So we have apparently made a profit on Matty Pearson after just 17 appearances in a relegated side. And a profit on Christoph Knasmullner after just three very underwhelming appearances? Interesting.
Inflation. Be interesting if the full costs were assessed against returns and the consideration of a player actually influencing the pitch as opposed to warming the bench. Rather than just profit.
i suspect we will have lost money on both deals mentioned above....the club are hardly going to come out and say that though lets be right.
They're not going to lie though. They outright used the words "We made a profit on the player". I think that's as much of a confirmation as possible...
As I understand it both players wanted away if we made a profit on both and i've no reason to think differently and the club have no reason to p1llock us then that's good business.
Luton wanted Pearson before we signed him so they were always keen and Knasmulner came from decent stock so although he didn't feature much for us he would have at least kept his value or increased it.Good luck to both players.Sometimes it works and sometime it doesn't.
Because when football clubs say they've sold someone for more than they paid for them, what they actually mean is they take into account the cost to buy him, all fees to agents and the player, the overhead of training, kitting out and medical expenses and his contribution to income generation during his stay. Obviously. FFS. On a stick. With bells on.
It’s ok making a profit on someone in terms of a transfer fee but we need players who are up to the job, instead of Pearson, Knasmullner we ideally should’ve had better players on that wage. Once wages & agent fees are taken into account we won’t have made a profit. The wage could’ve been used on better players who may have helped keep us up
Funny, but on a serious note... Take the signing of Knasmüllner for example. The club proudly boasted they'd made a profit on him. Let's say we bought him for £500,000 and sold him for £600,000. Looks like a profit. Back in January we desperately needed players to keep us in the division. The headline signing was Knasmüllner. He contributed nothing. A couple of sub appearances and one start when he was subbed on the hour with us being 3-1 down. In real monetary terms his signing on fee, wages, agents fees etc will more than likely be in excess of any profit we've made, but you can usually ignore this because you get value for the player while they're at the club. You pay them a signing on fee and wages for what you get in return, ie appearances in the team, contributing to games, so it shouldn't be considered part of the cost. We didn't get any of that from Knasmüllner, so surely you've got to take things like wages into account when you're considering if you've made a profit or a loss. If you sign a player for half a million, spend another £250,000 on wages and other costs, sell him for £600,000, and he plays 20 games, scores 5 goals, sets up another 5 and helps keeps you in the division then you've definitely made a profit. The £250,000 on costs were to remunerate a player for the service he provided us. If you sign a player for half a million, spend another £250,000 on wages and other costs, sell him for £600,000, and he spends all his time here sat in the stands then you've made £150,000 loss. At least... ...because we could have spent that half million on a player who would have contributed to the team. Someone who could have added something in the second half of the season. Despite the dreadful performances, we didn't miss out on our escape by much, it's not that big a stretch of the imagination to think a half decent signing in January might have helped add a few points to the tally and keep us in the division. Relegation to League 1 costs the club about £5 million doesn't it? What an amazing profit we made on that signing. Pearson's contribution was more than Knasmüllner's but not by all that much. If we consider it a success to sign players not good enough for the team who contribute almost nothing but show a baseline profit when we sell... I dunno, it's difficult to describe how ludicrous that business model is and to see our chief exec crowing about a profit in such circumstances makes me shake my head in disbelief.
Clearly what you've written is correct, but wages etc. are never considered when determining if a player has been bought and sold for a profit. I suppose it's all spin. They bought a player, it didn't work out, we've got back more than we paid. I agree fully a player making a modest impact would quite probably have kept us up.
