Official: Cyrus Christie joins Middlesbrough

[ramblur]

5 hours ago, HantsRam said:

So if pressed, what range does your analysis indicate we paid for GT?

Appreciate it can't be precise because he wasn't signed in isolation and all numbers are aggregated over several players. 

The inference is that  £2m might have been first year instalment on GT so final figure with add ons is 3-4m?

Where's that @Butros fella to give us the wba accounts version 

My guess would be no better than anyone else's,but I'd always imagined GT to be around £4m (excluding any possible add ons),and that payments would be spread over the length of his contract. Your suggestion of a first instalment of £2m would only leave £395k as first payments on others.

Up to and including 13/14,we were only shown as owing amounts to other clubs in the 'up to 12 months' range,which implied fees were paid over a maximum of 2 years. It was only in 14/15 that the '1 year+' range was introduced ,and the new range could include 3 years.(which,in GT's case could mean first instalment + 3 others. 

[ramblur]

Just looked at WBA accounts and they show a profit on disposals of £5.33m (the original cost of disposals was £474k).I can only find one other disposal (Luke Daniels, GK,to Scunny),but unfortunately the fee was undisclosed.Can't imagine there'd be much profit in that,so it looks to me that the GT sale could easily have been well over £4m.The profit has to be based on the guaranteed fee,and can't include add ons. Maybe Super Sam,who got a lot of praise over this deal,wasn't so good after all.

[Rev]

Based on what we'd seen up to his signing, I'd have said £5m for Thorne was a good deal.

[ramblur]

34 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

Based on what we'd seen up to his signing, I'd have said £5m for Thorne was a good deal.

Wouldn't disagree with that,and nothing I've seen in both clubs' accounts would exclude that possibility. My point was that many were under the impression that it was a lot less than that,due to Sam's negotiating skills.

[ramblur]

Suddenly had a hunch that 13/14 was that glorious (short lived,because it was soon stopped) year when the DCFC accounts were signed off in November 14,and the others in March 15. The PBSE figure in the General Sports accounts (featuring both 14/15 windows) was £7,918,096,and so if you subtract the DCFC figure of £6,777,057 from this,the value of the Jan 15 window was £1,141,039,covering fee based transfers of Albentosa/Shotton/Warnock (and the figure includes league levy,agents' fees etc)

Now I bet the aggregate figures of the 'thought to be/understood to be/believed to be' brigade came in at a lot higher than this,which just compounds my distrust of such figures. To further compound the 'felony',Ssewankambo arrived on a 'free' in January,so any costs relating to his transfer has to come off the figure.

It always amuses me when someone says so and so is usually reliable on transfer figures.If the fee's undisclosed,how can you possibly tell if a figure's reliable or not? Of course this also applies to outgoings,and I'll only believe figures for Hughes/Ince if the club comes out and quotes them (and under the current regime,they have given  firm figures for some incomings in the directors' report )

You only have to look at the wide spread of fees quoted by journalists to realise that they're just guessing.Won't stop some beating up on the manager/owner when they digest what's being fed them. 

[Rample]

I thought Thorne was initially around £3m. I can't see us having hit many add ons either due to lack of both matches played and promotions, no caps and no sell on.

I seem to remember fee for Christie being touted as £1m but bearing in mind we agreed something to avoid it going to tribunal I'd say that was an absolute maximum. No mention of Coventry getting a sell on fee last week which is unexpected, but maybe we overpaid to remove any such clauses.

[ramblur]

14 hours ago, Rample said:

I thought Thorne was initially around £3m. I can't see us having hit many add ons either due to lack of both matches played and promotions, no caps and no sell on.

I seem to remember fee for Christie being touted as £1m but bearing in mind we agreed something to avoid it going to tribunal I'd say that was an absolute maximum. No mention of Coventry getting a sell on fee last week which is unexpected, but maybe we overpaid to remove any such clauses.

The WBA accounts give the biggest insight into Thorne. Although a profit on sale of players' regs of £5.33m was recorded,this also equates to the fees WBA received for George and Luke Daniels (GK),because their joint cost of £474k was fully amortised out,giving zero net book value.Both were transferred into the WBA academy,so I'd imagine the £474k relates to possible compo+agents' fees.They'd both been in the Academy a long time,which explains why their value was amortised out.

Now the point is,Luke Daniels was transferred to Scunthorpe and,no disrespect intended, I couldn't see them podding out a fortune for a goalie.His fee was undisclosed,so I'll leave it to all of you to guess the Thorne fee (which has to be the guaranteed element that WBA were to get,because you can't account for profits on income that may not materialise).This makes your point about add ons irrelevant to the issue.Now, obviously,the fee that WBA received was the fee we paid,but from our point of view, you then have to add on the League transfer levy +agent's fees.

It's way easier to get a feel of things in situations like this,and far more difficult when dealing with multiple transactions.I've been twisting and turning trying to find a way to 'get at' the Hendrick fee from last year,by looking at profit on sale of players' regs when the accounts come out next April.Suddenly realised something I wrote earlier is going to be a great help.As the maximum total ,paid for Albentosa/Shotton/Warnock appears to have been £1.141m ,then Albentosa&Shotton must have cost less than this.Last year we disposed of Hendrick,Albentosa,Shotton and Grant for fees (Jake wouldn't affect things much). Now as Grant seems to be a profit of c£1m,then any loss (if there was one) on Albentosa and Shotton couldn't possibly wipe this out,which means that the profit for 16/17 when it comes out is going to be Hendrick+a bit more. So if the profit is £10.5 m or less,then Hendrick couldn't have been sold for a guaranteed £10.5m,and the lower the overall profit is,the lower the guaranteed element of the Hendrick fee becomes.

Even as I'm typing this,2 potential snags have hit me:- (1) If the Hendrick deal had add ons,the criteria may have been met,and the profit therefore realised in 16/17.However,this would still give an insight into the Hendrick fee. (2) Worse than this,the Hughes transaction may well now muddy the water.So that's why he was sold before June 30.

Suppose it'll come as no surprise that I can finish a cryptic crossword weeks after I started it,which shows I'm a dogged b@ggar that hates getting beaten at anything.

[RamNut]

We will miss his willingness to initiate and support attacks. 

Butterfield and wisdom will love rolling it square to one another.

[Rample]

7 hours ago, ramblur said:

The WBA accounts give the biggest insight into Thorne. Although a profit on sale of players' regs of £5.33m was recorded,this also equates to the fees WBA received for George and Luke Daniels (GK),because their joint cost of £474k was fully amortised out,giving zero net book value.Both were transferred into the WBA academy,so I'd imagine the £474k relates to possible compo+agents' fees.They'd both been in the Academy a long time,which explains why their value was amortised out.

Now the point is,Luke Daniels was transferred to Scunthorpe and,no disrespect intended, I couldn't see them podding out a fortune for a goalie.His fee was undisclosed,so I'll leave it to all of you to guess the Thorne fee (which has to be the guaranteed element that WBA were to get,because you can't account for profits on income that may not materialise).This makes your point about add ons irrelevant to the issue.Now, obviously,the fee that WBA received was the fee we paid,but from our point of view, you then have to add on the League transfer levy +agent's fees.

It's way easier to get a feel of things in situations like this,and far more difficult when dealing with multiple transactions.I've been twisting and turning trying to find a way to 'get at' the Hendrick fee from last year,by looking at profit on sale of players' regs when the accounts come out next April.Suddenly realised something I wrote earlier is going to be a great help.As the maximum total ,paid for Albentosa/Shotton/Warnock appears to have been £1.141m ,then Albentosa&Shotton must have cost less than this.Last year we disposed of Hendrick,Albentosa,Shotton and Grant for fees (Jake wouldn't affect things much). Now as Grant seems to be a profit of c£1m,then any loss (if there was one) on Albentosa and Shotton couldn't possibly wipe this out,which means that the profit for 16/17 when it comes out is going to be Hendrick+a bit more. So if the profit is £10.5 m or less,then Hendrick couldn't have been sold for a guaranteed £10.5m,and the lower the overall profit is,the lower the guaranteed element of the Hendrick fee becomes.

Even as I'm typing this,2 potential snags have hit me:- (1) If the Hendrick deal had add ons,the criteria may have been met,and the profit therefore realised in 16/17.However,this would still give an insight into the Hendrick fee. (2) Worse than this,the Hughes transaction may well now muddy the water.So that's why he was sold before June 30.

Suppose it'll come as no surprise that I can finish a cryptic crossword weeks after I started it,which shows I'm a dogged b@ggar that hates getting beaten at anything.

Is it not possible wba were given money owed for Long, Odemwingie or someone sold the previous season?

Could they have received a loan fee for Samaras and/or Dorrans who went out the same season we signed GT?

Would they have received compensation/insurance for sacking Anelka the previous season that took time to come through?

Also as an afterthought, if a manager or coaching staff were tempted away would that compensation also Show? 

[tinman]

It certainly wasn't £5million we paid for Thorne. It would have been a club record fee at the time and there was no mention of it anywhere. 

We only had previous offers at around 1-2 million turned down. 

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, tinman said:

It certainly wasn't £5million we paid for Thorne. It would have been a club record fee at the time and there was no mention of it anywhere. 

We only had previous offers at around 1-2 million turned down. 

I think the accounts are a more reliable indicator than anything that may or may not have been mentioned.

[Srg]

West Brom had 10 players out on loan, including the likes of Graham Dorrans and Georgious Samaras that season, which could easily put a million plus on it., more like closer to £2m in loan fees

[tinman]

31 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I think the accounts are a more reliable indicator than anything that may or may not have been mentioned.

Not really when people are making assumptions and guesses about what is and isn't included in a certain figure. 

[Rab a dab doo]

I thought this was Cyrus Christie thread. He has gone let's move on.

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, tinman said:

Not really when people are making assumptions and guesses about what is and isn't included in a certain figure. 

I would call them educated estimates as opposed to guesses.

Guessed are figures stated in the media, hence why the fee for Hughes has ranged between £4.5m and £8.5m

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Srg said:

West Brom had 10 players out on loan, including the likes of Graham Dorrans and Georgious Samaras that season, which could easily put a million plus on it., more like closer to £2m in loan fees

Not sure how loan fees are shown in the accounts.

I would not have thought they would be included along with sales proceeds but maybe @ramblur will correct me there.

[ramblur]

5 hours ago, Rample said:

Is it not possible wba were given money owed for Long, Odemwingie or someone sold the previous season?

Could they have received a loan fee for Samaras and/or Dorrans who went out the same season we signed GT?

Would they have received compensation/insurance for sacking Anelka the previous season that took time to come through?

Also as an afterthought, if a manager or coaching staff were tempted away would that compensation also Show? 

The £6.33m is profit on sale of players' registrations. Cash coming in from instalments due relating to previous players has nothing to do with profits.A loan fee isn't the sale of a player's reg,and the lending club retains the registration anyway,as was seen in our case with Chris Martin recently,and with Varney before that. Managers and coaching staff aren't players with registrations.

If you don't think the GT fee was high ,I go back to our own accounts and the PBSE figure of £6,777,057 from 13/14 that covered the window in question.If 4 kids were brought in on frees and the only fee based transfers in were Cyrus and George,what value are you going to put on Cyrus to bring GT's fee down to the level some are claiming?   

PS Anelka came to West Brom on a free.

[cheron85]

12 minutes ago, ramblur said:

If you don't think the GT fee was high ,I go back to our own accounts and the PBSE figure of £6,777,057 from 13/14 that covered the window in question.If 4 kids were brought in on frees and the only fee based transfers in were Cyrus and George,what value are you going to put on Cyrus to bring GT's fee down to the level some are claiming?   

Shotton, Warnock and Santos would have had fees in that period too - Plus I'd need to check but would any of the other young players have required compensation? (I don't think so but?)

That figure still seems awfully high when all the reports were that Thorne was around £2.5m - I could buy into it being closer to £3.5m but I can't see any way that it could be £5m and no rumours came out to that effect

[ramblur]

7 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Shotton, Warnock and Santos would have had fees in that period too - Plus I'd need to check but would any of the other young players have required compensation? (I don't think so but?)

That figure still seems awfully high when all the reports were that Thorne was around £2.5m - I could buy into it being closer to £3.5m but I can't see any way that it could be £5m and no rumours came out to that effect

The 13/14 accounts were signed off in November 14 and so PBSE can only include events up to this time.Shotton and Warnock arrived in January,so they're out of the equation and I've already included Santos as one of the 4 youngsters that are shown to have arrived on frees.

If you want to go to £3.5m for Thorne, you've got to explain what happened to the other £3.27m?

[cheron85]

1 minute ago, ramblur said:

The 13/14 accounts were signed off in November 14 and so PBSE can only include events up to this time.Shotton and Warnock arrived in January,so they're out of the equation and I've already included Santos as one of the 4 youngsters that are shown to have arrived on frees.

If you want to go to £3.5m for Thorne, you've got to explain what happened to the other £3.27m?

Actually - Just realised - Depends what the date ranges are of that time - Thorne was an early signing for the 14/15 season NOT the season before - So could be in the 13/14 accounts as an end of year purchase?

In which case you're missing the previous years transfers - Fozzy, Russell, Dawkins and Roos