Sound of the City

[joe jordans teeth]

14 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

If we sell Scott for £25m and allow £8m of that to go on a replacement (as we are a hugely loss making business), that is just one player for £4m on £18k per week over a four year contract.  It doesn’t allow us to go mad. 

Exactly

[James54De]

1 hour ago, phantom said:

Basically we pissed so much money up the wall in the past that we need to balance the books (FFP) and the easiest way is to make a big SALE, this will massively take off future spending restrictions. 

Hence why we are looking for £10m up front and the remaining balance paid over the following two years 

I honestly thought that it was accepted that it didn't suddenly mean we have spare money in the bank to spend 

How this is paid has no impact of FFP. As soon as Scott is sold, the whole fee goes into this seasons FFP. 

[GrahamC]

38 minutes ago, petehinton said:

& Scott is such a low earner, it won’t make a difference to the wage bill which is/was the major issue. Very different to Palmer/Bentley/JD/HNM going. But that’s far more in line with ‘normal’ now. 

Very much like when we sold Bobby Reid or more recently Antoine, a fairly large fee but virtually nothing off the wage bill.

[chinapig]

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

I don't understand why we couldn't allocate x amount of money from the sale for wages over the next 3/4 years? 

I think the issue seems to be is we have set a limit on how much any given player will earn and that we will not budge from that. That's quite wise but it does limit the type of players we can bring in. 

 

Because under Ashton we used transfer receipts to keep increasing the wage budget as if that was an end in itself. The assumption seemingly being that a higher wage bill equals a better team.That proved not to be the case.

Nigel described that strategy as bonkers. I don't think we will be doing that again.

[Ska Junkie]

• The only slight concern from Nige's comment, if our wage spend is so close to our limit, is what can we offer AS to persuade him to re-sign?

[Henry]

Disappointing that they didn’t ask him about Kalas.

Just not the same without, your host, my host, Twentyman.

[Bristol Rob]

7 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

• The only slight concern from Nige's comment, if our wage spend is so close to our limit, is what can we offer AS to persuade him to re-sign?

Didn't listen to the show, so don't know the context.

But...  is that a club set limit, or a FFP limit?

[exAtyeoMax]

1 minute ago, Henry said:

Disappointing that they didn’t ask him about Kalas.

Just not the same without, your host, my host, Twentyman.

who hosted it?

[Rocky]

4 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

who hosted it?

Richard Hoskin but he’s sharing the show with Ed Hadwin in future.

[Ska Junkie]

8 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Didn't listen to the show, so don't know the context.

But...  is that a club set limit, or a FFP limit?

Club set I believe Rob.

[Bristol Rob]

2 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Club set I believe Rob.

Sounds sensible then!

[Port Said Red]

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

Just listened & the only surprise was NP appeared to say he didn’t expect Rob Atkinson back until potentially the New Year?

As for the one further addition that seems likely to either be goalkeeping cover or a CB, based on his answers.

Very grateful that they do this but not the first time there have been mobile signal issues with Nige so why it isn’t pre recorded & those glitches ironed out beats me.

I am surprised that you are surprised, the timescales were pretty well laid out and communicated when Rob first went under the knife. He started running on grass last week but it's all very gentle stuff right now. He has to build up all the muscles again and then have some sort of pre-season, some U21 games and so on, and that's assuming every goes to plan of course.

[Ska Junkie]

3 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Sounds sensible then!

I totally agree. Still concerned how we can entice Scotty though.

[frenchred]

Just now, Ska Junkie said:

I totally agree. Still concerned how we can entice Scotty though.

Why do we need to entice him? He's under contract until 2025.

It's a matter of when he goes not if (not necessarily this window)

[Ska Junkie]

2 minutes ago, frenchred said:

Why do we need to entice him? He's under contract until 2025.

It's a matter of when he goes not if (not necessarily this window)

Protects the club IF he didn't leave in this window fr. With just 1 year left on his contract, our trading position would be a lot weaker than it is currently. Hypothetical I agree but I want what's best for BCFC before Scotty. 

FWIW, I agree it's 'when' not 'if' too. 

[GrahamC]

16 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I am surprised that you are surprised, the timescales were pretty well laid out and communicated when Rob first went under the knife. He started running on grass last week but it's all very gentle stuff right now. He has to build up all the muscles again and then have some sort of pre-season, some U21 games and so on, and that's assuming every goes to plan of course.

I had in my mind they said he could be back earlier than that, he’s been out since February so was certainly expecting him back this year.

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I am surprised that you are surprised, the timescales were pretty well laid out and communicated when Rob first went under the knife. He started running on grass last week but it's all very gentle stuff right now. He has to build up all the muscles again and then have some sort of pre-season, some U21 games and so on, and that's assuming every goes to plan of course.

I thought more like September or October, November at a push?

[eardun]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I thought more like September or October, November at a push?

I assumed around 9 months - which would be Nov - but of course depends how quickly he can get up to speed given no pre season etc. Plus I suspect Pearson won’t want to rush him/put pressure on to get him back too soon - so new year doesn’t sound unreasonable. 

[phantom]

1 hour ago, James54De said:

How this is paid has no impact of FFP. As soon as Scott is sold, the whole fee goes into this seasons FFP. 

Not if its paid over a number of seasons, which is why we're looking for at least £10m this season 

[Andy082005]

51 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

• The only slight concern from Nige's comment, if our wage spend is so close to our limit, is what can we offer AS to persuade him to re-sign?

Scott isn’t signing a new contract . As has been mentioned on here previously - he has already told the club he isn’t signing a new contract and wants to take the step up 

The club know this . Everyone’s on the same page 

I would be shocked if he is still here end of August 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, petehinton said:

& Scott is such a low earner, it won’t make a difference to the wage bill which is/was the major issue. Very different to Palmer/Bentley/JD/HNM going. But that’s far more in line with ‘normal’ now. 

a bit of this 

1 hour ago, Loco Rojo said:

Perhaps he's also suggesting tight finances regardless of any potential AS money to stop other clubs thinking we're quids in and they can charge us inflated prices 

and a bit of that 

51 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

• The only slight concern from Nige's comment, if our wage spend is so close to our limit, is what can we offer AS to persuade him to re-sign?

also 1) a bit of prep for new P&S rules re wages to turnover and 2) the budget set by SL

[James54De]

2 minutes ago, phantom said:

Not if its paid over a number of seasons, which is why we're looking for at least £10m this season 

No, all fee, no matter how it’s spread, is put into FFP accounts for this season. 

[Andre_The_Giant]

54 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

• The only slight concern from Nige's comment, if our wage spend is so close to our limit, is what can we offer AS to persuade him to re-sign?

Scott signing a new contract at City on terms we could afford is a total non-starter. He's off. Most likely end of this window.

Signing on better terms would price out suitors so not in Scott's interest. And that's why he hasn't accepted the improved deal that has been on the table for months.

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

I had in my mind they said he could be back earlier than that, he’s been out since February so was certainly expecting him back this year.

4 minutes ago, eardun said:

I assumed around 9 months - which would be Nov - but of course depends how quickly he can get up to speed given no pre season etc. Plus I suspect Pearson won’t want to rush him/put pressure on to get him back too soon - so new year doesn’t sound unreasonable. 

It was some weeks before he actually had the op, had to wait for the knee to settle down first.

[phantom]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

a bit of this 

and a bit of that 

also 1) a bit of prep for new P&S rules re wages to turnover and 2) the budget set by SL

This message has subtlely been peddled by the club for a while now, that we would seriously have to change how we spent the money and work to the new regs 

I would assume it's going to impact all clubs very soon but it feels like we are getting our house in order earlier than others 

My personal opinion is that we've learnt our lessons from the Ashton problems and won't be making those financial mistakes again 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, phantom said:

My personal opinion is that we've learnt our lessons from the Ashton problems and won't be making those financial mistakes again 

Your personal opinion matches the club's opinion that they had an effing stupid strategy.  Nige has said so himself.

[Bristol Rob]

33 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

I totally agree. Still concerned how we can entice Scotty though.

We can't entice him.

He has 2 years left on his contract and beyond the end of this season, his value will drop, unless he has been playing at a different level.

He'll want (I guess), Premier wages, European competition and financial security for the next 4 years.

He isn't a City fan, he's an employee.

[The Bard]

4 minutes ago, phantom said:

This message has subtlely been peddled by the club for a while now, that we would seriously have to change how we spent the money and work to the new regs 

I would assume it's going to impact all clubs very soon but it feels like we are getting our house in order earlier than others 

My personal opinion is that we've learnt our lessons from the Ashton problems and won't be making those financial mistakes again 

So you're saying we're behaving like a well run club?

 

[Sleepy1968]

5 minutes ago, The Bard said:

So you're saying we're behaving like a well run club?

Maybe, but it's all relative. The Championship must be the most financially unviable competition in English (possibly European/World) football, where practically all the clubs fail on a going concern basis, and would face being wound up under normal business practices.

[mightyreds89]

3 hours ago, pl00peh91 said:

Biggest talking point I reckon is that he said even if we sell Scott we won’t be able to sign many more players as we are at the top end of our wage budget already.

He also referred to us looking to sign one more player which I inferred was a goalkeeper (although he didn’t specify that).

The rest of it was the usual stuff but he seemed happy with how things are shaping up.

Agree biggest talking point but even if we can reinvest any of it he’s not going to publicly promote that we can surely if he clubs would be pushing up prices on any bids we may make.