BoroWill Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, David said: Everyone told us he can't cross? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodleyRam Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 About right for me. Good to have sell on fee. Physically Cyrus has all the assets to be a top attacking full back. He lacks between the ears. A bit of nouse and positional sense and he'd be pushing the prem. I think all of our players have suffered as a result of the manager merry-go-round but I'd say Cyrus is one of the more obvious cases. Good luck to the lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmberRamber Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 12 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said: As sad as it is there's probably idiot fans at every club. Why people feel the need to go on social media sites and especially players Twitter accounts etc berating them is beyond me. Like the bloody idiots that booed Jamie Vincent, Tom Huddlestone and inigo idiakez. All three gave their best weren't ever a moments trouble and didn't ask to leave just got sold. Apparently not being adept at crossing makes it open season on someone. Facebook and Twitter wan.ers !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rample Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 24 minutes ago, David said: Wow, sign Cottterill up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 14 minutes ago, RamLad1884 said: But how many goals were created from those crosses (or any crosses for that matter)? Genuine question if anyone can find out, as I don't seem to remember many goals from last season coming from a cross Chrisite's crosses last season 0 goals. Dunno about the whole team though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyD Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 16 minutes ago, Sparkle said: I think we would be pleased to sign a full back with those stats and a full international for an average international team who is very quick generally available and still young but very experienced and for less than £5 million Do you think we will now go out to find and pay for just such an individual ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRam Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 18 minutes ago, BoroWill said: Everyone told us he can't cross? In fairness, while statements that he cant cross are exaggerated i'd be hugely surprised if those 39 accurate crosses amount to 50% of his attempted crosses. However, he did have a purple patch. When he's on it, he's on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 5 hours ago, SuperDerbySuperRams said: People can go confused with that so called "add ons" are. Some will be guaranteed payments, which are just the fee spread out to ease the initial outlay by the club. And then some are based on future variables, such as a certain amount of appearances. The Hughes and Ince deals are more weighted towards the former, I've been told. Don't forget, when we're signing players, we won't be paying the full fee as well, they'll be spread out also. It all roughly evens out to be honest Interesting take on 'add ons',as I always thought the fee quoted was the guaranteed sum payable,and that any add ons may or may not be paid. Our 14 15 accounts showed that £2.406m was due to clubs within 1 year (i.e. payable in 15/16),with £3.05m payable in over 1 year (16/17,and maybe beyond). The 15/16 cash flow statement shows that we paid out £12.698m on players,and if you take off the £2.406 from 14/15, then £10.292m must represent the first instalments on 15/16 recruits.These accounts show that we owed clubs £11.523m within 1 year (16/17) and £7.833m beyond this,a total of £19.356m,and if you take off the £3.05m from 14/15,then £16.306m in total was owed on the 15/16 recruits (and the total cost of these recruits is £10.292m +£16.306m =£26.598m). The balance sheet (intangible assets) shows a total of £29.955m worth of additions,£3.357m more than the total above,which surprises me -I'm beginning to think now that 'target based' incentives may be reflected in the B/S (in other words,the £3.357m). I can't think of any other reason for the discrepancy,but it does surprise me,as I've often done these calculations in the past and the 2 figures have balanced. Anyway,the reason for the above is that under your logic the 'fees' of the 15/16 recruits would be £10.292m,and the £16.306m would be guaranteed 'add ons' (even before any target based add ons). I doubt that the fees quoted in 15/16 amounted to £10.292m :- Weimann/Shackell/Butters/Johnson/Camara/Blackman (if I've not missed anyone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Ram Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 20 minutes ago, ramblur said: Interesting take on 'add ons',as I always thought the fee quoted was the guaranteed sum payable,and that any add ons may or may not be paid. Our 14 15 accounts showed that £2.406m was due to clubs within 1 year (i.e. payable in 15/16),with £3.05m payable in over 1 year (16/17,and maybe beyond). The 15/16 cash flow statement shows that we paid out £12.698m on players,and if you take off the £2.406 from 14/15, then £10.292m must represent the first instalments on 15/16 recruits.These accounts show that we owed clubs £11.523m within 1 year (16/17) and £7.833m beyond this,a total of £19.356m,and if you take off the £3.05m from 14/15,then £16.306m in total was owed on the 15/16 recruits (and the total cost of these recruits is £10.292m +£16.306m =£26.598m). The balance sheet (intangible assets) shows a total of £29.955m worth of additions,£3.357m more than the total above,which surprises me -I'm beginning to think now that 'target based' incentives may be reflected in the B/S (in other words,the £3.357m). I can't think of any other reason for the discrepancy,but it does surprise me,as I've often done these calculations in the past and the 2 figures have balanced. Anyway,the reason for the above is that under your logic the 'fees' of the 15/16 recruits would be £10.292m,and the £16.306m would be guaranteed 'add ons' (even before any target based add ons). I doubt that the fees quoted in 15/16 amounted to £10.292m :- Weimann/Shackell/Butters/Johnson/Camara/Blackman (if I've not missed anyone). How much do you reckon we have pulled back from last season with Hendrick, Albentosa, Martin loan fee, Grant, others and this year Hughes, Ince & Christie? I'd guess about £35m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Hobhead Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Good luck to Cyrus. On his best day he's incredible and better than this division. Unfortunately, his best days are infrequent to say the least. For every great, marauding run or splendid cross, there'd be a few dribbles down the line where he'd take too many touches, try too much, lose the ball or shank a cross. I think he's done well overall whilst a Ram and he will suit Monk's style of play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamLad1884 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, Gritters said: How much do you reckon we have pulled back from last season with Hendrick, Albentosa, Martin loan fee, Grant, others and this year Hughes, Ince & Christie? I'd guess about £35m Consider the savings on wages also. Martin had a whole season of wages paid for, if he earned around £20k a week average (probably less before the new contract and a fair bit more now), that alone there is like 600k. wages saving on hendrick, albentosa etc. But the transfer fees (at there lowest, without any add ons) comes to about 32 million, chances are we've got at least some add ons from the sale of Hendrick & Grant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 This fee helps equal out the bargain price we sold Hughes for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Ram Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, sage said: This fee helps equal out the bargain price we sold Hughes for. We're still short changed even with add ons and even if Boro sold Christie for £15m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 19 minutes ago, Gritters said: How much do you reckon we have pulled back from last season with Hendrick, Albentosa, Martin loan fee, Grant, others and this year Hughes, Ince & Christie? I'd guess about £35m Difficult to say,and not only because of undisclosed fees. Any cash received up front on Hendrick/Albentosa/Grant/Shotton/Buxton + the Martin loan fee would have been 'gobbled up' by the 16/17 accounts and would offset the rather large amount I showed as owing in that year before the first instalments on Vydra,Anya and Nugent (and it looks like I've got the 'offset' the wrong way round). If you look at this year in cash terms,on the outgoing side,you start off with a chunk (impossible to quantify) of the £7.833m I mentioned in my last post + any second instalments on Vydra/Anya/Nugent + (so far) first instalments on Wisdom and Davies. On the incoming side we start off with anything which might be due this year on the 5 I mentioned above,+ first instalments on Hughes/Ince/Christie. I'm not so sure we're awash with the funds some might like to suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Ram Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 6 minutes ago, ramblur said: Difficult to say,and not only because of undisclosed fees. Any cash received up front on Hendrick/Albentosa/Grant/Shotton/Buxton + the Martin loan fee would have been 'gobbled up' by the 16/17 accounts and would offset the rather large amount I showed as owing in that year before the first instalments on Vydra,Anya and Nugent (and it looks like I've got the 'offset' the wrong way round). If you look at this year in cash terms,on the outgoing side,you start off with a chunk (impossible to quantify) of the £7.833m I mentioned in my last post + any second instalments on Vydra/Anya/Nugent + (so far) first instalments on Wisdom and Davies. On the incoming side we start off with anything which might be due this year on the 5 I mentioned above,+ first instalments on Hughes/Ince/Christie. I'm not so sure we're awash with the funds some might like to suggest. I don't think we are either. I just wondered what the plan is. Get what we can in from sales of players to make us comfortable financially and add the odd bargain to the team? Personally I'd rather we did that than spend recklessly like we seem to have done in the past few seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 12 minutes ago, Gritters said: I don't think we are either. I just wondered what the plan is. Get what we can in from sales of players to make us comfortable financially and add the odd bargain to the team? Personally I'd rather we did that than spend recklessly like we seem to have done in the past few seasons. The thing is,when I talk about the cash side on transfers,it all depends on whether Mel is willing to pump more into the capital side.Tbf,the guy's already pumped in a small fortune and is committed to covering pretty hefty ongoing cash losses on operations.I wouldn't expect him to chuck any more in,and I think he might be a bit grateful to get a bit back! I'm with you,Gritters,as I'd like to see some sense return to the proceedings,and with a sensible manager,I can see it happening,although I could see a fairly big ticket signing coming to placate fans over the Ince departure. The squad/wage cull is much needed,because we won't meet FFP in 18/19 and beyond (if not promoted) without it,as the current underlying deficit of income v expenditure is too high.We've no more magic of exceptional income to produce,and we wouldn't want to be put in a situation wherein we were forced to sell players at a profit to meet FFP. If only I knew what happened to that big hike in admin expenses in 15/16,I might be able to predict a little more.I take consolation in the fact that these expenses were consistently £7m below the 15/16 level for years ,and so might dissolve away as quickly as they appeared. Believe me,a £7m reduction in expenses would change the landscape hugely.However,even if it were to disappear,I'd reckon the underlying position would still see us up to a couple of million over the £13m FFP average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 As a rider to my above post,I'd point out that if the £7m went (or at least a very large part of it),then (probable) wage savings this year would quickly put us back on track.That's how important the fate of the £7m is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belperram9 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Cyrus is probably the worst football player I have seen for years. He was inept, woeful, and perplexing to watch. Seeing that he had moved on made my day if not my summer. cannot believe we got as much we did for him, flabbergasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimmu Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 20 hours ago, cosmic said: *transfer fee increases by 500k* Seems like it increased twice that plus 15% sell on fee. Can I already admit I was bit exaggerating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, belperram9 said: Cyrus is probably the worst football player I have seen for years. He was inept, woeful, and perplexing to watch. Seeing that he had moved on made my day if not my summer. cannot believe we got as much we did for him, flabbergasted. You obviously don't watch much football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.