| As Deals Go was this BAD 19:07 - May 29 with 7390 views | OldFart71 |
So apparently Delap goes for £30 million. So that's a £15 million profit ? In the words of a pantomime "Oh yes it is", sadly "Oh no it isn't"
City apparently have a sell on clause of 30% of the £15 million profit, so £15 million now becomes £11.5 million.
Is that really a good deal for a player that could get Chelsea 20 goals next season putting his value at the top end of the £100 million mark.
Whilst I realise City may not have sold Delap to us without this clause did MA really protect Towns interests as £11.5 million isn't going to make much of a dent in the £130 million spent. |  | | |  |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:37 - May 29 with 966 views | Churchman |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:29 - May 29 by sjg |
Sign players that don’t strong arm you into a release clause |
So no Delap then. No profit whatsoever. Let him go to Southampton because it would have meant we wouldn’t have been strong armed into a release clause and those Hampshire mugs would have had to live with a paltry multi million profit.
How does that make sense? |  | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:41 - May 29 with 935 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:37 - May 29 by Churchman |
So no Delap then. No profit whatsoever. Let him go to Southampton because it would have meant we wouldn’t have been strong armed into a release clause and those Hampshire mugs would have had to live with a paltry multi million profit.
How does that make sense? |
We are going round in circles here Mr Churchman | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:43 - May 29 with 921 views | Churchman |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 19:48 - May 29 by mutters |
20% is now 30%
We've now spent £130million
Inflation is brutal.
All money spent this season has suddenly been amortised in one year, rather than the length of a person's contract.
Financial rules have suddenly been rewritten.
Man oh man, it's going to be a long summer/season. |
One berk has upped the transfer fees to £150m. Another knowledge bump has worked out that the profit is £8m. Somebody suggests Phil has lied - the sell on is 30%. And so it goes on.
They’re all out. You are right. It’s going to be a long summer. Very long. | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:43 - May 29 with 920 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:00 - May 29 by sjg |
In this instance that may well be the outcome yeah, being held over a barrel is not really a position you want to be in - it doesn’t sound like Saints were willing to meet his demands, I know that was the case with Ben Johnson as well. What that doesn’t mean is go into the season without a striker, it means look elsewhere - if your assets with the highest upside (Delap, Omari are 2 I’d put in this bracket) have low-ish release clauses do you not think that’s a flaw in your ‘player trading’ model? |
"held over a barrel" ... I would use that to describe paying wages beyond what we could afford. We didn't do that. How do you know Southampton were unwilling to offer the same terms? As well as a being a chartered accountant, you have contacts within the player or club agents that represented that deal? Did you notice how we wanted another striker and failed to get one? Which other option would we have been going for? Gambling on an injured Broja who really would have had us over a barrel? Signing a very ordinary Championship striker for a Premier League fee? I guess, at least they wouldn't be insisting on a release clause. £20M for Emil Riis, Adam Armstrong or Haji Wright with no release clause anyone? At least we wouldn't be selling them for £30M now.
The likely balance between release clause and the terms favouring the club are reduced wages on relegation, I would imagine. We are stuck with those who didn't over-perform but on lower wages than we had in the Premier League. Or we can sell them at a loss if someone is interested. We make a lesser profit on those who activate their release clauses than we might if we could benefit from a bidding war. |  |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:44 - May 29 with 912 views | Churchman |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:41 - May 29 by sjg |
We are going round in circles here Mr Churchman |
You might be. I am not. But I’m bored with it so that’s my lot on it. | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:49 - May 29 with 886 views | WicklowBlue |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:52 - May 29 by sjg |
You are again talking about a singular asset - I am talking about our transfer policy as a whole. I don’t consider our negotiation for Philogene, Muric, or anyone that hasn’t yet come good to be poor based on outcome - I’m talking about limiting risk across the board |
The OP is about the Delap situation not overall transfer policy. Go create your own thread with your massive insights while I catch up on this one. |  | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:51 - May 29 with 862 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:49 - May 29 by WicklowBlue |
The OP is about the Delap situation not overall transfer policy. Go create your own thread with your massive insights while I catch up on this one. |
To be fair, there are probably release clauses in each of their contracts too. Crazy that we have stuffed ourselves by putting them in for those players too. We could be forced to sell Muric or Philogene if someone offers £30M for either of them. How could we agree to that? | |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 23:47 - May 29 with 780 views | PioneerBlue |
This has to stop surely!
The ROI is pretty decent based on approximate values as published but not exceptional. The best bit is we got relegated but this secures our future by not being in fire sale territory and if the financial situation allows we now have £27m to reinvest in several players not only 1 high value striker.
Profit Calculation: Sale price (£30m) - Purchase price (£15m) = £15m profit
Profit Sharing with Man C: 20% of £15m = £3m returned to Man C
Net Profit for ITFC: £15m - £3m = £12m retained by ITFC
ROI Calculation: ROI = (Profit / Purchase Price) × 100 ROI = (£12m / £15m) × 100 = 80% or 0.8x original outlay [Post edited 29 May 23:51]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 23:52 - May 29 with 766 views | BondiBlue |
Might be worth sending your CV to ashton. Isn't the head of recruitment job still going? | |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 00:39 - May 30 with 733 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 19:13 - May 29 by Linners |
I can’t be bothered to go through all this again, but just one point - the ‘dent’ in the £130m amounts to £30m because that is a spend figure, not a net loss. |
Yes, there is double counting if the original fee is included in the £130 million spend, and then deducted from the transfer fee ITFC receive. | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 05:52 - May 30 with 652 views | baxterbasics |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:12 - May 29 by peterleeblue |
Genuine question what was the point of the £30m release clause.
That’s isn’t in City’s interest.
Market value at best is say £40m so in reality why was the clause there? |
City have nothing to do with the release clause. You are confusing the sale contract (agreed with Man City) with the players employment contract (agreed between ITFC and Delap). As have a few in these discussions.
It's there because Delap (or at least his agent) asked for it. The point being if he performed well enough he would get more easily picked up by a PL team should Ipswich be relegated. |  |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 05:57 - May 30 with 651 views | baxterbasics |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:37 - May 29 by sjg |
I am a chartered accountant mate so have some sort of understanding on how stuff like this works but you will have to let me know what I am missing |
Lol. How does knowing a bit about numbers and finance give you *any* insight into football contract negotiations?
Unless you know at the very least the following, you can't say with certainty the deal was bad:
1) What other realistic options were on the table for ITFC at the time
2) What other offers Delap had to consider
3) What each party's starting position and red lines were | |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 06:58 - May 30 with 589 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:48 - May 29 by sjg |
We have also capped profit on our deals massively. If players turn out to be duds, get injured etc we incur the full £20m and get nothing back. If they are good, we sell them for limited profit. |
As far as we know we're losing ONE player due to a relegation release clause.
So who are all these players we're being forced to sell for limited profit?! |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 07:00 - May 30 with 580 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:29 - May 29 by sjg |
Sign players that don’t strong arm you into a release clause |
You mean 'not very good players' then, or players with not very good agents? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 07:01 - May 30 with 579 views | Herbivore |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:15 - May 29 by blueasfook |
It will be not even be £15 million we get. With add ons activated we've probably paid closer to £20m. That leaves £10m of which we will pay City 20% so we'll end up getting about £8m profit. |
What makes you think we've triggered all the add ons in a single year where we've been relegated and he's not made the England squad? What kind of things do you think were included for them all to have been triggered in 30 odd games of an unsuccessful season? |  |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 07:02 - May 30 with 575 views | Herbivore |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:29 - May 29 by sjg |
Sign players that don’t strong arm you into a release clause |
So your strategy is to sign rubbish players? Excellent. | |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 07:17 - May 30 with 553 views | Durovigutum |
Our 22/23 season TOTAL TURNOVER was £21.8 million. Just two years later one transfer fee has smashed that, with £8-£10m of that being "profit". I think perspective is required. |  | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 08:24 - May 30 with 471 views | franz_tyson |
Let's say we make no profit out of this ( which isn't the case).... but the goals he gave us in the first half of the season gave us a sniff of a chance of staying up. Not his fault, there weren't a few more players that could step up. I'd say this was a pretty good deal ...we lost nothing and could have possible gained a heck of a lot more.
Maybe we should criticise the deals which didn't go well. The jury is out on many of them because players like Greaves, Philogene, Clarke could well turn out good. Phillips, for me, has been the most disappointing.... yet we only spunked high wages for a year and didn't buy him for a fee over, say, 3 years.
I'd happily do a similar deal where the player walks away after a successful year where he was essential to promotion for just a small profit instead of a collosal profit if it means the deal took us forward. [Post edited 30 May 8:45]
| | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 08:45 - May 30 with 442 views | OldFart71 |
Funny how a question receives such vitriol from people. "As deals go was this BAD"
I'd like to know where I personally said it was BAD.
Yes I referred to the extra clause that not many knew about.
We all knew the £30 million sell on clause and I did say would City have sold Delap to us.
I remember back in the 80's where the Town sold Terry Butcher. Then a current England International. At the same time the Budgies sold one of their defenders who wasn't an International and sold him for more than Butcher.
Whilst I appreciate that selling players is a swings and roundabouts situation where some will go for less than fans think they are worth and some will sell for much more.
As someone said Bramble went for 6 million. From what I saw of the guy he couldn't pass a ball ten yards. But that's a personal opinion and others think differently.
My apologies if I brought up a subject that had been through the wringer before. | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 08:47 - May 30 with 438 views | Wright1 |
Well reportedly the alternative was we didn't get him.
So the question is, do you think we'd have got a better player than him in our situation? Do you think we'd have made over £10m profit in the space of a year on that player? If we'd loaned someone of Delap's ilk, how many million do you think the loan fee would have been?
I get it's frustrating but people really need to get over this. I understand on paper he is worth more but the fact is he wouldn't have even been our asset without these terms so that would have been irrelevant. Nearly doubling your money on an investment in the space of a year is never a terrible outcome - i'm sorry. | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 08:50 - May 30 with 435 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
Shows how far we’ve come in so little time in my opinion.
If you said to me 3 years ago we’d be selling a player for £30m I’d have had you sectioned… | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 08:53 - May 30 with 423 views | Herbivore |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 08:45 - May 30 by OldFart71 |
Funny how a question receives such vitriol from people. "As deals go was this BAD"
I'd like to know where I personally said it was BAD.
Yes I referred to the extra clause that not many knew about.
We all knew the £30 million sell on clause and I did say would City have sold Delap to us.
I remember back in the 80's where the Town sold Terry Butcher. Then a current England International. At the same time the Budgies sold one of their defenders who wasn't an International and sold him for more than Butcher.
Whilst I appreciate that selling players is a swings and roundabouts situation where some will go for less than fans think they are worth and some will sell for much more.
As someone said Bramble went for 6 million. From what I saw of the guy he couldn't pass a ball ten yards. But that's a personal opinion and others think differently.
My apologies if I brought up a subject that had been through the wringer before. |
City wouldn't have had anything to do with the relegation release clause of £30m. | |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 09:05 - May 30 with 408 views | blueasfook |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 07:01 - May 30 by Herbivore |
What makes you think we've triggered all the add ons in a single year where we've been relegated and he's not made the England squad? What kind of things do you think were included for them all to have been triggered in 30 odd games of an unsuccessful season? |
I didn't say ALL of the add-ons did I? Probably ones such as minimum number of appearances and goals. |  |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 09:16 - May 30 with 384 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 08:45 - May 30 by OldFart71 |
Funny how a question receives such vitriol from people. "As deals go was this BAD"
I'd like to know where I personally said it was BAD.
Yes I referred to the extra clause that not many knew about.
We all knew the £30 million sell on clause and I did say would City have sold Delap to us.
I remember back in the 80's where the Town sold Terry Butcher. Then a current England International. At the same time the Budgies sold one of their defenders who wasn't an International and sold him for more than Butcher.
Whilst I appreciate that selling players is a swings and roundabouts situation where some will go for less than fans think they are worth and some will sell for much more.
As someone said Bramble went for 6 million. From what I saw of the guy he couldn't pass a ball ten yards. But that's a personal opinion and others think differently.
My apologies if I brought up a subject that had been through the wringer before. |
"I'd like to know where I personally said it was BAD."
The rest of your OP infers it was bad. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 10:04 - May 30 with 341 views | Herbivore |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 09:05 - May 30 by blueasfook |
I didn't say ALL of the add-ons did I? Probably ones such as minimum number of appearances and goals. |
I'd be surprised if we've triggered many of them to be honest. We'll find out eventually but I suspect we've paid £18m max, possibly less. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
