Official: Will Hughes joins Watford

[gccrowdpleaser]

19 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said:

So why sell him for a song and with such indecent hast?

Why is it for a song? If Derby signed a midfielder for 8million who had recently had season out with ACL injury. Had scored 9 goals in 165 games in the Championship but never a game above that level there would be uproar! Indeed we've signed players who have done more, achieved more in their career and for far less money and the club get hammered. 

Nearest comparison I can find is Alex Mowatt at Leeds. 22 years old. Had a couple of indifferent season season after bursting onto the scene. Missed a big chunk of time thryinjury. Touted for Premiership moves galore. 120ish championship appearances and 12 goals. He went to Barnsley for 600k in Jan. 

The only major difference is that we've all seen Hughes develop here. We've all been fed the real spin that each transfer window Derby have fought off and rebuffef Liverpool, Everton and Arsenal when they were banging the door down with £20 million cash. Behave! There was never anyone knocking at the door with that sort of money... But damn it made everyone feel good that our board turned it down. Wake up people. 

If he was that good, that much of a bargain and it was so plain to see... Then why were there not 10 or so other prem clubs banging on the door offering another 1,2 or 3 million to get their hands on this diamond??

 

 

[G STAR RAM]

11 hours ago, PistoldPete2 said:

I don't buy this spin that it was will forcing this move, any more than it was Martin pushing for a move to Fulham .

is Rowett Pearson in disguise ?

Not sure if you've watched the interview or not.

If you have, why have you decided to replace what it actually said with what you would liked it to have said?

[ramblur]

12 hours ago, Ambitious said:

It could also be worth mentioning: the major difference between the Hendrick transfer & the Hughes transfer - Sam Rush? 

No one can even come close to telling me Hendrick is better or worth more than Hughes, so how we managed to get such a high fee for Hendrick and a seemingly low one for Hughes looks to be the orchestrator of the deal. Sam Rush, although there may be a dark cloud hanging over his reputation now, would have still been well-placed to get a better deal for Derby, IMO. 

Not particularly convinced yet that there was a major difference between the 2 fees.My research from the accounts indicates to me that the Hendrick fee (without any possible add ons) looks to have been around £7m,or possibly even less (depending on what we actually got for Albentosa,Shotton and Buxton). I've seen so many different variations on the Hughes fee that it's difficult to know what to believe (I don't know if 'undisclosed' means undisclosed to everyone but the media,because they surely won't go around telling everyone else what the actual fee is).

[cheron85]

13 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Not particularly convinced yet that there was a major difference between the 2 fees.My research from the accounts indicates to me that the Hendrick fee (without any possible add ons) looks to have been around £7m,or possibly even less (depending on what we actually got for Albentosa,Shotton and Buxton). I've seen so many different variations on the Hughes fee that it's difficult to know what to believe (I don't know if 'undisclosed' means undisclosed to everyone but the media,because they surely won't go around telling everyone else what the actual fee is).

Is that £7m up front? Have you taken into account that a lot of fees are spread payments these days? Paid over the course of a 12-24 month period? I think it's one of the things clubs to to limit the financial liability over a period of time PLUS helps out the receiving club with FFP (I think?)

[PistoldPete2]

14 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Not particularly convinced yet that there was a major difference between the 2 fees.My research from the accounts indicates to me that the Hendrick fee (without any possible add ons) looks to have been around £7m,or possibly even less (depending on what we actually got for Albentosa,Shotton and Buxton). I've seen so many different variations on the Hughes fee that it's difficult to know what to believe (I don't know if 'undisclosed' means undisclosed to everyone but the media,because they surely won't go around telling everyone else what the actual fee is).

Hendrick himself confirmed his fee at 10.5 million. Hughes fee has been reported at anything between 5 and 8 million ... A travesty either way.

[PistoldPete2]

4 hours ago, gccrowdpleaser said:

Why is it for a song? If Derby signed a midfielder for 8million who had recently had season out with ACL injury. Had scored 9 goals in 165 games in the Championship but never a game above that level there would be uproar! Indeed we've signed players who have done more, achieved more in their career and for far less money and the club get hammered. 

Nearest comparison I can find is Alex Mowatt at Leeds. 22 years old. Had a couple of indifferent season season after bursting onto the scene. Missed a big chunk of time thryinjury. Touted for Premiership moves galore. 120ish championship appearances and 12 goals. He went to Barnsley for 600k in Jan. 

The only major difference is that we've all seen Hughes develop here. We've all been fed the real spin that each transfer window Derby have fought off and rebuffef Liverpool, Everton and Arsenal when they were banging the door down with £20 million cash. Behave! There was never anyone knocking at the door with that sort of money... But damn it made everyone feel good that our board turned it down. Wake up people. 

If he was that good, that much of a bargain and it was so plain to see... Then why were there not 10 or so other prem clubs banging on the door offering another 1,2 or 3 million to get their hands on this diamond??

 

 

I've never heard of Alex mowat. i don't know why prem teams didn't come knocking before but I'm glad they didn't... If we accept the first crap offer we get.

[Anon]

21 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said:

I've never heard of Alex mowat. i don't know why prem teams didn't come knocking before but I'm glad they didn't... If we accept the first crap offer we get.

Mowatt's a decent player, but I have to laugh at him being used as an equivalence with Hughes. Hughes has played 17 times for England U21s, Mowett hasn't ever been selected for a U21 squad.

Edit - Additionally, his low fee was due to him only having 6 months left on his contract. Hughes was contracted for another 3 years.

[PistoldPete2]

55 minutes ago, Anon said:

Mowatt's a decent player, but I have to laugh at him being used as an equivalence with Hughes. Hughes has played 17 times for England U21s, Mowett hasn't ever been selected for a U21 squad.

Edit - Additionally, his low fee was due to him only having 6 months left on his contract. Hughes was contracted for another 3 years.

Highest value on transfer market website £600k. 

[ramblur]

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

Is that £7m up front? Have you taken into account that a lot of fees are spread payments these days? Paid over the course of a 12-24 month period? I think it's one of the things clubs to to limit the financial liability over a period of time PLUS helps out the receiving club with FFP (I think?)

No,it seems that PBSE (where I got the figures) quotes fees receivable,rather than cash received.Any potential add ons wouldn't be included,as there'd be no guarantee of receiving same.The spread of payments has no bearing on FFP,as it's the amortisation that counts.

[ramblur]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete2 said:

Hendrick himself confirmed his fee at 10.5 million. Hughes fee has been reported at anything between 5 and 8 million ... A travesty either way.

Didn't see/hear that-was it verbal or written? Did he say whether the fee included add ons? I've seen the Hughes fee quoted in a range up to £10m. If the lad's as good as some of us think,then surely we could look forward to a further windfall in future.When comparing to Hendrick fee all the factors have to be taken into account.

[cheron85]

1 minute ago, ramblur said:

No,it seems that PBSE (where I got the figures) quotes fees receivable,rather than cash received.Any potential add ons wouldn't be included,as there'd be no guarantee of receiving same.The spread of payments has no bearing on FFP,as it's the amortisation that counts.

Not sure what PBSE is... I work in the creative industries so try not to deal with finance when I can help it

Understood that add ons wouldn't be included - But they wouldn't be able to list the cash as being received at a single time on the books if the amortisation works as I've been trying to understand? If it all gets spread across the course of a players contract then how do you work out the total value that's been received? If you got £7m up front and then £1m every six months for 2 years you wouldn't see the cash for the rest appear on the books until it arrives?

[ramblur]

27 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Not sure what PBSE is... I work in the creative industries so try not to deal with finance when I can help it

Understood that add ons wouldn't be included - But they wouldn't be able to list the cash as being received at a single time on the books if the amortisation works as I've been trying to understand? If it all gets spread across the course of a players contract then how do you work out the total value that's been received? If you got £7m up front and then £1m every six months for 2 years you wouldn't see the cash for the rest appear on the books until it arrives?

PBSE stands for 'Post balance sheet events' and it's a facility that allows a company to report on any material events that may have taken place in the period between the financial year end and the date the accounts were signed off by club official and auditors. In our case,the year end is 30 June and the accounts are usually signed off late November,thus the summer window of the following year is always fully covered in terms of both incomings and outgoings.

The full value (excluding contingencies in the form of add ons) of the transfer fee for incoming transfers (including league levy+agent's fees) will always show in the balance sheet (under 'intangible assets') in the year in which the transfer of registration takes place. However,transactions aren't listed individually but within a global total. Amortisation is then applied annually to reduce the asset value (once down to zero,but now down to an allocated residual value),with the corresponding entry being a charge to P/L (and thence FFP).

The P/L account  will show the profit or loss (net total) on the sale of players' registrations.As the Hendrick fee (ditto the Grant fee) would be nearly all profit,then although the figure is a global one it should provide a good insight into the Hendrick fee.The Grant profit would appear to come in at £1m+, but we don't know the situation with Shotton/Albentosa/Buxton -if there were a combined loss there,the Grant profit would surely cover it.If the Hendrick fee had been £10.5m,without add ons,then I'd expect to see a profit on sale of players' regs of at least £10.5m. This won't come out until April next year,but I'm a very patient man.Incidentally,PBSE for that year will cover the events of the current window,but there'll likely be several transactions to muddy the water.

On the cash received side,the cash flow statement will show the cash actually received during the year on outgoing transfers,but again a global total. The balance sheet will always show the amount that may have been owing to us at the start of the year,and also what was owing to us at the year end.

If you've any further questions,fire away and I'll do my best to answer them.Bear in mind though that finances are very complex and it can be difficult to explain it all to the layman/woman.

[LesterRam]

What am I supposed to do now, I can only see Will and Sammon with my poor eyesight, everybody else looks the same, even ******* Anya has chopped of his locks, can we colour code them?

[ramblur]

7 minutes ago, LesterRam said:

What am I supposed to do now, I can only see Will and Sammon with my poor eyesight, everybody else looks the same, even ******* Anya has chopped of his locks, can we colour code them?

Feckin wished I had your problem in the first half at Elland Road.

[cheron85]

26 minutes ago, ramblur said:

The full value (excluding contingencies in the form of add ons) of the transfer fee for incoming transfers

Firstly - Apologies for all the questions - And apologies to everyone else for keep going on about this - I was a mathematician in my youth and nearly went into the financial sector at one point - So find it really interesting! 

So having seen the structure of a couple of lower league transfer deals over the years (through mates of mates) I would suggest that 'extra money' was also structured as an add on - In the same way as 'money after xxx appearances' or 'money after England caps'

It's usually a flat fee up front + add ons. I think (speculation) that the Hendrick fee was all cash BUT that it was as £xxxm up front + (add on) £xxm over xxx months - So the second bit would be an add on and therefore wouldn't appear on the balance sheet until after you receive that portion of the money - I may well be still getting my reporting dates confused...

[ramblur]

1 hour ago, cheron85 said:

Firstly - Apologies for all the questions - And apologies to everyone else for keep going on about this - I was a mathematician in my youth and nearly went into the financial sector at one point - So find it really interesting! 

So having seen the structure of a couple of lower league transfer deals over the years (through mates of mates) I would suggest that 'extra money' was also structured as an add on - In the same way as 'money after xxx appearances' or 'money after England caps'

It's usually a flat fee up front + add ons. I think (speculation) that the Hendrick fee was all cash BUT that it was as £xxxm up front + (add on) £xxm over xxx months - So the second bit would be an add on and therefore wouldn't appear on the balance sheet until after you receive that portion of the money - I may well be still getting my reporting dates confused...

I think I know where you might be getting confused now. A transfer fee payable in instalments (as most are) is just that,and any instalments paid after the first payment are never referred to as add ons. Add ons are always contingent upon some event/milestone occurring/ being met,and therefore may or may not be realised.

The Hendrick fee may well have been paid in instalments and there could also have been contingent add ons in addition. As far as the Hughes deal goes,if you believe the version of £5m,which could rise to £9m,then that extra £4m would represent contingent add ons (I'm only putting 'contingent' in front of it every time for your benefit,because the very term 'add on' implies a contingency).The accounts would only recognise the guaranteed £5m and any other receipts would only be recognised if and when 'targets' were met.

[Rab a dab doo]

Why can't we all get over it.

He has gone, good luck to him.

Time to move on.End of

[ramblur]

3 hours ago, ramblur said:

.

The full value (excluding contingencies in the form of add ons) of the transfer fee for incoming transfers (including league levy+agent's fees) will always show in the balance sheet (under 'intangible assets') in the year in which the transfer of registration takes place. 

Hmm,may have to revisit that bit. The accounting convention of conservatism dictates that you shouldn't anticipate profits that might not materialise (as in add ons re outgoing transfers),but on the other hand you should try to reflect all possible liabilities,thus painting a more 'gloomy' than 'optimistic' view of the accounts.The reason for this is that it's better to have a pleasant surprise,rather than a nasty shock.

I've noticed that the note 'Contingent Liabilities' in the accounts only deals with our potential liabilities to other clubs in terms of sell on clauses,and quantifies the maximum amount that might be paid. I'm sure we must have add on arrangements (incoming transfers) with other clubs that aren't related to sell on clauses. This makes me think that these must be provided for in the accounts.

As far as the sell on elements go,these can only occur (obviously) if we receive transfer fees,so there is no 'shock' involved there-just receiving less money than we would have without such clause,but something we'd always have been aware of.

Feck it,I'm really tired now -should have kept my beak out of it 

[Rev]

Just a thought @ramblur, but would the fee received for Grant show in the PBSE, seeing as he was sold in January 2017?

I always thought PBSE stood for Pre Baldy Sam's Exit, thanks for clearing it up.

[hughesy 1984]

Why is this thread still open? He's gone end of. Time to move on