sense to me. So expect the usual suspects to pile in with some reds and 'why are you always bashing the club' comments!

azul, on 08 February 2016 - 08:54 PM, said:

Think the term was "reinvested in the squad", which could mean anything from transfer fees to high quality frees with potential

Not sure how many people expected big transfers, I wasn't but I expecting high quality signings such Morsy, Ryan, Cooper, Roberts, Clucas etc. etc.

Agree.

I didn't expect big transfers either, but I did hope we'd invest modest fees to bring in the likes of Morsy, Cooper, Clucas and Co who could later be sold on at a profit.

[jack bauer]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 08 February 2016 - 08:59 PM, said:

It makes absolute sense to me. So expect the usual suspects to pile in with some reds and 'why are you always bashing the club' comments!

I think for me its just trying to gain some clarity. Ryan, Roberts, Clucas, Darikwa, Morsy, were all being paid. Barring Ryan we received a fee for each, we replace these with, Herd, Novak, O'Neil, Liddle, and SEB, all these players were/are paid a wage, the fees received do not seem to have been reinvested via transfer fees paid even upto 30% so either this is not in reality happening at all or we are paying hideous wages to the players who have come in since July.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

jack bauer, on 08 February 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

I think for me its just trying to gain some clarity. Ryan, Roberts, Clucas, Darikwa, Morsy, were all being paid. Barring Ryan we received a fee for each, we replace these with, Herd, Novak, O'Neil, Liddle, and SEB, all these players were/are paid a wage, the fees received do not seem to have been reinvested via transfer fees paid even upto 30% so either this is not in reality happening at all or we are paying hideous wages to the players who have come in since July.

Bang on.