January Transfer window

[Penwortham Blue]

56 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Totally agree. There is absolutely NO excuse for not backing Eustace this window and strengthening the squad. 

They can't hide behind FFP because nobody has brought in as much as this club over the last couple of years.

They can't use the admin error / rogue secretary excuse again because even the most deluded wouldn't fall for that again.

They've been happy to tell us that there are no impediments to Venkys putting money in.

It also seems they've been telling Eustace that he will be getting backed with a few signings and that there is money to spend (I reckon they tell every manager this in November / December).

So it will be fascinating to see what they do and what they come out with on February 1st when the inevitable failure has occurred.

If you aren't going to invest in this position then you never will and there is no point to any of this. We've learned from experience in the last 2-3 years what happens when you fail to back a decent manager and what happens when a small squad runs out of steam. 

The worst part of all of this is that should we slide away (again) after another January transfer window failure (again) and end up finishing say 9th or 10th come May there will be loads of supporters out there quite happy with that, claiming that it has been a good season and excellent progress following a relegation battle last season. But they will be missing the real point which is that we are on course for a top 6 finish and have an opportunity now to go on and secure it. Aside from the top 3 there are no teams that stand out. So to slide into mid table from here especially if self-inflicted due to a failure to strengthen that would be a failure, and probably one that would lead Eustace and some of our players to look elsewhere for next season.

Great post, fully agree.

[Forever Blue]

Don’t forget that we will only receive the £35m that we’ve raked in transfer fees over the past 12 months in instalments. 
 

Obviously if we buy someone it’s cash upfront. 
 

We think you’re stupid. 
 

Love Rudy and Steve❤️

[roversfan99]

47 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

The Wharton money has gone for me. It paid for last season debt to be cover instead of the owners. 

We spent a small bit(around £2m or less) in the summer. 

So it will be interesting to see what we spend this window? 

A club record sale just all going to the owners and that being accepted makes the rest of it immaterial. It still isnt acceptable to not reinvest any and leaves us with a squad lacking in assets.

I wouldnt then define whether we spend £0, £200k, £500k or £1m of a slither of the Szmodics money (also mainly pocketed by the owners) as "interesting." More depressing.

[wilsdenrover]

38 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

We spent nothing in the summer - Gallagher, Szmodics, Ennis all being sold far exceeded any incomings (by over £10m if I had to guess).

The Venkys London accounts has the figure being £4.76 million.

It doesn’t indicate whether this includes the entirety of the summer window (but it definitely relates only  to the summer window)

 

 

[K-Hod]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

The Wharton money has gone for me. It paid for last season debt to be cover instead of the owners. 

We spent a small bit(around £2m or less) in the summer. 

So it will be interesting to see what we spend this window? 

Thought you might say something similar.

I won’t wait and see though, I’m afraid- I’ve waited and seen the same actions and outcomes since they’ve owned the club.

[chaddyrovers]

26 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

A club record sale just all going to the owners and that being accepted makes the rest of it immaterial.

Firstly, the Wharton money paid the club debt off in the Rovers accounts. 

26 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

It still isnt acceptable to not reinvest any and leaves us with a squad lacking in assets.

ok

26 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I wouldnt then define whether we spend £0, £200k, £500k or £1m of a slither of the Szmodics money (also mainly pocketed by the owners) as "interesting." More depressing.

Its all about quality not how much we spend who we sign whether its permanent or loan. 

I'm interested who we signed and whether it will kick us on to get that playoff place. 

 

[chaddyrovers]

2 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Thought you might say something similar.

I won’t wait and see though, I’m afraid- I’ve waited and seen the same actions and outcomes since they’ve owned the club.

ok then K-Hod

[Dreams of 1995]

I’d be looking at rinsing Plymouth

Whittaker is a serious player but apparently has a stinking attitude. JE can handle that. And Galloway at left back is a useful addition - he can play left back or centre back. Serious player in his youth days but I don’t know what he’s been doing since

 

[arbitro]

28 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Firstly, the Wharton money paid the club debt off in the Rovers accounts. 

ok

Its all about quality not how much we spend who we sign whether its permanent or loan. 

I'm interested who we signed and whether it will kick us on to get that playoff place. 

 

The first instalment might have done. There will be another payment due in January which might go towards the running costs given the Punekars reluctance to send money over.

[wilsdenrover]

6 minutes ago, arbitro said:

The first instalment might have done. There will be another payment due in January which might go towards the running costs given the Punekars reluctance to send money over.

The whole transfer fee appears in the accounts in the year the player is sold so will have offset losses as Chaddy (almost) said.

Of course, cash flow is a whole different animal…

Edited December 31, 2024 by wilsdenrover

[Hasta]

8 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I’d be looking at rinsing Plymouth

Whittaker is a serious player but apparently has a stinking attitude. JE can handle that. And Galloway at left back is a useful addition - he can play left back or centre back. Serious player in his youth days but I don’t know what he’s been doing since

 

If Whittaker was to leave, Burnley would be all over him like last August. And he would be a guaranteed starter there. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Young Brighton striker who burst onto the scene a while ago and who looked like he was going to be the next big thing but who seems to have fallen off the radar completely recently.

Never seen any serious link to us, just a couple of suggestions on here he'd be a good signing. I'm guessing we'd be towards the back of a pretty long queue.

There’ll be other clubs interested so we can forget him. Players only come here when there isn’t a realistic alternative. 

[arbitro]

6 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

The whole transfer fee appears in the accounts in the year the player is sold so will have offset losses as Chaddy (almost) said.

Of course, cash flow is a whole different animal…

Thanks - does the same apply when we buy a player ie the whole fee shows in the accounts?

[chaddyrovers]

1 minute ago, arbitro said:

The first instalment might have done. There will be another payment due in January which might go towards the running costs given the Punekars reluctance to send money over.

Wouldn't we got the first instalment when Wharton signed, then another 6 months after(July) then another one(Jan2025)? 

[Upside Down]

3 hours ago, den said:

Who’s Evan Ferguson and how can anyone be “partly” dead?

In a coma?

[arbitro]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Wouldn't we got the first instalment when Wharton signed, then another 6 months after(July) then another one(Jan2025)? 

My understanding is that it is paid in instalments over the length of the contract although wilsednrover says the whole fee shows up in the accounts.

In all honesty I'm not sure how that works. It's almost like they can report the entire fee as income in the accounts but don't actually receive it all. Perhaps somebody who understands this could explain it.

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

Thanks - does the same apply when we buy a player ie the whole fee shows in the accounts?

When we sign a player the transfer fee (plus agent fee etc) becomes that player’s book value and is shown as an asset  on the balance sheet.

That book value is then amortised (depreciated) over the term of the player’s contract - this annual figure is an expense and contributes towards the  loss (or reduces the  profit!) for that year.

For example if the cost of the player was £1 million and he joined on a four year deal then the annual expense attributed to him would be £250,000

If a player signs a contract which extends his stay at the club then the depreciation figure is adjusted to take account of this. 

I hope that makes sense!

Edited December 31, 2024 by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

14 minutes ago, arbitro said:

My understanding is that it is paid in instalments over the length of the contract although wilsednrover says the whole fee shows up in the accounts.

In all honesty I'm not sure how that works. It's almost like they can report the entire fee as income in the accounts but don't actually receive it all. Perhaps somebody who understands this could explain it.

Most, if not all, football clubs use accrual accounting for revenue (income)  - this means it appears in the accounts when it is ‘earned’ as against when it is  actually paid to them.

The other option ‘cash accounting’ would mean the fees appearing in the accounts ‘as and when’ they were received by a club.

Edited December 31, 2024 by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

16 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Wouldn't we got the first instalment when Wharton signed, then another 6 months after(July) then another one(Jan2025)? 

I believe the frequency of instalments is whatever the two clubs agree (as part of the transfer negotiations) it should be.

 

[arbitro]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Most, if not all, football clubs use accrual accounting for revenue (income)  - this means it appears in the accounts when it is ‘earned’ as against when it is  actually paid to them.

The other option ‘cash accounting’ would mean the fees appearing in the account ‘as and when’ they were received by a club.

So no money might not actually be received 'up front'. Thinking about it this was something Gestede mentioned in the recent Fans Forum although he didn't really explain it fully like you my friend.

[wilsdenrover]

Just to add to my earlier reply to @arbitro

When a player is sold, any remaining book value is amortised.

This makes it possible for an accounting loss to incur even when selling a player for a fee. (If the fee is lower than the remaining book value).

[Nipper1875]

More chance of adam armstronng or diaz coming back than ferguson - he has just come back to fitness cant see brighton letting him come to us = where as the other 2 are geting frozen out down there at southampton diaz training with u23s 

 

[Nipper1875]

7 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I believe the frequency of instalments is whatever the two clubs agree (as part of the transfer negotiations) it should be.

 

Might just be changes on this one man city have been watching adam since early october - see him as a replacement for rodri - makes a lot of sense 

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, arbitro said:

So no money might not actually be received 'up front'. Thinking about it this was something Gestede mentioned in the recent Fans Forum although he didn't really explain it fully like you my friend.

I’d be surprised if no money at all is received up front but I guess it’s possible if you have really shit negotiators!

Of course, as others have pointed out, it works both ways (we don’t, or shouldn’t!, be paying fees all in one go) so the club’s use of this as an argument for not spending money is flawed (I’m being polite!)

Edited December 31, 2024 by wilsdenrover

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Firstly, the Wharton money paid the club debt off in the Rovers accounts. 

ok

Its all about quality not how much we spend who we sign whether its permanent or loan. 

I'm interested who we signed and whether it will kick us on to get that playoff place. 

 

I dont think it did, it ensured that a small profit was made, so no losses to offset by raising share capital.

Championship owners have to accept regular losses as par for the course at this level, knowing that a solitary promotion can offset a series of losses. But either way, the key to trying to be as self sustainable as possible is player trading. So there is no justification for not spending any of the Wharton money, its not just one of those things, any other club at least spends a % on players who you can benefit from and potentially profit on in the future. Our squad doesnt have any sellable assets anymore.

Obviously its about who we sign. And just as obviously, having more money gives you a far better chance of signing better quality. 

The most likely outcome is that we will spend little to nothing, and our play off charge will again run out of gas. So the budget to be spent is not interesting, its really annoying.