| So. Jack Clarke.. 21:34 - Aug 24 with 5454 views | FrimleyBlue |
15 mill plus add ons is a cracking deal.
Forward line is looking exciting.
Anyone seen him live enough to comment on his tracking back..
Edited figure as forum took offence to using psr figures. Note taken. Apologies for the anger caused.
[Post edited 24 Aug 2024 22:37]
|  |
| |  |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 21:51 - Aug 24 with 3938 views | BarcaBlue |
According to the story above it's 15 million + 3. It doesn't matter how you want to make it sound better, that's the reported fee. |  | | |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 21:53 - Aug 24 with 3882 views | BloomBlue |
Sunderland fans seem to indicate it's the weakest part of his game.
However...
Two sensible comments I saw made the point. Sunderland play more of a flat back four, with LB only moving forward/overlapping on limited times, so he doesn't have to track back that often. And maybe because of that he forgets to track back/or he gets caught off guard. They did wonder how he would cope with Leif, given Leif plays almost as a wingback and someone needs to cover when Leif is forward.
Although when you look at Hutch, he never tracked back in his 2 or 3 games, KM quickly changed that and Hutch became brilliant at tracking back. |  | | |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 21:55 - Aug 24 with 3844 views | peterleeblue |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 21:53 - Aug 24 by BloomBlue |
Sunderland fans seem to indicate it's the weakest part of his game.
However...
Two sensible comments I saw made the point. Sunderland play more of a flat back four, with LB only moving forward/overlapping on limited times, so he doesn't have to track back that often. And maybe because of that he forgets to track back/or he gets caught off guard. They did wonder how he would cope with Leif, given Leif plays almost as a wingback and someone needs to cover when Leif is forward.
Although when you look at Hutch, he never tracked back in his 2 or 3 games, KM quickly changed that and Hutch became brilliant at tracking back. |
The lad has a superb engine. This will not be an issue. |  | | |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 21:56 - Aug 24 with 3823 views | FrimleyBlue |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 21:51 - Aug 24 by BarcaBlue |
According to the story above it's 15 million + 3. It doesn't matter how you want to make it sound better, that's the reported fee. |
Why do you need to make it sound better? The club won't account for it other than yearly over the 5 years of his contract so that's how I believe we should view them when discussing our spends this window. | |
| |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 21:59 - Aug 24 with 3747 views | yesjohn99 |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 21:56 - Aug 24 by FrimleyBlue |
Why do you need to make it sound better? The club won't account for it other than yearly over the 5 years of his contract so that's how I believe we should view them when discussing our spends this window. |
Wish house prices were worked out the same way. |  | | |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:09 - Aug 24 with 3620 views | BarcaBlue |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 21:56 - Aug 24 by FrimleyBlue |
Why do you need to make it sound better? The club won't account for it other than yearly over the 5 years of his contract so that's how I believe we should view them when discussing our spends this window. |
We won't be paying Sunderland in yearly instalments over 5 years so according to the story above it's 15 million + 3. That's what he has cost us, the deal seems appropriate but you can't just make up numbers depending on the length of contract. Chelsea must be getting some real bargains this Summer. | | | |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:12 - Aug 24 with 3551 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 21:56 - Aug 24 by FrimleyBlue |
Why do you need to make it sound better? The club won't account for it other than yearly over the 5 years of his contract so that's how I believe we should view them when discussing our spends this window. |
Utter nonsense.
The fee is £15m+.
Utter nonsense to talk about annual depreciation / amortisation rather than transfer fees. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:13 - Aug 24 with 3534 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:09 - Aug 24 by BarcaBlue |
We won't be paying Sunderland in yearly instalments over 5 years so according to the story above it's 15 million + 3. That's what he has cost us, the deal seems appropriate but you can't just make up numbers depending on the length of contract. Chelsea must be getting some real bargains this Summer. |
100% | |
| |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:16 - Aug 24 with 3475 views | acj |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 21:56 - Aug 24 by FrimleyBlue |
Why do you need to make it sound better? The club won't account for it other than yearly over the 5 years of his contract so that's how I believe we should view them when discussing our spends this window. |
If you want to dress it up in PSR terms, 18 divided by 5 is 3.6m per year. |  |
| |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:17 - Aug 24 with 3461 views | FrimleyBlue |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:12 - Aug 24 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Utter nonsense.
The fee is £15m+.
Utter nonsense to talk about annual depreciation / amortisation rather than transfer fees. |
Disagree.
If we can only lost around 61mill this year. Then don't get why we have to say we've spent 110 million when the club won't be accounting it in that way.
Don't worry. I know it's cool to go against anything I say rather than being able to answer the question in my OP so I'll leave it here. | |
| |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:19 - Aug 24 with 3413 views | FrimleyBlue |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:09 - Aug 24 by BarcaBlue |
We won't be paying Sunderland in yearly instalments over 5 years so according to the story above it's 15 million + 3. That's what he has cost us, the deal seems appropriate but you can't just make up numbers depending on the length of contract. Chelsea must be getting some real bargains this Summer. |
You do what you wish and I'll continue to look at with the clubs thoughts. | |
| |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:20 - Aug 24 with 3383 views | BloomBlue |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:09 - Aug 24 by BarcaBlue |
We won't be paying Sunderland in yearly instalments over 5 years so according to the story above it's 15 million + 3. That's what he has cost us, the deal seems appropriate but you can't just make up numbers depending on the length of contract. Chelsea must be getting some real bargains this Summer. |
I was going to say that's how I thought it works. We pay the selling club the full price now, £15m, but in the 'books' for FFP we're allowed to spread that cost over the length of the contract. For example if it's a 3 year contract for FFP we put £5m against the book each of the 3 years | | | |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:21 - Aug 24 with 3378 views | FrimleyBlue |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:16 - Aug 24 by acj |
If you want to dress it up in PSR terms, 18 divided by 5 is 3.6m per year. |
Yeah I've added a bit to make up for wages. It's obv not gonna be accurate. Just a rough figure for op purposes. | |
| |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:21 - Aug 24 with 3363 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:17 - Aug 24 by FrimleyBlue |
Disagree.
If we can only lost around 61mill this year. Then don't get why we have to say we've spent 110 million when the club won't be accounting it in that way.
Don't worry. I know it's cool to go against anything I say rather than being able to answer the question in my OP so I'll leave it here. |
Just disagreeing as its nonsense.
The fee is £15m, the financial liability is £15m for the club.
Stop trying to dress it up in PSR terms.
If you want to try to create a narrative and downplay our spending, make sure you do the same for every other team in the league. | |
| |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:22 - Aug 24 with 3347 views | FrimleyBlue |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:20 - Aug 24 by BloomBlue |
I was going to say that's how I thought it works. We pay the selling club the full price now, £15m, but in the 'books' for FFP we're allowed to spread that cost over the length of the contract. For example if it's a 3 year contract for FFP we put £5m against the book each of the 3 years |
That is how it works. | |
| |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:23 - Aug 24 with 3331 views | Vegtablue |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:17 - Aug 24 by FrimleyBlue |
Disagree.
If we can only lost around 61mill this year. Then don't get why we have to say we've spent 110 million when the club won't be accounting it in that way.
Don't worry. I know it's cool to go against anything I say rather than being able to answer the question in my OP so I'll leave it here. |
Definitely £15M though. Amortised fees are a necessary weight on the club for every season a player stays. £3.6M + wages for Clarke each year for his services, if he spends 5 years with us and we don't further extend his contract in the interim. Reframe that as a compulsory recurring loan fee and it feels more significant. Non-parachute Championship teams do very well to earn north of £30M revenue in a season. Hauling a few Jack Clarke's around down there would ruin a club's finances if they couldn't shift the players on and didn't have other coveted assets.
Apologies for the bleak tone of the above paragraph but it's a dangerous mindset to trivialise or distort transfer fees that way, chucking the rest on the credit card so-to-speak. | | | |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:25 - Aug 24 with 3272 views | BarcaBlue |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:20 - Aug 24 by BloomBlue |
I was going to say that's how I thought it works. We pay the selling club the full price now, £15m, but in the 'books' for FFP we're allowed to spread that cost over the length of the contract. For example if it's a 3 year contract for FFP we put £5m against the book each of the 3 years |
Yep, so the player cost us 15 million plus add-ons. That's the fee regardless of how it is going to be accounted for. It makes no sense to say 5 million is a great price when that is not what we will be paying, anything else is numbers in Excel | | | |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:25 - Aug 24 with 3266 views | NeedhamChris |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:19 - Aug 24 by FrimleyBlue |
You do what you wish and I'll continue to look at with the clubs thoughts. |
Alexa, what does an idiot trying to act like an idiot look like? | |
| |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:26 - Aug 24 with 3257 views | J2BLUE |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:22 - Aug 24 by FrimleyBlue |
That is how it works. |
We all know that. Are you going to be the only one in the football world to talk about fees in a different way? No idea why you always need to look at things from another angle purely for the sake of it. |  |
| |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:27 - Aug 24 with 3248 views | FrimleyBlue |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:21 - Aug 24 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Just disagreeing as its nonsense.
The fee is £15m, the financial liability is £15m for the club.
Stop trying to dress it up in PSR terms.
If you want to try to create a narrative and downplay our spending, make sure you do the same for every other team in the league. |
I've always spoken of prem signings in psr terms. To me it makes more sense to see them that way when there's usually alot of talk about spends, psr. Losses etc.
Absolutely no issue with you counting the historic way btw. I just personally choose to look at it differently. | |
| |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:30 - Aug 24 with 3166 views | davblue |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:21 - Aug 24 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Just disagreeing as its nonsense.
The fee is £15m, the financial liability is £15m for the club.
Stop trying to dress it up in PSR terms.
If you want to try to create a narrative and downplay our spending, make sure you do the same for every other team in the league. |
Really struggling to see in any way shape or form that someone would regard him as a 5 million pound signing.
Seen some interesting stuff from Frimley but this is up there.
Like saying you bought a house for 15,000 because that’s it the mortgage cost for the year. |  | | |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:30 - Aug 24 with 3160 views | BarcaBlue |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:27 - Aug 24 by FrimleyBlue |
I've always spoken of prem signings in psr terms. To me it makes more sense to see them that way when there's usually alot of talk about spends, psr. Losses etc.
Absolutely no issue with you counting the historic way btw. I just personally choose to look at it differently. |
The historic way?
You mean the only way anyone discloses and talks about transfer fees? Except FrimleyMakin? | | | |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:30 - Aug 24 with 3155 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:27 - Aug 24 by FrimleyBlue |
I've always spoken of prem signings in psr terms. To me it makes more sense to see them that way when there's usually alot of talk about spends, psr. Losses etc.
Absolutely no issue with you counting the historic way btw. I just personally choose to look at it differently. |
It's just nonsense. Talking about a transfer fee as a transfer fee is not historic, its dealing in facts.
Make sure you frame the OP as an annual PSR reference and not a reference to a transfer fee. And make sure you analyse every other clubs business in the same way! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 | |
| |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:30 - Aug 24 with 3134 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| So. Jack Clarke.. on 22:30 - Aug 24 by BarcaBlue |
The historic way?
You mean the only way anyone discloses and talks about transfer fees? Except FrimleyMakin? |
Indeed. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
