Transfer Window: Summer 2013

A selection of the very best posts and/or most memorable threads on KUMB since the current Forum launched in 2002.

Moderator: Gnome

Post Reply
User avatar
last.caress
Star Raid-er
Posts: 16726
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:38 pm
Location: Eyes that shine, burnin' red. Dreams of you all through my head.
Has liked: 1224 likes
Total likes: 1643 likes
Contact:

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by last.caress »

Pulls up Trees wrote:One day, someone will screw up and be in breach of (FFP), and we might find out how it actually works!
Oh, you just KNOW it'll be us. Somehow. Sullivan will stand Kevin Nolan half a pint of cranberry juice at the bar and it'll count as part of his wages, and it'll tip us over the edge by £2.50, and Lord Justice Halfdead-Already will rule that we owe every team in the Prem £5m for the next three years..
QuintonNimoy
Posts: 8167
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by QuintonNimoy »

rare as rockinghorse shat wrote:But, we've stayed under £52m, so the FFP rules do not apply to us.
It sets a future limit unless our profit increases to cover it. We're 100% limited to it and under FFP.

We are limited to 52 this year because that's what anyone can spend regardless of turnover. The allowance goes up by 4 million a year, and everyone subject to that 52 limit gets it regardless.

If a club want to spend more a club can do so at any time as long as they can prove they cover it by increased income. If that's from external sources or through selling a player it doesn't matter, but there's no other mechanism to escape the limit. We don't have the money to go above it.

The source of income that might come is the new stadium, primarily from massively increased corporate money, probably more than doubling the capacity and G&S hoping they will be charging more as well. Either that or Ravel Morrison ends up going for £100 million.
User avatar
erosnes
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:22 pm
Has liked: 378 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by erosnes »

last.caress wrote:One day, someone will screw up and be in breach of (FFP), and we might find out how it actually works!

Oh, you just KNOW it'll be us. Somehow. Sullivan will stand Kevin Nolan half a pint of cranberry juice at the bar and it'll count as part of his wages, and it'll tip us over the edge by £2.50, and Lord Justice Halfdead-Already will rule that we owe every team in the Prem £5m for the next three years..
Sounds about right...
User avatar
bubbles1966
Posts: 66972
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: I'm holding onto nothing, and trying to forget the rest
Has liked: 2437 likes
Total likes: 4293 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by bubbles1966 »

Ozza wrote:Hence the ffp stuff this window as rars has pointed out?
The FFP stuff is a lot of smoke and mirrors by our board.

This board believe in balancing the books and avoiding overspending. Fine - no gripes.

That means there would be a finite transfer and wages budget whether we were subject to FFP or not.

Saying everything is done because of FFP purposely sets out to convey a different impression "oh,we're really ambitious we'd chuck millions at it, but unfortunately these dratted FFP rules...."

This board purposely convey ambiguous messages about money for the consumption of the wider world and the club's fans. In behind that , they have finite budgets that they stick to - FFP or not.

They have no intention of losing any money running this club (and there is no reason why they should). It is being run as a business.

That's not a complaint about them in any way - just a recognition of how they really roll.
User avatar
rare as rockinghorse shat
Posts: 55216
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:43 am
Location: **** the board
Has liked: 3 likes
Total likes: 77 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by rare as rockinghorse shat »

Aceface wrote:Problem is there's no reason to logically think it's much less than the £52m limit. That figure includes paying for every player at the club at every level, as well as NI, image rights etc. We have 26 first teamers alone. No-one knows what each player is earning of course, but sensible estimations mean we're extremely unlikely to be anywhere other than somewhere approaching that figure.
That's what I'm trying to clarify.
If ours now stands at £51,999,999, due to us not slightly overspending, then doesn't it mean we can very much spend big at a point in the near future, thus going above that golden line, THEN having the FFP limit placed on us when it comes into force?

I'm not trying to state anything as fact as such, just theorising to get the jist of it.
User avatar
Turns to Stone
Posts: 15456
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Tony Almeida
Has liked: 229 likes
Total likes: 1455 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by Turns to Stone »

rare as rockinghorse shat wrote:
That's what I'm trying to clarify.
If ours now stands at £51,999,999, due to us not slightly overspending, then doesn't it mean we can very much spend big at a point in the near future, thus going above that golden line, THEN having the FFP limit placed on us when it comes into force?

I'm not trying to state anything as fact as such, just theorising to get the jist of it.
This is my understanding of it, RARS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Finan ... egulations
Premier League agree new financial regulations
Any club that loses more than £105 million in that time faces possible point deductions while clubs making any loss up to the £105 million limit will come under tighter financial scrutiny from the Premier League. Clubs are restricted on how much of the Premier League Central Funds they receive that they can spend on player wages. The limit is £4 million in 2013-14, £8 million in 2014-15 and £12 million in 2015-16. However this only applies to clubs that have a wage bill higher than £52 million per year in 2013-14, £56 million in 2014-15 and £60 million in 2015-16.
Obviously it's only Wikipedia, but this is the most concise and understandable version I've found. If we were to go over this year (as we could have done) it would have meant an annual increase of £4m (or £77k per week).

Good business if you ask me.
User avatar
Ozza
Posts: 28203
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:41 pm
Location: Here, there, every f****** where
Has liked: 945 likes
Total likes: 2367 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by Ozza »

Tts and if we have a lot of players coming to the end of their contracts that we won't renew, we will be in a place next season to recruit well and pay the according wages?
User avatar
LeonRivers
Posts: 10442
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:57 pm
Location: Way out of your league
Has liked: 1032 likes
Total likes: 394 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by LeonRivers »

Pulls up Trees wrote:I've heard FPP be described about a hundred different ways!)
How many different ways have you seen it spelled?
User avatar
Aceface
Posts: 16360
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:01 am
Location: Blighty
Has liked: 358 likes
Total likes: 1446 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by Aceface »

Reckon it's impossible to know rars.

There's so much smoke and mirrors about it that we'll never know what the true figure is. Like bubbles says, if we're being sensible then that's absolutely fine, I'm much happier to be making the club more secure and sustainable than buying another Diarra. It is mildly insulting to know you're being routinely bullsh*tted to though.
User avatar
Turns to Stone
Posts: 15456
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Tony Almeida
Has liked: 229 likes
Total likes: 1455 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by Turns to Stone »

Ozza wrote:Tts and if we have a lot of players coming to the end of their contracts that we won't renew, we will be in a place next season to recruit well and pay the according wages?
I think there's an element of us having to be sensible. The point is that currently G and S are servicing a large amount of debt (as we all know). This probably means that we don't have a lot of available cash to inject into the playing squad. Because of this, it makes sense for us to stay under the wage limit, until a time when the board do have available cash. There may be a time in the board's mind when this is going to happen, they may base it on factors such as absolute confirmation that we have the OS, or that we have agreed a sale for the Boleyn.

Regardless, the point that RARS makes is a good one. If we'd gone over £52m by a couple of quid, it would have meant that we could only increase our wage bill by £77k a week next year. This year it allows us to have a look where we are financially and make a decision next summer. It may well be that the board still feel that we aren't ready to make that step (bear in mind that next year our limit would have increased to £56m) so we will still be able to do further business.

Again though, those saying that it's an excuse that the board are making, are missing the point a little. The board aren't making excuses, they're saying about how much it would limit us if we had gone out and spent an extra £50k a week that might have taken our wage limit to £53m etc.
Last edited by Turns to Stone on Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
carnage
Posts: 22524
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: KFC
Has liked: 84 likes
Total likes: 707 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by carnage »

Are we still paying Sheff Utd and when that stops can that money be used in wages?
User avatar
Kitt the car
Posts: 6860
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:41 am
Has liked: 13 likes
Total likes: 155 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by Kitt the car »

carnage wrote:Are we still paying Sheff Utd and when that stops can that money be used in wages?

We've just paid the last installment and I don't think we can use it for wages as it's not income...I think.
User avatar
inter me nan
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: hornchurch

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by inter me nan »

The fact that both the daves have come from humble beginnings and have built up and run successful businesses, earning multiple millions in the process should not be lost on us fans, who I,m guessing the majority, if any at all have achieved anything like their success in the financial world.
I understand the fans desire to see the best players at our club, this is probably mirrored by our chairmen but they surely have a plan , it might not be what we as individuals would choose to do, but then again I,m sure that if any of us were in their position we would make mistakes along the way, mistakes that the daves have no doubt already made along the road whilst building their empire, and have learnt from them.
They took on a project with this club using money that they have worked hard to earn....I trust that they know what they are doing, and have the clubs best interests at heart.
Personally I think we have a squad and manager that can earn us 45+ points in the prem this season
Of course I,d have liked a squad full of stars but they cost money and desire something west ham can't offer at the moment.
If the daves have cut their cloth accordingly, then I guess that's what has needed to be done.
I don't remember their being a queue of investors when they bought in, and we are in a much better place now than we was then....so for me they have done and are doing a good job.
User avatar
carnage
Posts: 22524
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: KFC
Has liked: 84 likes
Total likes: 707 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by carnage »

Kitt the car wrote:

We've just paid the last installment and I don't think we can use it for wages as it's not income...I think.
So if you cut your non wage costs(similar to increasing income) you cant use that money against wages?
User avatar
wizzo_66
Posts: 9639
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:27 pm
Location: Long Live the Boleyn
Has liked: 1 like
Total likes: 32 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by wizzo_66 »

carnage wrote:
So if you cut your non wage costs(similar to increasing income) you cant use that money against wages?
Unfortunately it's not similar enough to increasing income!

Look at it this way, if the club employs one less steward, you leave yourself with more disposable income, but you don't actually increase your physical income, you're just cutting a cost.

If you sign a sponsership deal which physically brings more money into the club - that's increasing your income.
User avatar
Turns to Stone
Posts: 15456
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Tony Almeida
Has liked: 229 likes
Total likes: 1455 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by Turns to Stone »

Let's not forget that G and S have been advocating the FFP for years and years. These are two very selfish chaps who aren't looking at what's best for football. They're looking at what's best for them.

They'll have done their homework and they will have known how they're going to best make use of the new regulations prior to the start of the window.

This is why they were so adamant with Allardyce that he could have Downing OR a striker and not both. It was imperative that they stayed below the cut-off, and like all good businessmen, they'll have wanted to give themselves a cushion.
User avatar
Pulls up Trees
Posts: 2455
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:18 pm
Has liked: 1 like
Total likes: 1 like

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by Pulls up Trees »

LeonRivers wrote:How many different ways have you seen it spelled?
Got me there, you ****! :D
User avatar
Aceface
Posts: 16360
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:01 am
Location: Blighty
Has liked: 358 likes
Total likes: 1446 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by Aceface »

It'll be interesting to see how more esoteric factors are able to be handled under the constraints.

Imagine Ravel has a good time of this season, and an absolutely storming season in 2014/15. It seems grossly unfair that you wouldn't be able to retain someone who's improved during their time at the club without ditching another player (or players). In some ways that's being penalised for developing your own players.
User avatar
Turns to Stone
Posts: 15456
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Tony Almeida
Has liked: 229 likes
Total likes: 1455 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by Turns to Stone »

wizzo_66 wrote:
Unfortunately it's not similar enough to increasing income!

Look at it this way, if the club employs one less steward, you leave yourself with more disposable income, but you don't actually increase your physical income, you're just cutting a cost.

If you sign a sponsership deal which physically brings more money into the club - that's increasing your income.
The point is that it's about wages being equivalent to club size and growth. Not about debts dropping off. This is another good reason why G and S shouldn't blow their load now, but wait until they have cleared another chunk of debt off, and can then add that to the warchest.
User avatar
rare as rockinghorse shat
Posts: 55216
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:43 am
Location: **** the board
Has liked: 3 likes
Total likes: 77 likes

Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014

Post by rare as rockinghorse shat »

Turns to Stone wrote:This is why they were so adamant with Allardyce that he could have Downing OR a striker and not both. It was imperative that they stayed below the cut-off, and like all good businessmen, they'll have wanted to give themselves a cushion.
I still think it was both.

Just don't think they envisaged Vaz Te not being taken and/or Diarra's injury scuppering a move.
Post Reply