[Archived] Roque Santa Cruz Thread

[Hughesy]

City just paid £12m for a 28 year old midfielder with 12 month contract - We have a 28 year old with 3 years to go - and more importantly he is a top striker.

£18-20m & no less will cover it!!

[philipl]

Ok.

This is how I think it might look:

£20m Sale price of which

£5m to RSC under the deal struck

£5m ish to bank overdraft

£10m to spend of which

£1m in signing on fees

£1.5m to agents (remember agents get grossed up for the tax paid as clubs can no longer pay agents direct) leaving

£7.5m headline available for transfer fees

Less if the incoming player(s) earn more in total than RSC is doing as that excess will have come out of the £7.5m.

NOTHING HAS EVER OR WILL EVER GET PAID TO THE BOARD OR TRUSTEES!!!

Some of you are so slow in understanding that.

And that is based on Rovers getting the full £20m for Roque. Flog him for £12m and the net transfer fees budget might rise by £4m.

I guess Sam would rather have RSC than £4m to spend.

[Hughesy]

Ah so your including the 'costs' as being part of the next deal of whoever we sign?? Very confusing.

So in real terms your saying £20m fee, £5m to RSC, £5m to bank. (Cant see the bank taking 25% either)

Leaves us with £10m clear. To then re-invest in next player/ wages/ agent/ signing on fee etc

[JAL]

Ah so your including the 'costs' as being part of the next deal of whoever we sign?? Very confusing.

So in real terms your saying £20m fee, £5m to RSC, £5m to bank. (Cant see the bank taking 25% either)

Leaves us with £10m clear. To then re-invest in next player/ wages/ agent/ signing on fee etc

Is £5m to the bank or partly the Walker trust, who then give it us back at a later date and say there you are theres our investment?

[Hughesy]

Looking at Phil's post "NOTHING HAS EVER OR WILL EVER GET PAID TO THE BOARD OR TRUSTEES"

So id assume he just means the bank.

Does anyone know if we are still not receiving our annual £3m from the trust?

[RevidgeBlue]

Pure speculation as usual from Philip regarding the actual figures but there may be an element of truth to it.

What I don't understand is why if we sell a player such as Bentley or RSC it is always claimed that the majority of the money disappears for various reasons leaving us a fraction of that amount to spend on a new player.

Therefore if we sell a player for a headline price of say 20m, I don't see why it isn't possible for us to replace that player for a headline price of 20m with the selling club actually bearing the brunt of the same deductions we suffered out of our sale. Surely all transfers work in a similar manner and we only bear the costs once, not twice.

As regards RSC, it's pretty clear now why he's changed his tune and started being nice to us, either he or his agent have twigged that no-one is likely to pay anything like 20m for him before the "clause" expires in July. Therefore after that point it is entirely in Rovers hands whether he goes or stays.

Philip is certainly right on one point, if a large chunk of any RSC fee is going to the Bank to reduce our overdraft, (plus any chunk due to the player) there is absolutely no point in selling him.

Again however I do find this claim a bit strange, We are continually told we do not have to sell, and are under no pressure to sell, and that certainly seems to be the case. If however we do happen to sell, totally of our own volition, and not at the behest of the Bank, they allegedly swallow the proceeds!

Does anyone know if we are still not receiving our annual £3m from the trust?

The latest 3m received from the Trust (which was originally withdrawn then reinstated) is technically only a loan.

Whether it will actually have to repaid at a later date or will be written off remains to be seen.

[JAL]

Ok.

This is how I think it might look:

£20m Sale price of which

£5m to RSC under the deal struck

£5m ish to bank overdraft

£10m to spend of which

£1m in signing on fees

£1.5m to agents (remember agents get grossed up for the tax paid as clubs can no longer pay agents direct) leaving

£7.5m headline available for transfer fees

Less if the incoming player(s) earn more in total than RSC is doing as that excess will have come out of the £7.5m.

NOTHING HAS EVER OR WILL EVER GET PAID TO THE BOARD OR TRUSTEES!!!

Some of you are so slow in understanding that.

And that is based on Rovers getting the full £20m for Roque. Flog him for £12m and the net transfer fees budget might rise by £4m.

I guess Sam would rather have RSC than £4m to spend.

If this is all relative to the transfer, I think for the good of the club they should say that the sale of said player is £7.5m rather than £20m then the fans wont ask were has all the money gone and become sceptical and disallusioned with it all.

[OscarRaven]

Its not all relative. If you don't have an overdraft / debt the bank can't take any of it. Not to mention that its not common practice to give the player a 'cut' of any transfer.

Take those two out and you have a normal transfer where the headline figure is not too different from the recouped.

Most people know and understand agents take a chunk.

If the headline figure is £20m then the transfer kitty should be bolstered at leat £17m anything other than that needs to be properly explained by the club (not leaked) otherwise the supporters will start getting fed up of being skint.

Like it or not, buying new players sells season tickets and excites fans. Being forever poor and contiually losing talent doesn't.

[Hughesy]

Again however I do find this claim a bit strange, We are continually told we do not have to sell, and are under no pressure to sell, and that certainly seems to be the case. If however we do happen to sell, totally of our own volition, and not at the behest of the Bank, they allegedly swallow the proceeds!

I agree - thats seems very strange. So not only are we reducing our wage bill by £5m, we are also going to give the bank £5m from the RSC sale?? Doubt it very much!!

[RevidgeBlue]

I agree - thats seems very strange. So not only are we reducing our wage bill by £5m, we are also going to give the bank £5m from the RSC sale?? Doubt it very much!!

Plus we are now running at a healthy annual profit even before any wage reductions thanks to the latest TV deal, and it would appear some of the Bentley money went to the Bank as well.

[Hughesy]

AND more of the bentley money is due this summer (if I remeber rightly)

[PAFELL]

Pure speculation as usual from Philip regarding the actual figures but there may be an element of truth to it.

What I don't understand is why if we sell a player such as Bentley or RSC it is always claimed that the majority of the money disappears for various reasons leaving us a fraction of that amount to spend on a new player.

Therefore if we sell a player for a headline price of say 20m, I don't see why it isn't possible for us to replace that player for a headline price of 20m with the selling club actually bearing the brunt of the same deductions we suffered out of our sale. Surely all transfers work in a similar manner and we only bear the costs once, not twice.

As regards RSC, it's pretty clear now why he's changed his tune and started being nice to us, either he or his agent have twigged that no-one is likely to pay anything like 20m for him before the "clause" expires in July. Therefore after that point it is entirely in Rovers hands whether he goes or stays.

Philip is certainly right on one point, if a large chunk of any RSC fee is going to the Bank to reduce our overdraft, (plus any chunk due to the player) there is absolutely no point in selling him.

Again however I do find this claim a bit strange, We are continually told we do not have to sell, and are under no pressure to sell, and that certainly seems to be the case. If however we do happen to sell, totally of our own volition, and not at the behest of the Bank, they allegedly swallow the proceeds!

The latest 3m received from the Trust (which was originally withdrawn then reinstated) is technically only a loan.

Whether it will actually have to repaid at a later date or will be written off remains to be seen.

I still cannot see the point in paying a player who does not want to play for Rovers. Surely it would be better to sell RSC for a decent price, more than was paid for him and buy somebody who wants to play for rovers.

[gumboots]

I still cannot see the point in paying a player who does not want to play for Rovers. Surely it would be better to sell RSC for a decent price, more than was paid for him and buy somebody who wants to play for rovers.

But they are probably either rubbish or will cost more than we'd get for RSC if all we worried about was getting more than we paid. would you factor into that cost the fact that we've paid him wages for the last year for basically doing nothing? He earned his pay first season but not second, so we'd have to look to recoup some of that otherwise by your logic we could come out of his sale worse off!

[JAL]

Its not all relative. If you don't have an overdraft / debt the bank can't take any of it. Not to mention that its not common practice to give the player a 'cut' of any transfer.

Take those two out and you have a normal transfer where the headline figure is not too different from the recouped.

Most people know and understand agents take a chunk.

If the headline figure is £20m then the transfer kitty should be bolstered at leat £17m anything other than that needs to be properly explained by the club (not leaked) otherwise the supporters will start getting fed up of being skint.

Like it or not, buying new players sells season tickets and excites fans. Being forever poor and contiually losing talent doesn't.

Cheers Oscar, if the club allowed philpl's scenario of £1.5m to go into the agents pocket after the player had just pocketed around £5m, then i'd be after sacking the Rovers management team for squandering so much money.

For me it would come across as complete incompetence on an intolerable level.

[mellison24]

Cheers Oscar, if the club allowed philpl's scenario of £1.5m to go into the agents pocket after the player had just pocketed around £5m, then i'd be after sacking the Rovers management team for squandering so much money.

For me it would come across as complete incompetence on an intolerable level.

people forget that if we sell satnav cruz for less than 18mil, he wont get that 5 million to pocket!!!

[67splitscreen]

people forget that if we sell satnav cruz for less than 18mil, he wont get that 5 million to pocket!!!

I'm pretty sure it was anything over 15m, that nicko reported, could be wrong though. if we sold for less than the release clause.

[dazmaz]

with regards to paying money o the bank. if we do see RSC a fair chunk of it will go to the bak as with the clause in his contract he will be our prized asset.. and all our assets are the reason we get the loans from the bank

[Hughesy]

with regards to paying money o the bank. if we do see RSC a fair chunk of it will go to the bak as with the clause in his contract he will be our prized asset.. and all our assets are the reason we get the loans from the bank

Surely our debts are secured against things more stable than a player - like the ground, brockhall etc?

[roversmad95]

people forget that if we sell satnav cruz for less than 18mil, he wont get that 5 million to pocket!!!

so we should sell for 18 million pay the bank 5 million and we would still have 13 million...

that would still be enough for a good player or even 2 half decent players....

im sure by the end of august we will find out...lol

[dazmaz]

Surely our debts are secured against things more stable than a player - like the ground, brockhall etc?

yas and no. the players value also add to the value of the club (due to the fact that if they are sold its even more potential money) thus allowing us to have more leverage when it comes to a loan.. think of it this way, say someone is selling a house, their house is worth lets say 90k but they are allowing the new owners to keep all the furnishings as a result the house if going for 100k.. (bad example but its the first to come to mind)

[Hughesy]

Yes but player values are based on price paid & contract lengths or something (this discussion has been on here before I think) not the actual clubs valuation of a player (i.e. £20m). Cant remember exactly who said it....Philip I think!

[dazmaz]

to be honest i cant answer that. but i am certain all assets (players, ground, training ground ext) help towards getting loans, also helps the club value (a little off topic) maybe thats why WT want 60m for us

[RevidgeBlue]

I'm pretty certain none of the Bank borrowings are "secured" against assets but the level of our borrowings (and therefore subsequent interest repayments) has always been run at a level the Board feel comfortable with given the size of our turnover/overall value of our assets etc.

[philipl]

OK

Let's sort this out.

1) If nicko is correct, the release clause includes a top slice of £5m to the player if Roque is sold for £20m.

2) I understand that if you have an overdraft, Mr Bank Manager likes to see throughput on it. In otherwords, he takes a very dim view if you treat your overdraft facility as a bank loan. So when you get cash in, he likes to see some of it staying in his bank and your o/d reduced. An o/d is there to tide you over the tough times and to paid down in the good. So of course, if Rovers sell RSC for £20m, the Bank Manager is totally entitled to expect that smething would be done about Rovers overdraft. Perhaps folks with overdrafts might contradict me but I'd like to ask how confident any of you would be if you received a payment that cleared your overdraft, you could immediately shoot back up to your old limit.

3) Yes the signing on fees and agent fees come out of the purchase of the next player(s). But they have to be paid and they reduce the amount that is available for headline grabbing transfer fees. So a fee of £7.5m paid to Tiddleywinks United for their subbuteo centre forward costs the Rovers the thick end of £10m in reality.

That is how "Rovers sell Roque for £20m" headline one day turns into "Rovers buy XYZ for £7.5m" headline the next and not one penny goes anywhere near the Trustees' or Directors' pockets.

[RevidgeBlue]

OK

Let's sort this out.

1) If nicko is correct, the release clause includes a top slice of £5m to the player if Roque is sold for £20m.

2) I understand that if you have an overdraft, Mr Bank Manager likes to see throughput on it. In otherwords, he takes a very dim view if you treat your overdraft facility as a bank loan. So when you get cash in, he likes to see some of it staying in his bank and your o/d reduced. An o/d is there to tide you over the tough times and to paid down in the good. So of course, if Rovers sell RSC for £20m, the Bank Manager is totally entitled to expect that smething would be done about Rovers overdraft. Perhaps folks with overdrafts might contradict me but I'd like to ask how confident any of you would be if you received a payment that cleared your overdraft, you could immediately shoot back up to your old limit.

3) Yes the signing on fees and agent fees come out of the purchase of the next player(s). But they have to be paid and they reduce the amount that is available for headline grabbing transfer fees. So a fee of £7.5m paid to Tiddleywinks United for their subbuteo centre forward costs the Rovers the thick end of £10m in reality.

That is how "Rovers sell Roque for £20m" headline one day turns into "Rovers buy XYZ for £7.5m" headline the next and not one penny goes anywhere near the Trustees' or Directors' pockets.

I understand points one and two. If point two is correct, then there'd never be any point in selling any player ever again.

I have to disagree with point 3. You're saying effectively that Rovers pay all the applicable fees on Roque when we sell but that Tiddlywinks United don't pay all the applicable fees when they sell their player to us.