| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? 14:51 - Feb 10 with 15968 views | FrankfurtBlue |
Both Will Keane and Collin Quaner look (very) unlikely to score regularly. Our inability to scout for and/or recruit good players has to be questioned, but is it a result of budget constraints or people not doing their respective jobs very well?
FWIW, I think that Paul Lambert has the ability to put a good side together, but he needs the necessary support. |  | | |  |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 15:52 - Feb 11 with 2771 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 15:47 - Feb 11 by agentp |
Nope. That is what you are insinuating. The figure quoted (to me) was more than that for Waghorn due to the structure of the deal. Webster we can round off to 700 but as I have said there is a grey area on the value of Matt Clarke.
These deals do come with additional costs BTW. [Post edited 11 Feb 2019 15:51]
|
So are you claiming the sell-on for Waghorn was more than 10%?
Webster’s sell on was reported very firmly at 20% - so would only be £700k if it was on the whole of the £3.5m received, which would be somewhat unusual |  |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 16:00 - Feb 11 with 2762 views | agentp |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 15:52 - Feb 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
So are you claiming the sell-on for Waghorn was more than 10%?
Webster’s sell on was reported very firmly at 20% - so would only be £700k if it was on the whole of the £3.5m received, which would be somewhat unusual |
No. Sell on fees are often structured differently to the initial sale fee. Consider also agent fees and to a lesser extent in this summers business, sign on fees. |  |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 16:01 - Feb 11 with 2762 views | No9 |
Availability
Price | | | |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 16:02 - Feb 11 with 2752 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 16:00 - Feb 11 by agentp |
No. Sell on fees are often structured differently to the initial sale fee. Consider also agent fees and to a lesser extent in this summers business, sign on fees. |
I’m talking purely about sell on fees which you quoted as £2m... | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 16:05 - Feb 11 with 2747 views | agentp |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 16:02 - Feb 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
I’m talking purely about sell on fees which you quoted as £2m... |
I worked out the fees specifically in an earlier thread. These fees are a little round as the OP thought we had a £4m surplus which we don't have.
The sell on fees and agent fees take us slightly above £2m by my reckoning. | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 16:08 - Feb 11 with 2739 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 16:05 - Feb 11 by agentp |
I worked out the fees specifically in an earlier thread. These fees are a little round as the OP thought we had a £4m surplus which we don't have.
The sell on fees and agent fees take us slightly above £2m by my reckoning. |
So with Webster’s sell on fee being £700k apparently, presumably you’re saying Waghorn’s was much bigger than the 10% reported? | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 16:15 - Feb 11 with 2731 views | agentp |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 16:08 - Feb 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
So with Webster’s sell on fee being £700k apparently, presumably you’re saying Waghorn’s was much bigger than the 10% reported? |
No. The press reported it to be 10%. The way the deal was structured would make the percentage vary. sometimes a deal is met where the money is paid up front. For example, if a player sold for £5m and that figure rose to (say) £10m with top ups a deal may be negotiated to pay £750k on the initial sale. Those figures BTW are plucked from thin air as an example and in no way relate to Waghorn's deal.
It's usually in everyone's interest to keep these figures fairly quiet - especially in big money deals. | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:26 - Feb 11 with 2712 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 16:15 - Feb 11 by agentp |
No. The press reported it to be 10%. The way the deal was structured would make the percentage vary. sometimes a deal is met where the money is paid up front. For example, if a player sold for £5m and that figure rose to (say) £10m with top ups a deal may be negotiated to pay £750k on the initial sale. Those figures BTW are plucked from thin air as an example and in no way relate to Waghorn's deal.
It's usually in everyone's interest to keep these figures fairly quiet - especially in big money deals. |
Regardless, Rangers will have received an amount of cash from us, and that amount will equate to a % of the fee received. If we had to pay £2m in sell on fees and Webster was £700k, the Waghorns must be far more than 10% of the £5m fee received, no? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:43 - Feb 11 with 2711 views | FrankfurtBlue |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:26 - Feb 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Regardless, Rangers will have received an amount of cash from us, and that amount will equate to a % of the fee received. If we had to pay £2m in sell on fees and Webster was £700k, the Waghorns must be far more than 10% of the £5m fee received, no? |
Not unusally, this thread has sidetracked into a disagreement on what level of surplus existed in the transfer budget from the Summer, rather than the fact that there definitely was a surplus in the £millions. Why did we not use that to get a better striking option? Was the money made available? Did we start this season with any sort of transfer budget? | | | |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:48 - Feb 11 with 2699 views | agentp |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:26 - Feb 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Regardless, Rangers will have received an amount of cash from us, and that amount will equate to a % of the fee received. If we had to pay £2m in sell on fees and Webster was £700k, the Waghorns must be far more than 10% of the £5m fee received, no? |
Agreed. | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:49 - Feb 11 with 2694 views | agentp |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:43 - Feb 11 by FrankfurtBlue |
Not unusally, this thread has sidetracked into a disagreement on what level of surplus existed in the transfer budget from the Summer, rather than the fact that there definitely was a surplus in the £millions. Why did we not use that to get a better striking option? Was the money made available? Did we start this season with any sort of transfer budget? |
Because there wasn't a surplus. The surplus after sales was around £1.85m and that surplus would be more than absorbed with the loans. | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:52 - Feb 11 with 2689 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:48 - Feb 11 by agentp |
Agreed. |
So to be 100% clear, your claim is we actually paid about £1.2m sell on for Waghorn - approx 25% of profit made? And only actually received about £3.8m for him? | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:53 - Feb 11 with 2691 views | agentp |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:52 - Feb 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
So to be 100% clear, your claim is we actually paid about £1.2m sell on for Waghorn - approx 25% of profit made? And only actually received about £3.8m for him? |
No, where did you get that from? | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:53 - Feb 11 with 2693 views | monty_radio |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 16:58 - Feb 10 by agentp |
He did not have to sell Waghorn, Webster to raise funds. |
That's just semantics - they were (wanted to be) sold. Funds raised were used (though not in their entirety). | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:56 - Feb 11 with 2679 views | agentp |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:53 - Feb 11 by monty_radio |
That's just semantics - they were (wanted to be) sold. Funds raised were used (though not in their entirety). |
Irrelevant. Though OP insinuated they had to be sold. They didn't. Funds were raised and due to the fact they wanted to leave those funds were; quite possibly less than we may have attained had they wanted to stay. The funds appear to have been used in their entirety. | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:57 - Feb 11 with 2674 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:53 - Feb 11 by agentp |
No, where did you get that from? |
You claimed we paid £2m in sell on fees, with Webster at £700k
So £700k plus Garner at £100-200k max means Waghorn would have been around £1.2m
Or is Garners now magically going to be inflated too? | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:59 - Feb 11 with 2672 views | agentp |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:57 - Feb 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
You claimed we paid £2m in sell on fees, with Webster at £700k
So £700k plus Garner at £100-200k max means Waghorn would have been around £1.2m
Or is Garners now magically going to be inflated too? |
You know I didn't say that. I said 'without going through the figures AGAIN that the sell ons and other fees would be around £2m
.
ME said the net figure would be reinvested. Would you like to show your knowledge and explain how the agent fees work? | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 18:06 - Feb 11 with 2656 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 17:59 - Feb 11 by agentp |
You know I didn't say that. I said 'without going through the figures AGAIN that the sell ons and other fees would be around £2m
.
ME said the net figure would be reinvested. Would you like to show your knowledge and explain how the agent fees work? |
No, what you actually claimed was:
“You have forgotten to include all the sell on sell on clauses for MW, AW and JG; they come to a figure of around £2m BTW, but the Matt Clarke value affects it slightly”
If you’re going to make stuff up as you go on a football forum, it’s probably a good idea to keep track of your claims | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 18:09 - Feb 11 with 2654 views | agentp |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 18:06 - Feb 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
No, what you actually claimed was:
“You have forgotten to include all the sell on sell on clauses for MW, AW and JG; they come to a figure of around £2m BTW, but the Matt Clarke value affects it slightly”
If you’re going to make stuff up as you go on a football forum, it’s probably a good idea to keep track of your claims |
Now read the other post where i said this was rounded up with the other costs. I am saying 1.65m in sell ons and the rest in agent fees round up to £2m in my world as an agent clauses contain all costs not just the one you want to see. | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 18:13 - Feb 11 with 2647 views | chicoazul |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 16:15 - Feb 11 by agentp |
No. The press reported it to be 10%. The way the deal was structured would make the percentage vary. sometimes a deal is met where the money is paid up front. For example, if a player sold for £5m and that figure rose to (say) £10m with top ups a deal may be negotiated to pay £750k on the initial sale. Those figures BTW are plucked from thin air as an example and in no way relate to Waghorn's deal.
It's usually in everyone's interest to keep these figures fairly quiet - especially in big money deals. |
Why does anybody listen to or respond to this guy? |  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 18:16 - Feb 11 with 2631 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 18:09 - Feb 11 by agentp |
Now read the other post where i said this was rounded up with the other costs. I am saying 1.65m in sell ons and the rest in agent fees round up to £2m in my world as an agent clauses contain all costs not just the one you want to see. |
Except that in the same post as my quote above you also said:
“Now then, care to have a stab at the loan fees, agent fees and signing on fees too? or have you chosen to ignore those as well?”
Whoops 😂 [Post edited 11 Feb 2019 18:16]
| |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 18:16 - Feb 11 with 2633 views | agentp |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 18:13 - Feb 11 by chicoazul |
Why does anybody listen to or respond to this guy? |
Why do you disagree with what I wrote. It's a true reflection and the way many clubs deal with their accounts and in the case of those close to the line deal with FFP. | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 18:17 - Feb 11 with 2627 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 18:13 - Feb 11 by chicoazul |
Why does anybody listen to or respond to this guy? |
LOL I know I know, I really shouldn’t bite
Quite why someone is spending their time pretending to be an agent on the Ipswich forum is beyond me though | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 18:19 - Feb 11 with 2624 views | agentp |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 18:17 - Feb 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
LOL I know I know, I really shouldn’t bite
Quite why someone is spending their time pretending to be an agent on the Ipswich forum is beyond me though |
Oh yeah, read my previous posts and my background I don't need to pretend anything. Some on here know who I am.
Let's talk about how agent fees work then... what do you know? | |
| |
| Why are we still so toothless up front after a January transfer window? on 19:24 - Feb 11 with 2587 views | braveblue |
One reason. Marcus Evans. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
