Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

ScarBoro

Members
  • Content Count

    191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

ScarBoro last won the day on June 26

ScarBoro had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

About ScarBoro

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Who thought we would get £10m? His value in accounts will be under £4m now, so anything above that gets us a profit For FFP this year and saves us £2m in wages. Alternative is to keep him and lose him next year for nothing, so they might prefer to take money now and invest it elsewhere.
  2. Could be that is putting brakes on a lot of potential moves - particularly the ones for the better players. clubs won’t want to risk too much money on one players wages until/unless they are sure there won’t be a cap and players won’t want to accept what’s on offer in hope that if there is no cap they can demand more.
  3. Whether Birmingham can afford him depends on how much of Bellingham fee needs to be used to cover other debts and bank overdrafts, then how high he is up on the Karanka wanted list. Money still owing from Burnley to us doesn’t really come into it. Say, for example Burley owe us £6m and we offer £6m for Ben, then yes no money needs to change hands. If Birmingham offer £6m, then Burley take the £6m from them and pass it on to us. Effect on Burnley finances is exactly the same over the long term and if they insist that Birmingham pay any installments at exactly the same time as they are due to pay us, the cash flow effect is zero as well.
  4. I think issue is that if Wednesday had broken the FFP rules, then the sanctions of points deduction apply in a specific way I.e. as per Wigan case. What actually happened with Wednesday is they were charged not with breaking the FFP rules, but with providing misleading information to EFL to make it appear that had kept within the rules. This may be splitting hairs, but because of this it went to an independent commission, so the section in the EFL rules is a different one. This allows the commission much more discretion as to the penalty and how to apply it. For example on the timing, rule 92.3 says These sanctions may be imposed immediately or may be deferred or suspended for such period and on such terms as the Disciplinary Commission shall decide On that basis, it’s difficult to Charlton being successful on any legal action. also, one of the three members of the “independent” commission is appointed by the EFL, one by the club involved and one is a lawyer etc. from outside football. You can just imagine the Wednesday representative delaying things as much as possible and trying to get penalties delayed.
  5. True, and you would hope most of them haVe been sensible and looked at bigger picture. Don’t think you can stop them however as you suggest? They are like any employee with a contract, and I can’t see a contract having clauses banning you from a foreign holiday. To be fair to them, even if they earn a lot, having booked a holiday they won’t want to just lose the money - and a lot of the place now requiring quarantine had a lower infection rate than England a week or two ago, so many players won’t have seen a risk.
  6. At some time though they do have to pay the other clubs. The £40m for Ake will give them the means to do so. Any “loss” is a profit and loss account figure and any debt is a balance sheet figure. Make a profit on selling a player and it reduces the Profit and Loss account loss and at the same time improves your balance sheet - either by reducing your liabilities / debts owed by you or by increasing your assets / debts owed to you. So to add the two figures of debts and losses together double counts them.
  7. Um, I think there might be some double counting here? Taking Ake for example, he cost £20m, so current value in accounts, after a couple of seasons writing it down, maybe £10m. Accepting a £40m bid from Man City gives a profit of £30m, wiping out the loss noted above, AND also reduces the debt by £40m. ( albeit the money won’t all come in at once if they can sell another couple of players for £20m each, this would wipe out their debt and turn the loss into a profit. They would also have saved a lot of wages to reduce their costs to help against the reduced income. obviously they then have the problem of replacing the sold players without spending money. I’m not trying to disagree that they will struggle - I think you are right there, just saying the whole issue of trying to work out what financial figures in football really mean is almost impossible.
  8. Isn’t Pears out of contract, though? All the articles back at start of year were saying Woodgate wanted him to sign a new contract, but was facing interest from premier league clubs. If he is out of contract, then until and if he does renew ( or if he has said he won’t renew), we have to be looking elsewhere. Could also be Warnock way of forcing Pears to hurry up and decide whether to sign a new contract. Of course Bass is also a couple of inches taller, which fits Warnock profile.
  9. Bear in mind the EFL are supposed to ensure sponsorship is at commercial rates ( to avoid owners breaking the FFP rule by simply sponsoring their own teams for huge amounts) Sponsorship tends to be companies selling to end consumers, who need to reach millions of people. Business providing services to other businesses won’t benefit hugely, if at all, from this type of advertising. I would guess any advertising Bulkhaul does will be in trade magazines, corporate events for suppliers and existing customers etc. Given SG disputes with EFL, I would think they would be all over any Bulkhaul sponsorship to try to prove SG was breaking rules.
  10. Maybe a two and a half year contract, but with an option for a further year? That would fit both accounts and club would run story of it being a three and a half year one to look better.
  11. You’ve maybe answered your own question? Let’s face it, there would be no question of a return normally. We would just say great, thank Burnley for giving us that fee and think we had done well. Being SGs nephew makes all the difference Though, doesn’t it. If he wants to splash out to get Ben back, it’s his money and the only issue we should be worried about is if it stops us getting other players because of it. Other than that, what’s not to like? He has certainly not been overplayed, he’s not got a bad injury record and he’s at a good age for a centre half. Plus, he is left footed, which was a problem all last season for us at centre half. as far as fee is concerned, every month he stays at Burnley costs them money, so they will want to move him on quickly, after failing in a January. Burnley chairman seems to be run a tight ship money wise, so is likely to be realistic rather than sticking on a point of principle.
  12. If it was before Christmas, then you can add £2m (+?) for Randolph.
  13. They’re a selling club so will probably lose a couple of the top performers. Benrahma look set for West Ham. Depends whether they find good enough replacements to do better than this year though they always seem to find good ones.
  14. Martin Samuel in Mail today has comment over Ayala. . I suppose it is his job to be interesting (I.e. controversial), but it’s debatable whether Ayala thought himself better than Boro, as opposed to thinking he get a better wage elsewhere. Comment re breach of contract dispute with PFA is interesting though, if true. SG picking fights again? Not sure it is productive in long term. Article reads:- Daniel Ayala messed Middlesbrough around for much of last season. He picked up an injury on January 1 and did not kick a ball for them after that. This spell of inactivity coincided with a change of agent, a wrangle over his new contract and the desire to leave in January. With his deal expiring on June 30, Ayala would not sign a temporary extension and was ultimately unwelcome at the club. As Boro struggled, coach Jonathan Woodgate lost his job. It is fair to say his employers were unimpressed with the player's behaviour and a breach of contract dispute is with the PFA. There were suggestions Ayala's head had been turned by Leeds but no move to Elland Road has arrived. Now promoted, maybe Leeds are thinking bigger than a centre half who will be 30 in November and whose Premier League career comprises 26 matches and two relegations. Ayala no doubt thinks he has shown himself better than Middlesbrough but he has shown something else, too, which could be why he is now among the ranks of the unemployed.
×
×
  • Create New...