| As Deals Go was this BAD 19:07 - May 29 with 8576 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 21:36 - May 29 with 896 views | Churchman |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:44 - May 29 by vilanovablue |
He'd done v little in the prem, I think the realise clause was fair. It was only because he did well we're upset. If he'd got 8 goals and someone signed him for this price nobody a
Would have blinked most likely. He's been hyped up and we've all gone crazy. |
I’m not upset. We made a profit on a player essentially on loan for a year. That’s never a bad thing. |  | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:37 - May 29 with 891 views | Wakh |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 19:13 - May 29 by Perublue |
Take off his wages for the season too from the profit. |
And a couple of tubes of Deep heat. | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:37 - May 29 with 880 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:36 - May 29 by Tonytown |
Your posts are moronic and show a lack of brain power and understanding |
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 | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:38 - May 29 with 878 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:36 - May 29 by Churchman |
I’m not upset. We made a profit on a player essentially on loan for a year. That’s never a bad thing. |
I wonder how people would feel if we had loaned Delap from Man City for a fee instead? Would they be up in arms that we had developed their talent for them to sell? |  |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:42 - May 29 with 850 views | NedPlimpton |
| 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 |
You're a chartered accountant so you have an understanding of the negotiations held between Delap and all the clubs he spoke to before signing for us?
Christ, you're not just a bean counter. You're a magic bean counter! |  | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:42 - May 29 with 853 views | Churchman |
£11.5m + £15m = 26.5m. If we paid £130m in fees £26.5m = 20% of outlay recovered.
Assuming my rubbish maths are correct, I’d say that was a dent. | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:45 - May 29 with 828 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:42 - May 29 by Churchman |
£11.5m + £15m = 26.5m. If we paid £130m in fees £26.5m = 20% of outlay recovered.
Assuming my rubbish maths are correct, I’d say that was a dent. |
It’s a dent in that we can take 3m a year off the amortisation, your calculation also assumes didn’t pay any add ons to City would i would say is unlikely given his performances
You also don’t get any points for covering outlay, just profit on disposal (so likely around 10m when you consider the amortisation of his fee over the year) [Post edited 29 May 21:46]
| | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:46 - May 29 with 823 views | Tonytown |
| 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 |
Read the previous posts about how the deal came about and what would have happened if we had not accepted that clause (he’d have joined Saints instead).
Do the deal and bank a profit of circa £10-£12m or have him join a rival and let them have that profit? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:48 - May 29 with 805 views | Churchman |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:38 - May 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I wonder how people would feel if we had loaned Delap from Man City for a fee instead? Would they be up in arms that we had developed their talent for them to sell? |
No, the bedsheeters would have been over the moon. They’d be saying the money coughed up for his wages was worth it for the goals he scored. Thank you ITFC for arranging such a brilliant loan deal and good luck in your next move Liam. | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:48 - May 29 with 802 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| 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 |
In accounting terms:
We paid £20M or less for a player who insisted on a relegation release clause at 50% above that fee. That is now enacted and we are selling the player for that fee. Of course, this is a simplification because slavery is illegal in this country so it is actually about complensation for breach of contract, but you will recognise that.
The alternative was not to sign the player, i.e. pay £0; play Ali Al Hamadi instead, finish with about 12 points fewer in the league, behind Southampton who will have gained more points than we have and will be selling their asset for a 50% return instead.
As a chartered accountant, would you advise your employer to invest £20M in an asset that will increase in value by 50% and improve their business' performance or to not bother? | |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:50 - May 29 with 799 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:46 - May 29 by Tonytown |
Read the previous posts about how the deal came about and what would have happened if we had not accepted that clause (he’d have joined Saints instead).
Do the deal and bank a profit of circa £10-£12m or have him join a rival and let them have that profit? |
And I’m a moron? You’re missing the point I’ve made throughout in that I am talking about our negotiation across the board.
Your position that we negotiated well for Delap is more or less based on that he came good. Does that mean we negotiated poorly for Philogene, Muric, arguably Greaves and Clarke who haven’t shown themselves to be worth what we paid for them? | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:52 - May 29 with 791 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:48 - May 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
In accounting terms:
We paid £20M or less for a player who insisted on a relegation release clause at 50% above that fee. That is now enacted and we are selling the player for that fee. Of course, this is a simplification because slavery is illegal in this country so it is actually about complensation for breach of contract, but you will recognise that.
The alternative was not to sign the player, i.e. pay £0; play Ali Al Hamadi instead, finish with about 12 points fewer in the league, behind Southampton who will have gained more points than we have and will be selling their asset for a 50% return instead.
As a chartered accountant, would you advise your employer to invest £20M in an asset that will increase in value by 50% and improve their business' performance or to not bother? |
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 | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:54 - May 29 with 776 views | mellowblue |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:16 - May 29 by textbackup |
My best guess would be he backed himself to do something at that level, knew there was a chance we’d go down, and didn’t want to get stuck in the championship/have MA price clubs out of a deal. |
more likely his agent did. Two deals in 2 years for the same player means a double dose of commission | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:54 - May 29 with 773 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| 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 |
So to limit the risk what are you proposing? That we didn't sign Delap at all appears to be it. If not, what is it? | |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:59 - May 29 with 750 views | Swailsey |
| 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 |
You’re coming across very poorly here. |  |
| Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:00 - May 29 with 742 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:54 - May 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
So to limit the risk what are you proposing? That we didn't sign Delap at all appears to be it. If not, what is it? |
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? | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:01 - May 29 with 728 views | Churchman |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:45 - May 29 by sjg |
It’s a dent in that we can take 3m a year off the amortisation, your calculation also assumes didn’t pay any add ons to City would i would say is unlikely given his performances
You also don’t get any points for covering outlay, just profit on disposal (so likely around 10m when you consider the amortisation of his fee over the year) [Post edited 29 May 21:46]
|
Oh ok. So the opening post said that any profit won’t make any dent in the transfer outlay of £130m. Do you agree with that or not, as an accountant? Is that £130m outlay reduced by selling him to Chelsea or not?
I’m not an accountant so you’ll have to excuse my ignorance. Have we made a profit on the player or not?
What deal should we have negotiated and how could we have done it given a deal is determined by more than what we want, including what the competition might offer and the player and selling club might want?
Will Southampton be laughing tonight at our incompetence in negotiating such an awful deal and dodging a Delap bullet? | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:05 - May 29 with 708 views | NedPlimpton |
| 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? |
Yet we finished above Southampton and are banking some profit on Delap
Why would we not want that?? | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:08 - May 29 with 688 views | lazyblue |
How do you think we got him in the first place ? He was great for us however unfortunately nobody else could step up. | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:09 - May 29 with 673 views | ArmaghBlue |
He will never be a 100 million player. So stop worrying yourself. |  | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:13 - May 29 with 642 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:01 - May 29 by Churchman |
Oh ok. So the opening post said that any profit won’t make any dent in the transfer outlay of £130m. Do you agree with that or not, as an accountant? Is that £130m outlay reduced by selling him to Chelsea or not?
I’m not an accountant so you’ll have to excuse my ignorance. Have we made a profit on the player or not?
What deal should we have negotiated and how could we have done it given a deal is determined by more than what we want, including what the competition might offer and the player and selling club might want?
Will Southampton be laughing tonight at our incompetence in negotiating such an awful deal and dodging a Delap bullet? |
For the third time
The assertion that the Delap deal is a good deal is based on the fact that he came good
If we look at this deal at the date it was agreed, we have paid £15m + add ons on a player with no Premier League experience, 12 senior goals, and capped any upside on it at £30m less ‘30% of the deal’ as Fabrizio has phrased it, which as I read it says the fee - although Phil has said otherwise.
If you apply that to all of our transfers, 1 or 2 coming good does not cover the exposure we took on across the board | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:15 - May 29 with 628 views | 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. |  |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:26 - May 29 with 578 views | Churchman |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:13 - May 29 by sjg |
For the third time
The assertion that the Delap deal is a good deal is based on the fact that he came good
If we look at this deal at the date it was agreed, we have paid £15m + add ons on a player with no Premier League experience, 12 senior goals, and capped any upside on it at £30m less ‘30% of the deal’ as Fabrizio has phrased it, which as I read it says the fee - although Phil has said otherwise.
If you apply that to all of our transfers, 1 or 2 coming good does not cover the exposure we took on across the board |
Apologies, as a clever accountant you’ll have to be patient with a lesser being.
For the first time, of course it’s a good deal because he came good. When you bring in players you always take a risk and they don’t always come off. What was the alternative unless you took the Norwich approach to trouser the cash and not try? | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:27 - May 29 with 570 views | PioneerBlue |
No not a bad deal. Highest ever sale in clubs history and we must know these were the only terms available to us to secure the player under the newly promoted circumstances. His agent did good but we’ve benefited too to the tune of around 12m profit in 1 year, and we get a big slice of cash to help free up new reinvest for multiple players as we head into a reshaping of the squad. [Post edited 30 May 6:48]
| |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:29 - May 29 with 553 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 22:26 - May 29 by Churchman |
Apologies, as a clever accountant you’ll have to be patient with a lesser being.
For the first time, of course it’s a good deal because he came good. When you bring in players you always take a risk and they don’t always come off. What was the alternative unless you took the Norwich approach to trouser the cash and not try? |
Sign players that don’t strong arm you into a release clause | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
