If our financial position is so precarious

Why in the name of all that is holy did we not take £500k for Matty Done?

 

I don't think it's precarious - we've made a profit.

But after working with him for 12 months, considering we actually paid money for him, at the time half of our wingers were out and they've got a big sell on clause then I don't think it would've helped. Much.

But with him being out the majority of the time anyway we probably could've done. Wasn't to know, though.

 

As I understand it; because we were only offered 500k. From which we had previously paid a fee for the player and also for which we have a sell on clause giving a percentage of the next fee to Rochdale.

So factoring in those considerations, the fact that at the time Done was showing some promise and that we were already thin on the ground in terms of numbers, there just wasn't enough profit it the deal to be worthwhile. I do recall Hill saying that if the bid was high enough then it would be considered.

That's my recollection, but I could be wrong about the details.

 

its because keef has first refusal on him and wiseman when he gets the blackpool job

 

The board made the decision to back Hill because he wanted to keep Done for some unfathomable reason. Don wanted to sell as he must have believed the offer was too good to be true. If there is a sell on clause I'd doubt it would be more than 25% but I'd rather have 75% of summat than 100% of nowt. He will be leaving on a free in June and going to a League Two club.

 

I have to agree. Unless Keef leaves and wants him or Freedman is still sniffing glue.

 

and then of course we would have had to have paid 20 to 30% of any profit we made on the deal in tax....might not have been a great deal left in it for the Club.

 

Going on that argument no club would ever sell any players.

 

And then had to find a replacement with very little cash from the Done deal to work with.

 

Even if we came out of the deal with £250k it would still be more than ample to replace him.

I bet you could get a mannequin from Primark for a fiver. That would probably be adequate.

 

Very droll.

 

stuff primark keith could finally shop at harrods or selfridges with that cash

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought tax was paid on profits in the whole of a financial year not for each individual sale?

 

Don't you mean very doll?

 

Correct.

There must be othe rplayers who can run away from teh ball as well as "Doney"?

 

Don't think so as there's likely to be corporation tax losses brought forward to offset and profit.

 

thats quite correct....but as we're in profit that would mean that tax is paid on any profitable dealing...the snag is sometimes it can be as far as 2 years away before tax is taken,and it needs some pretty far thinking accountancy and a very close eye on the finances to make sure you're not hit with a tax bill that can't be paid....Leeds,Portsmouth etc etc

 

See. Accountant's always have a scam on the go....

 

I think there will be sufficient losses incurred since the company was formed to cover any profit earned in this and the next few years.

Corporation tax is payable nine months and one day after the end of the accounting period ( for co's of this size) so that is between 21 and 9 months after any transaction.