Would the club benefit from explaining the Vaz Te transfer?

Yes it should be discussed so hopefully they can learn fom their mistakes and prevent the next balls up that is on he cards - the possibility of losing Luke Steele

 

Re: but thats just it

Bristol got best part of two million for Maynard. They risked losing him for nothing in the summer...

 

From a conversation I had the management team did not want him to go in January

 

Re: but thats just it

And he's on the bench for them, probably out of loan next season now.

 

By that reckoning if West Ham had offered £100k, would you still have accepted it as it is better than 'nothing'?

How much of that £500k do you think there is left to spend after:

1) Lost season ticket sales from disallusioned fans
2) Poorer league position after not being able to replace his goals/creativity
3) Trying to replace him with Cotterill/Tonge

And it has made us desperate so we can kiss goodbye to trying to command decent fees in the future


And we should have offered him an extension before he started attracting attention from other clubs rather than bragging in the press that we hadn't offered him an extension

 

I think some of that is a bit unfair. I agree largely but we are all dealing with the benefit of hindsight that we hardly won a game after he left and he went on to be West Ham's best player.

It was concievable at the time that we would continue our good season to that point and the Vaz Te would never leave West Ham's bench. Given that he was out of contract in the summer and had made it clear he would be leaving there was a tipping point where we would sell him. The key was getting that tipping point right which we plainly didn't do (and I didn't think we had at the time), but we do have the benefit of hindsight

 

Easy way at looking at it but our collapse without him coudl easlity lead to our losing of say 1400 season tickets. At an average of £350 that is almost £500k tlost. So we coudl be no better off...

 

Our club should definately explain why there was no promotion clause when selling our best player to a side in the automatic promotion places.

 

Agree we have the benefit of hindsight now but I don't think anyone was happy with the fee at the time. Even Keith said it was a paltry amount. My problem is The Don saying it was a good fee when it wasn't..
The failure to insert some sort of add-ons is unacceptable and shows how amateur we are

 

Maybe secretly thats what they hope! he will prob be one of the top earners and Keef will think he can replace him with someone else for less wonga.

Steels last season with us.... probably.

 

I suppose, if we assume for a second that the fee was a good one, the the counter argument would be that if we'd structured it so that a proportion was only payable if West Ham got promoted and then they didn't we'd look pretty stupid. From my vast experience of football management based computer games its usually the case that you bid say £500k upfront OR, say, £300k now and £300k as a future clause, so you can either take more upfront OR more overall but based on the gamble that you might not get the rest. I imagine the board would say that West Ham were only propared to pay £500k without a sell on clause and it was better get more guaranteed (which to be fair West Ham only just went up thanks to a last minute goal from, er, Vaz Te...)

Of course that's only valid if £500k was a good fee which it wasn't, but if someone thought it was I can see the rationale of taking more upfront.

 

100% correct.

And I think most on here assumed because £500k was so low that the club must have been taking a gamble on some contingent basis.

The fee is shocking and there's no excuses for me

 

Me neither. The debacle has convinced me not to buy a season ticket.

 

why should we pay more for our season tickets or have to part with our cash up to 4 months before start of season just to get the same price (like I did) when the club refuses to get acceptable amounts for our players

 

We are not in a position to hear there transfer dealings, if you were a business with 24 other business would you want your books to be made public. The reason behind this is we are a Private Limited Company and not a plc so therefore the club is under no obligation to to reveal these figures.

As for the Vaz Te transfer yes we sold him for a deflated fee, however we made pure profit on him (500k-his wages) was profit. We could paddling up **** creak under so much debt like other clubs in the division. Remember also this is in the past and nothing can be done.

SUPPORT THE CLUB NOT PICK FAULT

 

I wouldn't say easily pleased, more like, there's nothing we can do about it, so what the point in moaning about it. And seriously... you don't find the Danny Gabbidon thing unbelievable?

 

"if you were a business with 24 other business would you want your books to be made public"...

I thought you could view any limited company's accounts once filed at companies house by paying a small fee?

 

You can. Bigdave's post is a bit confused.

There are small and medium company exemptions which mean companies can file abbreviated accounts with less detail in them if they're under a certain size. BFC's accounts to 31/5/11 look like they're file with medium company exemptions in them.

It costs £1 per document to download from Companies House.

 

Ta! I thought I was losing it for a minute. Not sure what the threshold is for 'medium size' though these days. (bet Manure dont fall into that category with their turnover)

 

Well sais Dave, its just something to moan about.