That phrase dragged out again today. Seems we are picking off all our targets. Can't help thinking we are paying full asking prices on all players - at least.
Or the selling clubs don't want anyone knowing that they receievd a lot of money, because then other clubs will think they then have a lot of money to spend when it comes to buying players. There're lots of reasons!
I suppose the real question is why does anyone care? If we are getting in players that we think will do the job does it matter if we are paying top dollar or we are scrapping the barrel.
In the Murray era it could be argued because we had shares it was our business to know, although I don't necessarily agree with that, but now the money is all Slater and co's money not ours so if they buy the right players for the Manager then who cares what they spend.
My understanding of the 'undisclosed fee' is that it can occur when the player in question still has time to run on his contract but has not asked for a transfer.
The selling club are happy to get rid of him for nothing, but are still obliged to pay off some or all of his contract. I suspect that what happens is the buying club simply pay the amount outstanding on the contract to the selling club who immediately pass it on to the player. This could explain the 'undisclosed' element, since salaries are confidential.
Of course this could be in addition to the reasons already given.
I suppose the real question is why does anyone care? If we are getting in players that we think will do the job does it matter if we are paying top dollar or we are scrapping the barrel.
In the Murray era it could be argued because we had shares it was our business to know, although I don't necessarily agree with that, but now the money is all Slater and co's money not ours so if they buy the right players for the Manager then who cares what they spend.
It's not our business to know, but we can still care. How much do you think we have spent so far? More than the Jenkinson fee?
I doubt we've spent more than the Jenkinson fee THIS SUMMER. Most fees are spread over the length of a contract and include lots of add ons.
So a player signed for £300k on a 3 year deal would mean a spend of £100k or less now.
Of course we don't know and it would be better if all Clubs were forced to be open but they are private businesses so have a legal right to keep it private.
I'm of the mind where I really don't care how much they spend, as long as they don't go silly and end up putting the club in potential financial poop, which i really don't think is the case here, so carry on Mr slater.
Comments
There're lots of reasons!
I have no doubt that it is us stipulating the undisclosed fees. Happened with every deal we have been involved in that has involved a fee.
Suspect we don't want anyone knowing what we are spending.
My understanding of the 'undisclosed fee' is that it can occur when the player in question still has time to run on his contract but has not asked for a transfer.
The selling club are happy to get rid of him for nothing, but are still obliged to pay off some or all of his contract. I suspect that what happens is the buying club simply pay the amount outstanding on the contract to the selling club who immediately pass it on to the player. This could explain the 'undisclosed' element, since salaries are confidential.
Of course this could be in addition to the reasons already given.
Spot on
It's not our business to know, but we can still care. How much do you think we have spent so far? More than the Jenkinson fee?
I doubt we've spent more than the Jenkinson fee THIS SUMMER. Most fees are spread over the length of a contract and include lots of add ons.
So a player signed for £300k on a 3 year deal would mean a spend of £100k or less now.
Of course we don't know and it would be better if all Clubs were forced to be open but they are private businesses so have a legal right to keep it private.