old_eastender Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Seem to becoming the norm these days, quite frustrating. As fans we want to know who has cost us what and how much we got. I can understand fees being undisclosed during negotiations but once a deal is signed and sealed, it ought to be in the open what fee has been paid. After all it must have to be declared in the club accounts in due course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 It kills your negotiating position in the market though. See Liverpool spending £35m on Carroll after disclosing £50m income from Torres. If clubs know you've just brought in some cash they can hold out for more. Plus in the accounts it is very well hidden so that you won't be able to drill down to an individual transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Seem to becoming the norm these days, quite frustrating. As fans we want to know who has cost us what and how much we got. I can understand fees being undisclosed during negotiations but once a deal is signed and sealed, it ought to be in the open what fee has been paid. After all it must have to be declared in the club accounts in due course... It seems today's transfers are complicated by add ons based on performance, number of appearances, league that the buying club may find themselves in during the length of the contract etc, etc Hammers fans saying Baldock was valued at 1.1 Million, how much we payed or received given the Maynard transfer remains to be seen. Likewise Palace fans saying Yannick cost 300K, but nothing about add ons It's a bit like your wife telling you how much she spent at the sales, do you really want to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 In time it'll become more public but when there is 5 or so days left till the end of the transfer window it would be foolish to show your hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westonred Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 I thought Baldock was, we paid em a Mil and they already owed us a Mil so in total was nearer to Two Million thats the way i read it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 The purchase of Baldock was 'complicated' because West Ham still owed City the balance of the Maynard deal. Its not public knowledge just how much the balance was but it was certainly a contributing in the negotiations between the two clubs. Its understandable in this case to see why the fee was undisclosed. Not so in the Bolasie case. City got him for a snip from Plymouth at £20k and sold him to Palace for an 'undisclosed fee'. At a guess City probably got £250/300k for him and therefore turned a decent profit of quarter a million or so. That would be a serious amount in most peoples bank account but in the bank account of Bristol City its not that substantial so why its 'undisclosed' is a mystery. Its not as if another club with a player McInnes wanted to would suddenly up the asking price on the back of the fact that City recently made around £250k on a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 There's precisely no advantage to the club in making the fees public and lots of downsides. Basically, your curiousity is not as important as avoiding giving away commercial information to people we might be doing business with. You can read the accounts if you're that interested in the finances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RegC Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Don't the accounts just reveal a "transfer fees paid" entry rather than drilling down to each individual case? Same with incoming. I think. I'm sure a shareholder / regular attendee at the annual forum can confirm. Sure I saw on twitter confirmation from bcfctweets that it was >£1m though. But at the end of the day, the lad is ours' now so however much he costs it doesn't bother me now; as long as he does the business out there where it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodEmperor Palpatine Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 I thought Baldock was, we paid em a Mil and they already owed us a Mil so in total was nearer to Two Million thats the way i read it 1.5M according to Sky Sports News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippy273 Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 The purchase of Baldock was 'complicated' because West Ham still owed City the balance of the Maynard deal. Its not public knowledge just how much the balance was but it was certainly a contributing in the negotiations between the two clubs. Its understandable in this case to see why the fee was undisclosed. Not so in the Bolasie case. City got him for a snip from Plymouth at £20k and sold him to Palace for an 'undisclosed fee'. At a guess City probably got £250/300k for him and therefore turned a decent profit of quarter a million or so. That would be a serious amount in most peoples bank account but in the bank account of Bristol City its not that substantial so why its 'undisclosed' is a mystery. Its not as if another club with a player McInnes wanted to would suddenly up the asking price on the back of the fact that City recently made around £250k on a player. http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol-City-sell-winger-Yannick-Bolasie-Crystal/story-16762017-detail/story.html £250,000 quoted in the post, this was a great profit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numbeast Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 With so many clauses inserted into transfers these day I don't think either the buying or selling club really know how much a transfer is really worth for quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Don't care about fees as we don't get to now mounthly salaries. Length of contract should be self evident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 There's precisely no advantage to the club in making the fees public and lots of downsides. Basically, your curiousity is not as important as avoiding giving away commercial information to people we might be doing business with. You can read the accounts if you're that interested in the finances. In a decreasing market transfer fees should be announced for the good of the game. How can we judge a signing if we don't get to now the actual cost? Dont tell me I should trust incompetent ***** ***** *** ****** *****************!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mihai Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 1.5 Baldock Is not a small amount Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citywest30 Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 In a decreasing market transfer fees should be announced for the good of the game. How can we judge a signing if we don't get to now the actual cost? Dont tell me I should trust incompetent ***** ***** *** ****** *****************!! Shouldn't a player be judged on their performances rather than their value. Would you expect more from Baldock than from Davies? The fee at the end of the day is just a guide and is how much the selling club will sell for. ShouldLiverpool expect more from Caroll than Suarez? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 In a decreasing market transfer fees should be announced for the good of the game. How can we judge a signing if we don't get to now the actual cost? Dont tell me I should trust incompetent ***** ***** *** ****** *****************!! Oh dear. You can't judge a signing anyway since you won't know the wages, the agent fees, the signing fee, the bonuses, the circumstances... and so on. Telling you the fee would just be misleading and it looks like you don't need to be any more misled. There is no advantage to the football club in telling other clubs exactly how much cash it just received. It's not that hard to understand. Rarely would any other business do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Oh dear. You can't judge a signing anyway since you won't know the wages, the agent fees, the signing fee, the bonuses, the circumstances... and so on. Telling you the fee would just be misleading and it looks like you don't need to be any more misled. There is no advantage to the football club in telling other clubs exactly how much cash it just received. It's not that hard to understand. Rarely would any other business do it. Card should be on the table. In a decreasing market a club with balls should announce the total cost. Not exactly that our signings are world beaters we can't cope without. Don try to hide away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Card should be on the table. In a decreasing market a club with balls should announce the total cost. Not exactly that our signings are world beaters we can't cope without. Don try to hide away. There is no reason to put our cards on the table when nobody else does, how utterly stupid would the club have to be to put themselves at an unnecessary disadvantage? Your views don't seem to be backed up by any logic - how would doing this benefit the club or make us more successful exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 There is no reason to put our cards on the table when nobody else does, how utterly stupid would the club have to be to put themselves at an unnecessary disadvantage? Your views don't seem to be backed up by any logic - how would doing this benefit the club or make us more successful exactly? It is. Someone need to start. Would only be a good thing if we told the eworld we got £56,000 for Yannick. It's a decreasing market remember. Announce it. Most clubs do poor business those days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 It is. Someone need to start. Would only be a good thing if we told the eworld we got £56,000 for Yannick. It's a decreasing market remember. Announce it. Most clubs do poor business those days. So, in conclusion, there is no reason and you can't provide any argument that this would help the club. Ace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 So, in conclusion, there is no reason and you can't provide any argument that this would help the club. Ace. Glad you got the point at last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 There is no reason to put our cards on the table when nobody else does, how utterly stupid would the club have to be to put themselves at an unnecessary disadvantage? What unnecessary disadvantage? We know pretty much how much Derby got for Davies so I don't quite understand why you seem a little paranoid about what money is exchanged between clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 What unnecessary disadvantage? We know pretty much how much Derby got for Davies so I don't quite understand why you seem a little paranoid about what money is exchanged between clubs. It's not paranoia it's a standard business practise. Don't give away commercially sensitive info. You can pull someone's pants down in a negotiation if you know more about their financial position than they do about yours. That's why giving out those numbers particularly during the window would be amateurish. We know nothing about what Derby got for Davies, nor about what Baldock cost, nor about what we got for Bolasie. It's just poorly informed guesswork and your opposite number having that uncertainty is valuable when you negotiate. But instead of arguing about why the numbers shouldn't be released, perhaps we could hear a single valid reason why they should? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 It's not paranoia it's a standard business practise. Don't give away commercially sensitive info. You can pull someone's pants down in a negotiation if you know more about their financial position than they do about yours. That's why giving out those numbers particularly during the window would be amateurish. We know nothing about what Derby got for Davies, nor about what Baldock cost, nor about what we got for Bolasie. It's just poorly informed guesswork and your opposite number having that uncertainty is valuable when you negotiate. But instead of arguing about why the numbers shouldn't be released, perhaps we could hear a single valid reason why they should? Exactly this. Why would you want to let other clubs know how much you have in the bank to potentially play with? When you walk into a shop do you stick your bank statement to your head? I don't think so. How can you negotiate when the person you are negotiating with knows your potential ceiling? Simple business practice. You only need to be concerned with facts and figures at the end of the season. Even then, if we can't afford if we won't spent it. We're lucky in that respect as SL is covering everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Exactly this. Why would you want to let other clubs know how much you have in the bank to potentially play with? When you walk into a shop do you stick your bank statement to your head? I don't think so. How can you negotiate when the person you are negotiating with knows your potential ceiling? Simple business practice. You only need to be concerned with facts and figures at the end of the season. Even then, if we can't afford if we won't spent it. We're lucky in that respect as SL is covering everything. I don't buy this at all. Every single club in the PL and football league know that our club is owned by an multi millionaire. They also know that despite that he is a very tough cookie and they don't take his huge wealth as a sign to make the most out of our club. Lansdown himself has admitted that he had made previous errors when signing players in the past which makes him even more determined not to repeat those errors now Why did else he fly in to oversee the signing on Baldock when he pays his son a very handsome salary to do that very same job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 I don't buy this at all. Every single club in the PL and football league know that our club is owned by an multi millionaire. They also know that despite that he is a very tough cookie and they don't take his huge wealth as a sign to make the most out of our club. Lansdown himself has admitted that he had made previous errors when signing players in the past which makes him even more determined not to repeat those errors now Why did else he fly in to oversee the signing on Baldock when he pays his son a very handsome salary to do that very same job? Well surely what you've just said is a big enough reason not to release how much we've made on signings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 I don't buy this at all. Every single club in the PL and football league know that our club is owned by an multi millionaire. They also know that despite that he is a very tough cookie and they don't take his huge wealth as a sign to make the most out of our club. Lansdown himself has admitted that he had made previous errors when signing players in the past which makes him even more determined not to repeat those errors now Why did else he fly in to oversee the signing on Baldock when he pays his son a very handsome salary to do that very same job? So, you can't come up with a good reason the numbers should be made public then? Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 I don't buy this at all. Every single club in the PL and football league know that our club is owned by an multi millionaire. They also know that despite that he is a very tough cookie and they don't take his huge wealth as a sign to make the most out of our club. Lansdown himself has admitted that he had made previous errors when signing players in the past which makes him even more determined not to repeat those errors now Why did else he fly in to oversee the signing on Baldock when he pays his son a very handsome salary to do that very same job? He flew in for the Baldock signing because it was done on a match day, he only gets 90 days in the country each year. So he was actually able to kill two birds with one stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 Knowledge is power. If we tell the world what we pay, then they're more knowledgeable about us. It might do us no harm, but who knows? If we don't tell the world what we pay, the other clubs won't know. That way it'll definitely do us no harm. It's a little bit like going swimming of the coast of Hawaii with a small cut to your ankle. You'll probably be fine, but you may get attacked by a great white shark. If you don't go swimming, you definitely won't get attacked by a great white shark. Well, not until they learn how to live on the land. And then god help us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 So, you can't come up with a good reason the numbers should be made public then? Fair enough. You are claiming that announcing incoming transfer fees puts City at an 'unnecessary disadvantage'. Whilst is some cases I would agree with that, in the case of Bolasie the sums involved are relatively small and see no reason why the club couldn't simply say approximately how much the club made on his transfer. Fans like to know these things especially as it makes the club look very astute in their transfer dealings. 'Undisclosed fee' could be interpreted by some of some as dodgy dealings behind the scenes and why invite such thoughts when they could so easily be avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.