Wonder when Pearson agreed to join?

[CornwallRam]

6 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Agree with most of your considered wisdom of course, though I'm unclear what the changes are regarding the loan system for the new season (with FIFA's efforts to scrap our emergeny loans). Hopefully the club is rather more clued up than I am!

While selling players won't necessarily help wiith FFP because transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract, it would free up significant wages and often the wages are as important as the fee nowadays.

I hope it's a one-year plan and, if I'm impatient, I can't imagine how Mel feels. It's a strong squad and a strong management team so we should be thereabouts unless something unexpected happens.

No emergency loans allowed any more. Full and half season loans are fine still. It probably means that clubs will need to run with bigger squads. 

[Rampage]

Pearson was King of Emergency Loans. He signed Glass, an emergency loan goalkeeper who scored in the 92nd minute with the last kick of the season for my home town club, Carlisle United to keep them in the Football League and sent Scarborough down!

[Rampage]

My apologies for making my opinions seem like facts. I will try to include the word opiinion in future.

[davenportram]

2 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

Selling those players won't raise any money in the context of FFP as we are unlikely to recoup more than 75% of what we paid for them, so the incoming fee would just cancel out the amortization liabilities. They may go for 'morale' reasons, or to save on the wage bill, but not to help with FFP.

If we need to raise money (and I think we do for FFP), it will be Hughes, Hendrick, Martin, Keogh, Russell, Christie, Forsyth or Bryson that will be sold.

but won't saving wages help with FFP, and mean the £3m you mentioned in a post wont have to cover the fees plus wages, just the fees.

[Wolfie]

1 hour ago, Rampage said:

 A great cheer for all those who ran and contributed to this Forum last season.

He means me.

[CornwallRam]

3 minutes ago, davenportram said:

but won't saving wages help with FFP, and mean the £3m you mentioned in a post wont have to cover the fees plus wages, just the fees.

Yes - thats what I meant, but worded it a little badly.

Although, there's a potential sticking point on that which I've never been able to clear up. 

My understanding is that if a club wants to sell a player, and that player hasn't requested a transfer, the club have to pay a loyalty bonus which is pre-set in the player's contract.  

However, I've read some pieces by seemingly knowledgeable people who claim that what actually has to happen is that the remaining wages in the player's contract have to be paid up in full. So a player on £10k per week with 100 weeks (easy arithmetic) left in his contract would get £1m as his loyalty bonus. That seems nonsensical to me as it would take out such a chunk of transfers, that it would hardly be worth selling. Contract terminations are different, and the player would be entitled to that amount, but moving to another club and another (probably) higher contract  seems unlikely, If it's true, then selling players could never save on wages.

I've noticed that a couple of posters on here claim to be ex-pros - I wonder if they can shed any light on this?

[i-Ram]

11 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Yes - thats what I meant, but worded it a little badly.

Although, there's a potential sticking point on that which I've never been able to clear up. 

My understanding is that if a club wants to sell a player, and that player hasn't requested a transfer, the club have to pay a loyalty bonus which is pre-set in the player's contract.  

However, I've read some pieces by seemingly knowledgeable people who claim that what actually has to happen is that the remaining wages in the player's contract have to be paid up in full. So a player on £10k per week with 100 weeks (easy arithmetic) left in his contract would get £1m as his loyalty bonus. That seems nonsensical to me as it would take out such a chunk of transfers, that it would hardly be worth selling. Contract terminations are different, and the player would be entitled to that amount, but moving to another club and another (probably) higher contract  seems unlikely, If it's true, then selling players could never save on wages.

I've noticed that a couple of posters on here claim to be ex-pros - I wonder if they can shed any light on this?

My Mrs is an ex-Pro. I asked her just and she said she had 'no fakking idea'. She also charged me a tenner for small talk.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

My Mrs is an ex-Pro. I asked her just and she said she had 'no fakking idea'. She also charged me a tenner for small talk.

And no kissing

[DCFCArmy]

Pearson is going to have to work within a strict budget after the kid in a sweetshop approach last year. 

What Pearson could have done with that 25m pound isn't worth thinking about now, we wouldn't have ended up with the panic buys we made that's for sure. 

 

[ramsbottom]

15 minutes ago, DCFCArmy said:

Pearson is going to have to work within a strict budget after the kid in a sweetshop approach last year. 

What Pearson could have done with that 25m pound isn't worth thinking about now, we wouldn't have ended up with the panic buys we made that's for sure. 

 

I don't want us to be interested in signing or about to sign anyone until Big Nige has had his feet under the table for at least a month.  Too many players were brought in, too early last season.   Way before PC knew what he had to work with...

[jagerbob]

Exactly which ones were panic buys?

Perhaps the system was poor which we dont know the ins and outs of.

I mean, who decided it was a good idea to sign those players when apart from a couple in January, it had nothing to do with Clement the head coach.

I don't see any of them being panic buys.

 

[davenportram]

2 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

Yes - thats what I meant, but worded it a little badly.

Although, there's a potential sticking point on that which I've never been able to clear up. 

My understanding is that if a club wants to sell a player, and that player hasn't requested a transfer, the club have to pay a loyalty bonus which is pre-set in the player's contract.  

However, I've read some pieces by seemingly knowledgeable people who claim that what actually has to happen is that the remaining wages in the player's contract have to be paid up in full. So a player on £10k per week with 100 weeks (easy arithmetic) left in his contract would get £1m as his loyalty bonus. That seems nonsensical to me as it would take out such a chunk of transfers, that it would hardly be worth selling. Contract terminations are different, and the player would be entitled to that amount, but moving to another club and another (probably) higher contract  seems unlikely, If it's true, then selling players could never save on wages.

I've noticed that a couple of posters on here claim to be ex-pros - I wonder if they can shed any light on this?

it would seem daft if players wages are paid in full on transfer. Either way most savings on wages cones with releasing players. This seasons sees Sammon and Warnock off the bill before we even start with any sales.

 

as an aside would those players we purchased whose original contracts have expired amortisation be removed from the books? Keogh now has been with us for the length of his original contract, Bryson and Russell too I think. So would that removal of amortisation free up more wiggle room.

[Rample]

NP will know the market and what he wants, I'd expect a couple of quick moves for free agents imminently. I'd also expect whatever his budget, and £3m sounds reasonable (whilst not swelling the squad/wage bill too much more), he may be afforded the luxury of spending a couple more before he sells anyone if necessary. We are in a decent position to offload players and recoup a few quid quite easily if needed.

[CornwallRam]

13 minutes ago, davenportram said:

it would seem daft if players wages are paid in full on transfer. Either way most savings on wages cones with releasing players. This seasons sees Sammon and Warnock off the bill before we even start with any sales.

 

as an aside would those players we purchased whose original contracts have expired amortisation be removed from the books? Keogh now has been with us for the length of his original contract, Bryson and Russell too I think. So would that removal of amortisation free up more wiggle room.

Sammon's release might not free up wages as it's possible that Sheffield Utd were paying them, but his amortisation is obviously no more, which ought to free up £300k or so. Warnock is similar, but obviously he was only out on loan for a short period.

On contract extensions, I've just had a quick look and it seems that  when a player with an existing 'book' value signs a new contract, that value is then amortised over the length of the new contract. So if a player is bought for £1m and give a 3 year contract, his value after 2 years is £333,333. If at that point he signs a new 3 year contract, that value is then amortised over the next 3 years, resulting in s £111,111 loss per year. I think that means that none of the players you mentioned would result in gains for next season, although  they must have helped with the figures for last.

I've also just noticed that all the fees incurred on bringing a player in are used to give that player his nominal value - so signing on fees and agent's fees etc. This means that free transferred players also have a book value which is amortised. I'm led to believe that some of those signing on fees can be very significant, so players like Pearce, Martin and Baird could well be causing significant 'paper' losses, but it also means that the cost of signing new players causes a lower dent in the p&ls than I had previously assumed. It also makes selling academy graduates very advantageous for FFP.

[davenportram]

12 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Sammon's release might not free up wages as it's possible that Sheffield Utd were paying them, but his amortisation is obviously no more, which ought to free up £300k or so. Warnock is similar, but obviously he was only out on loan for a short period.

On contract extensions, I've just had a quick look and it seems that  when a player with an existing 'book' value signs a new contract, that value is then amortised over the length of the new contract. So if a player is bought for £1m and give a 3 year contract, his value after 2 years is £333,333. If at that point he signs a new 3 year contract, that value is then amortised over the next 3 years, resulting in s £111,111 loss per year. I think that means that none of the players you mentioned would result in gains for next season, although  they must have helped with the figures for last.

I've also just noticed that all the fees incurred on bringing a player in are used to give that player his nominal value - so signing on fees and agent's fees etc. This means that free transferred players also have a book value which is amortised. I'm led to believe that some of those signing on fees can be very significant, so players like Pearce, Martin and Baird could well be causing significant 'paper' losses, but it also means that the cost of signing new players causes a lower dent in the p&ls than I had previously assumed. It also makes selling academy graduates very advantageous for FFP.

on the contract extension thing is interesting, Johnson 4 years £6m signing so that's £1.5m per year. So currently got £4.5m left. Extend his contract by 2years then instead of £4.5. Over three years its £4.5 over 5 years. It would free up 600k a year amortisation, or a £ 2.4m signing on a 4 year contract.

so contract extensions might not indicate the manager really appreciated a player. Just that it could free up funds for transfers.

[i-Ram]

4 hours ago, Strange yearnings said:

And no kissing

No kissing, but I have come to appreciate our moments of true intimacy. I know that when she spits her heroin in my face that she truly loves me.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

No kissing, but I have come to appreciate our moments of true intimacy. I know that when she spits her heroin in my face that she truly loves me.

Sounds like my kind of woman

[i-Ram]

7 minutes ago, Strange yearnings said:

Sounds like my kind of woman

You sound like her kind of client.

[Rampage]

6 hours ago, Wolfie said:

He means me.

You are crying wolf(ie). I did mean you in particular. Wolfie...what a guy! 

[Rampage]

6 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

Yes - thats what I meant, but worded it a little badly.

Although, there's a potential sticking point on that which I've never been able to clear up. 

My understanding is that if a club wants to sell a player, and that player hasn't requested a transfer, the club have to pay a loyalty bonus which is pre-set in the player's contract.  

However, I've read some pieces by seemingly knowledgeable people who claim that what actually has to happen is that the remaining wages in the player's contract have to be paid up in full. So a player on £10k per week with 100 weeks (easy arithmetic) left in his contract would get £1m as his loyalty bonus. That seems nonsensical to me as it would take out such a chunk of transfers, that it would hardly be worth selling. Contract terminations are different, and the player would be entitled to that amount, but moving to another club and another (probably) higher contract  seems unlikely, If it's true, then selling players could never save on wages.

I've noticed that a couple of posters on here claim to be ex-pros - I wonder if they can shed any light on this?

Wow, who would not want to be a professional footballer on these financial terms. loaning players and therefore giving them atrial before buying seems a great idea now. We need an extremely smart cookie negotiating the contracts.