Jump to content
IGNORED

Johnson’s and Ashton’s deals


JasonM88

Recommended Posts

Made a very basic summary of all their permanent deals, in and out. Makes for interesting viewing. 

BUYS

 

16/17

Tomlin - 3 million 

Magnússon - 2.5 

O’Dowda - 1.2 

Moore - 1.5 

Brownhill - 200k 

Paterson - 500k 

Engvall - 1.5 

Hegeler - 300k 

Djuric - 1.4 

Wright - 500 k 

Taylor - 300k 

= 13 million

 

17/18

Diedhoui - 5.5

Baker - 3

Elliasson - 2

Bakinson - 300k

Holden - 200k

Walsh - 1.2

= 13.2 million

 

18/19

Watkins - 1

Webster - 3.5

Adelakun - ? ~500k

Weimann - 2

Hunt - 1.6

Eisa 1.5

= 10.1 Million

 

= 36.2 million

 

SALES

 

16/17

Kodjia - 11

Agard - 750k

Ayling - 750k

Williams - 250k

Burns - 500k

Freeman - 300k

= 13.5 million (+Bolasie sell on takings (4.5))

 

17/18

Tomlin - 3 

 

= 3 million

 

18/19

Flint - 7 

Reid - 10

Bryan - 6

Magnússon - 2.5

Djuric - 900k

 

=26.4 (plus various sell on takings)

 

= 42.9 million

 

So with Johnson here we’ve made a profit on transfers of about 6 million, not a huge amount. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JasonM88

If you've got the time then please can you let us know the same calculations for all the other Championship teams over the same period??

I bet you may find that we're one of the very very few in  surplus ( excluding those promoted to PL) and that some may be looking at losses bigger than  a third world economy.

It actually makes for good reading and even better when you add in the current value of players still here e.g. what's Kelly worth, or Browhill, O'Dowda , Famara etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

What about the cost of the loans during this spell ?

A very good point - I think Kent was expensive. But given we haven’t loaned many in but loaned a lot out I’d be interested to know how it balances. Of course Tammy and Kent cost us more than Bewport paid for McGoalsky but we have 20+ out on loan and must be getting some money in for them whereas we only ever seem to have about 2/3 in at a time. I know Chelsea earn a fortune off all their loans so would be good to know if we cover the cost of our incoming loans with our outgoing loans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BrightCiderLife said:

A very good point - I think Kent was expensive. But given we haven’t loaned many in but loaned a lot out I’d be interested to know how it balances. Of course Tammy and Kent cost us more than Bewport paid for McGoalsky but we have 20+ out on loan and must be getting some money in for them whereas we only ever seem to have about 2/3 in at a time. I know Chelsea earn a fortune off all their loans so would be good to know if we cover the cost of our incoming loans with our outgoing loans.

Loans from the top clubs tend to be free as long as you play them. That’s when it becomes expensive 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BrightCiderLife said:

A very good point - I think Kent was expensive. But given we haven’t loaned many in but loaned a lot out I’d be interested to know how it balances. Of course Tammy and Kent cost us more than Bewport paid for McGoalsky but we have 20+ out on loan and must be getting some money in for them whereas we only ever seem to have about 2/3 in at a time. I know Chelsea earn a fortune off all their loans so would be good to know if we cover the cost of our incoming loans with our outgoing loans.

Given the level that our loanees are going out to, with a few exceptions, I very much doubt we will receive any loan fee. As regards wages, some of them may get a % covered but most likely not all of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to see the numbers over a longer period.

It always puzzles me that the signing fees quoted are about what we pay the other club. No-one seems to account for the signing-on bonus that it is commonly stated the  players usually get. This is on top of their wages isn't it?

I'm guessing this might add a fair bit to the cost of players signed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, johnwilkinson said:

This suggests that either Mark Ashton and the scouting team are good at spotting potential talent at the right price or that Lee Johnson and the coaching team add value.

Most of the sales +£36M ...were from players signed and in place before either MA or LJ were appointed. 

 No player signed by MA or LJ has yet to be sold at a profit......So the OP is meaningless.

They may well sign, develop, and sell players for a profit ...in future........but profits quoted are down to the Academy and Cotterill mostly ..not forgetting SOD ! (Flint)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

Most of the sales +£36M ...were from players signed and in place before either MA or LJ were appointed. 

 No player signed by MA or LJ has yet to be sold at a profit......So the OP is meaningless.

They may well sign, develop, and sell players for a profit ...in future........but profits quoted are down to the Academy and Cotterill mostly ..not forgetting SOD ! (Flint)

LJ can take full credit (alongside Bobby himself) for the 10 million for Bobby Reid. Doesn’t matter if he was here before, as his value was probably 100k before LJ came in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, chinapig said:

Somebody, presumably Ashton, certainly deserves credit for getting £16m for 2 players with only a year left on their contracts.

There were plenty of posters who were confidently predicting we'd be lucky to get a third of that.

Or leaving for free...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point to factor in is that when Johnson came in, we had a fairly small squad which needed bolstering. This will cost a few million.

Overall, profit of that nature is very impressive in the modern game. Quite rare really. From a financial point of view we’re doing well.

Obviously there’s questions about the quality of some of the transfers, if we can rectify that - things will be looking good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its fair to say this is now Johnsons squad. We've got Pack, Fielding and Smith as the only inherited players, Smith being a player Johnson has signed at a previous club.

If we can achieve a similar finishing position to last year then it probably would show progress over that Johnson period in the context of fees paid and received.

A poor finish and the transfer fee income received and paid out dont really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Chris_Brown said:

Seen a lot of the players brought in this summer have you?

Enough to decide they're not good enough quality?

Londoner isn’t alone in assessing the incoming players without having seen them play................must be real visionaries.............:cool2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with the point that we are still waiting on Johnson’s players coming to fruition on the balance sheets but in a footballing sense, so far his signings have been more effective than the player they replaced - on the whole.

I have been wondering about our profit and loss over the last 3 seasons and where that sits with FFP. It was obviously going to be positive but it would be interesting to see what effect next year has - do we have a 3 year rolling plan where making a loss in 1/3 years isn’t a problem and we’ll fight tooth and nail to keep better players again.

Kodjia was our only significant out a couple of years back - now we’ve had Flint, Bryan and Reid. Johnson knows that bringing in 3 development players for the price we sold a ‘final product’ will

a. Require time for them to reach the level their predecessor was at (&experienced players to hold the fort until they’re ready)

b. Hopefully give you 1/3 that are as good or as valuable as their predecessor.

or are the club lining up one big bonanza if we hit a stage where

year 1 yielded £14m profits

year 2 yields £10-14m profits

year 3, we get similar sales

and have upwards of £60m to play with in transfer fees for year 3

(2x profit years, 1 year of £20m sales and 1xchairman can cover £12m losses)

I highly doubt it’s the latter but our ‘loss’ year certainly has to be the year we kick on in footballing terms if not spending - which, I think we did this time, only the club couldn’t sustain it.

Hopefully the next serious push is about points on the board rather than ‘this is a surprise and we’re top at Christmas’.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...