Last Set of Accounts

[TRO]

Whether you pay for transfers in one go or spread the payments doesn't make any difference to the cost.  If you buy a player for £2m, and put £1m down straight away and then spread the rest over two years, the cost is still £2m, but you'd account for £1m coming out of the bank, and £1m in creditors.

 

I've no idea as to why Lambert says what he does, I just know that one is an audited figure which will have been checked to supporting documents such as contracts etc, and the other is some bloke speaking to the press.

There is a relationship between a players ability/effectiveness and the money you pay for that transfer.

The better quality or effect a manager can extract from a player versus the money he has paid, has a direct effect on the value of that manager.

The ability to buy well is probably the most powerful piece of criteria in a managers cv next to his trophies.

I guess he has his reasons, for low balling the prices, if in fact, that's what he has done.

[smetrov]

Another question, given that I don't really give a toss about a few million here or there until some pair of idiots puts the club on the edge of wage-to-turnover oblivion: If the figures can be so easily verified, does Lambert think he's not going to get pulled up on this at some stage?

 

Well so far Lamberts bargains have got the headlines......It might get interesting if someone within the club took him to task - but thats unlikley IMO. 

[KHV]

 

 

 

 

 

The accounts for the year to 31 May 2012 show in note 27 ("Events after the balance sheet date") thte total amount spent after May 2012 and before the accounts were signed (Feb 2013).  This therefore shows the total expenditure on transfers for both the summer and January transfer windows.  This total is £21.7m, as the following image shows:

 

 

This figure has been independently audited by PwC in Birmingham. 

 

 

Ah I knew we had an accountant on here somewhere.  - Can you suggest any feasible reason for the discrepancy between that figure and what Lambo is saying - a couple of suggestions

 

 

Not many transfers are paid for up front

 

Or maybe the accounts include signing on fee's \ tax - where as Lambo's figures don't

 

Or is Lambo pulling a fast one ?

 

Well we paid £3m for Lowton, £2.5m for Bennett, £7m for Benteke and then Vlaar,El-Ahamadi,Bowery and Westwood were all undisclosed. I would imagine the figure of £21.7m is about right

 

 

 

Yes - that's the over whelming (and audited) evidence. 

 

bugger knows what Lambert is rattling on about then. he is a strange man at times

 

 

 

Yeah - seems like he has had a chat with Doug !

 

hahaha, yeah it does seem that way

[TRO]

There are people on here that have a good handle on accountancy, so I guess we must be guided by them.

.....but the news that we are finally getting straight is great news.

It would be nice to be before 2015 but I guess, it is what it is.

[Philosopher]

The accounts state net tranfer cost.  Therefore I am pretty sure this would include signing on fees and agents fees, and possibly wages too, not to mention all the legal fees for the drawing up of contracts. Also most of tranfer deal have performance related add-ons so if for instance Sunderland were due and extra 4 million from Bent making a certain number of appearrance I would have thought that would've been included on that net transfer spend for when the add on clause was activated! 

[Big_John_10]

As briny said - he's the manager, not the financial controller.

And yet you blame MON when our issue was wages in relation to income.

Wow, John, you really don't get what all these posts criticising O'Neill are saying.

It was his inability to sign football players who could keep and pass the ball( by and large they produced low grade football)for the amount of money he paid for them.

That's not financial controlling ,its talent spotting.....or paying over the odds, depending how you look at it.

I will accept there is a correlation, but once you have parted with the money, you want a return.....with the odd exception, we didn't get it.

Your opinion on the players is your opinion.

The fact is that our wages in relation to our income was to high. As I keep saying I'm not sure why the manager should be concerned with the income or future income of the club.

Probably should have been the job of say a financial controller.

[TRO]

I hear some football managers say ...."we did well today ,a really excellent performance" after mugging a win and dishing up low grade football,.... So nothing surprises me with what football managers say, today, if fact I don't listen much to what they say , they have obviously been groomed like politicians.

Bobby Robson was probably one of the few exceptions.

[Mantis]

 

As briny said - he's the manager, not the financial controller.

And yet you blame MON when our issue was wages in relation to income.

 

 

I blame him for spending that money poorly (I also blame Houllier and McLeish for this to a lesser extent), just like I blame Randy for letting it get out of control.

 

Jesus.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Mantis

[Big_John_10]

As briny said - he's the manager, not the financial controller.

And yet you blame MON when our issue was wages in relation to income.

I blame him for spending that money poorly (I also blame Houllier and McLeish for this to a lesser extent), just like I blame Randy for letting it get out of control.

Jesus.

But you thinking he bought poorly wasn't the issue. The financial control, or lack of, was the issue.

Yet with one manager you throw out the above excuse.

It's as hypocritical as your change in attitude from houllier to McLeish.

[smetrov]

The accounts state net tranfer cost.  Therefore I am pretty sure this would include signing on fees and agents fees, and possibly wages too, not to mention all the legal fees for the drawing up of contracts. Also most of tranfer deal have performance related add-ons so if for instance Sunderland were due and extra 4 million from Bent making a certain number of appearrance I would have thought that would've been included on that net transfer spend for when the add on clause was activated! 

 

I would have thought that the gross figure myself - Perhaps Risso can clarify  - Pretty sure that figure wouldn't include wages 

[TRO]

As briny said - he's the manager, not the financial controller.

And yet you blame MON when our issue was wages in relation to income.

Wow, John, you really don't get what all these posts criticising O'Neill are saying.

It was his inability to sign football players who could keep and pass the ball( by and large they produced low grade football)for the amount of money he paid for them.

That's not financial controlling ,its talent spotting.....or paying over the odds, depending how you look at it.

I will accept there is a correlation, but once you have parted with the money, you want a return.....with the odd exception, we didn't get it.

Your opinion on the players is your opinion.

The fact is that our wages in relation to our income was to high. As I keep saying I'm not sure why the manager should be concerned with the income or future income of the club.

Probably should have been the job of say a financial controller.

I know where you are coming from, but I'm not sure where the demarcation lines start or stop.

I would be surprised if a football manager had no input of some sort on a players wages, I would suspect it would be part of the negotiating criteria, it would also impact on his existing squad team spirit, so would be pretty important to him. I would also guess in some instances he would have persuade/cajole the board to to agreeing, if the said player was sought after.

[Mantis]

 

 

 

As briny said - he's the manager, not the financial controller.

And yet you blame MON when our issue was wages in relation to income.

I blame him for spending that money poorly (I also blame Houllier and McLeish for this to a lesser extent), just like I blame Randy for letting it get out of control.

Jesus.

But you thinking he bought poorly wasn't the issue. The financial control, or lack of, was the issue.

Yet with one manager you throw out the above excuse.

It's as hypocritical as your change in attitude from houllier to McLeish.

 

 

Both were issues. How is that hypocritical?

 

**** hell, stop with the obsession. As I've explained about two dozen times - I judge managers on a case by case basis.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Mantis

[Risso]

Wages are expenses and not part of the transfer fee.

[TRO]

As briny said - he's the manager, not the financial controller.

And yet you blame MON when our issue was wages in relation to income.

I blame him for spending that money poorly (I also blame Houllier and McLeish for this to a lesser extent), just like I blame Randy for letting it get out of control.

Jesus.

But you thinking he bought poorly wasn't the issue. The financial control, or lack of, was the issue.

Yet with one manager you throw out the above excuse.

It's as hypocritical as your change in attitude from houllier to McLeish.

In my opinion, John it was the prime issue.....and the only one I think has dropped us in the mire. Due to not being able to sell on and recover funds we have paid out....If, If the players had of been good enough, we would not have wanted to sell them, their stock would have risen and we would have been selling out every match.

Good players equals winning football equals filling football grounds, sells merchandising, wins trophies and enters European cups which equals revenue.

Poor football equals poor revenue, to simplify it.

Explaining this point is as difficult as explaining that there is more chance of winning football deriving from expansive football than pure direct football....but some will still not agree.

It is all about opinions, but to say the quality of players is not an issue is pure folly.

[Big_John_10]

As briny said - he's the manager, not the financial controller.

And yet you blame MON when our issue was wages in relation to income.

I blame him for spending that money poorly (I also blame Houllier and McLeish for this to a lesser extent), just like I blame Randy for letting it get out of control.

Jesus.

But you thinking he bought poorly wasn't the issue. The financial control, or lack of, was the issue.

Yet with one manager you throw out the above excuse.

It's as hypocritical as your change in attitude from houllier to McLeish.

In my opinion, John it was the prime issue.....and the only one I think has dropped us in the mire. Due to not being able to sell on and recover funds we have paid out....If, If the players had of been good enough, we would not have wanted to sell them, their stock would have risen and we would have been selling out every match.

Good players equals winning football equals filling football grounds, sells merchandising, wins trophies and enters European cups which equals revenue.

Poor football equals poor revenue, to simplify it.

Explaining this point is as difficult as explaining that there is more chance of winning football deriving from expansive football than pure direct football....but some will still not agree.

It is all about opinions, but to say the quality of players is not an issue is pure folly.

The players finished 6th with the 6th highest wage bill in the league. If I remember correctly our attendance were also pretty good.

The issue you ignore is that our income wasn't enough to sustain our 6th highest wage bill.

Now the income issue was not addressed by the people who should have concerned themselves with it and wages were continued to be paid out by the board.

The income of the club or the future income of the club should not be something the manager has to deal with.

[NoelVilla]

 

 

 

 

 

As briny said - he's the manager, not the financial controller.

And yet you blame MON when our issue was wages in relation to income.

I blame him for spending that money poorly (I also blame Houllier and McLeish for this to a lesser extent), just like I blame Randy for letting it get out of control.

Jesus.

But you thinking he bought poorly wasn't the issue. The financial control, or lack of, was the issue.

Yet with one manager you throw out the above excuse.

It's as hypocritical as your change in attitude from houllier to McLeish.

In my opinion, John it was the prime issue.....and the only one I think has dropped us in the mire. Due to not being able to sell on and recover funds we have paid out....If, If the players had of been good enough, we would not have wanted to sell them, their stock would have risen and we would have been selling out every match.

Good players equals winning football equals filling football grounds, sells merchandising, wins trophies and enters European cups which equals revenue.

Poor football equals poor revenue, to simplify it.

Explaining this point is as difficult as explaining that there is more chance of winning football deriving from expansive football than pure direct football....but some will still not agree.

It is all about opinions, but to say the quality of players is not an issue is pure folly.

The players finished 6th with the 6th highest wage bill in the league. If I remember correctly our attendance were also pretty good.

The issue you ignore is that our income wasn't enough to sustain our 6th highest wage bill.

Now the income issue was not addressed by the people who should have concerned themselves with it and wages were continued to be paid out by the board.

The income of the club or the future income of the club should not be something the manager has to deal with.

 

and when it was dealt with the manager in charge walked out.

[briny_ear]

 

Wages are expenses and not part of the transfer fee.

So that just leaves the possibility the figures include agents' fees and other supplementary payments that could be accounted for under transfer fees.

 

Which might mean the club is paying more in effect to bring players to the club than Lambert believes. Quite a lot more, it seems.

 

None of this is making me feel very comfortable.

 

What's that they say?

 

"The accounts always find you out in the end..."

 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 

 

 

[smetrov]

 

 

Wages are expenses and not part of the transfer fee.

So that just leaves the possibility the figures include agents' fees and other supplementary payments that could be accounted for under transfer fees.

 

Which might mean the club is paying more in effect to bring players to the club than Lambert believes. Quite a lot more, it seems.

 

None of this is making me feel very comfortable.

 

What's that they say?

 

"The accounts always find you out in the end..."

 

 

 

I think may have formulated a calculation where Bacuna, Westwood, Lowton - cost the club less than £1m each. Safe to say though that method of calculating transfer fee's isn't the accepted norm - where as soccerbase and clubs accounts are more the accepted way of calculating transfer fees. - Its the opposite of what Doug used to do, where he would load, the fee, signing on fee, wages over the contract and say this player cost us XXXXXX - not wrong but just not the accepted norm of calculating expenditure on players....

[Risso]

No.  Accounting standards say that all transfers have to be accounted for in the same way.  And nobody can count wages as part of the transfer in the accounts.