That just stinks of something dodgy. Pearson seems as amazed as I am, but obviously has to appear to find it all above board. I don't know how long Turner had to run on his contract but for only £2.8 million it would have been better to keep him for just one season, if their was no financial imperative to sell.
Wasn't there a similar thing over the Defoe transfer from West Ham to spurs where the deal was supposedly worth £7million but only a tiny amount of cash was handed over as Bobby Zamora was valued at £5million or something stupid?
*** I might have just made that up in my head over the past 7 years****
Had a feeling this was not going to be straightforward as at the time of the sale, not a word on potential percentages etc came out the Charlton camp. We can thank good old Andrew Mills for bringing this into the public arena.
Bet the Hull fans will be well chuffed with that news. Their double player of the year sold for 2.8m! As Cordoban said they'd have been better off keeping him
Good to see the thread has 'returned to why he was sold so cheaply'....... Spoke to a couple of 'contacts' about the valuation of Turner.
He is rated very highly, despite his limited experience, the collapse of Hull seems to have raised his valuation.' With King 'crocked'. Big doubts over Ferdinand at Man Utd ( legs shot) Mathhew Upson no more than' decent' and Tom Huddlestone in and out like a 'fiddlers elbow' ( the game at the weekend did not help) The opinion was he was a 'candidate' for possibly Liverpool/Man city...... all of course 'speculation' .......even talk of the England squad for the world cup 'for the experience' as for the future.......
Adam Pearson says
'Pearson said there had been "no necessity" to sell Turner in August to raise funds. He said the defender was sold for £4m, with 33% of the fee going to the defender's former clubs Brentford and Charlton, who have since called on the Premier League to investigate the sums involved in the deal given the player's previously publicised valuation.
"Under no circumstances was it a financial necessity to sell Michael Turner. I can only second guess what people were thinking but there was probably a feeling the player wanted to go and that was the best possible deal available for him.
"It's not incremental, the total amount of cash we will receive for Michael Turner is £2.8m. Those are the facts."
As has been said already, stinks to high heaven, and this bloke thinks that we are all too thick to see it. Peter Varney knows how to fight our corner on things like this. Will be interesting to hear what he says about it.
To be fair, we never do well out of these sell ons and so on.
We did the opposite on the Bent deal. Declared the massive fee gave a large % of it to Ipswich and wrote off the add-ons like good little lads. To be fair, the right and decent thing to do, although you have to wonder about the amount of cash lost, there.
[cite]Posted By: PragueAddick[/cite] Peter Varney knows how to fight our corner on things like this. Will be interesting to hear what he says about it.
I heard a rumour he is doing a Q & A in Bromley next Tuesday. Is that near Prague?
[cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]To be fair, we never do well out of these sell ons and so on.
We did the opposite on the Bent deal. Declared the massive fee gave a large % of it to Ipswich and wrote off the add-ons like good little lads. To be fair, the right and decent thing to do, although you have to wonder about the amount of cash lost, there.
Not quite how it happened.
We had to declare the fee to the league in any case just as Hull had to so why hide it?
We had to pay Ipswich their share and as you say rightly so. But Ipswich still got there knickers in a twist and complained only for Charlton to win the appeal hands down.
We didn't write off the add ons, we factored the instalments.
As it happens we've done alright financial over such deals IMHO. We got money for Turner even if it was less than we thought we were going to get, we got money for Shittu and were still getting money for Defoe from when he went to Pompey. Also got money for Diawara.
Whether they were good football decisions is another matter for another thread but the percentages of future deals plus digging our heels in over Defoe did profit the club financially.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]
Not quite how it happened.
We had to declare the fee to the league in any case just as Hull had to so why hide it?
We had to pay Ipswich their share and as you say rightly so. But Ipswich still got there knickers in a twist and complained only for Charlton to win the appeal hands down.
We didn't write off the add ons, we factored the instalments.
Interesting stuff. What was the basis of Ipswich's complaint? I thought they did rather well out of it all?
Personally I'm not a fan of factoring, on a business level it's an expensive way to borrow cash. And surely factoring any debt would mean that add-ons (as distinct from installments e.g. those based on appearances, internationals etc) would go out the window? Though I guess given he didn't play much for them or England that it doesn't matter as much as it could have done.
We're probably in an area where everyone other than the factors and FDs are guessing on details, anyway.
When Defoe went to Spurs the first time,Zamora went the other way to the Hammers and was valued at a very low figure to cheat Brighton out of their sell on percentage.
I think there's a confusion here between contingent and non-contingent debt. Non-contingent debt (like staged payments) can be factored and you get a percentage of what's owed to you up front to help with your cash flow. I'd be interested to know what that percentage was, but it's usually pretty stiff.
Post-Enron you cannot account for - and therefore cannot factor - non contingent debt - like appearance fees or whatever. That's why I said add-ons. Staged payments aren't added on to anything they're the main debt.
The point is that when people spout on about this transfer fee or that transfer fee they're inconsistent about what they're counting in. We came away from the Bent deal with something but I think once the factor has had their slice, Ipswich have had their bit of the pie and we've written off the add-ons it's not the trumpeted £16.5M
[cite]Posted By: Starinnaddick[/cite]When Defoe went to Spurs the first time,Zamora went the other way to the Hammers and was valued at a very low figure to cheat Brighton out of their sell on percentage.
How unlike West Ham it is to get involved in such things.
It'd be easier if clubs wrote in some kind of a clause to cover the eventuality of a swap being involved. Lawyers are clever and get paid a lot, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man.
"While the terms of the settlement are confidential, the club can confirm that they relate to a separate sum of money currently held by The Football League, and do not affect the sums already received by both clubs from Hull."
Why the secrecy? Are we not able to make a judgement on wheather this is a fair result or not for ourselves?
"A Football League disciplinary committee hearing which was due to be held on Friday has been cancelled."
If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd be having a field day with this
The Bees have settled their case with Charlton Athletic over the sell-on monies due from the Micheal Turner transfer from Hull to Sunderland.
In an article on the club's website, Acting CEO, David Heath, revealed that the terms of the agreement were to remain confidential. However using the GPG Infinite Probability Computer we have determined that the Bees got at least some of their money with a 75% chance that they got more that 33% of it, and a 33% chance they got more than 75% of it. No-one at GPG Towers can remember how much cash that is.
The separate case with Hull City over the deliberate understating of the value of Turner and McShane (who transferred from Sunderland to Hull the previous day) is still ongoing. No news updates have been issued by any of the club's involved in this for some time now. However the GPG Towers's IPC has stated the most likely outcome is "a complete stitch-up by the Premier League and two of their members. Most likely outcome £0.00"
Hull accuse ex-chairman Duffen of misusing club money
Hull City have accused former chairman Paul Duffen of spending company money for his own personal use.
The club have issued legal proceedings against Duffen in the High Court and on Friday said they have been successful in freezing his assets.
Hull also allege that Duffen's company received payments from agents in return for using those agents to deal with the transfer of players.
The BBC has been unable to contact Duffen for comment.
The club said in a statement: "The company believes that Mr Duffen has acted in breach of his employment contracts and fiduciary duties as a director, through the use of company monies for his own personal expenditure and other wrongdoings.
"The company also believes that he has acted in breach of his employment contracts and fiduciary duties as a director, through the payment of certain monies by third party football agents to Mr Duffen's services company, in return for which Mr Duffen procured that Hull City contract with the agents for business.
"Consequently, on 15 January last, the company successfully sought and obtained a High Court order freezing Mr Duffen's assets.
"The company also wishes to clarify that, contrary to a tabloid newspaper article today, Mr Duffen has not issued any legal proceedings against the company and Hull City does not believe he has any basis whatsoever for doing so."
Earlier this month new Hull chairman Adam Pearson claimed there had "not been enough care and attention done to the transfers and the deals".
Duffen was part of a consortium that bought the Tigers from Pearson in June 2007, the year before they were promoted to the Premier League.
They began the 2008-09 season well but struggled towards the end of the season and only escaped relegation on the last day of the campaign.
Duffen stepped down as executive chairman of the club and Superstadium Management Company Ltd in October 2009, with Pearson returning to the club as chairman.
At the time, a formal statement said the club "wishes to express its gratitude to Paul for his outstanding contribution as chairman during a period of unprecedented success for Hull City AFC."
Manager Phil Brown said "we have had tremendous unprecedented success during his time at the club and I would personally like to thank him for all his support."
But in December 2009, Pearson said he was calling in auditors to try and sort out the club's finances, after their 2008 figures revealed a shortfall of around £16m.
Everyday something else re dodgy football finances. How surprising (not).
As discussed on another thread seems about time for better regulation. The Football Authorities need a total revamp to ensure whether they are 'fit for purpose'
In France they had a number of scandals and bankruptcies in football in the 70s and 80s and partly as a result each season every club has to produce a budget which is audited.
Only if a club can show that it can survive the season,meet it's responsibilities and pay creditors will it get a license for that year.
If not they are relegated.
Harsh but it seems, from an computer in Bromley, to be working.
Now Platini has been banging on about something similar for years Europe wide. Any suggested control is immediately attacked by the UK press as anti- english and them all hating us and our success. I wonder why the UK press takes that stance especially as it so suits the big English clubs. Vested interest perhaps. But Platini has said that it would hit Barca and Real Madrid just the same as Man Utd.
Now we are seeing what the mess that English (and Scottish) football finances are in at even the big clubs the press may have to accept that Platini had a point all along.
Comments
*** I might have just made that up in my head over the past 7 years****
As Cordoban said they'd have been better off keeping him
Spoke to a couple of 'contacts' about the valuation of Turner.
He is rated very highly, despite his limited experience, the collapse of Hull seems to have raised his valuation.'
With King 'crocked'. Big doubts over Ferdinand at Man Utd ( legs shot) Mathhew Upson no more than' decent' and Tom Huddlestone in and out like a 'fiddlers elbow' ( the game at the weekend did not help)
The opinion was he was a 'candidate' for possibly Liverpool/Man city...... all of course 'speculation' .......even talk of the England squad for the world cup 'for the experience' as for the future.......
'Pearson said there had been "no necessity" to sell Turner in August to raise funds. He said the defender was sold for £4m, with 33% of the fee going to the defender's former clubs Brentford and Charlton, who have since called on the Premier League to investigate the sums involved in the deal given the player's previously publicised valuation.
"Under no circumstances was it a financial necessity to sell Michael Turner. I can only second guess what people were thinking but there was probably a feeling the player wanted to go and that was the best possible deal available for him.
"It's not incremental, the total amount of cash we will receive for Michael Turner is £2.8m. Those are the facts."
As has been said already, stinks to high heaven, and this bloke thinks that we are all too thick to see it. Peter Varney knows how to fight our corner on things like this. Will be interesting to hear what he says about it.
We did the opposite on the Bent deal. Declared the massive fee gave a large % of it to Ipswich and wrote off the add-ons like good little lads. To be fair, the right and decent thing to do, although you have to wonder about the amount of cash lost, there.
I heard a rumour he is doing a Q & A in Bromley next Tuesday. Is that near Prague?
Not quite how it happened.
We had to declare the fee to the league in any case just as Hull had to so why hide it?
We had to pay Ipswich their share and as you say rightly so. But Ipswich still got there knickers in a twist and complained only for Charlton to win the appeal hands down.
We didn't write off the add ons, we factored the instalments.
As it happens we've done alright financial over such deals IMHO. We got money for Turner even if it was less than we thought we were going to get, we got money for Shittu and were still getting money for Defoe from when he went to Pompey. Also got money for Diawara.
Whether they were good football decisions is another matter for another thread but the percentages of future deals plus digging our heels in over Defoe did profit the club financially.
Personally I'm not a fan of factoring, on a business level it's an expensive way to borrow cash. And surely factoring any debt would mean that add-ons (as distinct from installments e.g. those based on appearances, internationals etc) would go out the window? Though I guess given he didn't play much for them or England that it doesn't matter as much as it could have done.
We're probably in an area where everyone other than the factors and FDs are guessing on details, anyway.
Post-Enron you cannot account for - and therefore cannot factor - non contingent debt - like appearance fees or whatever. That's why I said add-ons. Staged payments aren't added on to anything they're the main debt.
The point is that when people spout on about this transfer fee or that transfer fee they're inconsistent about what they're counting in. We came away from the Bent deal with something but I think once the factor has had their slice, Ipswich have had their bit of the pie and we've written off the add-ons it's not the trumpeted £16.5M
It'd be easier if clubs wrote in some kind of a clause to cover the eventuality of a swap being involved. Lawyers are clever and get paid a lot, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man.
;-)
Why the secrecy? Are we not able to make a judgement on wheather this is a fair result or not for ourselves?
"A Football League disciplinary committee hearing which was due to be held on Friday has been cancelled."
If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd be having a field day with this
The Bees have settled their case with Charlton Athletic over the sell-on monies due from the Micheal Turner transfer from Hull to Sunderland.
In an article on the club's website, Acting CEO, David Heath, revealed that the terms of the agreement were to remain confidential. However using the GPG Infinite Probability Computer we have determined that the Bees got at least some of their money with a 75% chance that they got more that 33% of it, and a 33% chance they got more than 75% of it. No-one at GPG Towers can remember how much cash that is.
The separate case with Hull City over the deliberate understating of the value of Turner and McShane (who transferred from Sunderland to Hull the previous day) is still ongoing. No news updates have been issued by any of the club's involved in this for some time now. However the GPG Towers's IPC has stated the most likely outcome is "a complete stitch-up by the Premier League and two of their members. Most likely outcome £0.00"
TYPICAL CHARLTON FAN POST-1998
;-)
Hull accuse ex-chairman Duffen of misusing club money
Hull City have accused former chairman Paul Duffen of spending company money for his own personal use.
The club have issued legal proceedings against Duffen in the High Court and on Friday said they have been successful in freezing his assets.
Hull also allege that Duffen's company received payments from agents in return for using those agents to deal with the transfer of players.
The BBC has been unable to contact Duffen for comment.
The club said in a statement: "The company believes that Mr Duffen has acted in breach of his employment contracts and fiduciary duties as a director, through the use of company monies for his own personal expenditure and other wrongdoings.
"The company also believes that he has acted in breach of his employment contracts and fiduciary duties as a director, through the payment of certain monies by third party football agents to Mr Duffen's services company, in return for which Mr Duffen procured that Hull City contract with the agents for business.
"Consequently, on 15 January last, the company successfully sought and obtained a High Court order freezing Mr Duffen's assets.
"The company also wishes to clarify that, contrary to a tabloid newspaper article today, Mr Duffen has not issued any legal proceedings against the company and Hull City does not believe he has any basis whatsoever for doing so."
Earlier this month new Hull chairman Adam Pearson claimed there had "not been enough care and attention done to the transfers and the deals".
Duffen was part of a consortium that bought the Tigers from Pearson in June 2007, the year before they were promoted to the Premier League.
They began the 2008-09 season well but struggled towards the end of the season and only escaped relegation on the last day of the campaign.
Duffen stepped down as executive chairman of the club and Superstadium Management Company Ltd in October 2009, with Pearson returning to the club as chairman.
At the time, a formal statement said the club "wishes to express its gratitude to Paul for his outstanding contribution as chairman during a period of unprecedented success for Hull City AFC."
Manager Phil Brown said "we have had tremendous unprecedented success during his time at the club and I would personally like to thank him for all his support."
But in December 2009, Pearson said he was calling in auditors to try and sort out the club's finances, after their 2008 figures revealed a shortfall of around £16m.
You could buy Palace for less than that.
As discussed on another thread seems about time for better regulation. The Football Authorities need a total revamp to ensure whether they are 'fit for purpose'
Only if a club can show that it can survive the season,meet it's responsibilities and pay creditors will it get a license for that year.
If not they are relegated.
Harsh but it seems, from an computer in Bromley, to be working.
Now Platini has been banging on about something similar for years Europe wide. Any suggested control is immediately attacked by the UK press as anti- english and them all hating us and our success. I wonder why the UK press takes that stance especially as it so suits the big English clubs. Vested interest perhaps. But Platini has said that it would hit Barca and Real Madrid just the same as Man Utd.
Now we are seeing what the mess that English (and Scottish) football finances are in at even the big clubs the press may have to accept that Platini had a point all along.