95% of transfer fees gone...Oh yeah

Discussion in 'Bulletin Board' started by arpete, Nov 7, 2019.

  1. MonkeyRed

    MonkeyRed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Bratfud
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    I keep hammering away on this point but feel it's hugely important to dissect what exactly we're being told and the PR job the club are doing on us. The party line is this;

    THE MONEY WE GET FROM SELLING PLAYERS IS REINVESTED IN THE SQUAD. WE SPENT 95% OF IT ON OUR SIGNINGS THIS SUMMER.

    Looks like a valid sustainable approach to running a club on the surface. Then you dig a little deeper.

    1. Read Cunning Stunt's write up of the meeting. Dane said this means the money has covered the fees and wages for these players for the duration of their contracts. For the next four years. The implication from the party line is that we reinvested it in transfer fees and it's gone but actually that money won't be spent for another 4 years. It isn't gone like they want us to believe. Whether Dane will get in trouble for letting the cat out of the bag, who knows.

    2. The owners wish to convince us that all monies from sales goes back into the playing side, none to them. Not only that but by extension, revenue from transfer sales is the only way we can reinvest. Utter tripe. There's £6m plus coming in from Sky and other TV deals. 11k season tickets which amount to around £2.5m plus about £1m on top from home and away fans matchday tickets. Then commercial and merchandise. Over £10million additional income. Yes some of this goes on the day to day operations of the club. But the only increased cost from League One to Championship is in policing and player wage bills. The increase in revenue more than covers this.

    3. In theory then, we should have substantial opportunity to invest the money from point two in our playing squad, like Luton and Charlton have, if players contracts have effectively been accounted for in full from sales money. But this won't happen. The owners want us to believe the running of the club costs so much we can only keep signing new players by selling the ones we've got.

    I'm afraid it's becoming clearer that what we're hearing from the owners is clever spin and being creative with actualities to make us believe they have the interests of the club on the pitch at heart. What's actually happening with the club's money, whether it's going to the owners in dividends or consultancy fees, whether it's going to pay off a loan they took out to buy the club so they effectively get it for free, I don't know.

    But I am sure they've underestimated the intelligence of the Barnsley fanbase and the passion we have not just in supporting our club but safeguarding it as a community asset. Things literally aren't adding up and we're onto them because of it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
  2. Jak

    Jake The Red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    777
    Likes Received:
    772
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    It’s your opinion our owners are “foreign ‘unts” and I found that a terrible remark, and felt it necessary to say so because I wouldn’t want others looking in to view us like that.
    There’s no issue with debating their ownership and tenure, their decisions. But that is xenophobic and unnecessary. Deleting said comment is a start, but it’s a worrying remark to make and will now colour how you are seen on here.
     
  3. MonkeyRed

    MonkeyRed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Bratfud
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Dane has said the 95% includes the value of player contract wage payments for the duration (4 years in most cases). That's where the extra money goes.
     
  4. Mrs

    MrsHallsToffeerolls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,066
    Likes Received:
    1,191
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    You still here? thought you were taking yer bat and ball home.
     
  5. jph

    jph77 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Point taken but not concerned.
    Have a good day.
     
  6. Wat

    Watcher_Of_The_Skies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    6,007
    Likes Received:
    918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Leeds
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    I remember. I was very hesitant and said as much, but many were a tad blinded by the light.
     
  7. Dan

    DannyWilsonLovechild Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,250
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley
    I'm not sure that can be true either. 12 players, 10 with a fee, some agents fees, some signing on bonuses, 3 or 4 years of wages, all in the money recouped for 3 players? Think just £4k a week is say £200k a year basic. Over 4 years, that's £800k. That's just one on a fairly average/low salary. Factor in the other 11, that blows that suggestion to bits too.
     
  8. Muirsheen Durkin

    Muirsheen Durkin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,428
    Likes Received:
    1,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Present
    Style:
    XenForo - Xenith Reds
    Yep... how I see it mate..
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
    MonkeyRed likes this.
  9. lk3

    lk311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    725
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Might work if there plan is to sell a player for £2 mill every 6 months?
     
  10. MonkeyRed

    MonkeyRed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Bratfud
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    I reckon if you downgrade the transfer fees a little from what might have been suggested you get that to £4million.

    Then I can't imagine all of those signings are on £4k a week. I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of Sibbick are on half that given that would still be twice what he was on at Wimbledon.

    But I agree that whichever way you tot it up it doesn't seem to support what we're being told. It seems it's being packaged to prevent us from questioning how the club's income is being used.
     
  11. Dan

    DannyWilsonLovechild Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,250
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley
    It just all feels like ever shifting sand to me. Nothing makes a great deal of sense, is badly explained, or the messenger (our CEO) just doesn't understand it himself. But generally, not much is standing up to even a modest amount of scrutiny at all.
     
    lk311 likes this.
  12. Dan

    DannyWilsonLovechild Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,250
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley
    I have to say... I'm not sure this CEO has much experience at all to be an effective figurehead. He's essentially a mix of a techy meets a recruitment consultant. You start to get into the realm of accounting and finance, and in one of his first meetings with real life people outside of his usual small team, I can imagine he might **** that up a bit and not really know what he's talking about.

    Now if the FD said something like that, I think we'd have more basis to form a real opinion.

    This could just be personal error/ignorance/incompetence. Or it could be a fudge from higher. I think i'm veering to the former to be honest, but I'm absolutely expecting the very few championship players to be gone come the 1st Feb.
     
    MonkeyRed likes this.
  13. leebrilleaux

    leebrilleaux Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2017
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Student, yes a Student even at my age!
    Location:
    Concrete Canyon
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Everyone seems to want to put their 'oar' in, so I think I'll have a turn.

    We all get upset because we care, care deeply, because that's what we are - a community that cares for people of our community whether they are born and bred of the community or because they represent us on a football field. That's why we we are/were so devastated and angry over the way that Daniel was dismissed or discarded by those that run the football club.

    There appears to be concern expressed over the handling of the finances and what was/what not said at a recent meeting.

    From the outset I have to say I was not at the meeting nor am I privy to what is going on 'behind the scenes' neither would I be expected to be 'in' on the details.

    A lot has been said on here about the finances and what has or has not been spent especially about this 95% figure and what it constitutes. I do not know. What I do know is that a lot can be misconstrued from one's understanding from someone else's interpretation of said words. Let's take this 95% figure and take a few ideas.

    Does this 95% of the budget mean any of the following?

    95% of this year's....

    Total budget this year
    Last years budget
    This years transfer budget
    Net Transfer budget (Purchases less Sales)
    Budget prior to any contingencies (monies for a rainy day - injuries etc)

    The bottom line is this - we just do not know where we are financially - neither would I expect to know (unless I was a shareholder)

    The only time we know with any certainty is when the clubs accounts are published with the possible exception of when someone like the Finance Director departs - but even then we will only be told a minimal amount.

    In the meantime for the sake of your own health please control emotions and converse with each other on friendly terms.
     
    Cowboy and SFOTyke like this.
  14. Durkar Red

    Durkar Red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,172
    Likes Received:
    903
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Exorcist
    Location:
    err..durkar
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    I was just pointing out that a 20% share holder in the club ( and 50% share holder in the ground ) isn’t foreign , hardly nit picking
     
  15. Jak

    Jake The Red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    777
    Likes Received:
    772
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    You're referring to the one post where I said I was thinking my time might be up? And not the 100 posts since.

    Look forward to your COYR thread tomorrow.
     
  16. KingBenny92

    KingBenny92 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2017
    Messages:
    918
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Sounds like for me for example what they are saying is:

    We sell Potts, Moore, Pinnock, and Lindsay all at lets say 3 million each = Net incoming is 12 million

    We buy 12 new players, say for 8 million total; in theory the remaining 4 million goes to the players' wages. In that case, we should be accounting the money we saved on Potts, Pinnock, Lindsay, Moore's wages as well.

    So technically yes, all the money is going back to the club but in reality it is probably not staying within the club.

    More correctly, the money is all FILTERED through the club. All money from player sales goes into the club but what is likely happening or will happen is, the profit margin at the end of each year will be larger and at that point is when the owners will see that money in their pockets via the dividends.

    Not saying this is necessarily bad thing in a business sense as they are entitled to make a profit from their investment but if we as fans expect the 12 million in sales to equal 12 million in buying new players we are sadly mistaken.
     
  17. Mrs

    MrsHallsToffeerolls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,066
    Likes Received:
    1,191
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    I was agreeing with your` colouring how you are seen on here' part of your post.

    Think yer mean Red Army thread.
     
  18. Jak

    Jake The Red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    777
    Likes Received:
    772
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    That’s the one, yes. Always associate it with the weekend.
     
  19. Sup

    SuperTyke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    35,354
    Likes Received:
    4,004
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    I agree with your logic but I'd say that if the club are saying that all money from Kieffer moores sale is being used to pay for all of Toby sibbick and Malik wilks transfer fee AND wages (just used those players as examples) then it's wrong of them to only be talking about payment one of keiffers transfer fee. You have to use all for both which should be every installment to be paid from Wigan plus all future wages of keiffers that have now been saved.

    I know that's not actually a reply to what you said but it highlights just how weird and unlikely the claim from the club is. Some would argue it's deliberately misleading
     

Share This Page