Summer transfer policy

[ZacNaloen]

I wasn't aware that fee's in and fee's out are the total operating costs of a football club.

[Avon Royal]

Buy not risking running at a loss today, we are missing the opportunity to run at a greater profit in the future.

The basis of an investment is a short term cost for a longer term gain.

[ZacNaloen]

Have you not noticed that we are making short term losses? We speculate, just in an entirely different way to clubs that want success tomorrow.

[Arch]

Or another way...(and yes, it's the most mental post I've ever posted.)

Let's call RFC the "Your Home and Money Analogy"...

You want the bigger house and lifestyle (Premiership) and all the trappings that come with it. (You've won and lost the house before and pissed it up the wall, but that's irrelevant. )

Each year, you spend more than you earn (Wages, Club running costs etc.) and you have other expensive children to keep watered and fed (Squad). So you can't afford to the buy the expensive house and keep the missus in nice frocks.

Your missus, to her credit, likes to tart things up, make them better than they were and flogs 'em on eBay. These items, supplement our low earnings without maxing out our credit cards as the children (see above) are expensive bleeders to keep happy.

Now, we COULD, just go mental on the plastic and buy loads of lottery tickets and try to get rich (expensive players), but it's not likely to get us anywhere as it's a very risky option. But if the missus keeps on tarting things up (and to be fair, she's keep on doing it) and selling them on for a big profit, we'll be in a much better position and it's much safer too. Our debts lessen and we're in a better shape LONG term.

(And no, you can't shag the missus.)

So.... Nicky Hammond is Avon's missus?

[Pat Butchers Ring]

Why do people wrongly state that all we buy is rough diamonds. For me the likes of Leigertwood, Mills, Mcanuff, Tabb, Harte, Zurab, Gunnarrson, Armstrong to name a few were all proven at this level. Mixing proven decent players (that fall within our budget) with players that you can mould is surely a good model to follow. The money that we make from Transfers of the likes of Mills, Siggy etc means that the calibre of proven players goes up.

[ellpryjon]

Agreed, what we have now is a fair amount of stability, with a very pragmatic approach of developing players, that work well within our team. Other clubs may well stake their future on throwing money on players, but the effectiveness of this plan is diminishing every season.

To say that we get £3 million of spare cash kicking about is ridiculous, considering our expenditure throughout the year.

Having said that, some re-investment has to be made, but even so there is absolutely no point in breaking the bank in doing so, the league has not suddenly ran out of good reasonably priced players who can be developed in the same way Matt Mills has.

And to say that the perceived lack of investment is what got us relegated from the Prem is just wrong, there were other forces at play (attitude etc). I don't think that major investment would have saved us, and i believe would of crippled us financially when we did get relegated.

Fact is that there is a lot less money around to start taking large financial risks, unless we have an extremely wealthy benefactor, which like it or not, we do not have.

'tis all

[brendywendy]

Brendy,

You do realise that we spent £2m on Mills and have just sold him for £5m a few years later? £3m profit in a couple of years is good going.

That is how investment works. Spending money on players is not just "throwing it away". Now obviously you have to "buy right", but in order to buy right you have to buy.......

but thats what we have done, consistently for the last 5 years.
i dont really know what you are saying.

I'm saying that if we use the money received from the Mills sale simply to avoid an end of year financial loss, then we will be missing out on the opportunity to make even more longer term.

so essentially this boils down to you, for some reason thinking that spending more money than we earn is worth th egamble cos if we go up we will be rich
and i for all of the reasosns listed think that spending an indeterminable ammount above our income on gambling to go up, isnt worth the risk as the cost is too big if we fail.
not sure how we can resolve this, so im not going to try.

[brendywendy]

Speculating with anything but profit is a baad idea.

Mills cost £2m, and we sold him for £5m.

Sounds like profit to me.

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!





no.

[brendywendy]

I wasn't aware that fee's in and fee's out are the total operating costs of a football club.

phew- thanks zac. got there before me

[brendywendy]

Why do people wrongly state that all we buy is rough diamonds. For me the likes of Leigertwood, Mills, Mcanuff, Tabb, Harte, Zurab, Gunnarrson, Armstrong to name a few were all proven at this level. Mixing proven decent players (that fall within our budget) with players that you can mould is surely a good model to follow. The money that we make from Transfers of the likes of Mills, Siggy etc means that the calibre of proven players goes up.

^^ this^^this^^^this

and quoted, for emphasis

^^ this^^this^^^this

[ZacNaloen]

Going up whilst not spending all the money we own and banking on future potential earnings = better position to spend the money we will be getting when/if we go up.

[pea]

We'll end up like Sheffield United and Preston eventually if we keep going like this eventually.

Can't really compare, they made about 40 signings over two and a half years and were running at a £20 million a year loss...

[Tails]

This is like a dumbed down version of the public spending/cuts deb8.

[ZacNaloen]

"We aren't speculating"


We are speculating on our academy, our wage bill, and the potential of the 18-21 year olds we have on professional contracts.

This is instead of speculating on over inflated wages for big name players we didn't produce ourselves who we already had to spend a fortune to buy in.

[Ian Royal]

the finances as i see them:

we were looking like losing 4 million a year.
we sold sigurdsson for 7 million, meaning the 4 million was sorted, and we reinvested the remaining 3 million in transfer fees, wages, and loans for some much needed defenders/experience.
this worked and we improved on the performance we had with sig in the team,making the playoffs

this time round, the wage bill has been reduced, so the black hole is reduced this year. maybe to ~2 or 3 million?
we sell mills for 5 million, after other payments to donny etc leaving us with 1-2 million profit on the deal? so id imagine that means we can spend the 1-2 million on transfer/wages of new CB to replace him.
i believe any further sales(long-7m) will mean that we will keep some for the next seasons black hole, but we should then be able to spend the 4-5 million left over on a striker & LB(+wages)
leaving us finacially secure for years, more than able to cope with player transitions, probably with a stronger squad over all, and remaining totally competetive.


you also have to look t McDs/NHs actions over this.which show total control over the situation imo
mills has been offered a new contract, but not a huge one.McD probably knew he wanted out/wanted shot of him himself- he wasnt his player, and isnt really a McD type of player.
he gets a replacement in early last january so we wouldnt be scraping around for something in the summer-giving him enough time to bed in, get to know the quad, and start pushing his way in, and lets matt go for a huge profit when he had 1 year left, wanted out, and made maximum possible profit on him


i just dont get whats not to like about that(given that we do reinvest much of this money)

Erm, how have we reduced the wage budget?
OUT Gylfi, Rasiak, Mills, Ingimarsson, Mooney, Davies, Kelly
IN Leigertwood, Harte, Manset, Williams, a bunch youngsters
Increased Contracts: Long, McAnuff, HRK etc.

[Avon Royal]

Speculating with anything but profit is a baad idea.

Mills cost £2m, and we sold him for £5m.

Sounds like profit to me.

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!





no.

Nice argument.

You can bleat all you like, but it is a fact that we are better off financially for signing Mills.

[brendywendy]

if that was what youd argued youd have a point. but it wasnt, so you dont


you said that 5 million minus 2 million = weve made a profit on him.
i say that you can't say that because you arent taking into account his wages, (millions over the term of his contract) and coaching cost etc.

you sir can bleat on as much as you like. but your statement makes no sense.

[Avon Royal]

if that was what youd argued youd have a point. but it wasnt, so you dont


you said that 5 million minus 2 million = weve made a profit on him.
i say that you can't say that because you arent taking into account his wages, (millions over the term of his contract) and coaching cost etc.

you sir can bleat on as much as you like. but your statement makes no sense.

By your own estimation Mills would have been on 12k a week tops, circa £600k a year. Therefore his wages over two years would have been £1.2m. If we're spending £1.8m to coach a single player for two years, then no wonder we're running a deficit.

[brendywendy]

the finances as i see them:

we were looking like losing 4 million a year.
we sold sigurdsson for 7 million, meaning the 4 million was sorted, and we reinvested the remaining 3 million in transfer fees, wages, and loans for some much needed defenders/experience.
this worked and we improved on the performance we had with sig in the team,making the playoffs

this time round, the wage bill has been reduced, so the black hole is reduced this year. maybe to ~2 or 3 million?
we sell mills for 5 million, after other payments to donny etc leaving us with 1-2 million profit on the deal? so id imagine that means we can spend the 1-2 million on transfer/wages of new CB to replace him.
i believe any further sales(long-7m) will mean that we will keep some for the next seasons black hole, but we should then be able to spend the 4-5 million left over on a striker & LB(+wages)
leaving us finacially secure for years, more than able to cope with player transitions, probably with a stronger squad over all, and remaining totally competetive.


you also have to look t McDs/NHs actions over this.which show total control over the situation imo
mills has been offered a new contract, but not a huge one.McD probably knew he wanted out/wanted shot of him himself- he wasnt his player, and isnt really a McD type of player.
he gets a replacement in early last january so we wouldnt be scraping around for something in the summer-giving him enough time to bed in, get to know the quad, and start pushing his way in, and lets matt go for a huge profit when he had 1 year left, wanted out, and made maximum possible profit on him


i just dont get whats not to like about that(given that we do reinvest much of this money)

Erm, how have we reduced the wage budget?
OUT Gylfi, Rasiak, Mills, Ingimarsson, Mooney, Davies, Kelly
IN Leigertwood, Harte, Manset, Williams, a bunch youngsters
Increased Contracts: Long, McAnuff, HRK etc.

by getting shot of high earners,and replacing then with lower payed players?

[Avon Royal]

getting shot of high earners,and replacing then with lower payed players

Promotion here we come!