Assuming he goes

[exAtyeoMax]

13 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Steve - you’ve got people in the club to discuss players and contracts.  It’s your money, but remember your place!

He's got previous for this kind of talk hasn't he?

[Galley is our king]

Good on the club and good on Steve.

[sh1t_ref_again]

2 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

He's got previous for this kind of talk hasn't he?

Not sure I see an issue, we don't know what the interview was about, as it was on BBC Guernsey and perhaps was just asked a question about the future of a local lad and his club. The comment did not undermine anyone and if anything the comment sends a stronger signal to the big boys, get your money out or sling your hook as we are not after selling.

[View from the Dolman]

9 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Not sure I see an issue, we don't know what the interview was about, as it was on BBC Guernsey and perhaps was just asked a question about the future of a local lad and his club. The comment did not undermine anyone and if anything the comment sends a stronger signal to the big boys, get your money out or sling your hook as we are not after selling.

It appears to have been primarily about his hotel developments in Guernsey - there was a Chamber of Commerce lunch yesterday (https://guernseypress.com/news/2023/01/17/la-grande-mares-owner-says-it-will-be-world-class/)

SL was also the main headline on Radio Guernsey news this morning talking about the Guernsey tourism board leadership.

[ciderwithtommy]

It’s a clear change in our approach to transfers, we are no longer a “trading” club is how I see it. Previously under the last regime any breakthrough player had a price and this price was made public to the footballing agents/world so that we could trade. 
 

I think now we will sell when it suits, and try to build around our best players, rather than hawk them around and try to buy (through trusted agents!!?) their replacement.

of course there will always be a pecking order, and we know our place, but I don’t think we are “actively” trying to trade anymore. If we had of had this approach in 2017 I think we would be in the prem now, or at least have been there. Huge step forwards. 

 

 

[CyderInACan]

36 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

It appears to have been primarily about his hotel developments in Guernsey - there was a Chamber of Commerce lunch yesterday (https://guernseypress.com/news/2023/01/17/la-grande-mares-owner-says-it-will-be-world-class/)

These last few years have been a 'mare & now he's bought another one! 

[Philly The Kid]

21 minutes ago, ciderwithtommy said:

It’s a clear change in our approach to transfers, we are no longer a “trading” club is how I see it. Previously under the last regime any breakthrough player had a price and this price was made public to the footballing agents/world so that we could trade. 
 

I think now we will sell when it suits, and try to build around our best players, rather than hawk them around and try to buy (through trusted agents!!?) their replacement.

of course there will always be a pecking order, and we know our place, but I don’t think we are “actively” trying to trade anymore. If we had of had this approach in 2017 I think we would be in the prem now, or at least have been there. Huge step forwards. 

 

 

Not sure about that!!
The huge losses we've incurred will always dictate we have to sell. I take your point about when it suits us but AS is that rare commodity we've not had for a long time whereby he's that good his value will jump considerably in the next few years. It's only right we try and protect our asset before the inevitable happens. It also sends a message to AS and other young players that we will reward some loyalty (Inasmuch as we can afford to... If you really want to be here).
In terms of actively trying to sell, clubs don't have to do that much these days, the right conversation with an agent will lead to word spreading and players also talk amongst themselves whilst on international duty etc so the word soon gets around you're up for a move.
TBH we should always be looking to improve contracts for players where we feel they have value beyond just being a squad player. I know it's not directly related and whatever your feelings are about Famara there were 3 sides to his contract story so the club couldn't have felt he was worth any more than we offered. AS will go on and play for England so an investment now to reap a bigger dividend later is the right thing to do.

[Merrick's Marvels]

18 minutes ago, ciderwithtommy said:

It’s a clear change in our approach to transfers, we are no longer a “trading” club is how I see it. Previously under the last regime any breakthrough player had a price and this price was made public to the footballing agents/world so that we could trade. 
 

I think now we will sell when it suits, and try to build around our best players, rather than hawk them around and try to buy (through trusted agents!!?) their replacement.

of course there will always be a pecking order, and we know our place, but I don’t think we are “actively” trying to trade anymore. If we had of had this approach in 2017 I think we would be in the prem now, or at least have been there. Huge step forwards. 

 

 

But without selling anyone, we're unlikely to continuously stay within FFP. 

I know we, apparently, don't need to sell this season but at some point down the road in the future, we're going to have to cash in someone decent, surely? FFP will see to that

The only way round that, is to have a squad that's basically paid peanuts. So basically, we'd be like most of the L1 teams who come up - the Rotherhams, the Wycombes - and we all know what happens to those teams - they get relegated again because they can't afford to buy good enough players. Or you gamble that by keeping Scott, Semenyo etc you'll be promoted - at which point FFP becomes less of an issue. But SL has already shown he's not the gamble kind. 

So I'm not sure that we're no longer a trading club. There's only a handful of those and they're the elite. 

What we are trying to be, perhaps, is a club that can pick and choose when it trades, when it cashes in an asset - rather than one that's forced to by FFP or one that's happy to take the first big cheque a club higher up the pyramid waves at us. 

I agree that would be progress.   

[LondonBristolian]

1 hour ago, Simon bristol said:

Wow that’s interesting,,, and broke by the post instead of whats on here! Getting scott extended will only push the orice up but im sure there will be a clause inserted with an agreed price if he is to be sold?

I don't think there necessarily needs to be, depending on the trust between Scott, his agent and the club. In recent years the club have been transparent that they do accept players want to further their ambitions and we will sell at a point that's right for the player and the club. I suspect informally Scott and his agent have an indication of what a club would need to offer for him to move but, if the trust is there that we will not stand in the way of the right opportunity, there may well be no need for a formal contractual clause.

 

[GrahamC]

11 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

But without selling anyone, we're unlikely to continuously stay within FFP. 

I know we, apparently, don't need to sell this season but at some point down the road in the future, we're going to have to cash in someone decent, surely? FFP will see to that

The only way round that, is to have a squad that's basically paid peanuts. So basically, we'd be like most of the L1 teams who come up - the Rotherhams, the Wycombes - and we all know what happens to those teams - they get relegated again because they can't afford to buy good enough players. Or you gamble that by keeping Scott, Semenyo etc you'll be promoted - at which point FFP becomes less of an issue. But SL has already shown he's not the gamble kind. 

So I'm not sure that we're no longer a trading club. There's only a handful of those and they're the elite. 

What we are trying to be, perhaps, is a club that can pick and choose when it trades, when it cashes in an asset - rather than one that's forced to by FFP or one that's happy to take the first big cheque a club higher up the pyramid waves at us. 

I agree that would be progress.   

I see the new business model as a sort of third way between the clubs (Cardiff, Stoke, Forest maybe, us) who have in the past spent money they didn’t have in an unsustainable way & the ones you describe, so Rotherham, Wycombe who have tried to survive (& failed) on a shoestring.

So more like Millwall, Coventry, Luton, Preston, all who have achieved more in terms of final position in the division whilst spending far less than us.

That model still requires the odd sale, but if your wage bill isn’t full of Kalases, Palmers & Wells (old contract) then nowhere near as often.

When you add in that it appears the Academy production line shows no signs of slowing down it has a logic to it, at least.

Edited January 17, 2023 by GrahamC

[Simon bristol]

8 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I don't think there necessarily needs to be, depending on the trust between Scott, his agent and the club. In recent years the club have been transparent that they do accept players want to further their ambitions and we will sell at a point that's right for the player and the club. I suspect informally Scott and his agent have an indication of what a club would need to offer for him to move but, if the trust is there that we will not stand in the way of the right opportunity, there may well be no need for a formal contractual clause.

 

In the ideal world there would be trust, and i think weve conducted ourselves honourably with regards to scott, but dealing with a football agent on the basis of a handshake and trust wouldnt be something I would consider in most cases?

[ciderwithtommy]

1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

But without selling anyone, we're unlikely to continuously stay within FFP. 

I know we, apparently, don't need to sell this season but at some point down the road in the future, we're going to have to cash in someone decent, surely? FFP will see to that

The only way round that, is to have a squad that's basically paid peanuts. So basically, we'd be like most of the L1 teams who come up - the Rotherhams, the Wycombes - and we all know what happens to those teams - they get relegated again because they can't afford to buy good enough players. Or you gamble that by keeping Scott, Semenyo etc you'll be promoted - at which point FFP becomes less of an issue. But SL has already shown he's not the gamble kind. 

So I'm not sure that we're no longer a trading club. There's only a handful of those and they're the elite. 

What we are trying to be, perhaps, is a club that can pick and choose when it trades, when it cashes in an asset - rather than one that's forced to by FFP or one that's happy to take the first big cheque a club higher up the pyramid waves at us. 

I agree that would be progress.   

Exactly, I know as stated we will always be where we are in the pecking order, but there is a vast difference between a club that sells at the right time, and where we were, simply put, trading! Sell one buy two, round pegs square holes, it was always unsustainable.
 

 My point is more, under previous regime, we were almost keen to trade. At that point FFP was not really a huge issue, it became so when we tried to replace solid players with higher paid players that flopped, hence where we are now with FFP. And also tbf Covid. 

the change, to me, is clear. Want our best players? They cost a lot and we will sell when best for us. best for us could mean a) FFP or b) the money is too good and we have identified replacements 
 

I don’t envisage many more Fam/HNM situations as they are hangovers from the previous model, offering Scott a contract with 2.5 years left on his current one was not the game we used to play. 

[ciderwithtommy]

1 hour ago, Philly The Kid said:

Not sure about that!!
The huge losses we've incurred will always dictate we have to sell. I take your point about when it suits us but AS is that rare commodity we've not had for a long time whereby he's that good his value will jump considerably in the next few years. It's only right we try and protect our asset before the inevitable happens. It also sends a message to AS and other young players that we will reward some loyalty (Inasmuch as we can afford to... If you really want to be here).
In terms of actively trying to sell, clubs don't have to do that much these days, the right conversation with an agent will lead to word spreading and players also talk amongst themselves whilst on international duty etc so the word soon gets around you're up for a move.
TBH we should always be looking to improve contracts for players where we feel they have value beyond just being a squad player. I know it's not directly related and whatever your feelings are about Famara there were 3 sides to his contract story so the club couldn't have felt he was worth any more than we offered. AS will go on and play for England so an investment now to reap a bigger dividend later is the right thing to do.

Haha we will have to agree to disagree to some extent then! I think there is a huge difference in how we are talking about our players, and the approach we are taking in the transfer market. 

Selling is of course a necessity, as it is for every club globally, but the skill is doing it in a way that is controlled and in our interest.

sell pack on deadline day? Yeah sure we will do that! As an example of a mind boggler, I don’t think this regime would entertain it. 

[Loco Rojo]

3 hours ago, pillred said:

Looks like we have at last learned from some of our past mistakes and are no longer a easy target for clubs looking to get our players for a song. I know nearly all clubs are selling clubs but the reason we never seem to progress beyond Championship standard is because we keep losing our better players, if only we could hold on to some of them for long enough to get to the top flight it might be us poaching promising players. I hope I live long enough to see us nick Bournemouth's best player off them god it annoys me that they are in a position to tempt away our best players. 

I don't think i'll ever see City in the top flight in my lifetime.

If i was in Alex's position knowing i could potentially play in the PL sooner and earn a bucket load more, i'd only sign an extention here with an agreed release clause fee that i was happy with (at the moment i assume there isn't one in his current contract). Because at least then i'd have some control over a future say in leaving.  If the release clause fee we include is unrealistic, I wouldn't sign it.

Of course, Alex might be the type of person that just loves playong football and wants to play his entire career here and won't include a release fee! 

So whilst it might be a clause that puts some clubs off, it means we have less strength in having a say on him staying (e.g. if someone matches that clause fee i assume City have no say in accepting it or not). Of cpurse, there could be endless additional clauses City could include i assume but if it gets too complicated i wouldn't sign it.

I think our only position of strength now is the length of his current contract which is slowely ticking down.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Loco Rojo

[Merrick's Marvels]

45 minutes ago, ciderwithtommy said:

My point is more, under previous regime, we were Ashton was almost keen to trade. At that point FFP was not really a huge issue, it became so when we tried to replace solid players with higher paid players that flopped, hence where we are now with FFP. And also tbf Covid. 

[slartibartfast]

3 hours ago, pillred said:

Looks like we have at last learned from some of our past mistakes and are no longer a easy target for clubs looking to get our players for a song. I know nearly all clubs are selling clubs but the reason we never seem to progress beyond Championship standard is because we keep losing our better players, if only we could hold on to some of them for long enough to get to the top flight it might be us poaching promising players. I hope I live long enough to see us nick Bournemouth's best player off them god it annoys me that they are in a position to tempt away our best players. 

It funny, I still think of Bournemouth (& Boscombe Athletic) and Brentford as 3/4 division clubs !

[slartibartfast]

4 hours ago, Simon bristol said:

Wow that’s interesting,,, and broke by the post instead of whats on here! Getting scott extended will only push the orice up but im sure there will be a clause inserted with an agreed price if he is to be sold?

£300 k ?   

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just on the FFP point if he keeps developing it should maintain and moreover enhance value.

Basically as it stands in any one year period if our underlying pre tax loss before any sales exceeds £19-20m or £57-60m in a 3 year period then yes some level of transfer profit would be necessary. I'm talking in general not the current position.

What is unknown at this point is:

1) The precise nature of the rul3 changes in terms of Upper Loss Limits moving forward.

2) Talk of move to a percentage of football wages, agents fees ans player amortisation rather than the current 3 year £39m Profit and Sustainability regs. Year 1 90 pct, Year 2 80 pct and Year 3 as the new baseline 70 pct. Transfer profit dunno how it's averaged, percentage or what will also count favourably towards the spending limits.

3) Revenue distribution  being is a must under the new system in fact under any system but with this..

If a team has a £40-50m TV revenue advantage in relegation then in simple terms it means they can if we are going at 70 pct spend £28-35m more on said football costs, if it's 80 pct then it's £32-40m and if it's 90 pct then £36-45m. Clearly it's not so simple, legacy wages, amortisation and impairment etc but it has potential to bake in a huge advantage to a relegated side.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[mozo]

2 hours ago, GrahamC said:

I see the new business model as a sort of third way between the clubs (Cardiff, Stoke, Forest maybe, us) who have in the past spent money they didn’t have in an unsustainable way & the ones you describe, so Rotherham, Wycombe who have tried to survive (& failed) on a shoestring.

So more like Millwall, Coventry, Luton, Preston, all who have achieved more in terms of final position in the division whilst spending far less than us.

That model still requires the odd sale, but if your wage bill isn’t full of Kalases, Palmers & Wells (old contract) then nowhere near as often.

When you add in that it appears the Academy production line shows no signs of slowing down it has a logic to it, at least.

I'm not yet convinced by our new business model. With Massengo having been on gardening leave for 6 months and still a City player, I need some good news on a Semenyo contract before I trust that the club has got itself on track.

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Transfer profit dunno how it's averaged, percentage or what will also count favourably towards the spending limits.

from the bits I’ve read it will work like SCMP / La Liga where it gets added when received.

So, humour me for a mo’ with an example:

£5m transfer profit, buying club pay in a single lump sum - £5m transfer profit added into that year’s income pot that is used for turnover.

£5m transfer profit, buying club pay 60% up front, then 2 equal annual payments of 20% - £3m added to this year’s revenue, £1m next year, £1m year after that.

That’s how I understood it.

[pillred]

1 hour ago, slartibartfast said:

It funny, I still think of Bournemouth (& Boscombe Athletic) and Brentford as 3/4 division clubs !

So do I which makes it all the more galling they can come and tempt away players like Loyd Kelly from us.

[REDOXO]

The almost certainty that we have changed the culture and player outgoings at the club enough for if not to be dinked with a points loss under FFP, has given the club a huge amount of extra leverage in negotiations. 
 

We are playing a very young team that if Saturday was not an outlier or aberration is starting to gel and be competitive. The return of Kalas will be like a new signing. The issue will be if someone meets or exceeds the Semenyo valuation now. 

[Loco Rojo]

I hear what peoples arguments are that the longer we keep Scott his value increases (assuming he continues to develop) which i agree with BUT, are clubs likely to pay an increased fee above what we'd accept now (say for example the £25m people put on here) whilst his contract is running down in say 1 year, 2 years? (assuming he doesn't sign this new offer). 

Thats a lot of money for a bottom end PL club to spend and I think we're more likely to see teams wait until this contract expires and then get him for free/compensation ala HNM. 

I know there's potential for desperate clubs to splash out to save their PL status if near relegation but could they spend the money better elsewhere. Buying from abroad seems to be cheaper.

I wonder if we're going to see more players winding down contracts and then moving on and it'll become the norm that ours (and other clubs star players) often leave for nothing/very little.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Loco Rojo

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

We are playing a very young team that if Saturday was not an outlier or aberration is starting to gel and be competitive. The return of Kalas will be like a new signing. The issue will be if someone meets or exceeds the Semenyo valuation now. 

Academy players per match day squad this season.

City average c6.4

Championship average c2.5 (Richard Gould Fans Forum Oct 2022)

Could be a lot involved again tonight too.

[Mr Popodopolous]

41 minutes ago, Loco Rojo said:

I hear what peoples arguments are that the longer we keep Scott his value increases (assuming he continues to develop) which i agree with BUT, are clubs likely to pay an increased fee above what we'd accept now (say for example the £25m people put on here) whilst his contract is running down in say 1 year, 2 years? (assuming he doesn't sign this new offer). 

Thats a lot of money for a bottom end PL club to spend and I think we're more likely to see teams wait until this contract expires and then get him for free/compensation ala HNM. 

I know there's potential for desperate clubs to splash out to save their PL status if near relegation but could they spend the money better elsewhere. Buying from abroad seems to be cheaper.

I wonder if we're going to see more players winding down contracts and then moving on and it'll become the norm that ours (and other clubs star players) often leave for nothing/very little.

It all depends on the new contract tbh well IMO anyway. If he won't sign at all we will have to reassess this summer and try to get as much as we can for him in summer 2023 or at a push January 2024.

Think if he develops as he should and of course injuries are key and can wreck or badly stall a trajectory then value definitely would grow or be retained if we sell at the right time of course.

Buying from abroad or even PL to PL does seem to be on the rise, worth watching where PL cash goes in the next few windows I believe- blip or trend, time will tell.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[RedorDead BCFC]

6 hours ago, Jerseybean said:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-alex-scott-tottenham-leeds-8038254

It also says that Semenyo is not signing a new contract. 

[marmite]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

from the bits I’ve read it will work like SCMP / La Liga where it gets added when received.

So, humour me for a mo’ with an example:

£5m transfer profit, buying club pay in a single lump sum - £5m transfer profit added into that year’s income pot that is used for turnover.

£5m transfer profit, buying club pay 60% up front, then 2 equal annual payments of 20% - £3m added to this year’s revenue, £1m next year, £1m year after that.

That’s how I understood it.

Follow that Dave but wouldn't the 2 outstanding payments count as money (debt owed)in the bank so to speak? If not, then surely we need all sales to be paid in full upfront. 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, marmite said:

Follow that Dave but wouldn't the 2 outstanding payments count as money (debt owed)in the bank so to speak? If not, then surely we need all sales to be paid in full upfront. 

I guess it depends what your budget forecasts are for the following seasons.  Might be better to spread it out???

But all a bit unknown at the mo’ as the rules aren’t out yet (not to us anyway).

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 hours ago, pillred said:

Looks like we have at last learned from some of our past mistakes and are no longer a easy target for clubs looking to get our players for a song. I know nearly all clubs are selling clubs but the reason we never seem to progress beyond Championship standard is because we keep losing our better players, if only we could hold on to some of them for long enough to get to the top flight it might be us poaching promising players. I hope I live long enough to see us nick Bournemouth's best player off them god it annoys me that they are in a position to tempt away our best players. 

We were one of the top sellers ay this level pre Covid. Helped by market conditions of course.

Ayling and Freeman perhaps two exceptions.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[pillred]

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We were one of the top sellers ay this level pre Covid. Helped by market conditions of course.

Ayling and Freeman perhaps two exceptions.

When you look at the list of players  we have sold over the past say 4 years or so they would have made quite a formidable team, it's frustrating being a city fan that's for sure.

Edited January 17, 2023 by pillred