| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:53 - Jan 25 with 1683 views | JackSwanTV |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:43 - Jan 25 by Uxbridge |
I see your Rodgers and Allen, and raise you a Graham (3.5), Lita (2), Caulker (loan fee, about £1m IIRC), Gylfi (no idea, but not going to be cheap), McEachran (anothe £1m as I recall). Sinclair went in the August window, and we spent the same amount on Pablo.
Must admit I do find it strange that you took offence at an article taking an arbitary timeline when you pretty much made up your own, and your own figures of course which seemed to ignore a large amount of outgoings. |
That was summer before. I did factor in those coming in (pablo, ki etc...) over the period I chose. Totally agree that it would all make more sense from summer you mention (after promotion) but figures would be less per season/.... Which is kind of my point: |  |
|  |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:56 - Jan 25 with 1677 views | JackSwanTV |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:49 - Jan 25 by AngelRangelQS |
Well it's only you that reads it in that way.
We've only real started spending money since the end of the first season as quite rightly we were guarded in the first year because the board probably thought we'd go straight back down.
It was only since Brendan left that we've started spending money. Even if you made it since we got promoted, the amount of money the club would have spent as a result of our promotion would really increase that figure... Changes to the stadium, electronic boards (pitch facing ones), promotion bonus, increase in staff etc...
Personally I don't think a net spend of £5m a year is that bad considering we've also invested heavily in the training grounds and academy |
100% agree with you. I love how smart we are in transfer market and don't want to become a club who waste money on impulse buys. I find it funny that people are slagging Huw off for doing the very thing that has made us a premier league club.
The fact I agree with all this,doesn't mean that this statement isn't 'glossed up' to make board look like they have spent more on transfers than they have and to move any blame from board towards monk... It's blatant!!! Come on... | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:57 - Jan 25 with 1676 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:53 - Jan 25 by JackSwanTV |
That was summer before. I did factor in those coming in (pablo, ki etc...) over the period I chose. Totally agree that it would all make more sense from summer you mention (after promotion) but figures would be less per season/.... Which is kind of my point: |
And my point is that you clearly didn't, if you factored Sinclair into a different window to Pablo given that we effectively swapped them. And no, they related to the same PL season (some were mid season). Don't go picking arbitary dates now ...
It's a poor article designed to be contrary with nothing to back it up. The ghosts of MOL and Jacks Eye are probably spinning as I type ... |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:01 - Jan 25 with 1657 views | JackSwanTV |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:57 - Jan 25 by Uxbridge |
And my point is that you clearly didn't, if you factored Sinclair into a different window to Pablo given that we effectively swapped them. And no, they related to the same PL season (some were mid season). Don't go picking arbitary dates now ...
It's a poor article designed to be contrary with nothing to back it up. The ghosts of MOL and Jacks Eye are probably spinning as I type ... |
Do what are the exact dates of this 3 and a half years?
I said in article that I was using 'paper figures'. By your figures, what was the net difference over the summer when Brendan, Joe Allen and Sinclair left. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:07 - Jan 25 with 1638 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:56 - Jan 25 by JackSwanTV |
100% agree with you. I love how smart we are in transfer market and don't want to become a club who waste money on impulse buys. I find it funny that people are slagging Huw off for doing the very thing that has made us a premier league club.
The fact I agree with all this,doesn't mean that this statement isn't 'glossed up' to make board look like they have spent more on transfers than they have and to move any blame from board towards monk... It's blatant!!! Come on... |
But in the last 3.5 years there have been 8 transfer windows and Monk was only in charge for 3 so how is it stitching Monk up? |  | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:24 - Jan 25 with 1596 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:01 - Jan 25 by JackSwanTV |
Do what are the exact dates of this 3 and a half years?
I said in article that I was using 'paper figures'. By your figures, what was the net difference over the summer when Brendan, Joe Allen and Sinclair left. |
Laudrup's first summer eh. When Michu (£2m), Chico (£3m), Ki (5.5m), JdG (£1-2m loan fee) came in? There's Allen's money pretty much gone. Sinclair and Pablo went and came for the same fee.
You really should do a bit more research. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:28 - Jan 25 with 1582 views | londonlisa2001 |
If I may be a little contrary Ux, the point that he's making (the general point rather than the way it's been expressed which I agree, is also arbitrary) is that there is a little judicious classification going on in the numbers (I did point that out the other day).
So while I agree with the thrust of the Trust's statement, it does seem as though the figures are presented in such a way to prevent outrage if we don't make a signing!
Because the reality of our time in the PL (which is actually the most logical starting point) is that we have received sums including £25m for Bony, £15m for Joe, £12m for Jonjo Sluggy) £7m for Sinclair, £5m for Brendan, a million or so for the various Spanish leavers (including Chico, Pablo, etc) , £1m loan fee for Nathan, c.£2m loan fee for Michu. There will be others that I can't recall - can't remember what we got for Danny Graham for example - was it £5m?
If so, that little lot amounts to £73m in to the club. If we have a £40m deficit, that means we have spent c.£110m on players and I simply can't see how we have, even if we include signing on fees and agents' fees.
Now what is possible is that the totality of 'additional cost' has been included - amounts that are paid through salaries as signing bonuses (eg. For Ayew and Gomis) but also all the signing bonuses for existing squad members. But that is not a transfer deficit, and also is double counting to an extent, as figures which get taken through the salaries line in our P&L account are more than covered by income (even if not by as much as we'd like). We are in the business of getting money in from football and paying footballers - that's to be expected that as one increases so does the other and isn't really a deficit.
It doesn't by the way detract from the thrust of the statement, namely we shouldn't sign stupid deals out of desperation, and I agree with that completely. But it is spun in a way that is, in my opinion (not that my opinion matters really to be honest) written to suggest that the club should not be expected to make a signing and to be frank, I disagree.
Caveat - I am not being negative, and am very positive about what we are seeing on the management and coaching side and am also optimistic that we will recover from this season and stay up!! [Post edited 25 Jan 2016 15:29]
| | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:32 - Jan 25 with 1573 views | JackSwanTV |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:24 - Jan 25 by Uxbridge |
Laudrup's first summer eh. When Michu (£2m), Chico (£3m), Ki (5.5m), JdG (£1-2m loan fee) came in? There's Allen's money pretty much gone. Sinclair and Pablo went and came for the same fee.
You really should do a bit more research. |
We'll that's 11.7 million of joe allens 15. Leaving 3.3. Profit.
I thought sinclaire was close to. 8. Million and Pablo was 5.5 (a further 2.5 million)
And didn't Brendan go for £5 million?
I imagine we made a profit that summer. Why 3.5 years again? And why no net figures for monks reign? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:36 - Jan 25 with 1561 views | JackSomething |
JackSwan could do a lot worse than have Lisa write his 'articles' for him. She probably wrote that post in a couple of minutes and it makes far more sense than his did. |  |
| You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help. |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:36 - Jan 25 with 1559 views | JackSwanTV |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:28 - Jan 25 by londonlisa2001 |
If I may be a little contrary Ux, the point that he's making (the general point rather than the way it's been expressed which I agree, is also arbitrary) is that there is a little judicious classification going on in the numbers (I did point that out the other day).
So while I agree with the thrust of the Trust's statement, it does seem as though the figures are presented in such a way to prevent outrage if we don't make a signing!
Because the reality of our time in the PL (which is actually the most logical starting point) is that we have received sums including £25m for Bony, £15m for Joe, £12m for Jonjo Sluggy) £7m for Sinclair, £5m for Brendan, a million or so for the various Spanish leavers (including Chico, Pablo, etc) , £1m loan fee for Nathan, c.£2m loan fee for Michu. There will be others that I can't recall - can't remember what we got for Danny Graham for example - was it £5m?
If so, that little lot amounts to £73m in to the club. If we have a £40m deficit, that means we have spent c.£110m on players and I simply can't see how we have, even if we include signing on fees and agents' fees.
Now what is possible is that the totality of 'additional cost' has been included - amounts that are paid through salaries as signing bonuses (eg. For Ayew and Gomis) but also all the signing bonuses for existing squad members. But that is not a transfer deficit, and also is double counting to an extent, as figures which get taken through the salaries line in our P&L account are more than covered by income (even if not by as much as we'd like). We are in the business of getting money in from football and paying footballers - that's to be expected that as one increases so does the other and isn't really a deficit.
It doesn't by the way detract from the thrust of the statement, namely we shouldn't sign stupid deals out of desperation, and I agree with that completely. But it is spun in a way that is, in my opinion (not that my opinion matters really to be honest) written to suggest that the club should not be expected to make a signing and to be frank, I disagree.
Caveat - I am not being negative, and am very positive about what we are seeing on the management and coaching side and am also optimistic that we will recover from this season and stay up!! [Post edited 25 Jan 2016 15:29]
|
Did you win poster of the year? If not you were robbed. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:38 - Jan 25 with 1552 views | JackSwanTV |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:36 - Jan 25 by JackSomething |
JackSwan could do a lot worse than have Lisa write his 'articles' for him. She probably wrote that post in a couple of minutes and it makes far more sense than his did. |
Won't find me disagreeing :) | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:40 - Jan 25 with 1548 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:28 - Jan 25 by londonlisa2001 |
If I may be a little contrary Ux, the point that he's making (the general point rather than the way it's been expressed which I agree, is also arbitrary) is that there is a little judicious classification going on in the numbers (I did point that out the other day).
So while I agree with the thrust of the Trust's statement, it does seem as though the figures are presented in such a way to prevent outrage if we don't make a signing!
Because the reality of our time in the PL (which is actually the most logical starting point) is that we have received sums including £25m for Bony, £15m for Joe, £12m for Jonjo Sluggy) £7m for Sinclair, £5m for Brendan, a million or so for the various Spanish leavers (including Chico, Pablo, etc) , £1m loan fee for Nathan, c.£2m loan fee for Michu. There will be others that I can't recall - can't remember what we got for Danny Graham for example - was it £5m?
If so, that little lot amounts to £73m in to the club. If we have a £40m deficit, that means we have spent c.£110m on players and I simply can't see how we have, even if we include signing on fees and agents' fees.
Now what is possible is that the totality of 'additional cost' has been included - amounts that are paid through salaries as signing bonuses (eg. For Ayew and Gomis) but also all the signing bonuses for existing squad members. But that is not a transfer deficit, and also is double counting to an extent, as figures which get taken through the salaries line in our P&L account are more than covered by income (even if not by as much as we'd like). We are in the business of getting money in from football and paying footballers - that's to be expected that as one increases so does the other and isn't really a deficit.
It doesn't by the way detract from the thrust of the statement, namely we shouldn't sign stupid deals out of desperation, and I agree with that completely. But it is spun in a way that is, in my opinion (not that my opinion matters really to be honest) written to suggest that the club should not be expected to make a signing and to be frank, I disagree.
Caveat - I am not being negative, and am very positive about what we are seeing on the management and coaching side and am also optimistic that we will recover from this season and stay up!! [Post edited 25 Jan 2016 15:29]
|
This is the reason I asked the question about a breakdown of the £40M deficit in TRANSFER fees.
Is it a mistake in wording?
It should be simplicity itself to provide a list of incomings and outgoings with fees included, but I suppose that is too financially sensitive.
But something does not appear to add up in that bald statement. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:40 - Jan 25 with 1548 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:36 - Jan 25 by JackSwanTV |
Did you win poster of the year? If not you were robbed. |
Nah - it was ecb's fault - he kept changing his vote as I understand it, and I was on holiday so didn't see it until after the vote had closed, so couldn't send him threats or anything... | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:41 - Jan 25 with 1546 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:38 - Jan 25 by JackSwanTV |
Won't find me disagreeing :) |
I might though :-) | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:41 - Jan 25 with 1545 views | JackSwanTV |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:40 - Jan 25 by A_Fans_Dad |
This is the reason I asked the question about a breakdown of the £40M deficit in TRANSFER fees.
Is it a mistake in wording?
It should be simplicity itself to provide a list of incomings and outgoings with fees included, but I suppose that is too financially sensitive.
But something does not appear to add up in that bald statement. |
Think it's right but if you took the period back 12 months it would be more like 24-28 million over 4.5 years which don't sound as good. Glossed up | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:43 - Jan 25 with 1543 views | Darran |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:36 - Jan 25 by JackSomething |
JackSwan could do a lot worse than have Lisa write his 'articles' for him. She probably wrote that post in a couple of minutes and it makes far more sense than his did. |
Lisa's better than that filthy rag. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:46 - Jan 25 with 1534 views | Groo |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 23:35 - Jan 23 by Nookiejack |
It will be the agents fees and signing on fees last 3.5 years.
All we see on the press is the headline fee and not the above.
Agents fees can be 10% of the headline fee and most players a signing on bonus of between 3 to 9 months wages.
Gomis, Ayew and Cork (£3m headline fee) also likely to earnt very larger signing on fees given they had run their contracts down. |
If I remember right, this was one of the main problem Tan had with Malky in they 1 year, he gave Malky a budget and Malky only considered the actual player fee and nothing else then overspending.
Didn't help buying rubbish though :) |  |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:51 - Jan 25 with 1524 views | JackSwanTV |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:43 - Jan 25 by Darran |
Lisa's better than that filthy rag. |
Still waiting for your next one. Loved 'not Darran'. Know you got that feature framed in your house too :p | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:07 - Jan 25 with 1502 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:40 - Jan 25 by A_Fans_Dad |
This is the reason I asked the question about a breakdown of the £40M deficit in TRANSFER fees.
Is it a mistake in wording?
It should be simplicity itself to provide a list of incomings and outgoings with fees included, but I suppose that is too financially sensitive.
But something does not appear to add up in that bald statement. |
How many of our players have had new contracts since we've been promoted? How much would any signing on fee have been worth? Wasn't Ash's rumoured to be £3m? | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:18 - Jan 25 with 1486 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:28 - Jan 25 by londonlisa2001 |
If I may be a little contrary Ux, the point that he's making (the general point rather than the way it's been expressed which I agree, is also arbitrary) is that there is a little judicious classification going on in the numbers (I did point that out the other day).
So while I agree with the thrust of the Trust's statement, it does seem as though the figures are presented in such a way to prevent outrage if we don't make a signing!
Because the reality of our time in the PL (which is actually the most logical starting point) is that we have received sums including £25m for Bony, £15m for Joe, £12m for Jonjo Sluggy) £7m for Sinclair, £5m for Brendan, a million or so for the various Spanish leavers (including Chico, Pablo, etc) , £1m loan fee for Nathan, c.£2m loan fee for Michu. There will be others that I can't recall - can't remember what we got for Danny Graham for example - was it £5m?
If so, that little lot amounts to £73m in to the club. If we have a £40m deficit, that means we have spent c.£110m on players and I simply can't see how we have, even if we include signing on fees and agents' fees.
Now what is possible is that the totality of 'additional cost' has been included - amounts that are paid through salaries as signing bonuses (eg. For Ayew and Gomis) but also all the signing bonuses for existing squad members. But that is not a transfer deficit, and also is double counting to an extent, as figures which get taken through the salaries line in our P&L account are more than covered by income (even if not by as much as we'd like). We are in the business of getting money in from football and paying footballers - that's to be expected that as one increases so does the other and isn't really a deficit.
It doesn't by the way detract from the thrust of the statement, namely we shouldn't sign stupid deals out of desperation, and I agree with that completely. But it is spun in a way that is, in my opinion (not that my opinion matters really to be honest) written to suggest that the club should not be expected to make a signing and to be frank, I disagree.
Caveat - I am not being negative, and am very positive about what we are seeing on the management and coaching side and am also optimistic that we will recover from this season and stay up!! [Post edited 25 Jan 2016 15:29]
|
I tend to view it slightly differently. One of the big arguments I've seen out there are people saying that the club must have a mountain of cash out there given we sold Bony for around £25m. The statement was an attempt to address that ... to show how our net spend has exceeded our expenditure, and that's ignoring capex, and that there isn't that pit of cash just waiting to be spent.
I didn't compile the figure and it is taken a little bit on faith as it was provided by someone at the club, so I can't comment on the 100% accuracy of it but it sounds right to me. The Allen money was largely spent that same summer as I outlined, the Bony money is really only a £10m or so profit, and we spunked that on Eder and Fat Frank (I know, I know ...). Logically to me it makes sense that we've spent much more than we've banked.
On the spending now expectations thing, I tend to look at it a little differently. The accounts are pretty clear that money is tight and expenditure needs to be matched, or even outpaced, by outgoings. We need players to come in this window even if relegation is suddenly looking a little less likely, but the club is going to have manouvre to achieve that. Big test for HJ and co. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:20 - Jan 25 with 1483 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:40 - Jan 25 by A_Fans_Dad |
This is the reason I asked the question about a breakdown of the £40M deficit in TRANSFER fees.
Is it a mistake in wording?
It should be simplicity itself to provide a list of incomings and outgoings with fees included, but I suppose that is too financially sensitive.
But something does not appear to add up in that bald statement. |
I would suspect the £40m includes signing on fees, agents fees etc. Wouldn't make sense not to IMO .. they are the cost of the transfer after all. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:25 - Jan 25 with 1474 views | Dr_Winston |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:20 - Jan 25 by Uxbridge |
I would suspect the £40m includes signing on fees, agents fees etc. Wouldn't make sense not to IMO .. they are the cost of the transfer after all. |
Any idea how much scope that the completion (for the most part) of the various training facilities will open up in the budget? Can't be far off a £10m outlay there, if not more. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:33 - Jan 25 with 1456 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:25 - Jan 25 by Dr_Winston |
Any idea how much scope that the completion (for the most part) of the various training facilities will open up in the budget? Can't be far off a £10m outlay there, if not more. |
Tangible assets, which Landore and Fairwood are going to be the meat of, is £17m.
Whether there's a natural hole in the budget remains to be seen I guess ... wages are going up all the time. IMO the new TV deal should give us much more to play with. However this season might focus a few minds at the council and the club regarding the ability of the club to buy the stadium in a short window. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:34 - Jan 25 with 1453 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:18 - Jan 25 by Uxbridge |
I tend to view it slightly differently. One of the big arguments I've seen out there are people saying that the club must have a mountain of cash out there given we sold Bony for around £25m. The statement was an attempt to address that ... to show how our net spend has exceeded our expenditure, and that's ignoring capex, and that there isn't that pit of cash just waiting to be spent.
I didn't compile the figure and it is taken a little bit on faith as it was provided by someone at the club, so I can't comment on the 100% accuracy of it but it sounds right to me. The Allen money was largely spent that same summer as I outlined, the Bony money is really only a £10m or so profit, and we spunked that on Eder and Fat Frank (I know, I know ...). Logically to me it makes sense that we've spent much more than we've banked.
On the spending now expectations thing, I tend to look at it a little differently. The accounts are pretty clear that money is tight and expenditure needs to be matched, or even outpaced, by outgoings. We need players to come in this window even if relegation is suddenly looking a little less likely, but the club is going to have manouvre to achieve that. Big test for HJ and co. |
Oh I don't for a moment think we've a mountain of cash, but the way it's been presented is not really a true reflection of what has happened.
I didn't know that figure was provided by the club - it makes a lot of sense now you've said that, as I think it shows what they wanted it to show.
There have been losses on players (Pablo, Chico, Pozuelo, Canas for example) but the big ticket players have all gone at a profit (Sinclair, Brendan, Bony, JJS, Joey). What the club (it seems) have done is decide to display increasing investments in assets as a deficit which it is not.
As with every business, revenues go up, profits go up and some of that gets invested in strengthening the asset base - no deficits involved in that.
And outgoings may well have exceeded incomings - the point being made is that I simply can't see that they have done so by £40m. The two examples you have given are actually both slightly in our favour (you've ignored the £5m we got for Brendan which was pure profit as an example). So there would have to be a lot of stuff that was out of our favour for that £40m to be built up and unless I can't think of a player that we've signed (and I've been going through them in my head) I don't think it's right.
As I said - it has to include signing fees that are actually taken through the P&L on the salaries line, and that's double counting in effect as its all covered and doesn't run at a loss (ignoring change in accounting dates as that's a wash in the longer term). | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:38 - Jan 25 with 1439 views | JackSwanTV |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:07 - Jan 25 by AngelRangelQS |
But in the last 3.5 years there have been 8 transfer windows and Monk was only in charge for 3 so how is it stitching Monk up? |
Because it mentions the net spend over the 8 windows but only the outgoings of monks 3.
So when you read monk got backed with 50 million then you think he spent loads without mentioning that he potentially recouped £40 million. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
