Help - someone cleverer than me

[stokearab]

That's your assumption about what the club were doing. However, I don't think I've ever seen the club comment on any transfer fee, ever. In fact I'd imagine there are confidentiality clauses in these transfers that would prevent them doing so even if they wanted to.

Yeah but you choose deliberately to miss Spikes point. The figures get into the press we all know how, but the club never comment, preferring to let us believe they got the figure in the press.

[TerryTheTerror]

Do we know how? Could be one of the club's, could be the agents, could be the journalist making an educated guess. However, you've missed the point I've made it being highly likely the club are unable to comment.

[PortugueseFrank]

If the club did come out to deny figures bandied about then it may make clubs bidding less inclined to offer as much.

Picture this: you're a club that wants to buy player A from United.

You see that United have sold a player B for £x.

So you think you'll bid £y for the player A.

But you subsequently discover a statement from United saying that they actually sold player B for half of £x.

So you bid half of what you had originally intended.

Not exactly an incentive for coming out and saying what we got.

But the wider point is that the club never said anywhere that they were debt free. It was bank debt.

That's not excusing them for not getting the debt cleared totally but that's a result of the club poorly investing the transfer windfalls.

They didn't create sufficient additional commercial revenue streams and recruited shabbily.

It bemuses me that no one at United thought that they should look to invest in additional revenue streams.

Ok they did with Gussie but that wasn't enough to close operating losses.

Not doing that and trying to rely on transfers to cover losses is a shabby, lazy and naive way to run a football club.

It's like if I run a stall selling bananas and I'm happy to make losses in the hope that soneone walks by and wants to pay a massive amount for one of my bananas. Daft.

[stokearab]

Do we know how? Could be one of the club's, could be the agents, could be the journalist making an educated guess. However, you've missed the point I've made it being highly likely the club are unable to comment.

There's nothing stopping the club saying e.g. "press reports that the fee of £2.8m for David Goodwillie are wide of the mark. The initial fee was closer to £1m but may rise towards 2 or even above that if certain clauses are met in the future". No reason whatsoever that they can't be more transparent.

But you can't see that it's possible to criticise the club while still passionately supporting it!

[TerryTheTerror]

Of course I can see that, I have no problem folk criticising the club, they deserve it. I do have an issue with folk making things up and stating it as fact though.

[stokearab]

Of course I can see that, I have no problem folk criticising the club, they deserve it. I do have an issue with folk making things up and stating it as fact though.

Is that for me? Never made anything up Tel

[LSArab]

So is the suggestion now that all the millions we were told were being made in player sales were not accurate.

Point is that with all the talent we have sold over the years we should have raised more than enough to not be troubled with debt.

Who knows. Let’s hope things will get better. Problem it’s hard to know when we have hit rock bottom, keeps getting worse. Could be 6th tomo if things go wrong

[spikeontheright]

If the club did come out to deny figures bandied about then it may make clubs bidding less inclined to offer as much.

Picture this: you're a club that wants to buy player A from United.

You see that United have sold a player B for £x.

So you think you'll bid £y for the player A.

But you subsequently discover a statement from United saying that they actually sold player B for half of £x.

So you bid half of what you had originally intended.

Not exactly an incentive for coming out and saying what we got.

But the wider point is that the club never said anywhere that they were debt free. It was bank debt.

That's not excusing them for not getting the debt cleared totally but that's a result of the club poorly investing the transfer windfalls.

They didn't create sufficient additional commercial revenue streams and recruited shabbily.

It bemuses me that no one at United thought that they should look to invest in additional revenue streams.

Ok they did with Gussie but that wasn't enough to close operating losses.

Not doing that and trying to rely on transfers to cover losses is a shabby, lazy and naive way to run a football club.

It's like if I run a stall selling bananas and I'm happy to make losses in the hope that soneone walks by and wants to pay a massive amount for one of my bananas. Daft.

Yep, you really need to diversify like United have and invest in trumpets, tools and dung.

On a serious note, could someone with the proper knowledge not make a good educated guess on transfer income by looking at the club accounts?

I have seen reports on forums (and further back in the Final Hurdle) where someone had looked at the the club's finances and made some accurate guesses as to wages, transfer ins and outs etc.

[PortugueseFrank]

It's there in the accounts.

All there on companies house website. Get your calculator out.

[SmedDUm]

Yep, you really need to diversify like United have and invest in trumpets, tools and dung.

On a serious note, could someone with the proper knowledge not make a good educated guess on transfer income by looking at the club accounts?

I have seen reports on forums (and further back in the Final Hurdle) where someone had looked at the the club's finances and made some accurate guesses as to wages, transfer ins and outs etc.

What we're needing is a Mad Accountant. Preferably Chartered. Anybody qualify?