The Summer Transfer Window (Press Submit)

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

He really isnt a Rovers legend.

We certainly shouldnt be giving him away almost because he "deserves it."

A normal club if they felt that the player wanted to move and/or his valuation will never be higher would only sell for a big bid and reinvest a big chunk to try and push on.

Alas, here any money will vanish so it makes no difference

I agree, we've been more than fucking generous enough with sales in recent years. Raya, Kaminski, Wharton, Cairney, Phillips, Finneran about to be poached, Lenihan, Nyambe, Rothwell...our pants are already down so much they're subterranean. What we owe Sammie is just not asking ludicrous prices like £20 million. We owe him a move at a fair market value, and we owe that to ourselves too. A penny under £10 million is a joke. Asking price should be about £14 mill, we should settle for about £12 mill.

Side note, I don't agree that the money makes 'no difference'. We have a very poor reinvestment rate from transfers, but it's not non-existent. If we hadn't sold Armstrong etc and instead had given everyone away for free, would we have signed Hyam, Brittain, even Szmodics? Nope. It matters what money we bring in, it's just that very little of it will be reinvested. Some years none will, but even if it means we don't have to sell yet another player to make ends meet it still contributes. It's still a fucking bullshit situation but we do need to ensure we extract every penny from sales (something we are bad at).

[MarkBRFC]

7 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

This tweet also firms up something I suspected at the time. The fee was described as £30 million but with a loan fee of £3 million. Now it's a £27 mill option...I'm pretty sure Brentford have conspired to fuck us out of a bit of our clause. We will get a percent of profit on the £27 million, not on the £30 million. Suppose it could have been worse, like a £15 million loan and £15 million purchase, but that sort of distortion would probably have opened the door for us to sue (much in the way that clubs didn't get in trouble with FFP when they were selling their stadium naming rights or whatever, but they did when the figures received were ludicrously out of whack with market values). Pretty cheapskate from a Prem club tbh, the 450k I believe it amounts to is nothing to them, but probably equal to or higher than a shirt sponsor for us.

Brentford owe us nothing by the way and can sell/loan a player exactly as they please, the sell on clause is purely a bonus for Rovers if it's ever exercised. 

Because the owners have run us so far into the ground we have become absolutely dependant on it, which is more rank bad management.

[bluebruce]

42 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

No problem with him going, we’d be in L1 if it wasn’t for him,  it’s just disappointing if true that there is a release clause of £8m to PL teams

Everyone else, for the sake of stopping a snowball effect from a Chinese whisper - there are no reports there is an £8 mill release clause to PL teams. This is something Forever Blue has assumed on the basis of a Tweet by a supposed ITK, who hasn't said there's an 8 mill release clause to PL teams.

By God we're beyond stupid if we put something like that in his newest deal. New contracts are supposed to give us security, not reduce it. If the 8 mill claim is true, I find it more likely it's just our own asking price. Which is still us being stupid, but is perhaps from some sense of obligation to the player. Or of course, that might not be true at all given there have been previous reports our opening asking price is 15 mill.

[bluebruce]

8 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

Brentford owe us nothing by the way and can sell/loan a player exactly as they please, the sell on clause is purely a bonus for Rovers if it's ever exercised. 

Because the owners have run us so far into the ground we have become absolutely dependant on it, which is more rank bad management.

I didn't say Brentford owe us anything. But it's financial chicanery from a club who already got the bargain of a lifetime out of us and have blatantly used shifty accounting to turn a £30 mill transfer into a £27 million transfer on the books.

We should write our clauses better in future and ensure loan fees are amalgamated into any sell-ons, but I'm more than entitled to have a bitter taste in my mouth about it.

[London blue]

19 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I didn't say Brentford owe us anything. But it's financial chicanery from a club who already got the bargain of a lifetime out of us and have blatantly used shifty accounting to turn a £30 mill transfer into a £27 million transfer on the books.

We should write our clauses better in future and ensure loan fees are amalgamated into any sell-ons, but I'm more than entitled to have a bitter taste in my mouth about it.

You're making a fair few assumptions here based on a hunch. 

Edited June 3 by London blue

[roversfan99]

30 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I agree, we've been more than fucking generous enough with sales in recent years. Raya, Kaminski, Wharton, Cairney, Phillips, Finneran about to be poached, Lenihan, Nyambe, Rothwell...our pants are already down so much they're subterranean. What we owe Sammie is just not asking ludicrous prices like £20 million. We owe him a move at a fair market value, and we owe that to ourselves too. A penny under £10 million is a joke. Asking price should be about £14 mill, we should settle for about £12 mill.

Side note, I don't agree that the money makes 'no difference'. We have a very poor reinvestment rate from transfers, but it's not non-existent. If we hadn't sold Armstrong etc and instead had given everyone away for free, would we have signed Hyam, Brittain, even Szmodics? Nope. It matters what money we bring in, it's just that very little of it will be reinvested. Some years none will, but even if it means we don't have to sell yet another player to make ends meet it still contributes. It's still a fucking bullshit situation but we do need to ensure we extract every penny from sales (something we are bad at).

I get that obviously money in and out are connected, so there must be somewhat of a connection despite what I am about to say.

But even the occasional spending that Venkys allow is never really at the same time as a sale. We spent £4m on the 3 you mentioned when Tomasson came in but that was a year after the Armstrong sale when Mowbray was publically frustrated by having absolutely no scope to reinvest. We also spent £10m when we came up from League 1, that felt like a random sniff of interest from the owners and it ended up funding 4 years worth of prolific goalscorers. Otherwise it has been repeated windows of frugality.

On the flip side, the winter we sold Rhodes we were limited to loans. As I mentioned with Armstrong we didnt reinvest. When we sold Wharton we obviously couldnt spend any leading to the McGuire fiasco. When we sold Gestede and Cairney, no money either.

The only time when it seemed to be related was when we sold Raya and bought Gallagher in the same summer, and even then money out exceeded money in.

[Penwortham Blue]

2 hours ago, rovers11 said:

The RoversInsider twitter account, which looks legit, is suggesting that Sammie is available for a knockdown price - some have suggested £8m. 

Normally I'd say that's really poor from the club as he's worth a lot more but I actually feel like that's a really fair price. After what he did for us last season, we should not be pricing him out of a move to the Premier League and lifechanging money. This is his only chance of realising that dream.

He's a Rovers legend and deserves a shot at the big time at his age. I will wish him luck when he does go. 

I don’t think anyone can begrudge him a move but at a fair market price only. If he signed up the new contract last year with a £8m release clause, then that is another horrific one to put down to Greg the Egg or Swag and I wouldn’t be one bit surprised. He was already under a reasonable length contract and certainly no issue with rewarding him by big hike in wages in return for extension but if at the same time he stuck £8m release clause in at same time, that would be a real mistake as highly unlikely his original contract had a release clause.

[bluebruce]

28 minutes ago, London blue said:

You're making a fair few assumptions here based on a hunch. 

I know that, thanks. In the absence of clear information, you get speculation. That's what the vast majority of this thread will be. I think my assumptions are logical though. A loan fee will be separate to a transfer fee. If Arsenal had an option rather than obligation to buy, I can't see how the loan fee will be included in calculations for the sale profit unless we've explicitly stated it in our deal with Brentford, and we're not top tier negotiators by any stretch, as it isn't a sale.

[Forever Blue]

50 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Everyone else, for the sake of stopping a snowball effect from a Chinese whisper - there are no reports there is an £8 mill release clause to PL teams. This is something Forever Blue has assumed on the basis of a Tweet by a supposed ITK, who hasn't said there's an 8 mill release clause to PL teams.

Hence the caveat ‘if true’. I’m sure everyone on the thread is intelligent enough to take conjecture and speculation at face value without the need to for an intervention. 

[bluebruce]

25 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I get that obviously money in and out are connected, so there must be somewhat of a connection despite what I am about to say.

But even the occasional spending that Venkys allow is never really at the same time as a sale. We spent £4m on the 3 you mentioned when Tomasson came in but that was a year after the Armstrong sale when Mowbray was publically frustrated by having absolutely no scope to reinvest. We also spent £10m when we came up from League 1, that felt like a random sniff of interest from the owners and it ended up funding 4 years worth of prolific goalscorers. Otherwise it has been repeated windows of frugality.

On the flip side, the winter we sold Rhodes we were limited to loans. As I mentioned with Armstrong we didnt reinvest. When we sold Wharton we obviously couldnt spend any leading to the McGuire fiasco. When we sold Gestede and Cairney, no money either.

The only time when it seemed to be related was when we sold Raya and bought Gallagher in the same summer, and even then money out exceeded money in.

There's a fairly simple explanation to that I think (well, two) - transfer fees aren't paid all at once, and yearly accounts are complex.

Granted, fees we pay aren't all at once either, but spend-shy Venkys will probably have wanted money in the bank before we committed. The accounts are what FFP is drawn from, and sometimes you have costs from a couple of years ago still weighing them down, and all kinds of other weird shit the accountants on here know more about. Amortisation, etc etc. Shouldn't be forgotten that Armstrong was sold during Covid either, when we, like everyone else, had a deficit in income. I think from memory this was around £3-5 million? Probably equal, or close, to a year of the Armstrong installments I imagine. So spending the next installment a year after that makes sense in that context. And as always some gets swallowed into other costs, and if the installments were larger than I'm assuming that probably happened to the excess too. So some should have been spent last summer...but we already know Venkys hamstrung us with their ludicrous court case. All the noise from people at the club, official and unofficial, seemed to suggest they were primed to spend a little bit until that crap happened.

Again, nobody should get me wrong, the majority of fees received gets hoovered up into losses and we reinvest a pitiful amount of it. But I don't think it's true that money we receive is irrelevant, or that no matter how much we receive we won't spend anything whatsoever, as is often suggested. It will be a shit portion of what we receive and the club/owners are stupid not to recognise that modest spend has yielded huge returns in the past, but we need to maximise sales and it does contribute towards what we can spend (or sometimes just towards not having to sell even more).

[bluebruce]

9 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Hence the caveat ‘if true’. I’m sure everyone on the thread is intelligent enough to take conjecture and speculation at face value without the need to for an intervention. 

Tell that to the person above that I quoted pointing out I myself was only assuming based on a hunch 😉 I only quoted your post to mention it because I have experience over many years on here of somebody saying something like you said, and before you know it the next 3 pages are full of people assuming it's an absolute fact. I'm not having a pop or anything. Just the way that one post was phrased and one or two reacted to it made me think it was about to happen again. You're fully entitled to speculate, obviously.

[Forever Blue]

4 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Tell that to the person above that I quoted pointing out I myself was only assuming based on a hunch 😉 I only quoted your post to mention it because I have experience over many years on here of somebody saying something like you said, and before you know it the next 3 pages are full of people assuming it's an absolute fact. I'm not having a pop or anything. Just the way that one post was phrased and one or two reacted to it made me think it was about to happen again. You're fully entitled to speculate, obviously.

No problem Bruce, just a misunderstanding 

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, bluebruce said:

I didn't say Brentford owe us anything. But it's financial chicanery from a club who already got the bargain of a lifetime out of us and have blatantly used shifty accounting to turn a £30 mill transfer into a £27 million transfer on the books.

We should write our clauses better in future and ensure loan fees are amalgamated into any sell-ons, but I'm more than entitled to have a bitter taste in my mouth about it.

We don’t know we didn’t include loan fees in this one.

[bluebruce]

21 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

We don’t know we didn’t include loan fees in this one.

See above.

[Ricky]

I’m sure it was mentioned on here before that sell on fees include loan fees as well. Someone linked to a document which spoke about it last year when this was all discussed the first time around. 

[RoryRoversIreland]

On Sammie. I presume Peterborough will get a percentage of any profit. Under 10 million seems crazy: 

[Andy]

17 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

You know of any Transfer rumours yet Andy from your contacts? 

Not at the moment, sorry pal.

I'll share anything I'm told.

The message seems be: get the backroom team in place first, then look at transfers.
Also transfer windows tend to be slow during international tournament years, so if do actually do anything, it'll be towards the back end of the window.

[Rogerb]

9 minutes ago, Andy said:

 

Also transfer windows tend to be slow during international tournament years, so if do actually do anything, it'll be towards the back end of the window.

That's because we are looking at international players 

[rovers11]

4 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

He really isnt a Rovers legend.

We certainly shouldnt be giving him away almost because he "deserves it."

A normal club if they felt that the player wanted to move and/or his valuation will never be higher would only sell for a big bid and reinvest a big chunk to try and push on.

Alas, here any money will vanish so it makes no difference

First player to score 30+ goals in a season since Shearer and he singlehandedly saved us from playing in Lge 1 next season and the implications that comes with.

I agree he's not in the same category as Shearer, Tugay, Hendry etc but he's a legend in my eyes for what he achieved last season.

I don't think anyone is paying over £10m for Sammie so do you then refuse to sell him and stop his only chance of ever playing in the prem? Plus we'll never see anywhere near £8m for him again as he's had a bit of a fluke season if you look back on the rest of his career so far. 

Edited June 3 by rovers11

[bluebruce]

8 minutes ago, rovers11 said:

First player to score 30+ goals in a season since Shearer and he singlehandedly saved us from playing in Lge 1 next season and the implications that comes with.

I agree he's not in the same category as Shearer, Tugay, Hendry etc but he's a legend in my eyes for what he achieved last season.

I don't think anyone is paying over £10m for Sammie so do you then refuse to sell him and stop his only chance of ever playing in the prem? Plus we'll never see anywhere near £8m for him again as he's had a bit of a fluke season if you look back on the rest of his career so far. 

If he continues in the same vein til January, his value won't decrease even though he's ageing. As it will show it wasn't just a fluke. Personally I don't think it was a fluke, I think he's finally found his peak. There were no scuffed, fortunate goals a la some of Brereton's, he was goddamned clinical. They're actually better finishes than Rhodes used to consistently do, and his work rate is in no way a fluke (although it's possible it and his form will diminish slightly if he doesn't get his dream move as his motivation may dwindle...I suspect he's the type to be very resilient in that sense though).

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, Ricky said:

I’m sure it was mentioned on here before that sell on fees include loan fees as well. Someone linked to a document which spoke about it last year when this was all discussed the first time around. 

I think, from memory, loan fees can be included in sell on fees but aren’t done so automatically.

Edited to add - just checked the regulations…

Loan fees are automatically included if the transfer is between two EFL clubs.

In all other cases, loan fees are only included if this is specifically mentioned in the transfer agreement.

Edited June 3 by wilsdenrover

[London blue]

2 hours ago, bluebruce said:

I know that, thanks. In the absence of clear information, you get speculation. That's what the vast majority of this thread will be. I think my assumptions are logical though. A loan fee will be separate to a transfer fee. If Arsenal had an option rather than obligation to buy, I can't see how the loan fee will be included in calculations for the sale profit unless we've explicitly stated it in our deal with Brentford, and we're not top tier negotiators by any stretch, as it isn't a sale.

Didn't mean my tone to be antagonistic here btw, just a passing comment. I think the biggest factor is as you said, we're not capable of making deals with any kind of foresight.

[martonrover]

1 hour ago, Andy said:

Also transfer windows tend to be slow during international tournament years, so if do actually do anything, it'll be towards the back end of the window

I certainly agree that applies to the higher end of the market, but there will still be movement within the EFL.

In our case it will hold up the desperate, crumbs from under the table type loans we will seek from Premier League clubs.

Edited June 3 by martonrover

[bluebruce]

30 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think, from memory, loan fees can be included in sell on fees but aren’t done so automatically.

Edited to add - just checked the regulations…

Loan fees are automatically included if the transfer is between two EFL clubs.

In all other cases, loan fees are only included if this is specifically mentioned in the transfer agreement.

So, a Prem club won't be included in that, as the EFL is only Championship to League Two, right? Which means it's down to whether we negotiated this specifically in the transfer agreement, which means we need competent negotiators, so....well, think we all know how that usually turns out.

[alex l]

Mbappe to Madrid officially announced. We must have been a close second choice.