[Archived] Transfer Talk Part 3

[Mercer]

In your view he was off to Bolton, Hull and everywhere else you've fancied him going to for the last 2 seasons!!!

I'm fairly certain you'll be proved wrong again this time Mercer. As with your 'u21 star exclusive' at the end of the season.

Yes Rhodes will go if someone meets Venkys price. And I'm fairly certain that will be closer to £12m as Kamy and Nixon have stated and not the £9m you have.

Maybe it will get closer to £12m with some limited add ons.

I have been saying for weeks that it's all about what the up front amount is - all of a sudden, the penny seems to have dropped with some !

As far the U21 lad - was out of contract and 'vulnerable' and I believe his potential had been noted by at least 1 PL club. Has now signed another contract with Rovers but if his development continues at the rate of knots it has so far, would be no surprise to see someone make a move for him.

[den]

But the sanctions have nothing to do with debt. Its all about operating losses, and specifically monies paid out on wages and transfer fees. So who clubs owe money to doesn't matter. All that matters is how much is brought in from tickets/sponsorship/revenues and how much of that is then going out on wages/fees.

It really shouldn't be that difficult to police. If a club loses more than the acceptable amount they ought to be punished, yet from my limited research I know of at least four clubs that have lost more than they are allowed and have got away with it.

The fact that loopholes appear to have been exploited by some clubs sums the rules up and clearly demonstrates that they, and the people enforcing them, are not fit for purpose.

No good continually commenting on other clubs - "specifically", how could we have got our losses of £42.5m within the limit of £5m

+ £3m owner input?

I keep asking.

[Kamy100]

Boro are taking a calculated gamble.

Gibson and Peter Kenyon are not stupid. They started their spending after 30^th June which was the deadline for the 2014/2015 FFP accounting period. Therefore the spending that they do now will be reported in the 30^th June 2016 FFP submission, so they either get up or raise capital to bring losses down below the FFP threshold which is increasing for the 2015/2016 submission (http://www.football-league.co.uk/news/article/2014/20141106-championship-financial-fair-play-rules-rg-2066799.aspx). You have to remember they made circa £3 million just from the playoff’s last season. Even if they can’t get the losses down below the FFP threshold, any transfer embargo wouldn’t come into force until January 2017.

See what can be achieved when you have executives who are clued up.

[ptholt]

How much would that have reduced losses of £42.5m to?

In the previous article on impairment i posted our contempories (fulham, wolves, bolton) were burying up to 20m in there, there is no upper limit specified.

It is about operating costs, but its also about accounting and how the money is accounted for in the accounts, impairment allowed them to squirrel away up to 20m from there debts by writing back players valuations based on poor performance in the league, so that took that amount from there loss column, probably keeping those clubs well under the ffp ceiling.

[den]

Maybe it will get closer to £12m with some limited add ons.

I have been saying for weeks that it's all about what the up front amount is - all of a sudden, the penny seems to have dropped with some !

The upfront amount matters because it reduces losses and gets us nearer to complying with FFP. It doesn't automatically mean that they're selling.

Boro are taking a calculated gamble.

Gibson and Peter Kenyon are not stupid. They started their spending after 30^th June which was the deadline for the 2014/2015 FFP accounting period. Therefore the spending that they do now will be reported in the 30^th June 2016 FFP submission, so they either get up or raise capital to bring losses down below the FFP threshold which is increasing for the 2015/2016 submission (http://www.football-league.co.uk/news/article/2014/20141106-championship-financial-fair-play-rules-rg-2066799.aspx). You have to remember they made circa £3 million just from the playoff’s last season. Even if they can’t get the losses down below the FFP threshold, any transfer embargo wouldn’t come into force until January 2017.

See what can be achieved when you have executives who are clued up.

Im not sure delaying sanctions is achieving much Kamy. How much money have they brought in from player sales and how much of their losses are allowable losses? Again - we lost an absolute fortune. We were miles above the FFP threshold.

[Mercer]

Conjecture at best, especially given Kamy's track record of getting things right being spectacularly better than yours

Still, you've got some persistence, I'll give you that!

Where were Kamy, Cryer, Nicko etc when I broke the news on here that a deal to sign Rhodes had been agreed between Rovers and Huddersfield. Answer, about 4 to 6 hours behind - check the thread !

Don't need to justify myself.

I am not a so called journalist but just a supporter of 50ish years who expresses a view and offers the odd snippet I hear which sometimes prove spectacularly correct as with the Rhodes signing !

[JHRover]

No good continually commenting on other clubs - "specifically", how could we have got our losses of £42.5m within the limit of £5m

+ £3m owner input?

I keep asking.

We didn't lose £42 million. Our very own MD went in the local paper and said that figure had been deliberately and artificially inflated to the tune of about £16 million.

So it was more like £26 million.

Since those accounts we have disposed of huge earners like Best, Robinson, Orr, Etuhu etc. who between them were taking more than £100k a week out of the club.

So that's about £6 million a year saved - down to £20 million.

Then we sold Cairney, which should see another couple of million in the club's coffers.

We are due compensation for Josh King and are saving his considerable wage.

We had additional monies coming in from the Liverpool games being on live TV.

So I'm not saying it is a pretty picture, but our losses ought to be much closer to £15-20 million than the £40 million mentioned.

The reason that I keep mentioning other clubs is that I think we should be asking serious questions about what is going on here when we have spent 2 years significantly reducing costs at the club and yet rivals supposedly under the same constraints are able to throw money around like it is going out of fashion.

It is just my opinion, but I don't think the rules are being consistently and strictly enforced, I think there is too much leeway and not enough transparency in the process, and I think the people running this set of rules have an agenda to fulfil.

Of course all my suspicions could be defeated quickly and easily if the League published clear reasoning as to each club and why they have reached their decisions in each case.

Yet strangely no such information is available. It is all done secretly behind closed doors with no reasoning given. Very suspicious.

I refuse to accept that we should be pressured into selling our best players to the likes of Fulham and Middlesbrough (who despite what people on here say are not bigger or better clubs than us).

[K-Hod]

Where were Kamy, Cryer, Nicko etc when I broke the news on here that a deal to sign Rhodes had been agreed between Rovers and Huddersfield. Answer, about 4 to 6 hours behind - check the thread !

Don't need to justify myself.

I am not a so called journalist but just a supporter of 50ish years who expresses a view and offers the odd snippet I hear which sometimes prove spectacularly correct as with the Rhodes signing !

Bit more than the 'odd snippet'!

[Mike E]

Where were Kamy, Cryer, Nicko etc when I broke the news on here that a deal to sign Rhodes had been agreed between Rovers and Huddersfield. Answer, about 4 to 6 hours behind - check the thread !

Don't need to justify myself.

I am not a so called journalist but just a supporter of 50ish years who expresses a view and offers the odd snippet I hear which sometimes prove spectacularly correct as with the Rhodes signing !

Aye, but 'sometimes' is plural

[Rover_Shaun]

So a success rate of 1 in *** ????

[The Rover of Finland]

Ramsey confirmed QPR are looking for six more after already signed six. Austin is still there although he should be gone before the window is closed. Also Matty Phillips haven't gone yet.

I agree selling Rhodes would be a huge blow as Rudy should go very soon. Hard to see we could loan anyone scoring striker.

[broadsword]

Boro are taking a calculated gamble.

Gibson and Peter Kenyon are not stupid. They started their spending after 30^th June which was the deadline for the 2014/2015 FFP accounting period. Therefore the spending that they do now will be reported in the 30^th June 2016 FFP submission, so they either get up or raise capital to bring losses down below the FFP threshold which is increasing for the 2015/2016 submission (http://www.football-league.co.uk/news/article/2014/20141106-championship-financial-fair-play-rules-rg-2066799.aspx). You have to remember they made circa £3 million just from the playoff’s last season. Even if they can’t get the losses down below the FFP threshold, any transfer embargo wouldn’t come into force until January 2017.

See what can be achieved when you have executives who are clued up.

If you spend over your limit and get promoted, can the football League actually do anything about it, since your club would be in the Premiership by the time it all came out in the wash?

I think it's very interesting that Venky's aren't interested in an eventual £14m for Rhodes in 2 or 3 years' time, they want £12m right now. Perhaps because they won't be here in 2 or 3 years' time.

[den]

We didn't lose £42 million. Our very own MD went in the local paper and said that figure had been deliberately and artificially inflated to the tune of about £16 million.

So it was more like £26 million.

Since those accounts we have disposed of huge earners like Best, Robinson, Orr, Etuhu etc. who between them were taking more than £100k a week out of the club.

So that's about £6 million a year saved - down to £20 million.

Then we sold Cairney, which should see another couple of million in the club's coffers.

We are due compensation for Josh King and are saving his considerable wage.

We had additional monies coming in from the Liverpool games being on live TV.

So I'm not saying it is a pretty picture, but our losses ought to be much closer to £15-20 million than the £40 million mentioned.

The reason that I keep mentioning other clubs is that I think we should be asking serious questions about what is going on here when we have spent 2 years significantly reducing costs at the club and yet rivals supposedly under the same constraints are able to throw money around like it is going out of fashion.

It is just my opinion, but I don't think the rules are being consistently and strictly enforced, I think there is too much leeway and not enough transparency in the process, and I think the people running this set of rules have an agenda to fulfil.

Of course all my suspicions could be defeated quickly and easily if the League published clear reasoning as to each club and why they have reached their decisions in each case.

Yet strangely no such information is available. It is all done secretly behind closed doors with no reasoning given. Very suspicious.

I refuse to accept that we should be pressured into selling our best players to the likes of Fulham and Middlesbrough (who despite what people on here say are not bigger or better clubs than us).

The declared losses were £42m. £16m - as you say - was brought forward. However, you're suggesting that from that point losses are down. Well the turnover to wage percentage actually went UP, from 120% to 130%. It's no good saying what our losses ought to be, - they are what they are - and they were still miles above the allowable limit. Since then, over the last couple of months the wage bill will have come down so we must be nearer to complying. How near? None of us know. But, my main point is that the FFP rules are there and we werent even close to complying.

[J*B]

Brighton just rejected 4m from Fulham for Lewis Dunk.

We sold them Cairney for 2.3m + 1.2m if they go up. Terrific negotiation skills shown by the big cheeses.

[beanie]

Am i right in thinking even if we were to sell Rhodes and Rudy for 20m and it brought us under the FFP limit we would still face embargo until next summer as we have missed the cut off point.

[JHRover]

If you spend over your limit and get promoted, can the football League actually do anything about it, since your club would be in the Premiership by the time it all came out in the wash?

I think it's very interesting that Venky's aren't interested in an eventual £14m for Rhodes in 2 or 3 years' time, they want £12m right now. Perhaps because they won't be here in 2 or 3 years' time.

No. Which is flaw number one with the rules. They actually encourage clubs close to the limit to spend more to try and secure promotion knowing that if they achieve it there is nothing the league can do.

This is what QPR and Leicester did. The problems have started now that QPR have come down and not even the Football League can allow their staggering losses to go unpunished. Therefore we are now getting months and months of delay during which time QPR are spending a few more million rebuilding their squad in readiness for the new season.

If QPR go up this year then its problem solved for the League as they will be out of their jurisdiction.

Surely the QPR challenge could have been dealt with in a day or two. I'm not sure what the months and months delay is all about but suffice to say that neither QPR or the League are adversely affected by this wait!

Only Rovers/Forest are suffering whilst QPR and the League wait a few more months.

Am i right in thinking even if we were to sell Rhodes and Rudy for 20m and it brought us under the FFP limit we would still face embargo until next summer as we have missed the cut off point.

Embargo COULD be lifted in January depending on our interim accounts in November (and if the League fancy letting us out of the embargo).

But sell Rhodes and Gestede and we'll be bottom 3 in January and even if Venkys provide cash we won't be able to attract anyone decent.

[Athlete]

No. Which is flaw number one with the rules. They actually encourage clubs close to the limit to spend more to try and secure promotion knowing that if they achieve it there is nothing the league can do.

This is what QPR and Leicester did. The problems have started now that QPR have come down and not even the Football League can allow their staggering losses to go unpunished. Therefore we are now getting months and months of delay during which time QPR are spending a few more million rebuilding their squad in readiness for the new season.

If QPR go up this year then its problem solved for the League as they will be out of their jurisdiction.

Surely the QPR challenge could have been dealt with in a day or two. I'm not sure what the months and months delay is all about but suffice to say that neither QPR or the League are adversely affected by this wait!

Only Rovers/Forest are suffering whilst QPR and the League wait a few more months.

Embargo COULD be lifted in January depending on our interim accounts in November (and if the League fancy letting us out of the embargo).

But sell Rhodes and Gestede and we'll be bottom 3 in January and even if Venkys provide cash we won't be able to attract anyone decent.

Hence it's a no brainer we have to keep JR

[beanie]

I was not meaning we should sell in some ways the embargo works against the idea of selling your best players as you can't replace them its an strange situation to be in the whole thing needs looked at.

[tomphil]

If they are so determined to turn down all but 12 mill up front for Rhodes yet they do need a cash injection then why not relax Rudys price a bit ? He want's to go and they've been keeping him out of harms way ready to go so surely they could make a bit of leeway on that. Let him go then stick with Rhodes, not that I want to sell either but it could become a farce again. Nothing adds up as usual.

[Plastics]

Where were Kamy, Cryer, Nicko etc when I broke the news on here that a deal to sign Rhodes had been agreed between Rovers and Huddersfield. Answer, about 4 to 6 hours behind - check the thread !

Don't need to justify myself.

I am not a so called journalist but just a supporter of 50ish years who expresses a view and offers the odd snippet I hear which sometimes prove spectacularly correct as with the Rhodes signing !

What would we do without you having once, years ago, told us something we were going to find out eventually, six whole hours before anybody else?

Can someone make him admin please?

I'd be happy for Rudy to go given his lack of interest towards the back end of the season. We based our team and general play around him for large parts and he didn't score as many Rhodes, who was fed scraps and wasn't in his best form.

[Al]

Interesting, but Alan Nixon still says it is not enough, not enough of it is guaranteed. So likely to be rejected by Venkys.

Nixon knows nothing but a transfer fee that is not guaranteed is not worth considering.

[LewisF]

If they are so determined to turn down all but 12 mill up front for Rhodes yet they do need a cash injection then why not relax Rudys price a bit ? He want's to go and they've been keeping him out of harms way ready to go so surely they could make a bit of leeway on that. Let him go then stick with Rhodes, not that I want to sell either but it could become a farce again. Nothing adds up as usual.

well this is Venkys we're talking about.

[imy9]

Where were Kamy, Cryer, Nicko etc when I broke the news on here that a deal to sign Rhodes had been agreed between Rovers and Huddersfield. Answer, about 4 to 6 hours behind - check the thread !

Don't need to justify myself.

I am not a so called journalist but just a supporter of 50ish years who expresses a view and offers the odd snippet I hear which sometimes prove spectacularly correct as with the Rhodes signing !

I might be wrong Mercer but wasn't it Glen M who said from Day 1 that we would be signing Rhodes?

EVERYONE knows that Rhodes will go IF the price is right. The issue is Mercer that you have said for weeks and months that Rhodes will go for a bargain basement price. Today you have said 9 million up front and Venky's would snap that up. I respect your financial view but even then a Joe Bloggs like me can't understand, if Venky's are going to start selling players why then have they put 25 million plus into the club?

[ABBEY]

Brighton just rejected 4m from Fulham for Lewis Dunk.

We sold them Cairney for 2.3m + 1.2m if they go up. Terrific negotiation skills shown by the big cheeses.

Or just more bungling incompetence by nobber Shaw . Man that idiot is raping money out of rovers

Am i right in thinking even if we were to sell Rhodes and Rudy for 20m and it brought us under the FFP limit we would still face embargo until next summer as we have missed the cut off point.

Sounds like it , so why anyone is happy for us to sell our stars and replace them with chumps is beyond me.

[Commondore]

Most people on here know that FFP Alan Nixon is an absolute farce, if Middlesbrough are allowed to sign Rhodes and pay his wages then the whole country will know.

Not that anybody bar us will give a @#/?.