| "I hope everyone will judge the manager on the cards he has been dealt by me 11:21 - Aug 7 with 5599 views | SamWhiteUK |
and not just on our expectations." - Marcus Evans
This almost sounds like "don't judge him just on results but bear in mind the money situation".
I don't know, not really sure how to take this statement. Does PL have more of ME's support than Hurst did?
|  | | |  |
| (No subject) on 15:09 - Aug 7 with 1104 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| (No subject) on 15:02 - Aug 7 by JakeITFC |
If we sell a player for £1.2m and receive 12 monthly instalments, would you say our budget for the year is £1.2m better off or £100k better off? |
Oh FFS. Are you intentionally being thick?
We aren't talking about getting it over 12 months. If we budget annually it would be the same thing.
We are talking about budgeting annually (as we have to do under EFL rules) and only getting 50%, 33% or 25% of the transfer fee if it's paid over 2, 3 or 4 years.
£1.2m up front or in 12 x 1 month instalments is obviously the same money coming into the club over a year. But the entire point of trying to explain this to you was that Evans was talking about money coming in over several years.
So when fans think we have £2m from Mings being sold to Villa, we may actually only have £500k now and in the future we will have £1.5m more, not necessarily all this year.
That has a bearing on what we can spend. What if Villa did a Bolton? Would we see the rest of that money? Would be pretty stupid to have committed it to a signing. |  |
| |
| (No subject) on 15:15 - Aug 7 with 1081 views | Herbivore |
| (No subject) on 15:02 - Aug 7 by JakeITFC |
If we sell a player for £1.2m and receive 12 monthly instalments, would you say our budget for the year is £1.2m better off or £100k better off? |
We're not talking monthly installments over a year though. We're talking payments over multiple years.
To simplify it, let's say the add ons come to £3m and that is to be paid in equal installments across three seasons. Let's also say that after wage cuts we still have a £1m a year shortfall in order to comply with FFP and keep within the budget ME has set. If we treat the £3m like a lump sum then it looks like we have an unexpected £2m surplus this year, but we don't because we're only receivimg £1m now and that will only cover our shortfall for this season. The good news is that the structure of the deal also covers our shortfall for a further two years.
Now you could argue that we could spend £2m of the £3m and structure the deals over three years. But that then means we have a £666,666 shortfall to cover this year and the next two years as well. That shortfall has to be covered from somewhere, likely through further sales.
It's well and good to say that the money from sell ons was an unexpected bonus but that doesn't mean it's surplus income on top of books that were already balanced. I think it's likely that without the sell on money we'd have seen more than just Harrison being sold to help balance the books. [Post edited 7 Aug 2019 15:18]
|  |
| |
| (No subject) on 15:26 - Aug 7 with 1059 views | JakeITFC |
| (No subject) on 15:15 - Aug 7 by Herbivore |
We're not talking monthly installments over a year though. We're talking payments over multiple years.
To simplify it, let's say the add ons come to £3m and that is to be paid in equal installments across three seasons. Let's also say that after wage cuts we still have a £1m a year shortfall in order to comply with FFP and keep within the budget ME has set. If we treat the £3m like a lump sum then it looks like we have an unexpected £2m surplus this year, but we don't because we're only receivimg £1m now and that will only cover our shortfall for this season. The good news is that the structure of the deal also covers our shortfall for a further two years.
Now you could argue that we could spend £2m of the £3m and structure the deals over three years. But that then means we have a £666,666 shortfall to cover this year and the next two years as well. That shortfall has to be covered from somewhere, likely through further sales.
It's well and good to say that the money from sell ons was an unexpected bonus but that doesn't mean it's surplus income on top of books that were already balanced. I think it's likely that without the sell on money we'd have seen more than just Harrison being sold to help balance the books. [Post edited 7 Aug 2019 15:18]
|
The point is that we have a £3m delta either way.
Whether it is cute accounting on behalf of other clubs or Marcus Evans using it to be loose with the truth on how much money we have coming in to avoid him investing more, we somehow appear to be a club that suffer from both sides of transfers being paid for in instalments. |  | | |
| (No subject) on 15:32 - Aug 7 with 1049 views | JakeITFC |
| (No subject) on 15:09 - Aug 7 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
Oh FFS. Are you intentionally being thick?
We aren't talking about getting it over 12 months. If we budget annually it would be the same thing.
We are talking about budgeting annually (as we have to do under EFL rules) and only getting 50%, 33% or 25% of the transfer fee if it's paid over 2, 3 or 4 years.
£1.2m up front or in 12 x 1 month instalments is obviously the same money coming into the club over a year. But the entire point of trying to explain this to you was that Evans was talking about money coming in over several years.
So when fans think we have £2m from Mings being sold to Villa, we may actually only have £500k now and in the future we will have £1.5m more, not necessarily all this year.
That has a bearing on what we can spend. What if Villa did a Bolton? Would we see the rest of that money? Would be pretty stupid to have committed it to a signing. |
Our budget doesn’t have to be proportionally front loaded though if we are paying in instalments, that’s the point.
If we get £2m for Mings and sign a player for £2m (not saying we should, just for ease) we are effectively net natural if we match the payment terms received by Villa. | | | |
| (No subject) on 15:37 - Aug 7 with 1045 views | Herbivore |
| (No subject) on 15:26 - Aug 7 by JakeITFC |
The point is that we have a £3m delta either way.
Whether it is cute accounting on behalf of other clubs or Marcus Evans using it to be loose with the truth on how much money we have coming in to avoid him investing more, we somehow appear to be a club that suffer from both sides of transfers being paid for in instalments. |
Sigh. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 15:46 - Aug 7 with 1035 views | JakeITFC |
| (No subject) on 15:37 - Aug 7 by Herbivore |
Sigh. |
Forget about the shortfall and other Evans investment because it is a different argument (and whether we should front load is simply a matter of opinion, so it’s fine us to disagree on that).
It is undeniable that if we receive £3m in revenue from player sales or otherwise, that is £3m to spend. If it comes in a lump sum we can spend it all at once, if it comes in instalments we can also spend it in a staggered way ourselves. The fact that it comes in instalments is ultimately irrelevant to the amount we have to spend (other than the potential deductions for cost of cash and debt provision mentioned above) unless we are somehow unable to pay for things over a period of months/years like the rest of football. | | | |
| (No subject) on 15:48 - Aug 7 with 1027 views | Herbivore |
| (No subject) on 15:46 - Aug 7 by JakeITFC |
Forget about the shortfall and other Evans investment because it is a different argument (and whether we should front load is simply a matter of opinion, so it’s fine us to disagree on that).
It is undeniable that if we receive £3m in revenue from player sales or otherwise, that is £3m to spend. If it comes in a lump sum we can spend it all at once, if it comes in instalments we can also spend it in a staggered way ourselves. The fact that it comes in instalments is ultimately irrelevant to the amount we have to spend (other than the potential deductions for cost of cash and debt provision mentioned above) unless we are somehow unable to pay for things over a period of months/years like the rest of football. |
"It is undeniable that if we receive £3m in revenue from player sales or otherwise, that is £3m to spend."
You'll have to run by me how that is undeniable given that this season sees us drop £9m of income alongside already having a shortfall in our running costs of £6-8m. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 15:55 - Aug 7 with 1008 views | JakeITFC |
| (No subject) on 15:48 - Aug 7 by Herbivore |
"It is undeniable that if we receive £3m in revenue from player sales or otherwise, that is £3m to spend."
You'll have to run by me how that is undeniable given that this season sees us drop £9m of income alongside already having a shortfall in our running costs of £6-8m. |
£3m more to spend rather, a delta of £3m.
Not necessarily on football players. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| "I hope everyone will judge the manager on the cards he has been dealt by me on 15:56 - Aug 7 with 1007 views | BloomBlue |
Well ME has given PL same excellent youths by funding the academy, SBR didn't do too bad with using youths.
The 'Ipswich way' is using youths not splashing the cash, if you actually look at the cash splashing periods Burley's last in the Prem, Keane, Hurst and they've all been a disaster. With two of those three season ending in relegation and both directly leading to the mess we're in now
So PL you have the youths work with them. |  | | |
| Enough of the excuses from PL... on 15:56 - Aug 7 with 1007 views | GeoffSentence |
| Enough of the excuses from PL... on 14:39 - Aug 7 by BrixtonBlue |
Has he been moaning all day? |
He's a Weegie, so there is a pretty good chance that he has. |  |
| |
| (No subject) on 16:01 - Aug 7 with 994 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| (No subject) on 15:32 - Aug 7 by JakeITFC |
Our budget doesn’t have to be proportionally front loaded though if we are paying in instalments, that’s the point.
If we get £2m for Mings and sign a player for £2m (not saying we should, just for ease) we are effectively net natural if we match the payment terms received by Villa. |
WE DO NOT PAY AS MUCH FOR PLAYERS AS WE RECEIVE!
So we are not even. We are bringing in money to bridge the shortfall. Which is not coming in in the full amount. So we have less money initially with which to bridge the gap.
I don’t think you have the intelligence to grasp this. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 16:02 - Aug 7 with 992 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| (No subject) on 15:37 - Aug 7 by Herbivore |
Sigh. |
You and me both. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 16:17 - Aug 7 with 975 views | JakeITFC |
| (No subject) on 16:01 - Aug 7 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
WE DO NOT PAY AS MUCH FOR PLAYERS AS WE RECEIVE!
So we are not even. We are bringing in money to bridge the shortfall. Which is not coming in in the full amount. So we have less money initially with which to bridge the gap.
I don’t think you have the intelligence to grasp this. |
If we received £3m of sell-on fees this summer, then we have the ability to spend £3m more, be that on plugging the shortfall (in this year, or over the next three years), on players, on painting the training ground, on cleaning the roof or whatever else we wanted to do.
In the example of buying players, we could theoretically buy a player using that £3m if we wanted to, and that £3m could be paid in instalments in anyway we see fit.
There is a perfectly valid argument that spending money on players isn’t the best use of the money, but that is an entirely different one to how the transfer fee is paid to us. | | | |
| (No subject) on 16:30 - Aug 7 with 959 views | SamWhiteUK |
| (No subject) on 16:17 - Aug 7 by JakeITFC |
If we received £3m of sell-on fees this summer, then we have the ability to spend £3m more, be that on plugging the shortfall (in this year, or over the next three years), on players, on painting the training ground, on cleaning the roof or whatever else we wanted to do.
In the example of buying players, we could theoretically buy a player using that £3m if we wanted to, and that £3m could be paid in instalments in anyway we see fit.
There is a perfectly valid argument that spending money on players isn’t the best use of the money, but that is an entirely different one to how the transfer fee is paid to us. |
This is one of the hardest conversations I've ever tried to follow. I think you're actually both agreeing in one sense and disagreeing in another. I don't think either of you are as wrong as the other thinks they are | | | |
| (No subject) on 16:31 - Aug 7 with 957 views | SpruceMoose |
| (No subject) on 16:30 - Aug 7 by SamWhiteUK |
This is one of the hardest conversations I've ever tried to follow. I think you're actually both agreeing in one sense and disagreeing in another. I don't think either of you are as wrong as the other thinks they are |
You've never read a GB/Dolly thread then... |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| (No subject) on 17:02 - Aug 7 with 924 views | JakeITFC |
| (No subject) on 16:30 - Aug 7 by SamWhiteUK |
This is one of the hardest conversations I've ever tried to follow. I think you're actually both agreeing in one sense and disagreeing in another. I don't think either of you are as wrong as the other thinks they are |
My obvious lack of intelligence clearly hasn’t helped proceedings.
Still not clear as to how Dan’s original point is one to be disagreed with, but there we are. | | | |
| (No subject) on 18:04 - Aug 7 with 887 views | Herbivore |
| (No subject) on 16:17 - Aug 7 by JakeITFC |
If we received £3m of sell-on fees this summer, then we have the ability to spend £3m more, be that on plugging the shortfall (in this year, or over the next three years), on players, on painting the training ground, on cleaning the roof or whatever else we wanted to do.
In the example of buying players, we could theoretically buy a player using that £3m if we wanted to, and that £3m could be paid in instalments in anyway we see fit.
There is a perfectly valid argument that spending money on players isn’t the best use of the money, but that is an entirely different one to how the transfer fee is paid to us. |
Let me try to simplify it again to show why the installment issue matters unless you remove literally all context from our situation.
Let's say as I did in my example earlier that after cutbacks and after taking account of ME's annual contribution we still had a £1m hole that needed filling. That's not unrealistic given the drop in revenue of £9m, in fact it's likely a bigger hole than just £1m but let's keep it simple for now.
So come July we're essentially at -£1m with our finances. If we then receive £3m in full in sell ons then it covers that £1m shortfall and gives us a £2m surplus. We could then use some of that surplus to buy a player, keeping a bit in reserve for next year's shortfall too if needed. We could structure it in installments even leaving us a bit more to spare to cover future costs.
If the £3m is split across three years equally then all we receive this year is £1m. That brings us up to a balance of zero. We can't spend any money because we have no surplus. Even if we were to structure the deals so that we pay over three years we don't have any available cash for this year's installment to be paid. If we want to buy someone we immediately reopen a shortfall in this year's budget that will have to be covered from elsewhere, possibly from making a sale.
The argument then becomes about whether ME dips his hand into his pocket a bit more, but that's a separate issue. [Post edited 7 Aug 2019 18:06]
| |
| |
| (No subject) on 18:32 - Aug 7 with 869 views | JakeITFC |
| (No subject) on 18:04 - Aug 7 by Herbivore |
Let me try to simplify it again to show why the installment issue matters unless you remove literally all context from our situation.
Let's say as I did in my example earlier that after cutbacks and after taking account of ME's annual contribution we still had a £1m hole that needed filling. That's not unrealistic given the drop in revenue of £9m, in fact it's likely a bigger hole than just £1m but let's keep it simple for now.
So come July we're essentially at -£1m with our finances. If we then receive £3m in full in sell ons then it covers that £1m shortfall and gives us a £2m surplus. We could then use some of that surplus to buy a player, keeping a bit in reserve for next year's shortfall too if needed. We could structure it in installments even leaving us a bit more to spare to cover future costs.
If the £3m is split across three years equally then all we receive this year is £1m. That brings us up to a balance of zero. We can't spend any money because we have no surplus. Even if we were to structure the deals so that we pay over three years we don't have any available cash for this year's installment to be paid. If we want to buy someone we immediately reopen a shortfall in this year's budget that will have to be covered from elsewhere, possibly from making a sale.
The argument then becomes about whether ME dips his hand into his pocket a bit more, but that's a separate issue. [Post edited 7 Aug 2019 18:06]
|
Yes - that is a different argument to the one that me and the other guy are having.
My original point to you is that I think it isn’t in the best approach of the club to take such a risk averse strategy this summer when we have the ability to challenge for promotion without much investment. If we say that £9m deficit is a goal in itself, it’s my opinion that would make much more sense to spend a little more now rather than in 2/3 years time when it gets harder and harder to go up.
Ultimately that is just a matter of opinion though as I say. My real gripe is that this is surely money that has come unexpectedly to Ipswich this summer, whatever the size or instalment nature of it. Given that it hasn’t exactly been a fire sale before this money arrived, there has to be a suspicion that it has just replaced money that Evans would otherwise have had to found from his own pocket (and the truth is that is the case for every additional season at this level). | | | |
| (No subject) on 18:51 - Aug 7 with 860 views | Herbivore |
| (No subject) on 18:32 - Aug 7 by JakeITFC |
Yes - that is a different argument to the one that me and the other guy are having.
My original point to you is that I think it isn’t in the best approach of the club to take such a risk averse strategy this summer when we have the ability to challenge for promotion without much investment. If we say that £9m deficit is a goal in itself, it’s my opinion that would make much more sense to spend a little more now rather than in 2/3 years time when it gets harder and harder to go up.
Ultimately that is just a matter of opinion though as I say. My real gripe is that this is surely money that has come unexpectedly to Ipswich this summer, whatever the size or instalment nature of it. Given that it hasn’t exactly been a fire sale before this money arrived, there has to be a suspicion that it has just replaced money that Evans would otherwise have had to found from his own pocket (and the truth is that is the case for every additional season at this level). |
We flogged Harrison pretty sharpish to be fair, despite having a lack of fit strikers. So it seems to me sales were needed to balance the books somewhat. And the money from the sell ons is sufficient that we haven't then had to flog anyone else and have been able to rebuff interest in Judge and Dozzell pretty firmly. For me that's a good thing. Whether the money is unexpected or not is kind of irrelevant from the point of view of our finances. Had we not received it the money would have had to be found from somewhere else.
But yeah, I do see where you're coming from in terms of feeling like it's worth taking a punt now. I'm just not sure quite how feasible that is given our financial realiry, even taking account of the sell ons. The sell ons haven't given us a war chest by any stretch. [Post edited 7 Aug 2019 18:53]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
