• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Maja

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mackemansj1 said:
Would the club even have an option to demand the fee now? I guess they could but it might have killed the deal. £1.5m upfront with addons is way better than the few hundred k we’d have got if he just signed a pre contract with them and sulked for the rest of the season. Club were in a position of weakness negotiation wise.
Click to expand...
It's only a better deal if we replace him adequately. As it stands we would have a far better chance of promotion with him than without him. Obviously depending on his attitude he hasn't shown any signs of sulking.
 

Grumpy Old Man said:
The debt was cleared, otherwise SBC wouldn't have released the charges. However, Short didn't pay off the £21m still owing on transfer fees incurred under his ownership (which are classed as trade creditors, not debt). It's these amounts that the parachute payments have had to be used to cover.
Click to expand...
Except the parachute payments and initial season card income that were supposed to cover the legacy payments last summer were already gone. That money had to be found from elsewhere as I recall.
 
Roker Mackem said:
Its mad after all theyve done so far...people dont trust the ownership.
Click to expand...

We all trust them but what have they done that no other new owner would do? They bought the club for a song, if they sold today they would make a nice profit, we have a PR spin king in charge asking us all to get off our arses and get to games and help change the seats. They are in it for a profit and it will be big once we get promoted twice. Good luck to them what a fantastic gig they have bought into.
 
sksk3021 said:
Is that what the parachute payments have been used for? I thought the owners said they were covering the legacy deals. I am not sure I have actually seen them definitively say where the parachute payments have gone.
Click to expand...

Old transfer creditors are a legacy issue, ie not something for which the current owners are responsible, but have to deal with. A legacy issue is, in essence, anything which predated the acquisition.
 
Johnsafc said:
Seeing as Parachute payments were used for legacy; What about the money we've brought in for McNair, Lens, Borini, Khazri, Asoro, McManaman then if we are still in the position where we have to give Maja to Bordeaux to cover ourselves there for the summer?
Click to expand...

We still lose millions per year ffs even now.
 
gazza.1990 said:
Absorbed into the massively high running costs, legal costs and other legacy transfer payments?

I'm not seeing a problem here. Certainly not one worry about.
Click to expand...
I think I'll go and buy out a struggling factory owner, but get him to pay off all the costs first, then when the staff say that the machines keep breaking down, I'll just say "running costs"
 
Piss poor sum of money and hope theres a sell on clause at least.

They said he aint ready for first team football so hope we at least asked to loan him till end of season to help us

If we did and player said he didnt want to then fuck off to him.
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
We talk to Bordeaux who we owe money to. Let them know we have a highly rated prospect, who with a long term contract, is worth a lot more than 1.5 million, and will develop and be worth more and already has prem interest.

Agent gets a foreign move he wants and Maja gets a nice lumper of a signing on fee.

Out of every team on the planet he signs for the one that we owe money to for the exact amount of money we owe them. And for a manager who has never heard of him so it looks like the club has been targeted rather than the player.

Charlie Methven has already stated that academy players with be sold to cover clubs loses. This is a short cut version of that.
Click to expand...
I’m really sorry if we’re talking at cross purposes here but I think the link is a red herring.

Bordeaux won’t have signed him at more than what they deem his value to be. Therefore other clubs would be likely to value him the same. We owe Bordeaux that money regardless, it will be a creditor on the club’s books and the timing of the payment will be contractually scheduled (probably for this summer).

The only way we may have got slightly more for Maja out of Bordeaux is because it constitutes early settlement of the debt but that amount will be negligible.

Therefore there’s no financial benefit to us selling to Bordeaux. If anything it’s a disadvantage as we lose out on the cash flow. If the interest was there then we could just have easily sold to another club with the same terms and then paid Bordeaux as scheduled in the summer.

Unless you’re saying the only reason Bordeaux were willing to stretch to such a value is because they wouldn’t have to have any cash flow outlay which would be appealing for them. I could see that, but in that case the club have got more than they would have any other way for Maja regardless of how the payments are being offset or structured.

Whichever way it’s listed I can’t see how it’s a bad deal for the club for him to be going to Bordeaux (obviously apart from us losing an exceptionally good player) over any other club.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Old transfer creditors are a legacy issue, ie not something for which the current owners are responsible, but have to deal with. A legacy issue is, in essence, anything which predated the acquisition.
Click to expand...
Yes I know that, but is that where the parachute payments have gone to cover the £20mish that we owed on transfers?
 
TopCat said:
Covering the massive wage bill? Some players earning more than an entire squad does in League One
Click to expand...

Potentially, I know they're trying to move on Oviedo & Cattermole still. So then we've got the matchday revenues etc. Be interesting to see who we bring in on back of this anyways
 
Johnsafc said:
Seeing as Parachute payments were used for legacy; What about the money we've brought in for McNair, Lens, Borini, Khazri, Asoro, McManaman then if we are still in the position where we have to give Maja to Bordeaux to cover ourselves there for the summer?
Click to expand...

Part of it was apparently used pre-acquisition to pay down part of the SBC debt. And, almost certainly, a fair chunk hasn't yet been paid. We'll get a far clearer picture when the 2017/18 accounts come out.
 
Howard the Duck said:
I’m really sorry if we’re talking at cross purposes here but I think the link is a red herring.

Bordeaux won’t have signed him at more than what they deem his value to be. Therefore other clubs would be likely to value him the same. We owe Bordeaux that money regardless, it will be a creditor on the club’s books and the timing of the payment will be contractually scheduled (probably for this summer).

The only way we may have got slightly more for Maja out of Bordeaux is because it constitutes early settlement of the debt but that amount will be negligible.

Therefore there’s no financial benefit to us selling to Bordeaux. If anything it’s a disadvantage as we lose out on the cash flow. If the interest was there then we could just have easily sold to another club with the same terms and then paid Bordeaux as scheduled in the summer.

Unless you’re saying the only reason Bordeaux were willing to stretch to such a value is because they wouldn’t have to have any cash flow outlay which would be appealing for them. I could see that, but in that case the club have got more than they would have any other way for Maja regardless of how the payments are being offset or structured.

Whichever way it’s listed I can’t see how it’s a bad deal for the club for him to be going to Bordeaux (obviously apart from us losing an exceptionally good player) over any other club.
Click to expand...

Exceptionally good player you sure about that

Good goal scorer good player hmmm
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Part of it was apparently used pre-acquisition to pay down part of the SBC debt. And, almost certainly, a fair chunk hasn't yet been paid. We'll get a far clearer picture when the 2017/18 accounts come out.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks as always :lol:
 
concert party said:
Piss poor sum of money and hope theres a sell on clause at least.

They said he aint ready for first team football so hope we at least asked to loan him till end of season to help us

If we did and player said he didnt want to then fuck off to him.
Click to expand...

He was out of contract in the summer. It's as good of a fee as we were every likely to receive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top