SaintRobbie Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Good point - I hadn't considered that, but then again even if our fees are staged it's still all held in assets, so for the sake of securing a key player it seems strange that we are doing the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Stickman Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 who was that, then? Wasn't that how much Chambers went for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Wasn't that how much Chambers went for? but he wasnt a reserve team player, was he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Stickman Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 but he wasnt a reserve team player, was he? Well, he was behind Clyne for large parts of last season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 (edited) Well, he was behind Clyne for large parts of last season he played 3 games less than clyne last season. in his first full season there was every chance he was going to kick on, like shaw did and make that position his own chambers played 24 times last season. Shaw played 28 times in his first season chambers did so with clyne in the team, who is miles better than what shaw had in front of him the season before that Edited 8 August, 2014 by Batman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 I can understand why we would want value for money, but staged payments?? Makes no sense, unless there really are no plans to spend 'every penny from player sales' as the owner/boardroom have other plans for it. Looking dodgier by the day. It is highly likely that we are receiving staged payments from Liverpool, United and Arsenal for the players they bought from us. It's normal. Lisbon are probably negotiating tough as they realise he is a very saleable asset and just like we did for Shaw etc, they will want to get the best possible price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 It is highly likely that we are receiving staged payments from Liverpool, United and Arsenal for the players they bought from us. It's normal. Lisbon are probably negotiating tough as they realise he is a very saleable asset and just like we did for Shaw etc, they will want to get the best possible price. However was it not reported that Krueger made Liverpool pay for at least the basic fees for Lallana and Lovren in one hit. Or was that just some anti-Krusty getting overexcited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Good point - I hadn't considered that, but then again even if our fees are staged it's still all held in assets, so for the sake of securing a key player it seems strange that we are doing the same. Er, what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazlo78 Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 I can understand why we would want value for money, but staged payments?? Makes no sense, unless there really are no plans to spend 'every penny from player sales' as the owner/boardroom have other plans for it. Looking dodgier by the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 It is highly likely that we are receiving staged payments from Liverpool, United and Arsenal for the players they bought from us. It's normal. Lisbon are probably negotiating tough as they realise he is a very saleable asset and just like we did for Shaw etc, they will want to get the best possible price. Sounds perfectly plausible. Would be interesting to gain a feel of how our payments have been staged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 I can understand why we would want value for money, but staged payments?? Makes no sense, unless there really are no plans to spend 'every penny from player sales' as the owner/boardroom have other plans for it. Looking dodgier by the day. You can't possibly be as thick as you come across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Lisbon are probably negotiating tough as they realise he is a very saleable asset and just like we did for Shaw etc, they will want to get the best possible price. If Sporting Portugal actually owned the player they might be a bit more flexible over the fee, as it stands they lose what must be to them a key player and receive virtually sod all. They'll end up getting as much for an unknown England U21 International as they probably will for a world cup finalist. The kazakh loan shark however will be rubbing his hands on his Turkish based yacht with some extra totty no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 You can't possibly be as thick as you come across. I'll take that bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Kezman. He wasn't a bad player, Chelsea never gave him a chance. And when they did half the time he had a shot that came off the inside of the post or the underside of the crossbar, it just never happened for him. I watched him in the UEFA cup the season before he signed for Chelsea and he was absolute class, you wouldn't believe he was the same player. In the Netherlands Kezman scored 105 goals in 122 appearances. That's a better goalscoring record than Van Nistelrooy, and 2nd only to Van Basten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 (edited) You can't possibly be as thick as you come across. Lol, no. Just trying to understand how this may be working in order to make a judgement on our Boardrooms effectiveness. So, it's good when posters inform, but somewhat grating when others ridicule from the sidelines - especially when their own posts are far from intellectual excellence. Edited 8 August, 2014 by SaintRobbie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Er, what? Their value goes into the company books at the value purchased even though we will be paid on easy terms. If the company makes a profit, which it may do if the value of the balance sheet has increased, then there may be tax due on that profit and the taxman doesn't normally accept IOUs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingdomCome Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Er, what? I believe he means accounts receivable are assets of a company. I may be giving him too much credit though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Wrong. Lovren represented a gamble of sorts, having gone off the boil in France (not entirely his fault). More important, as is the case with many foreign players, not least defenders, there were no guarantees that Lovren would take to English football like a duck to water. The £8m we paid for Lovren reflected those risks. The player we sold a year later (mindful it was only one season) had none of those question marks over him. Thus, if we are serious about bringing in like-for-like, we need proven quality - and that is likely to cost well more than £8m. Pontificating about moaners and sensible posters doesn't make your argument any less shoddy. You obviously missed that my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I made some of those comments, although other parts of the post are justified, I believe. But as it is my opinion, it is rather arrogant to label it wrong just because your opinion differs. But it is obviously not the case that you need to sign a player of proven quality in the PL for it to be a like for like signing. Every player is different as is every team that they join, so the variables are too extreme to make generalisations. A simple illustration of this point would be the example of Torres, who was good at Liverpool, but crap at Chelsea. Where is the jury on that one? He was proven quality in the PL for Liverpool, but had he signed for Chelsea first, he would not be. We absolutely screwed Liverpool for the £20 million we got for Lovren and I stand by my claim that there is another Lovren out there of proven quality for the £8 million that he cost, but that might be proven quality in the CL, rather than in the PL. Sure it is more of a gamble buying from out of the PL, but if there is a premium to be paid for proven ability in the PL, then an increase in the fee of 250% is clearly a rip-off. There is even no guarantee that Lovren will be a success at Liverpool, although he probably will be. He has a different manager, a different goalkeeper and defence around him, a different style of game, plus a potentially higher number of games, some in Europe's CL no doubt. These are the sort of variables I meant when I said that it makes it difficult to make generalisations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Lol, no. Just trying to understand how this may be working in order to make a judgement on our Boardrooms effectiveness. So, it's good when posters inform, but somewhat grating when others ridicule from the sidelines - especially when their own posts are from intellectual excellence. Dont worry Robbie,the sneering from the sidelines doesnt make them look bright. Pol Pot got it right lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 I believe he means accounts receivable are assets of a company. I may be giving him too much credit though Best avoided without a full credit history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd_barrett_saint Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Lol, no. Just trying to understand how this may be working in order to make a judgement on our Boardrooms effectiveness. So, it's good when posters inform, but somewhat grating when others ridicule from the sidelines - especially when their own posts are from intellectual excellence. Laugh you may, but I don't think you're the best judge of how thick you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Dont worry Robbie,the sneering from the sidelines doesnt make them look bright. Pol Pot got it right lol Having spent time in Cambodia I find that very tasteless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Stickman Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 he played 3 games less than clyne last season. in his first full season there was every chance he was going to kick on, like shaw did and make that position his own chambers played 24 times last season. Shaw played 28 times in his first season chambers did so with clyne in the team, who is miles better than what shaw had in front of him the season before that He might well have done; personally I prefer Clyne at right-back, and think Wenger might be right seeing Chambers as more of a central defender. I’m not sure why Saints didn’t pursue that option more – it’s all water under the bridge now though. Anyway, if Chambers had made the right-back spot his own, I can’t see a player as good as Clyne being content with hanging around on the bench. The problem, as I see it, is that, whilst it’s obviously highly desirable to have at least 2 good players covering every position, a really top-class player is never going to be content for very long sitting on the bench at a club like Saints – it might be different at a club competing in the Champions League where the squad is more likely to be rotated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 I believe he means accounts receivable are assets of a company. I may be giving him too much credit though As opposed to liabilities. Whichever way you look at it, £14m in liabilities when you have £72m in assets is affordable. But I suspect foxstone's post is the most plausible; a ruse to continue tough negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 We absolutely screwed Liverpool for the £20 million we got for Lovren and I stand by my claim that there is another Lovren out there of proven quality for the £8 million that he cost, but that might be proven quality in the CL, rather than in the PL. Sure it is more of a gamble buying from out of the PL, but if there is a premium to be paid for proven ability in the PL, then an increase in the fee of 250% is clearly a rip-off. There is even no guarantee that Lovren will be a success at Liverpool, although he probably will be. He has a different manager, a different goalkeeper and defence around him, a different style of game, plus a potentially higher number of games, some in Europe's CL no doubt. These are the sort of variables I meant when I said that it makes it difficult to make generalisations. Lovrens value to our clubs defensive ability is impossible to put a price on. You may think we screwed them but I think the 20m is not enough for what it could cost us. We needed to keep Wanyama, Lovren and MS as that gave us a strong defence,especially as we look light upfront. IMO he was a leader and inspirational to those around him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Their value goes into the company books at the value purchased even though we will be paid on easy terms. If the company makes a profit, which it may do if the value of the balance sheet has increased, then there may be tax due on that profit and the taxman doesn't normally accept IOUs. Technically at the full purchase price discounted by annual inflation based on payment dates Anything based on clauses like games played and league wins for 'Pool is unlikely to be recognised at all as well, only the amount we are unconditionally entitled to and at a discounted rate. So, for instance the 30mill for Shaw is unlikely to be sitting in our books at anything close to that amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckenham Saint Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Good point - I hadn't considered that, but then again even if our fees are staged it's still all held in assets, so for the sake of securing a key player it seems strange that we are doing the same. I'm starting to notice a recurring theme in your posts, Robbo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingdomCome Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 As opposed to liabilities. Whichever way you look at it, £14m in liabilities when you have £72m in assets is affordable. But I suspect foxstone's post is the most plausible; a ruse to continue tough negotiations. But you still have to consider cash flow. Yes we have significant assets (money owed to us), but that doesn't mean we have the cash to buy with an upfront payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 As opposed to liabilities. Whichever way you look at it, £14m in liabilities when you have £72m in assets is affordable. But I suspect foxstone's post is the most plausible; a ruse to continue tough negotiations. I think so Robbie. But add to that is that the higher the up front fee the more comes off the bottom line which would affect our cash flow somewhat. Yes we might nail the Rojo deal but it would probably preclude us from buying anybody else right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pangy Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Staged payments would never of happened on Cortese's watch Didnt he demand the whole Oxo money up front from Arsenal and a 50% sell on clause ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Lovrens value to our clubs defensive ability is impossible to put a price on. You may think we screwed them but I think the 20m is not enough for what it could cost us. We needed to keep Wanyama, Lovren and MS as that gave us a strong defence,especially as we look light upfront. IMO he was a leader and inspirational to those around him Until we have signed a replacement and had a season out of him, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the value of Lovren to us, whether we got a great deal from selling him, or indeed whether Liverpool got value for the price they paid for him. My position is that if we bought him for £8 million, we not only have the possibility that a similar replacement can be found for that amount, but that we have an extra £12 million available to spend on a more expensive and more highly rated player than he was when we bought him from Lyons. Agreed that it is important that we try and keep the midfield cover in front like Wanyama, and Schneiderlin and that to an extent the best form of defence is attack, which I'm sure is Koeman's philosophy as much as Pochettino's. But if we managed to get a replacement for Lovren and Shaw of decent quality for much less money than they were sold for, then that releases quite a bit that could be applied to a marquee signing up front. We'll have to wait and see what happens in the next couple of weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingdomCome Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Best avoided without a full credit history. Glad someone noticed the pun You know you're playing to a niche crowd when you're making accounting jokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Until we have signed a replacement and had a season out of him, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the value of Lovren to us, whether we got a great deal from selling him, or indeed whether Liverpool got value for the price they paid for him. My position is that if we bought him for £8 million, we not only have the possibility that a similar replacement can be found for that amount, but that we have an extra £12 million available to spend on a more expensive and more highly rated player than he was when we bought him from Lyons. Agreed that it is important that we try and keep the midfield cover in front like Wanyama, and Schneiderlin and that to an extent the best form of defence is attack, which I'm sure is Koeman's philosophy as much as Pochettino's. But if we managed to get a replacement for Lovren and Shaw of decent quality for much less money than they were sold for, then that releases quite a bit that could be applied to a marquee signing up front. We'll have to wait and see what happens in the next couple of weeks. Whether we as fansthe club got 8m or 100m means nothing if the team on the pitch suffers. We aren't spending the money we have had in already. If and I say IF we end up going down or in a relegation scrap it will be down to letting in too many goals.(each place down the league costs a fortune) Lovren was part of a very impressive defence,especially before he got injured you just cant find that type of player easily.We did it last time, I agree but as with 2 of our marquee signings it does not always work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Staged payments would never of happened on Cortese's watch Didnt he demand the whole Oxo money up front from Arsenal and a 50% sell on clause ? Apparently we still owe quite a bundle for the players we bought last summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckenham Saint Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Staged payments would never of happened on Cortese's watch Didnt he demand the whole Oxo money up front from Arsenal and a 50% sell on clause ? We barely sold players on Cortese's watch, (Yeah, we got over the odds for Chamberlain, but didn't we get over the odds for Lallana, Lovren, Shaw and Chambers? Maybe Cortese didn't handle these things all himself, the Cortese love-in is so over the top it's unreal) however, all clubs at some point buy players and sell players in staged payments. It happens all the time, Cortese or no Cortese. Apparently we still owe quite a bundle for the players we bought last summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Glad someone noticed the pun You know you're playing to a niche crowd when you're making accounting jokes Sad, isn't it. Accountancy is just part of my daily remit but I'm in the middle of a tax investigation at the moment and we are at issue over Annual Investment Allowance and Writing-Down Allowances so it's a touchy subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Staged payments would never of happened on Cortese's watch Thats not true... At 30 June 2013 (balance sheet date) there were £21m of committed transfer fees still to be paid and since this date a further £27m of player transfers were negotiated (in the 2013/14 season). Whilst £21m has been paid in this current season, £27m will still be owed from 30 June 2014, with £22m of this being due in 2014/15 alone A £5.6m loan was taken out with Vibrac in September 2012 to enable the Club to take advantage of a lower transfer instalment payment by paying earlier, and so reduce overall cash outflows and liabilities http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/article/31032014-financial-results-201213-1455995.aspx#MsTRLmuj0DvAJYc7.99 Staggered transfer payments are commonplace in modern football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pangy Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 I was joking with the Cortese comment before anyone else gets all defensive,and I meant it about incoming fees,not outgoing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 You obviously missed that my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I made some of those comments, although other parts of the post are justified, I believe. But as it is my opinion, it is rather arrogant to label it wrong just because your opinion differs. But it is obviously not the case that you need to sign a player of proven quality in the PL for it to be a like for like signing. Every player is different as is every team that they join, so the variables are too extreme to make generalisations. A simple illustration of this point would be the example of Torres, who was good at Liverpool, but crap at Chelsea. Where is the jury on that one? He was proven quality in the PL for Liverpool, but had he signed for Chelsea first, he would not be. We absolutely screwed Liverpool for the £20 million we got for Lovren and I stand by my claim that there is another Lovren out there of proven quality for the £8 million that he cost, but that might be proven quality in the CL, rather than in the PL. Sure it is more of a gamble buying from out of the PL, but if there is a premium to be paid for proven ability in the PL, then an increase in the fee of 250% is clearly a rip-off. There is even no guarantee that Lovren will be a success at Liverpool, although he probably will be. He has a different manager, a different goalkeeper and defence around him, a different style of game, plus a potentially higher number of games, some in Europe's CL no doubt. These are the sort of variables I meant when I said that it makes it difficult to make generalisations. Laughably undervaluing who was probably our most important outfield player last season. Lovren is worth every single penny of that 20 million to us. We are going to have a hell of a time replacing him this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiSaint Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Staged payments would never of happened on Cortese's watch Didnt he demand the whole Oxo money up front from Arsenal and a 50% sell on clause ? Does that mean we could get a 50% discount if we purchased him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Their value goes into the company books at the value purchased even though we will be paid on easy terms. If the company makes a profit, which it may do if the value of the balance sheet has increased, then there may be tax due on that profit and the taxman doesn't normally accept IOUs. You need to stop with all these tax posts as you are hopelessly confused and clearly don't understand the difference between a balance sheet and a profit/loss account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Staged payments would never of happened on Cortese's watch Didnt he demand the whole Oxo money up front from Arsenal and a 50% sell on clause ? Apart from the all the transfers in our 1st season up and last years signings as well. Still, don't let the facts get in the way of your NC wannkfest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 You need to stop with all these tax posts as you are hopelessly confused and clearly don't understand the difference between a balance sheet and a profit/loss account. I love people calling whitey hopelessly confused whilst unknown to them, he has run a highly successful business for many years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 (edited) You need to stop with all these tax posts as you are hopelessly confused and clearly don't understand the difference between a balance sheet and a profit/loss account. What a coincidence. I was discussing all this sort of thing with my company accountant yesterday. If there's anything in my contributions that you disagree with then I'll be please to explain. I love people calling whitey hopelessly confused whilst unknown to them, he has run a highly successful business for many years... Thanks Hypo. I was never confused until I started to try to explain things on here I blame SadOldGit and his obsession with all things tottyish. Edited 8 August, 2014 by Whitey Grandad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 I love people calling whitey hopelessly confused whilst unknown to them, he has run a highly successful business for many years... I've come across some right idiots who run businesses. I'm not saying he is an idiot, mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 I've come across some right idiots who run businesses. I'm not saying he is an idiot, mind. Having spoken to him, he clearly isn't an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Koeman just confirmed we do have an interest in him, so at least we know for sure it isn't merely press speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Guan on the other thread suggested the Romanian guy is instead of Rojo, but RK did admit interest in both. Plus Rojo is left sided and Romania lad is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Guan on the other thread suggested the Romanian guy is instead of Rojo, but RK did admit interest in both. Plus Rojo is left sided and Romania lad is right. On the up side the pressure is off slightly to sign so it changes our bargaining position. Now when we threaten to walk away, Sporting cannot be certain that we will come back to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appy Posted 8 August, 2014 Share Posted 8 August, 2014 Guan on the other thread suggested the Romanian guy is instead of Rojo, but RK did admit interest in both. Plus Rojo is left sided and Romania lad is right. Both of them would be a bonus, would mean we can get shot of Hooiveld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now