Jump to content

Summer transfer window 2021.


Recommended Posts

I was curious to look back to when I realised Rovers were on a figurative (slower sinking) Titanic with Mowbray:

7150245_Screenshot_20210507-000327_SamsungInternet.thumb.jpg.d72f95fafe13fd8840aa3ba5ea3003e3.jpg

Wish the majority saw what the small minority of us knew 2.5 years ago when we had the chance to change it in the stands.

I don't know if I've really enjoyed being a Rovers fan since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J*B said:

It depends on the terms of the contract - at the moment, unless he submits a transfer request we only need to pay him a loyalty payment negotiated from his current wage for 1 year. If he had signed a 20K a week 5 year deal AND there was a 40% sell on clause we would have some huge payments to make if we sold him. 

But chances are the sale price would be higher if he was 12 months into a new deal so it's covered.

15 million v 8ish million as it stands by the looks of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, davulsukur said:

Well that's just utterly depressing.

We now have to flog AA for a knockdown price because we have left ourselves in a terrible bargaining position and now we are desperate for cash otherwise we are going to be embargoed.

Just out of interest why are the EFL not giving any leeway to clubs as none of them have had matchday revenue for so long?

I think we would be crazy to lower our asking price for Armstrong of 15 million pounds. Tho I would be looking for possible players from those clubs interesting in Armstrong. Maybe Trybull or Idah from Norwich for example. 

2 hours ago, J*B said:

It depends on the terms of the contract - at the moment, unless he submits a transfer request we only need to pay him a loyalty payment negotiated from his current wage for 1 year. If he had signed a 20K a week 5 year deal AND there was a 40% sell on clause we would have some huge payments to make if we sold him. 

Didn't you say that the club was confident Armstrong would sign a new contract? any more news on this?

1 hour ago, neophox said:

Didnt we got Raya money?

 

500k from Brentford and Raya getting promoted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J*B said:

It depends on the terms of the contract - at the moment, unless he submits a transfer request we only need to pay him a loyalty payment negotiated from his current wage for 1 year. If he had signed a 20K a week 5 year deal AND there was a 40% sell on clause we would have some huge payments to make if we sold him. 

Surely a loyalty bonus would only come into effect if he stayed?

Therefore one or the other and I'd imagine the sell on percentage would be way higher than any loyalty bonus that may or may not be applicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

Not the same people who said Mogadon was going is it?

No, the Raya figure was just friends in general, I assumed it had been quoted in the LT or something.

The other was someone who certainly should have known what they were talking about in theory!

🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reporting has generally been that Raya was sold for an initial £3m, rising to £5m with add-ons. One such clause being getting promoted, which the LT specified as £500k today, but it's also probably fair to assume he's hit some of those other clauses too given his regular playing time with Brentford.

I think it was roughly calculated that Josh King's sale to Everton netted us £600k (checking Rich Sharpe's estimate at the time). Funny that he's now leaving Everton after doing nothing there, so a welcome, and random, bonus incoming there...

Rumour is Cairney may go for £10m this summer too. I think it was reported that Cairney was sold for £3-3.5m+, presumably on the higher end given his accomplishments at Fulham. If, as Lancs Live reported, we get a 10% cut of any profit, that implies another £650k potentially incoming. Like King, it's a shame about the original fee (the circumstances of Cairney's sale were far more damning than King's case...), but anything that comes in now is a welcome bonus. Sunk costs and all that...

Altogether, that's £1.75m of 'bonus' money incoming, which helps I suppose, but it wouldn't surprise if we still need to net another £5-10m to stay within FFP, e.g. Armstrong... although our FFP calcs are always a bit murky given we probably get a lot of exemptions through our Academy spend, plus the added complication of Covid giving clubs a bit more leeway and I'm not sure of the relevance of our year in L1 where FFP's application is less clear (which may still be a relevant year for our rolling 3 year FFP calculation, even if we're apparently to take the average of 19-20/20-21 due to Covid?).

Edited by RoverCanada
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Angry_Pirate said:

I was curious to look back to when I realised Rovers were on a figurative (slower sinking) Titanic with Mowbray:

7150245_Screenshot_20210507-000327_SamsungInternet.thumb.jpg.d72f95fafe13fd8840aa3ba5ea3003e3.jpg

Wish the majority saw what the small minority of us knew 2.5 years ago when we had the chance to change it in the stands.

I don't know if I've really enjoyed being a Rovers fan since.

If there is one thing that is obvious, there is nothing we can do to influence our disinterested owners. Protest, boycott, planes, marches, nothing works.

Out of interest, did you do anything at the time to change it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

If there is one thing that is obvious, there is nothing we can do to influence our disinterested owners. Protest, boycott, planes, marches, nothing works.

Out of interest, did you do anything at the time to change it?

I think I wrote that post 🤣 think I also christened TM the Dinosaur around that time too.

Since, not sure I've cheered a goal, and "boo" whenever it is warranted. 

One fan doesn't quite work like the theoretical butterfly effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain this one.

Last December some clubs (i think Millwall, Brentford, Reading, Norwich Bristol City and others) were allowed fans in to grounds for a few games.

Presumably they made money from those fixtures, albeit limited capacity, whereas we were not allowed to open.

So IF it is true we are in FFP trouble and are scrimping and scraping for money i take it we will be looking into the possibility of a legal challenge to any sanctions having been subjected to government imposed restrictions? Likewise Middlesbrough who have presumably made a fortune from hosting 2x England games (thanks to ex Boro boy Southgate).

Of course we won't. As I said earlier I am increasingly of the view the people at Rovers want an embargo or restrictions to justify player sales and drastic cost cutting. Venkys are imposing it but FFP provides the perfect front.

If there were genuine difficulties we'd be doing something to deal with it - like selling tickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Surely a loyalty bonus would only come into effect if he stayed?

Therefore one or the other and I'd imagine the sell on percentage would be way higher than any loyalty bonus that may or may not be applicable.

Nope - he’s entitled to the balance owed in his contract unless he requests to leave. That’s why a lot of big clubs in big money transfers say ‘unless XYZ submits a transfer request they’re staying’ - it’s a threat. Now that’s ‘usually’ the case, there are exceptions, but most transfers work in this way. 

Now, if Arma really wants to move, which you expect he will, then usually he will negotiate his loyalty payment down. The issue with having players with 12 months left is theoretically, he can hang on for another year and move on a free - where he can demand a higher wage from his next club because he’s no transfer fee. 

Let’s say Arma is on 12K a week and has exactly 12 months left. That means he is owed 624K from Rovers in his contract. If we sell him in the summer he might negotiate that figure down to help push a move - he might accept 30%, say £187,200 to leave. But that’s worth it - because if he does move he can expect a signing on payment for his new club at roughly 10% of his transfer fee. Let’s say we sold him for 12 million… and Newcastle took their 4.8million 40% fee, and we paid him £187,200 loyalty… that gives us roughly 7M left to replace him… and that’s probably over 3/4 years. Then we need to replace him - but our new striker wants his 10% signing payment, plus his agent wants 5%, plus his management company want 3%… before you know it we’ve sold a 12 million pound player and with every single penny we have 5M to replace him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The money wouldn't go to replacing him anyway, when has that ever happened here ?

As for the embargo and filling the accounts we were told weeks ago maybe even a month that they wanted some assurances from Rovers.  So it might not just be a case of getting the accounts in there's something else behind it.

Unless of course we are just being bullshitted again to string it out. Be interesting to know just what these assurances are beyond the owners just doing the usual parent company guarantees to pay the bills sign off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Be interesting to know just what these assurances are beyond the owners just doing the usual parent company guarantees to pay the bills sign off.

It probably is that simple. The owners need to provide evidence of funding to get the accounts signed off.

I dont think they're communicating any more which is why there's radio silence and no season tickets.

So not difficult to believe this is where the issue lies and everything else spins from that.

If this is the issue then Waggott should tell us the truth and resign afterwards.

But instead he'll carry on as a patsy and take the coin whilst the rudderless ship drifts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, J*B said:

Nope - he’s entitled to the balance owed in his contract unless he requests to leave.

Really don't think you are correct there. It would mean the player was getting paid twice by the Club who bought him and the Club he's left who he can no longer play for. There'd never be any point in any Club selling a player as they'd end up paying a player who can't play for them.

The only way a player is entitled to the money under his contract is if he sees it out to the end. There may also be a loyalty bonus for the player which kicks in at the end of the deal but again you wouldn't expect it to kick in before that.

If a player leaves by mutual consent, all bets are off regarding his current deal and he's then paid by his new Club. Conversely if a player doesn't wish to move and wishes to sit on his contract until it expires then he can do.

If a Club wish to hold the player to a Contract then again they can but they risk having an unhappy player who won't perform and getting nothing when he finally does leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, J*B said:

Nope - he’s entitled to the balance owed in his contract unless he requests to leave. That’s why a lot of big clubs in big money transfers say ‘unless XYZ submits a transfer request they’re staying’ - it’s a threat. Now that’s ‘usually’ the case, there are exceptions, but most transfers work in this way. 

Now, if Arma really wants to move, which you expect he will, then usually he will negotiate his loyalty payment down. The issue with having players with 12 months left is theoretically, he can hang on for another year and move on a free - where he can demand a higher wage from his next club because he’s no transfer fee. 

Let’s say Arma is on 12K a week and has exactly 12 months left. That means he is owed 624K from Rovers in his contract. If we sell him in the summer he might negotiate that figure down to help push a move - he might accept 30%, say £187,200 to leave. But that’s worth it - because if he does move he can expect a signing on payment for his new club at roughly 10% of his transfer fee. Let’s say we sold him for 12 million… and Newcastle took their 4.8million 40% fee, and we paid him £187,200 loyalty… that gives us roughly 7M left to replace him… and that’s probably over 3/4 years. Then we need to replace him - but our new striker wants his 10% signing payment, plus his agent wants 5%, plus his management company want 3%… before you know it we’ve sold a 12 million pound player and with every single penny we have 5M to replace him. 

I'm 90% sure you've got the wrong end of the stick there. The entire remainder of the contract isn't owed. The loyalty bonus doesn't come close to that amount most/any of the time. It's a prearranged amount separate to that, and is standard in footballer contracts. It's paid for not demanding a move during the length of the contract. If the club sells you anyway, you've been 'loyal' (no matter what chicanery you pulled, as long as you don't put in a direct request) and you get the bonus when you move. Otherwise you get the bonus at the end of your contract, or spread across it in annual sums as long as you're still there.

The player's wage-level protection is more in terms of the fact they're under no obligation to sign terms with the buying club. So a club can't just shunt a 100k p/w player onto a conference side for 500 quid p/w to avoid paying the wages, as unless the player has lost leave of their senses they won't move. They're entitled to the full value of their contract if they see it out, not every time they move. Selling clubs might also agree to cover some of the wages until the end of the contract they had with the player to get it over the line if they're desperate enough, but that's more because the player won't accept a huge wage drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Really don't think you are correct there. It would mean the player was getting paid twice by the Club who bought him and the Club he's left who he can no longer play for. There'd never be any point in any Club selling a player as they'd end up paying a player who can't play for them.

The only way a player is entitled to the money under his contract is if he sees it out to the end. There may also be a loyalty bonus for the player which kicks in at the end of the deal but again you wouldn't expect it to kick in before that.

If a player leaves by mutual consent, all bets are off regarding his current deal and he's then paid by his new Club. Conversely if a player doesn't wish to move and wishes to sit on his contract until it expires then he can do.

If a Club wish to hold the player to a Contract then again they can but they risk having an unhappy player who won't perform and getting nothing when he finally does leave.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.fourfourtwo.com/amp/features/there-any-point-handing-a-transfer-request-fourfourtwo-investigates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, neophox said:

Matej Vydra ? Would you take him.

No

Seems to have one decent season every three years. The rest are shit. Not worth the wage he will demand - not that he would come anyway.

Edited by JacknOry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JHRover said:

It probably is that simple. The owners need to provide evidence of funding to get the accounts signed off.

I dont think they're communicating any more which is why there's radio silence and no season tickets.

So not difficult to believe this is where the issue lies and everything else spins from that.

If this is the issue then Waggott should tell us the truth and resign afterwards.

But instead he'll carry on as a patsy and take the coin whilst the rudderless ship drifts.

If so it sounds like the previous summer that eventually lead to relegation.

No contact until a late summer meeting because they were allegedly holidaying and celebrating a religious festival. Then a late scrabble about for anything with boots on to fill out the squad.

It's also what i assumed lead to the panic sale of Tom Cairney. The following summer was similar and of course lead to Owen Coyle, Wes Brown, Stokes, several more departures and relegation.

No matter how grateful some like to prostrate themselves for the funding keeping the lights on the fact remains we are always a week or two away from repeat disaster scenarios with this lot.

Of course having a real CEO in charge was supposed to head off this kind of thing !

Edited by tomphil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.