Alex Scott - £25m to Bournemouth- Confirmed

[chinapig]

56 minutes ago, Gillies Downs Leeds said:

Also they have already lost Keita and Milner from their midfield. Also talk of Thiago leaving in this window as well.

They have Bajcetic, Jones, Elliott and Alexander-Arnold plus the 2 new signings. Lavia from Southampton is reported to be their next target. Alex looks unlikely then.

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

Or we , by retaining our best players, win promotion and make a profit each year, Negative people have a problem for every solution

Sorry to be negative but being in the Premier League doesn't mean an automatic profit. Revenue goes up, but costs do as well.

Some teams do make a profit, but plenty make huge losses, more than £100m in some cases. It's not necessarily a golden ticket to solve all financial woes. Also many of those who do make a profit still don't by selling their young talent to the big clubs.

Ultimately we do have to sell someone for something at some point. That's literally how we keep the lights on and keep away from points deductions. Semenyo and austerity have sorted us for a while, but at some point in the next 24 months we need another £10m+ sale. If not Scott then Conway, Pring, or someone else (or a combination of them) will be sold to cover us.

[Grey Fox]

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

Sorry to be negative but being in the Premier League doesn't mean an automatic profit. Revenue goes up, but costs do as well.

Some teams do make a profit, but plenty make huge losses, more than £100m in some cases. It's not necessarily a golden ticket to solve all financial woes. Also many of those who do make a profit still don't by selling their young talent to the big clubs.

Ultimately we do have to sell someone for something at some point. That's literally how we keep the lights on and keep away from points deductions. Semenyo and austerity have sorted us for a while, but at some point in the next 24 months we need another £10m+ sale. If not Scott then Conway, Pring, or someone else (or a combination of them) will be sold to cover us.

Sure, sell Semenyo, Scott then Conway. Please remind me why I bother buying a ticket ?

Try a smile 

[JoeAman08]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Sorry to be negative but being in the Premier League doesn't mean an automatic profit. Revenue goes up, but costs do as well.

Some teams do make a profit, but plenty make huge losses, more than £100m in some cases. It's not necessarily a golden ticket to solve all financial woes. Also many of those who do make a profit still don't by selling their young talent to the big clubs.

Ultimately we do have to sell someone for something at some point. That's literally how we keep the lights on and keep away from points deductions. Semenyo and austerity have sorted us for a while, but at some point in the next 24 months we need another £10m+ sale. If not Scott then Conway, Pring, or someone else (or a combination of them) will be sold to cover us.

We don’t really looking at it. This is the last season with covid losses on it really. We don’t seem to be pushing that 13m loss per season anymore I don’t think. As long as SL will cover the losses we are not in awful shape anymore. We’ll need to sell but don’t need massive fees every few years. 

[Betty Swallocks]

2 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

Sure, sell Semenyo, Scott then Conway. Please remind me why I bother buying a ticket ?

Try a smile 

It wasn’t so long ago that the only way a player would leave the City was when we released them. 
 

It’s a sign of a good academy and good recruitment that we now have players who other clubs would like to sign for decent money. 
 

Trust the process, so to speak. 

[JoeAman08]

3 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

Sure, sell Semenyo, Scott then Conway. Please remind me why I bother buying a ticket ?

Try a smile 

Semenyo was necessary. Scott and Conway not so much. However, if people want to meet our valuations then we should not stand in their way either. 

[Show Me The Money!]

1 hour ago, johnheadbcfc said:

87 pages of nothing

That's a bit unfair. People have put a lot of effort into getting us this far. 

[Tim Monaghan]

1 hour ago, johnheadbcfc said:

87 pages of nothing

It does make you realise how passionate our fanbase is though. Like, we deserve Premiership football!!! We bloody love it. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Ghost Rider

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

Sure, sell Semenyo, Scott then Conway. Please remind me why I bother buying a ticket ?

Try a smile 

I've no idea why you buy a ticket mate. I buy mine because I support City and want to enjoy watching them and want to belong to this brilliantly odd little club tucked away in an incredible little city that I identify with incredibly strongly. I therefore want us to survive sustainably and right now that means selling a player for £10m or more every other season or so. I don't like it, but I understand it's necessity.

Just now, JoeAman08 said:

We don’t really looking at it. This is the last season with covid losses on it really. We don’t seem to be pushing that 13m loss per season anymore I don’t think. As long as SL will cover the losses we are not in awful shape anymore. We’ll need to sell but don’t need massive fees every few years. 

I've not looked at it for a while but when I last did (which was when our last set of accounts came out) I reckoned were looking at a loss for 2022/23 of something around £18-20m iirc. I've a post somewhere that sets out my reasoning. In my opinion you're being quite generous to suggest we can get losses consistently below £13m per season without a £10m+ sale in every 3 year cycle. I hope you're correct, but I'd not stake my house on it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I've not looked at it for a while but when I last did (which was when our last set of accounts came out) I reckoned were looking at a loss for 2022/23 of something around £18-20m iirc. I've a post somewhere that sets out my reasoning. In my opinion you're being quite generous to suggest we can get losses consistently below £13m per season without a £10m+ sale in every 3 year cycle. I hope you're correct, but I'd not stake my house on it.

Ah but this was before or after the January activity? I may have to revise my FFP projections badly if it's the latter. The former and we're slightly better placed than I thought.

FFP wise, I make our allowables to be £7m per season. Therefore if we can keep a total 3 year loss of £60m or below we are fine just about. Albeit right on the line. £62.5m to this season due to the remaining Covid year which gave a £2.5m allowance.

Then there's solvency or just not running at a huge loss each year and that's a different consideration.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ah but this was before or after the January activity? I may have to revise my FFP ptoejftiins badly if it's the latter. The former and we're slightly better placed than I thought.

FFP wise, I make our allowables to be £7m per season. Therefore if we can keep a total 3 year loss of £60m or below we are fine just about. Albeit right on the line. £62.5m to this season due to the remaining Covid year which gave a £2.5m allowance.

Then there's solvency or just not running at a huge loss each hear and that's a different consideration.

I can't remember if it was pre-Semenyo. Honestly it probably was. But that's the point right... we're in this comfortable position because we traded well in January. So my point stands - we need a £10m+ sale every other season in order to keep safely in the black (as it were).

An incredible spelling of "projections" btw Pop. Absolutely delightful to see such a spectacular typo

[Kid in the Riot]

11 hours ago, chinapig said:

Hasn't Nigel said that if we sell Alex we won't then be spending big money? He'll get some no doubt but not a war chest. He certainly isn't going to go back to the bloated squad he inherited nor will he block the pathway from the Academy.

It was also the received wisdom of many that we wouldn't spend much at all this summer, yet we've already spent a couple of million each on McCrorie and Knight. There were plenty saying we'd only be signing frees, or players on very small fees.

I wouldn't listen too much to Nige on this, if we sell Scott in a couple of weeks for £20m+ say, then I would be surprised if we didn't see another 2/3 players come in around the £2/3m mark.

[ExiledAjax]

13 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

It was also the received wisdom of many that we wouldn't spend much at all this summer, yet we've already spent a couple of million each on McCrorie and Knight. There were plenty saying we'd only be signing frees, or players on very small fees.

I wouldn't listen too much to Nige on this, if we sell Scott in a couple of weeks for £20m+ say, then I would be surprised if we didn't see another 2/3 players come in around the £2/3m mark.

To be fair £2m is quite a small fee, certainly when compared to the LJ/Ashton era of £5m on Famara, £8m on Kalas etc. You look at our all time fees and I think all of the top 8 were signed in that era. That's all of our 8 most expensive players ever bought signed in a 4 year span from 2016 through to 2020. That's mad.

You're getting down to our 12th most expensive signing ever (quoted on transfermarkt as being McCrorie) before you hit the first player signed by Pearson. The next Pearson player is at number 24 (Atkinson).

That's what, if you're referring to some of my thoughts on this, I mean when I say we're now signing players for "small" fees.

Edited July 14, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[formerly known as ivan]

1 hour ago, stortfordred said:

Why are we touting this boy around? Surely a supporter wants the best players to stay in their team not move somewhere else?

Touting him around . I’m not sure who you think I am but I can reassure you I hold little power in the world of football. Sorry to disappoint.

I didn’t think discussing possible scenarios was “touting” in any case…

[astrondrew]

11 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

It was also the received wisdom of many that we wouldn't spend much at all this summer, yet we've already spent a couple of million each on McCrorie and Knight. There were plenty saying we'd only be signing frees, or players on very small fees.

I wouldn't listen too much to Nige on this, if we sell Scott in a couple of weeks for £20m+ say, then I would be surprised if we didn't see another 2/3 players come in around the £2/3m mark.

I would be suprised if we didn't see people asking for a new chairman if every single penny of the Scott money isn't spent on a transfer fee for a player who is as good as Alex SCott.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Son of Fred said:

Praise the Lord that your not sat at the negotiating table,Dave

Did I say that’s what I’d do?  No.  I just said the reality might be that we end up taking less than the “if it’s not £25m tell’em to eff off” approach.

As I’ve said, comments of £25m by SL and Nige were made against a view that either:

• several clubs come knocking to justify a fee of the above amount
• or it would deter clubs because we don’t really want to sell

re bullet 1, Bournemouth have had £15m rejected, but intend to bid again. Wolves have big £18m, seen it rejected and gone away.

We await the next bid…with only one bidder in town.  So we are now gonna have to deal with a likely bid of above £18m, but less than £25m, imho.

Hypothetically, if we got £22m, is it that shameful?  Or £20m, or £24m?

Re bullet 2, we might hold out for £25m, Bournemouth pay it or we retain Alex.

50 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

Or we , by retaining our best players, win promotion and make a profit each year, Negative people have a problem for every solution

We can only afford to keep our best players if we reduce costs elsewhere.  At the moment, despite tremendous work to reduce costs / increase income (inc transfer fee income), the overall cost base is too high.  I’d like to see some efficiencies being made outside of the pure football side if I’m being honest.  It’s always Nige / RG / PA being made to sacrifice.

The whole “Bristol Sport” model is too costly.  It was supposed to make spreading the costs across the sports more efficient.  

29 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I've not looked at it for a while but when I last did (which was when our last set of accounts came out) I reckoned were looking at a loss for 2022/23 of something around £18-20m iirc. I've a post somewhere that sets out my reasoning. In my opinion you're being quite generous to suggest we can get losses consistently below £13m per season without a £10m+ sale in every 3 year cycle. I hope you're correct, but I'd not stake my house on it.

Don’t panic @Mr Popodopolous - your estimates were pre-Semenyo £10m!!

[LondonBristolian]

11 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Touting him around . I’m not sure who you think I am but I can reassure you I hold little power in the world of football. Sorry to disappoint.

I didn’t think discussing possible scenarios was “touting” in any case…

Don't do yourself down. There are Barcelona and Bayern Munich scouts monitoring your every post just in case you mention a gem in our under-16 team. 

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

To be fair £2m is quite a small fee, certainly when compared to the LJ/Ashton era of £5m on Famara, £8m on Kalas etc. You look at our all time fees and I think all of the top 8 were signed in that era. That's all of our 8 most expensive players ever bought signed in a 4 year span from 2016 through to 2020. That's mad.

You're getting down to our 12th most expensive signing ever (quoted on transfermarkt as being McCrorie) before you hit the first player signed by Pearson. The next Pearson player is at number 24 (Atkinson).

That's what, if you're referring to some of my thoughts on this, I mean when I say we're now signing players for "small" fees.

Yep:

• Dickie £0.700m
• McCrorie £1.200m
• Knight £1.75m
• Roberts £0.000m

aren’t big money.  Dickie at 27 now still has some value, but likelihood is that we will sink his costs (amortisation) over a long term, ie by extending at some point, so he becomes a 4-5 year player.

McCrorie at 25 had future value too.

Knight at 22 has significant upside both value and ability wise.

Roberts could trump them all.  The word on the street is that he has been very impressive so far.

So another one or two of those types isn’t going mad with the Scott money, but sticking to the plan, just bringing it forward because we can.

[LondonBristolian]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Did I say that’s what I’d do?  No.  I just said the reality might be that we end up taking less than the “if it’s not £25m tell’em to eff off” approach.

As I’ve said, comments of £25m by SL and Nige were made against a view that either:

• several clubs come knocking to justify a fee of the above amount
• or it would deter clubs because we don’t really want to sell

re bullet 1, Bournemouth have had £15m rejected, but intend to bid again. Wolves have big £18m, seen it rejected and gone away.

We await the next bid…with only one bidder in town.  So we are now gonna have to deal with a likely bid of above £18m, but less than £25m, imho.

Hypothetically, if we got £22m, is it that shameful?  Or £20m, or £24m?

Re bullet 2, we might hold out for £25m, Bournemouth pay it or we retain Alex.

We can only afford to keep our best players if we reduce costs elsewhere.  At the moment, despite tremendous work to reduce costs / increase income (inc transfer fee income), the overall cost base is too high.  I’d like to see some efficiencies being made outside of the pure football side if I’m being honest.  It’s always Nige / RG / PA being made to sacrifice.

The whole “Bristol Sport” model is too costly.  It was supposed to make spreading the costs across the sports more efficient.  

Don’t panic @Mr Popodopolous - your estimates were pre-Semenyo £10m!!

I think there's three other factors in play here.

Firstly, Bournemouth may or may not remain the only bidder in town. The Bournemouth bid only came to light after we'd rejected it and was a bit of a low ball anyway. If Bournemouth come back in at the £20 million mark then we'll find out if other bidders come into play or if we are dealing with just one bidder in twon.

Secondly, £20 million could be better than £25 million depending on add-ons, sell on fees and so forth.

Thirdly is the player himself. Potentially Bournemouth's new manager makes them an exciting option but Scott could decide that it was the wrong move - especially if he's not seen as an immediate starter - and that he'd rather gamble on sustained regular football presenting better options in January or next Summer. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Don’t panic @Mr Popodopolous - your estimates were pre-Semenyo £10m!!

...And breathe!! Phew. Thanks Dave, calculator down..

Wider point I believe we don't need to sell Scott or anyone this summer and the £28.5m loss will drop off after this season so depending on our inbound activity under the current regs we don't really need to sell anyone if we don't want to for the foreseeable. TV deal increases from 2024-25 although that boosts everyone. It may depend too on how close to the line we want to run it each season. Total Operating Costs not exceeding £50m and we likely fall within the annual £13m. (Assuming a typical turnover of around £30m or thereabouts).

Do agree with the wider post.

[Steve Watts]

1 hour ago, Betty Swallocks said:

It wasn’t so long ago that the only way a player would leave the City was when we released them. 
It’s a sign of a good academy and good recruitment that we now have players who other clubs would like to sign for decent money. 
Trust the process, so to speak. 

I think this is also a key factor for potential rising stars.  They see that we take a player who was rejected by the likes of Bournemouth and Southampton and harness that talent to produce the £25m player we've seen.  

I think the clubs aim should be, and probably is, to not be "ok within FFP boundaries", but rather looking at getting to the stage where we're not even having to think about whether or not we may need to look at ways to ensure we meet the criteria.  A succession of Academy graduates that get their big move to the Prem is a phenomenal advertisement for what this club can offer a young lad.  It will give us spending power and pull.  

It's just a shame AshtonYate wasn't around to see the much maligned Academy evolve to what it is today.  He'd probably still find a way to bash it mind!

[stortfordred]

42 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Touting him around . I’m not sure who you think I am

You not NP then?

 

 

Seriously, I wasn't just referring to you but the previous 88 pages. All fans forums do it but it works better for selling clubs when it is someone like Semenyo who probably wasn't worth that money. Clubs that sell their very best players will rarely cut it. Brighton are an exception and although Peterborough punch above their weight, they're not really doing great on the pitch, are they?

 

Let's see what happens to West Ham without Rice.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, Grey Fox said:

Or we , by retaining our best players, win promotion and make a profit each year, Negative people have a problem for every solution

How do we retain them when they say they want to leave? Or when they run their contracts down and leave on a free? 

[Kid in the Riot]

48 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

To be fair £2m is quite a small fee, certainly when compared to the LJ/Ashton era of £5m on Famara, £8m on Kalas etc. You look at our all time fees and I think all of the top 8 were signed in that era. That's all of our 8 most expensive players ever bought signed in a 4 year span from 2016 through to 2020. That's mad.

You're getting down to our 12th most expensive signing ever (quoted on transfermarkt as being McCrorie) before you hit the first player signed by Pearson. The next Pearson player is at number 24 (Atkinson).

That's what, if you're referring to some of my thoughts on this, I mean when I say we're now signing players for "small" fees.

Post-covid it's a very different market though. The market in that LJ period was insane across the board. 

32 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep:

• Dickie £0.700m
• McCrorie £1.200m
• Knight £1.75m
• Roberts £0.000m

aren’t big money.  Dickie at 27 now still has some value, but likelihood is that we will sink his costs (amortisation) over a long term, ie by extending at some point, so he becomes a 4-5 year player.

McCrorie at 25 had future value too.

Knight at 22 has significant upside both value and ability wise.

Roberts could trump them all.  The word on the street is that he has been very impressive so far.

So another one or two of those types isn’t going mad with the Scott money, but sticking to the plan, just bringing it forward because we can.

I still think comparatively speaking, we are re-investing quite a lot more of the AS money than many were anticipating. Personally I'm not surprised by that as SL has always allowed plenty of money to be spent when it's available. Not many, possibly yourself included, were anticipating we'd be spending coming on for £4m on fees...

[phantom]

52 minutes ago, astrondrew said:

I would be suprised if we didn't see people asking for a new chairman if every single penny of the Scott money isn't spent on a transfer fee for a player who is as good as Alex SCott.

Assume that you realise the losses we are operating under as a club

We need to keep much of that money in the bank to ensure we meet FFP regulations and take the pressure off the squad as a whole

If anyone thinks much of that income is going to be reinvested they are in for a big surprise !!

[OliOTIB]

 

[RedRoss]

47 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep:

• Dickie £0.700m
• McCrorie £1.200m
• Knight £1.75m
• Roberts £0.000m

aren’t big money.  Dickie at 27 now still has some value, but likelihood is that we will sink his costs (amortisation) over a long term, ie by extending at some point, so he becomes a 4-5 year player.

McCrorie at 25 had future value too.

Knight at 22 has significant upside both value and ability wise.

Roberts could trump them all.  The word on the street is that he has been very impressive so far.

So another one or two of those types isn’t going mad with the Scott money, but sticking to the plan, just bringing it forward because we can.

Thats good to hear.. I know Pring is brilliant in his own right but glad we have strong competition for that position.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think there's three other factors in play here.

absolutely, which is why I find the black and whiteness of some posts a bit odd.

Firstly, Bournemouth may or may not remain the only bidder in town. The Bournemouth bid only came to light after we'd rejected it and was a bit of a low ball anyway. If Bournemouth come back in at the £20 million mark then we'll find out if other bidders come into play or if we are dealing with just one bidder in twon.

Completely, some might be waiting to show their hand.  Not a surprise that media on the Bournemouth side are saying they are the only bidder, and no surprise that other media are suggesting that City are saying they’re not.

Secondly, £20 million could be better than £25 million depending on add-ons, sell on fees and so forth.

Yep, although a risk to weigh up.

Thirdly is the player himself. Potentially Bournemouth's new manager makes them an exciting option but Scott could decide that it was the wrong move - especially if he's not seen as an immediate starter - and that he'd rather gamble on sustained regular football presenting better options in January or next Summer.

This is something I keep saying, and we don’t know his thoughts one way or the other.  But (imho) there’s no way Bournemouth bid without Alex giving them an indication he’s happy to go there.

 

[Davefevs]

47 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

TV deal increases from 2024-25 although that boosts everyone.

Clubs appear to be spending that already!  Tim Keech at MKRT said wage request levels were getting back to pre-Covid levels, which is crazy.

[Finley_Smith10]

6 minutes ago, OliOTIB said:

 

If I was to guess, 19 mill plus add ons