[Archived] Nickos Thread

[LeChuck]

Us cos that's what we initially paid for him.

Right. So we're getting £9 million pounds then. That's what 'Ewood and I would' is getting at.

[CrazyIvan]

That doesn't make sense.

If it's £6 million for them and £6 million for us, who is getting the other £3 million?

Quite simply the difference between profit and income.

We spent 3mil on Bentlely from Arsenal, we sell for an intial 15mil and Arsenal get half the profit. 15 -3 = 12 hence Arsenal get 6mil. We make 6mil profit but net 9mil.

(I'm getting bored of this little conversation now...)

11 o'clocker tonight Nicko?

[FourLaneBlue]

That doesn't make sense.

If it's £6 million for them and £6 million for us, who is getting the other £3 million?

I think Frisky Jim said it was The Dark Lord JW and the evil Trustees

...although I might just be making that up.

[LeChuck]

At last FLB, a clear answer we can all understand.

We make 6mil profit but net 9mil.

So in theory we should be getting £9 million added to this years budget. The £6 million is only any use for working out Arsenal's share, it doesn't apply to our transfer fund.

[RevidgeBlue]

That doesn't make sense.

If it's £6 million for them and £6 million for us, who is getting the other £3 million?

The 3m is the 3m we already paid Arsenal. So we recoup that in effect.

The 12m is the profit. (15m fee less the 3m already paid)

The sell on clause allegedly applies to 40/50% of the profit. Not the gross fee paid by Spuds.

[j166429]

Right. So we're getting £9 million pounds then. That's what 'Ewood and I would' is getting at.

Logically yes. But I suppose it all depends on what was in the original agreement. If it's stated that we share whatever profit that is made after deduction of the original amount we paid to Arsenal then yes otherwise it's 7.5 million each.

[Al]

It amazes me how thick some people can be. The 3mil we paid for Bentley was written off years ago. We get £15mil from Spuds and pay £6mil to Arse. That leaves £9mil to the coffers. Is that clear?

I used to have this problem with one of my firm's directors. Never could comprehend the difference between cash and profit.

[Derby Blue]

It amazes me how thick some people can be. The 3mil we paid for Bentley was written off years ago. We get £15mil from Spuds and pay £6mil to Arse. That leaves £9mil to the coffers. Is that clear?

I used to have this problem with one of my firm's directors. Never could comprehend the difference between cash and profit.

Its not being thick its looking at it in a different way. We will be left with £9m to spend (hopefully) but £3m of that is what we paid Arsenal for him in the first place. Whether its been written off or not we are left with £6m clear profit from David Bentley.

[Al]

For Christ's sake we are talking about spending power not what is in the P & L account. Think it through. Profit has nothing to do with it. If we sold MGP for £10mil, how much would we have to spend on a replacement?

[LeChuck]

Its not being thick its looking at it in a different way.

Different, yes...but the wrong way. Transfer fees are never, ever viewed that way, especially when they're in separate financial years.

That'd be like saying when we sold Savage in January we'd still have £0 to spend because he cost £3 million to begin with. It just doesn't work like that. Assuming the sell-on clause figures being talked about on here are correct, £9 million pound is going in to our coffers. There isn't really another way to look at it that makes any sense. Nobody would be talking about a £6 million figure if the idea of the original fee wasn't brought in to the equation by the sell-on clause.

[Derby Blue]

Different, yes...but the wrong way. Transfer fees are never, ever viewed that way, especially when they're in separate financial years.

That'd be like saying when we sold Savage in January we'd still have £0 to spend because he cost £3 million to begin with. It just doesn't work like that. Assuming the sell-on clause figures being talked about on here are correct, £9 million pound is going in to our coffers. There isn't really another way to look at it that makes any sense. Nobody would be talking about a £6 million figure if the idea of the original fee wasn't brought in to the equation by the sell-on clause.

Totally agree with you. I wasn't saying (or didn't mean to) that we only had £6m to spend but that our overall profit on the man when all transfer fees had been taken into account was £6m.

Anyway enough of all this - he's gone and we can all look forward to the new season with optimism.

[roverfanuk]

Right, i have just got my friend to translate what that Annan article said. She said the following:

"It says that Stabæk have agreed to extend the loan from IK Start for a further season up until the 31st of August". "This would be the best thing for the player added Sport Director Lars Bohinen".

"Bohinen also added it is out of the question that Annan would join Blackburn Rovers". "However the player (Annan) called Rovers last week to ask for a week long trial in England"

"Bohinen also said, if any club, Rovers or Foreign want the player they will have to wait for his contract to expire and then sign him for Free"...

She isnt fluent in Norweigen but said it sounded like they wouldnt sell Annan to Rovers or any other foreign club unless his contract has expired...

Maybe Nicko could confirm whether Annan is coming on trial, or whether his team have denied permission.

[PAFELL]

I bet you're a ton of laughs at parties.

Just let him rant but totally ignore his posts - it is silly season again - kids are on school holiday - frisky jim is feeling lonely, he is looking for somebody to play and talk with.

[PAFELL]

It's a disastrous start when your first action is to pick a deflected shot from a non-league team out of your own net.

It doesn't make him a bad person, of course. But in the game - his debut - it was a disastrous start.

I can't believe I'm even debating this...

Nicko there is no point in this debate. If I was making a debut and the first thing I had to do was pick the ball out of the net then it would be a disaster - if I had saved a penalty then it would have been brilliant.

remember it is silly season the kids are off school !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Er for 6 weeks I think.

[alexanders]

RoversfanUK:

It's almost as your friend told you.

Former Rovers player Lars Bohinen is sport director of Stabaek Football Club, but it is the team IK Start who owns Annan. He has only been at loan at Stabaek which is ending this August.

Annan is going to have a trail with Blackburn Rovers from coming monday and it will last till friday. This has been confirmed from Stabaek FK.

Bohinen goes on to say that Annan will stay a Stabaek player until 31st of August unless bids are coming in.

If no one decides to bid for Annan, Bohinen and Stabaek will consider a permanent deal, but they are confident that IK Start will prize him very high.

[Bobby G]

So he will be available on a free on August 31?

[alexanders]

No, because it is IK Start who owns him. His loan spell with Stabæk will end 31st of August.

According to Wikipedia Annan signed a 3-year contract with start on the 30th of January 2007.

[PAFELL]

Perhaps it's because you've chosen to post on a Blackburn Rovers fan site, after writing a comment in a national newspaper about a Blackburn Rovers player, that distorted the truth and wrongly painted said player in a bad light.

I can't believe I had to point that out....

Scotty, if you had just got a new job as a driver and the first thing you did was drive it in to a wall, with the boss looking on - would that not be a disasterous start to your new job? It does not make you a bad driver - or even a disaster waiting to happen - it just makes your start in the job a bad start or disasterous. That is all Nicko was saying - Robinson would surely had wanted to save a penalty as his debut and not conceed a goal. But that wasn't the situation Robinson found himself in - the first thing the poor bloke had to do was to conceed a goal from a non-league player - hence the wording a 'disaterous start'. It is not a dstortion of the truth, instead it is plain reality.

[Mr Creosote]

Scotty, if you had just got a new job as a driver and the first thing you did was drive it in to a wall, with the boss looking on - would that not be a disasterous start to your new job? It does not make you a bad driver - or even a disaster waiting to happen - it just makes your start in the job a bad start or disasterous. That is all Nicko was saying - Robinson would surely had wanted to save a penalty as his debut and not conceed a goal. But that wasn't the situation Robinson found himself in - the first thing the poor bloke had to do was to conceed a goal from a non-league player - hence the wording a 'disaterous start'. It is not a dstortion of the truth, instead it is plain reality.

I enjoy Nicko's contribution but I'm with Scotty on this one. More than a hint of kciking a guy when he's trying to haul himself up off the floor.

It's what the press do.......when they're not having to pay out the like of the McCanns, Andy Cole et al.

[RevidgeBlue]

Scotty, if you had just got a new job as a driver and the first thing you did was drive it in to a wall, with the boss looking on - would that not be a disasterous start to your new job? It does not make you a bad driver - or even a disaster waiting to happen - it just makes your start in the job a bad start or disasterous. That is all Nicko was saying - Robinson would surely had wanted to save a penalty as his debut and not conceed a goal. But that wasn't the situation Robinson found himself in - the first thing the poor bloke had to do was to conceed a goal from a non-league player - hence the wording a 'disaterous start'. It is not a dstortion of the truth, instead it is plain reality.

Completely erroneous comparison - if you drive into a wall it's your fault.

If Robinson concedes a goal due to an unlucky deflection he could do nothing about, that's nothing to do with him and hardly a "disastrous" start for him personally.

It might be a "disastrous" start for the team in that game but obviously given the unfortunate 12 months or so Robinson has had, the misleading headline will sell a lot more copies.

Which is the object of the exercise as far as the paper is concerned.

[Drakefyre]

From my (albeit somewhat limited) experience in journalism, it's the editors who pick the headlines, not the writers.

[Jan]

I honestly cannot believe some of the idiotic things on here.

We get £15m from Spurs. We pay £6m to Arsenal. We have £9m to spend. End of.

The first thing a very unlucky goalkeeper has to do is to take the ball out of his own net after a wicked deflection. That's a disasterous start to a career at a new club. Would have been catastrophic in a meaningful game, or apocalyptic in a cup final, but still disasterous on your debut. Doesn't mean it's his fault- just that someone dogged with bad luck has brought at least a little bit with him!

[j166429]

Completely erroneous comparison - if you drive into a wall it's your fault.

If Robinson concedes a goal due to an unlucky deflection he could do nothing about, that's nothing to do with him and hardly a "disastrous" start for him personally.

It might be a "disastrous" start for the team in that game but obviously given the unfortunate 12 months or so Robinson has had, the misleading headline will sell a lot more copies.

Which is the object of the exercise as far as the paper is concerned.

Totally agree RevidgeBlue.

[Frisky Jim]

Just let him rant but totally ignore his posts - it is silly season again - kids are on school holiday - frisky jim is feeling lonely, he is looking for somebody to play and talk with.

Thanks, sweetcheeks. Totally wrong, but thanks anyway.

[Dunnfc]

I honestly cannot believe some of the idiotic things on here.

We get £15m from Spurs. We pay £6m to Arsenal. We have £9m to spend. End of.

The first thing a very unlucky goalkeeper has to do is to take the ball out of his own net after a wicked deflection. That's a disasterous start to a career at a new club. Would have been catastrophic in a meaningful game, or apocalyptic in a cup final, but still disasterous on your debut. Doesn't mean it's his fault- just that someone dogged with bad luck has brought at least a little bit with him!

Exactley on both fronts, now move on because its getting tedious.