Author Topic: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?  (Read 5767 times)

Offline HatterDon

  • Moritz Volz
  • ***
  • Posts: 16733
  • just like that
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #40 on: September 01, 2016, 08:26:07 PM »
In the 10-12 years I've been following Fulham, I see figures splashed about re-transfers in and out and salaries. What I DON'T see is any figures released from the club.

How anyone was say we spent this much and received this much is beyond me. But, there you go.

Offline b+w geezer

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 984
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #41 on: September 01, 2016, 08:28:05 PM »
I'm looking at the whole running of the club, and not just FFP.there are other costs apart from wages so that profit soon disappears Also if you add the Martin bought figure you get more of a loss.
Of course you should be considering everything it costs to run the club! It is utterly meaningless to take single kinds of income and of expenditure and plot them against each other. (Transfer fees versus parachute payments to take an example earlier in this thread). Only the whole caboodle -- all costs versus all income -- matters in the real world as opposed to toytown.   

Offline FFC73

  • Jimmy Hill
  • *
  • Posts: 1998
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #42 on: September 01, 2016, 08:33:28 PM »
Our net gain is we have a better team, a better squad and a motivated manager to get the best out of those players. I for one am not interested in how much £ was spent or not. And I'm an accountant. I'm just loving the feel good feeling that I'm getting from this season


Offline fulhamben

  • Moritz Volz
  • ***
  • Posts: 17606
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #43 on: September 01, 2016, 08:33:43 PM »
When your clubs 'Income' (not transfer fees) is only going to be around the £25-28M figure and your staff costs 'Wages' are going to be somewhere in the region of £22-27M and that's without 'other' running costs. You can see that a club can only run on transfer profit or a board who put money in.

My guess at things is:



Even if you take the transfermarket website figures and add Martin to the 'bought' figure we have easily exceeded the difference between income and expenditure at a very basic level. In a one year cycle Khan can put £5M in within the FFP rules to cover part of a £13M loss. I'd say looking at money in, transfers in, possible wages that we are going to show a loss this year.
Will it be at the £13M allowable one under FFP? probably not as it stands, but i think it will be mighty close come the end of the season. I dont think there is a lot more than can be asked at this moment in time.




Your own figures for this year show a £2.6m profit in 2016/17 before transfers, and according to the Transfermarkt figures you mention our net spend this year was £1.7m. And from that you have us "mighty close" to a £13m deficit?!

With maths like that who needs Grandad's posts for a laugh.

Anyway, we've been back and forth on this. If you really believe what you've written (which I doubt) ask the club at the next FST meeting. See what the answer is.

this where we differ.... I'm looking at the whole running of the club, and not just FFP.there are other costs apart from wages so that profit soon disappears Also if you add the Martin bought figure you get more of a loss.
mike, have you just gone all Arsene Wenger and blamed the likes of club shop workers as to why we havent made more marquee signings :005:

Offline filham

  • Moritz Volz
  • ***
  • Posts: 16862
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #44 on: September 01, 2016, 08:48:26 PM »
We have bought in a lot of players and have performed well on the pitch without breaking the bank , things are looking good and yesterday's loan signing of a proven striker/target man could be the final link needed for a top six challenge.

Of course we will have to see how it all turns out but just now there is more hope than there has been for a long time and it seems that at last management are getting things right.

Apprentice to the Maestro

  • Guest
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #45 on: September 01, 2016, 09:10:31 PM »
When your clubs 'Income' (not transfer fees) is only going to be around the £25-28M figure and your staff costs 'Wages' are going to be somewhere in the region of £22-27M and that's without 'other' running costs. You can see that a club can only run on transfer profit or a board who put money in.

My guess at things is:



Even if you take the transfermarket website figures and add Martin to the 'bought' figure we have easily exceeded the difference between income and expenditure at a very basic level. In a one year cycle Khan can put £5M in within the FFP rules to cover part of a £13M loss. I'd say looking at money in, transfers in, possible wages that we are going to show a loss this year.
Will it be at the £13M allowable one under FFP? probably not as it stands, but i think it will be mighty close come the end of the season. I dont think there is a lot more than can be asked at this moment in time.




Your own figures for this year show a £2.6m profit in 2016/17 before transfers, and according to the Transfermarkt figures you mention our net spend this year was £1.7m. And from that you have us "mighty close" to a £13m deficit?!

With maths like that who needs Grandad's posts for a laugh.

Anyway, we've been back and forth on this. If you really believe what you've written (which I doubt) ask the club at the next FST meeting. See what the answer is.


It seems that I have to point out again that the Transfermarkt figure of the spend of £1.7m only seems to include the loan fee for Martin.

Therefore if, as expected, we take up the option that will add, according to reports, probably about £7m to the spend so about £8.7m overall.

Add to that we were supposedly after Cyriac then that would have taken us to pretty near your magical £13m you must suspect.


Apprentice to the Maestro

  • Guest
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #46 on: September 01, 2016, 09:28:37 PM »
When your clubs 'Income' (not transfer fees) is only going to be around the £25-28M figure and your staff costs 'Wages' are going to be somewhere in the region of £22-27M and that's without 'other' running costs. You can see that a club can only run on transfer profit or a board who put money in.

My guess at things is:



Even if you take the transfermarket website figures and add Martin to the 'bought' figure we have easily exceeded the difference between income and expenditure at a very basic level. In a one year cycle Khan can put £5M in within the FFP rules to cover part of a £13M loss. I'd say looking at money in, transfers in, possible wages that we are going to show a loss this year.
Will it be at the £13M allowable one under FFP? probably not as it stands, but i think it will be mighty close come the end of the season. I dont think there is a lot more than can be asked at this moment in time.




Your own figures for this year show a £2.6m profit in 2016/17 before transfers, and according to the Transfermarkt figures you mention our net spend this year was £1.7m. And from that you have us "mighty close" to a £13m deficit?!

With maths like that who needs Grandad's posts for a laugh.

Anyway, we've been back and forth on this. If you really believe what you've written (which I doubt) ask the club at the next FST meeting. See what the answer is.

this where we differ.... I'm looking at the whole running of the club, and not just FFP.there are other costs apart from wages so that profit soon disappears Also if you add the Martin bought figure you get more of a loss.

yes there are other costs but what are we talking about? mowing the lawn every week? whatever they are, i doubt they exceed the margin for error in our estimates anyway. as for "the martin bought figure", unless i've misunderstood the club statement we haven't bought him yet. my comments are based on present facts, not contingent future events. so if we buy martin for £9m in january i'll probably change my view, just as i would if we bought pogba for £100m. can't be bothered arguing about this anymore anyway. as i keep saying, ask the question at FST. i'd genuinely like to know, even if it means i'm wrong.

Presumably we negotiated the option to buy Martin because we expect to exercise that option therefore it makes sense to budget that in as a spend now.

To argue that Khan hasn't spent as promised or hasn't spent enough by ignoring the expected cost of the option seems to be a weak ploy to prolong your complaints about the club's spending particularly if you may change your mind if we take up the option.

Apprentice to the Maestro

  • Guest
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #47 on: September 01, 2016, 09:38:24 PM »
When your clubs 'Income' (not transfer fees) is only going to be around the £25-28M figure and your staff costs 'Wages' are going to be somewhere in the region of £22-27M and that's without 'other' running costs. You can see that a club can only run on transfer profit or a board who put money in.

My guess at things is:



Even if you take the transfermarket website figures and add Martin to the 'bought' figure we have easily exceeded the difference between income and expenditure at a very basic level. In a one year cycle Khan can put £5M in within the FFP rules to cover part of a £13M loss. I'd say looking at money in, transfers in, possible wages that we are going to show a loss this year.
Will it be at the £13M allowable one under FFP? probably not as it stands, but i think it will be mighty close come the end of the season. I dont think there is a lot more than can be asked at this moment in time.




Your own figures for this year show a £2.6m profit in 2016/17 before transfers, and according to the Transfermarkt figures you mention our net spend this year was £1.7m. And from that you have us "mighty close" to a £13m deficit?!

With maths like that who needs Grandad's posts for a laugh.

Anyway, we've been back and forth on this. If you really believe what you've written (which I doubt) ask the club at the next FST meeting. See what the answer is.


It seems that I have to point out again that the Transfermarkt figure of the spend of £1.7m only seems to include the loan fee for Martin.

Therefore if, as expected, we take up the option that will add, according to reports, probably about £7m to the spend so about £8.7m overall.

Add to that we were supposedly after Cyriac then that would have taken us to pretty near your magical £13m you must suspect.

If we'd bought Martin and Cyriac I wouldn't be moaning would I
If if if
If my aunty had bo&&go££s she'd be my aunt

You seem to be stuck in this moaning groove and cannot see that things have moved on.

Well we have an option that we are likely to take up on Martin and, who knows, we may go back for Cyriac in January if his club stop messing us about.

The reasons that we haven't bought both at this point seems to have been down to their clubs so we will have had to have allocated that budget of the £13m you want us to spend.

Offline hovewhite

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #48 on: September 01, 2016, 10:06:03 PM »
Brilliant window well done to everyone involved in the club and in the financial constraints.


Offline snarks

  • MAESTRO
  • **
  • Posts: 2605
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #49 on: September 01, 2016, 10:22:41 PM »
I think it's harsh to keep saying he's lied. Spending less on transfers and more on wages may be whatever it takes. We are not privy to the finances and to judge on net spend is as ridiculous as buying a player on statistics alone

Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5300
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #50 on: September 01, 2016, 10:30:17 PM »
I think it's harsh to keep saying he's lied. Spending less on transfers and more on wages may be whatever it takes. We are not privy to the finances and to judge on net spend is as ridiculous as buying a player on statistics alone


Agreed. Some here seem to think that there is no spending unless the club buries itself in losses. Overall, I think the club (and that means Khan) have done well. I think we'll chase promotion this year and come January, we'll have the money to "splash the cash" like Statto wants and maybe buy that player to put us over the top. Maybe, just maybe , we won't need that player and can use that cash when we step up a division come spring.

Offline b+w geezer

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 984
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #51 on: September 02, 2016, 08:16:39 AM »
yes there are other costs but what are we talking about? mowing the lawn every week?
They are all the other aspects of running the club that showed up in the audited accounts as £14.1 million last time around. As visible in the figures quoted from MJG from the published accounts. Other clubs have similar costs, for which auditors require documentation.
whatever they are, i doubt they exceed the margin for error in our estimates anyway
They do, by miles. See above. If you would deign to read what you are pretending to respond to that would have advantages.


MJG

  • Guest
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #52 on: September 02, 2016, 08:37:56 AM »
Just to be clear the 'other costs' is the difference after the loss/profit of amorisation is taken into account. Its after all transfer dealings as well in those years. I probably worded it wrong but what it does show is somewhere the club has spent that kind of figure. It has a wide range from 14-23 but when you look at the accounts it is clearly more than just mowing the lawn that needs doing.

My main point of posting those figures is to have a discussion on them, inform people mainly of the 'income' side and how that had dropped.
I'm more than happy to be corrected on anything I do on the finances. I'm not an accountant, just someone who takes an interest in the running of the club using those figures.

Offline Roberty

  • Silver Fox
  • *
  • Posts: 2185
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #53 on: September 02, 2016, 09:36:23 AM »
Just to be clear the 'other costs' is the difference after the loss/profit of amorisation is taken into account. Its after all transfer dealings as well in those years. I probably worded it wrong but what it does show is somewhere the club has spent that kind of figure. It has a wide range from 14-23 but when you look at the accounts it is clearly more than just mowing the lawn that needs doing.

My main point of posting those figures is to have a discussion on them, inform people mainly of the 'income' side and how that had dropped.
I'm more than happy to be corrected on anything I do on the finances. I'm not an accountant, just someone who takes an interest in the running of the club using those figures.

Mike - it is a numbers game - all the weekly costs have to be mutiplied by 52 - that is the killer - so 5k extra to players in wages adds 260k to the annual cost. The incoming players look to be far better qulaity than the outgoing ones so it would tend to suggest that the are getting extra pay and I suspect that our wage bill has risen considerably.

I presume it was also the case that the loan fees for Mitro and others paid their wages - so loosing them has a neutral effect on our total wage bill because there would be no saving.

The problematical bit would be regarding Ross - he was undoubtable our highest earner - but was he earning 50k per week because that it the loan fee we are paying to Derby for Chris Martin's services. Do you think the loan fee of 2.5m includes his wages or do we pay his wages in addition to that?
« Last Edit: September 02, 2016, 09:47:06 AM by Roberty »

MJG

  • Guest
Re: Transfer Summary - How much was our net gain?
« Reply #54 on: September 02, 2016, 09:46:35 AM »
Just to be clear the 'other costs' is the difference after the loss/profit of amorisation is taken into account. Its after all transfer dealings as well in those years. I probably worded it wrong but what it does show is somewhere the club has spent that kind of figure. It has a wide range from 14-23 but when you look at the accounts it is clearly more than just mowing the lawn that needs doing.

My main point of posting those figures is to have a discussion on them, inform people mainly of the 'income' side and how that had dropped.
I'm more than happy to be corrected on anything I do on the finances. I'm not an accountant, just someone who takes an interest in the running of the club using those figures.

Mike - it is a numbers game - all the weekly costs have to be mutiplied by 52 - that is the killer - so 5k extra to players in wages adds 260k to the annual cost. The incoming players look to be far better qulaity than the outgoing ones so it would tend to suggest that the are getting extra pay and I suspect that our wage bill has risen considerably.

I presume it was also the case that the loan fees for Mitro and others paid their wages - so loosing them has a neutral effect on our total wage bill because there would be no saving.

The problematical bit would be regarding Ross - he was undoubtable our highest earner - but was he earning 50k per week because that it the loan fee we are paying to Derby for Chris Martin's services. Do you know if the loan fee of 2.5m includes his wages or do we pay his wages in addition to that?
I'd say we are paying his full wages.
the Ross deal was one I had advocated. Sell for £12M and invest it over 3 or 4 players and thats what we have done.

What it will have done is increased the wage bill. Say he was on £40K and the 3 we have bought are on £20K each, then of course it will have gone up. So when people say we have saved wages on XYZ, well yes we have, but in buying in 'better' players that wages gets shared around more and eaten up.