Alex Scott - £25m to Bournemouth- Confirmed

[MelksRed]

8 hours ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

Quite a few on here would have happily sold their brand new still in the box Corgi James Bond Aston Martin for a winning conker and 2 everlasting gob stoppers. 

Edited 8 hours ago by RoystonFoote'snephew

Love this. :laugh:

[!james]

 

 

 

[Jose]

1 minute ago, !james said:

 

 

 

I mean that doesn’t sound like we are looking to sell or even anything is imminent. 
 

I do think the figure will be hit.

[Northern Red]

8 minutes ago, !james said:

 

 

 

Shots fired at Alex Crook.

[W-S-M Seagull]

7 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

Shots fired at Alex Crook.

I used to really like him until this summer where he's basically being a media agent for Bournemouth. 

Edited July 31, 2023 by W-S-M Seagull

[George Rs]

Didn’t catch the sound of the city interview. Anyone got a link I can listen to it in full? 

[OliOTIB]

13 minutes ago, George Rs said:

Didn’t catch the sound of the city interview. Anyone got a link I can listen to it in full? 

BBC Sounds

[Sturny]

25m bid prepared? Sounds like 20m with 5m of add ons 

Edited July 31, 2023 by Sturny

[Mr Popodopolous]

£20m plus £5m of add-ons isn't £25m as a flat fee.

[REDOXO]

27 minutes ago, Sturny said:

25m bid prepared? Sounds like 20m with 5m of add ons 

What is wrong with these people. Put up or shut up!

[Kid in the Riot]

35 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

£20m plus £5m of add-ons isn't £25m as a flat fee.

As I have mentioned before, the club never stated it was £25m up front. They said Scott was for sale for £25m - minimum. 

As long as the add-ons are reasonable then City will accept.

I think quite a few are going to be dissappointed as we are not going to receive £25m up front for Alex Scott.

Something close to £20m plus add ons to £25m will almost certainly do it.

[W-S-M Seagull]

13 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

As I have mentioned before, the club never stated it was £25m up front. They said Scott was for sale for £25m - minimum. 

As long as the add-ons are reasonable then City will accept.

I think quite a few are going to be dissappointed as we are not going to receive £25m up front for Alex Scott.

Something close to £20m plus add ons to £25m will almost certainly do it.

I don't think anyone has suggested we'd get 25 million up front. 

What people are saying is we want a guaranteed 25 million as a minimum. It doesn't matter if that's spread out over x amount of years. Cash flow isn't a real issue of ours. 

We want at least 25 million guaranteed plus add ons. 

[Jose]

Playing devils advocate here but with Nigel saying we are pretty much at the limit for wages would we struggle to offer Alex a lucrative offer to sign for another year? 
Doesn’t sound like he wants too but just a thought?!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Close to the limit, I kinda take that to mean to some extent future planning and future proofing as the mooted new FFP will be linked to wages and amortisation v turnover.

I also think the EFL need to go back and look afresh at a few clubs and their FFP position to 2021 and 2022. We did things by the book, Stoke however.. only to an extent.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Loco Rojo]

10 minutes ago, Jose said:

Playing devils advocate here but with Nigel saying we are pretty much at the limit for wages would we struggle to offer Alex a lucrative offer to sign for another year? 
Doesn’t sound like he wants too but just a thought?!

I suspect our wage structure includes his potential new contract taken in to consideration. I don't think we'd offer him a contract we couldn't afford to.

[James54De]

13 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I don't think anyone has suggested we'd get 25 million up front. 

What people are saying is we want a guaranteed 25 million as a minimum. It doesn't matter if that's spread out over x amount of years. Cash flow isn't a real issue of ours. 

We want at least 25 million guaranteed plus add ons. 

Think there may be a mix up with the terms “up front” and “guaranteed”. In my book they are absolutely synonymous. A guaranteed fee, no matter how many years it is spread over (as is industry standard) is considered the up front fee. KITR is saying that 20 million guaranteed plus 5 million add ons will likely do it.

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

14 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I don't think anyone has suggested we'd get 25 million up front. 

What people are saying is we want a guaranteed 25 million as a minimum. It doesn't matter if that's spread out over x amount of years. Cash flow isn't a real issue of ours. 

We want at least 25 million guaranteed plus add ons. 

Correct. £25M is not the sell price so it's not £20M or even £22M plus additions to bring it up to £25M it's £25M PLUS add ons. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 minutes ago, James54De said:

Think there may be a mix up with the terms “up front” and “guaranteed”. In my book they are absolutely synonymous. A guaranteed fee, no matter how many years it is spread over (as is industry standard) is considered the up front fee. KITR is saying that 20 million guaranteed plus 5 million add ons will likely do it.

It won't do it because we want 25 million guaranteed. That's been made very very clear by us and Pearson once again reiterated that this evening. 

[mozo]

3 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

It won't do it because we want 25 million guaranteed. That's been made very very clear by us and Pearson once again reiterated that this evening. 

Did Nige say guaranteed?

[James54De]

2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

It won't do it because we want 25 million guaranteed. That's been made very very clear by us and Pearson once again reiterated that this evening. 

I think the only thing that was reiterated this evening was that we want a “£25 million deal”. What this is made up of you, nor I, do not know. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Instalments vs up front vs guaranteed.

Clearly in one instalment that wouldn't happen ever.

Cash Flow is instalments, FFP is the flat fee. Profit on disposal.

E.g. £25m fee it doesn't matter on the instalments the £25m profit would appear.

£25m v Book Value of around £0, Profit on Disposal then around £25m.

Whereas £20m up front and rising to £25m with add-ons would mean £20m at the time of disposal then the add-ons would appear as they fall due.

Instalments are just about the Cash Losses really but SL can top this up as and when...

...Although the new FFP rules seem to have instalments rather than typical Profit on Disposal but the current rules remain in place it seems.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[mozo]

Just now, James54De said:

I think the only thing that was reiterated this evening was that we want a “£25 million deal”. What this is made up of you, nor I, do not know. 

Yeah I think KITR is pointing out that the £25m is open to interpretation and that up front or guaranteed have not been in the messaging from Nige. Happy to be corrected.

[James54De]

Just now, mozo said:

Yeah I think KITR is pointing out that the £25m is open to interpretation and that up front or guaranteed have not been in the messaging from Nige. Happy to be corrected.

Yep, and I have agreed with him. @W-S-M Seagull and @RoystonFoote'snephew have an idea that it must be guaranteed. 

[milo1111]

13 minutes ago, mozo said:

Yeah I think KITR is pointing out that the £25m is open to interpretation and that up front or guaranteed have not been in the messaging from Nige. Happy to be corrected.

That’s how I’ve been viewing it as well. Only thing we do know is that no one has made a satisfactory bid yet.
No one knows  for sure whether city see the 25m as the guaranteed cash price or whether it’s slightly less with add ons bringing it up 

[Kid in the Riot]

11 minutes ago, James54De said:

Think there may be a mix up with the terms “up front” and “guaranteed”. In my book they are absolutely synonymous. A guaranteed fee, no matter how many years it is spread over (as is industry standard) is considered the up front fee. KITR is saying that 20 million guaranteed plus 5 million add ons will likely do it.

Exactly this. "Guaranteed" is probably a better term to use than "up front".

10 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

Correct. £25M is not the sell price so it's not £20M or even £22M plus additions to bring it up to £25M it's £25M PLUS add ons. 

My opinion, based on what I have heard, is that is not the case. 

The bids so far are rumoured to be as follows:

Wolves £10m + £8m add ons

Bournemouth £15m + ?add ons

Wolves £17m + £5m add ons

My view is Wolves are not a million miles away with that last bid providing the add ons are realistic. 

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

Nigel Pearson said that we wanted more than £25M for Scott. It's reasonable to interpret therefore that it's a minimum £25M plus add ons. 

[Loosey Boy]

Per tonight’s Sound of the City, Nige’s view is that based on how good Scott has been in pre-season is that he’s now worth £30m

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

7 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Exactly this. "Guaranteed" is probably a better term to use than "up front".

My opinion, based on what I have heard, is that is not the case. 

The bids so far are rumoured to be as follows:

Wolves £10m + £8m add ons

Bournemouth £15m + ?add ons

Wolves £17m + £5m add ons

My view is Wolves are not a million miles away with that last bid providing the add ons are realistic. 

Where did you get those figures from as I've not seen them reported anywhere. What I've heard and rumoured to be don't seem very solid pronouncements. 

[REDOXO]

142 pages debating what we don’t know (and never will despite what some will imply) 
 

Interesting stuff from Mr Pearson. On the one hand saying we may bring one in, but we won’t buy (pay new wages) on the basis of money coming in from future sales (at least a Scott sale, I’m not sure if this applies to a sale of anyone else)

What we know is that Scott and Kalas have a contract on the table. So I’m guessing this possible wage is already factored in to wages. 
 

The one thing I take out of all the conjecture, ITKing and commentary from the manager and to be fair the majority shareholder is the club is now finally being run on a sound financial footing. Excellent stuff. 

[Kid in the Riot]

9 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

Nigel Pearson said that we wanted more than £25M for Scott. It's reasonable to interpret therefore that it's a minimum £25M plus add ons. 

He's also a smart bloke who is going on radio as chief representative of a club that's essentially mid-negotiation of its prized asset. Of course we "want" £25m for Scott (in fact he said he'd quite like £30m!), and I'm very glad we've been clear on that. However, that's a negotiating position, and if a suitable offer comes forward that means we can achieve the £25m that we want for Scott (be that through installments and add-ons or whatever) then I believe there's a deal to be done.