CONFIMRED - Blackman to Derby

[Sutekh]

IF the rumours about Dack are true, wonder if Samuel may become part of a player exchange.... he is already on loan there until 28 Jan after all.

[Jano]

If we are getting £4m for Blackman as has been suggested, I am in disbelief that anyone could see this as anything but a good deal for the club. Too many clubs have more money than sense!

[RoyalJames101]

IF the rumours about Dack are true, wonder if Samuel may become part of a player exchange.... he is already on loan there until 28 Jan after all.

Can't imagine we would sell him to be honest, could head that way for the rest of the season on loan as part of the deal I guess?

[WoodleyRoyal]

answering my own question

Bond 350 k
Andrew taylor loan nominal fee
paul mcshane free
Michael hector loan nominal fee
matej vydra 2.5 million for loan
orlando sa 1 million
Paulo hurtado 500k
alex Fernandez loan nominal
ola john loan maybe 250 k fee
Stephen Quinn free
ali al habsi free
= 4.8 million ish

sold
hichael hector 4 million
jem karacan released
adam federici released
alex pearce released
nick blackman 3-4 million
mikkel Anderson released
Stephen Kelly released
many other non important released


so 4.8 million spent and potentially 7-8 million sold, if we are in a healthy situation that we can reinvest the money gained from transfers which I believe we are. and we originally started the season with a supposed budget of 2 million. I believe that would mean we have around 4.2-5.2 in the pot.

which means we should be able to get a good goalkeeper 1 million (maybe jon McLaughlin burton) a lively young Am 1.5 million (Bradley Dack) an exciting young attacker 1 million (Zach clough), to make a loan permanent 250k (Andrew Taylor) and a wild punt at an old favourite 1.5 million (Alfie)

(this is just what I would like to see not genuine rumours) but personally adding these to the squad would make us a better looking squad.)

If Gunter and Hal leave at the end of the season when there contracts expire I don't think this would be the worst thing either. there wages alone are probably around 60k. this would give us some wages to use on the defence and raid the free transfer market and then spend any transfer budget on securing the rest of the defence. looking at it we will need a CB 2xRB.

this is just my opinion but I feel IF all the above happened we would be a very strong prospect for next season and we wouldn't be in the situation of high wages and big egos and to many loans.

And what about signing on fees & agent fees?

The above is all complete made up fantasy, you have no idea what fees we paid for the loanees nor the percentage of wages being paid. You assume gunter and HRK are both on 30k a week? You have no idea what they are on.

You also have no idea on the details of the Blackman and Hector transfers. Did the chelsea and derby pay the money up front? or are they paying in installments?

[Extended-Phenotype]

Whilst I don't disagree with the general gist of your complaint, it doesn't really matter if clubs are paying lump sum or instalments as a debt is an asset.

[WoodleyRoyal]

Whilst I don't disagree with the general gist of your complaint, it doesn't really matter if clubs are paying lump sum or instalments as a debt is an asset.

agreed but if we don't have the money in the bank now then "I believe that would mean we have around 4.2-5.2 in the pot." total nonsense as per the rest of his post

[Extended-Phenotype]

We can spend what we owed before we are paid it. Ask capitalism.

[WoodleyRoyal]

We can spend what we owed before we are paid it. Ask capitalism.

also agreed, not saying that isn't the case, just pointing out we might not have 5mil in the pot as was stated in the back of fag packet math that LHR was passing off as fact earlier.

This could also affect our ability to bid for players. For instance a club wants the money up front for a player we are interested in, but don't have the money to pay up front because our transfer funds are being paid in installments. What then? the thais put the money in? possible granted or a loan? also possible. However once again too many variables and there will a lot of mongs not just LHR who believe that because we have sold these two players we are going to reinvest all back into acquisitions

[One8Seven1*]

how much have we spent this season??

Minus something

Standard. SJM's Reading Way back in full flow.

[TFF]

how much have we spent this season??

Minus something

Standard. SJM's Reading Way back in full flow.

The Right Way

Unless you want to fund it of course

[linkenholtroyal]

I never said this was fact in regards to agent fees and wages, I would like to add we cleared a huge mountain of wages out of the club last year if you look at the full leavers list. Also I believe it has been said that Hal is on 35k and gunter on 25k a week. 2 wages we could easily lose and replace with players that are as good if not better on lower wages. Other than that did you agree with my choices of players I would sign if that money was there....
sorry to Woodley royal forgot to do it as a quote.....

[Extended-Phenotype]

We can spend what we owed before we are paid it. Ask capitalism.

also agreed, not saying that isn't the case, just pointing out we might not have 5mil in the pot as was stated in the back of fag packet math that LHR was passing off as fact earlier.

This could also affect our ability to bid for players. For instance a club wants the money up front for a player we are interested in, but don't have the money to pay up front because our transfer funds are being paid in installments. What then? the thais put the money in? possible granted or a loan? also possible. However once again too many variables and there will a lot of mongs not just LHR who believe that because we have sold these two players we are going to reinvest all back into acquisitions

Kicking around a bit of basic maths isn't really worth the hostility though imo

Point remains that whether the money is 'really there' or not, it's available to be spent, now. How we spend it is another matter, but we apparently aren't operating on a wage bill which caused the infamous 'blackholes' of previous years so presumably we can reinvest penny for penny in new players, obviously taking into consideration their wages.

[RoyalBlue]

answering my own question

Michael hector loan nominal fee
.

I very much doubt we are paying any loan fee at all as that will have all been covered off by the original deal to sell and then loan back. Therefore the only cost will be whatever percentage of his wages we are having to pay.

If we are getting £4m for Blackman as has been suggested, I am in disbelief that anyone could see this as anything but a good deal for the club. Too many clubs have more money than sense!

I think most reporters are clear on one thing - there is no way we are getting as much as £4M up front. Maybe £2.5 -3M tops with the rest being contingent on other factors/achievements.

Whether we are in pocket or out of pocket so far, one thing seems pretty clear to me - there needs to be further decent investment in the squad this window if we are to achieve anything this season. If no new blood is brought in, we are more likely to be counting points gained in our bid to avoid relegation.

Now beginning to wonder whether Blackman's imminent departure and lack of funds for January might have played a part in Clarke's itchy feet and Burton's unexpected rapid change of mind re wanting to work for us.

how much have we spent this season??

Minus something

Standard. SJM's Reading Way back in full flow.

The Right Way

Unless you want to fund it of course

The ultimately dysfunctional way. The right way in Madejski's view but one that is not sustainable in terms of achieving the level of success that our new owners say they want to achieve. So it now depends whether the owners are prepared to put more money where their mouths' are and follow the economic model that has been shown to give you a chance of sustained success at the highest level i.e. investing significant money. That probably does mean operating at a loss and dipping into their own, not insubstantial, funds. And if anyone says FFP - QPR!

[linkenholtroyal]

We can spend what we owed before we are paid it. Ask capitalism.

also agreed, not saying that isn't the case, just pointing out we might not have 5mil in the pot as was stated in the back of fag packet math that LHR was passing off as fact earlier.

This could also affect our ability to bid for players. For instance a club wants the money up front for a player we are interested in, but don't have the money to pay up front because our transfer funds are being paid in installments. What then? the thais put the money in? possible granted or a loan? also possible. However once again too many variables and there will a lot of mongs not just LHR who believe that because we have sold these two players we are going to reinvest all back into acquisitions

Kicking around a bit of basic maths isn't really worth the hostility though imo

Point remains that whether the money is 'really there' or not, it's available to be spent, now. How we spend it is another matter, but we apparently aren't operating on a wage bill which caused the infamous 'blackholes' of previous years so presumably we can reinvest penny for penny in new players, obviously taking into consideration their wages.

Thanks EP I was just trying to work out what we could do and achieve in this window, I know its pie in the sky thinking and I know there is a lot of variables. But this is a forum WR and that is a place where people tend to voice opinion last time I checked. I was only voicing my opinion of wht I would like to see whether the money is there or not and trying to put a form of reasoning behind my opinion.....

[Nameless]

answering my own question

Michael hector loan nominal fee
.

I very much doubt we are paying any loan fee at all as that will have all been covered off by the original deal to sell and then loan back. Therefore the only cost will be whatever percentage of his wages we are having to pay.

You would imagine we're paying Hector what we were paying him anyway and Chelsea have decided how much more than that they think he is worth, and are paying that.
Tend to agree that guessing at numbers is a mugs game, but a fairly harmless one if people,recognise it is meaningless.
For a start player wages and fees are part of th cost of running the club and we don't have much idea currently how the Thai's are approaching that. They might be happy to underwrite a level,of operating loss and let the manager have funds generated by sales to reinvest in players, or they might want some of the cash to offset other costs. We just don't know.

[Nameless]

Now beginning to wonder whether Blackman's imminent departure and lack of funds for January might have played a part in Clarke's itchy feet and Burton's unexpected rapid change of mind re wanting to work for us.

Seems highly unlikely.
Clarke rejected the chance to leave us.
Burton and McDermott would have known about Blackman before they joined and as there is no evidence of a lack of funds that can hardly be a factor.
Inevitably the usual crazies will come up with unlikely conspiracy theories though.....

[Extended-Phenotype]

answering my own question

Michael hector loan nominal fee
.

I very much doubt we are paying any loan fee at all as that will have all been covered off by the original deal to sell and then loan back. Therefore the only cost will be whatever percentage of his wages we are having to pay.

You would imagine we're paying Hector what we were paying him anyway and Chelsea have decided how much more than that they think he is worth, and are paying that.
Tend to agree that guessing at numbers is a mugs game, but a fairly harmless one if people,recognise it is meaningless.
For a start player wages and fees are part of th cost of running the club and we don't have much idea currently how the Thai's are approaching that. They might be happy to underwrite a level,of operating loss and let the manager have funds generated by sales to reinvest in players, or they might want some of the cash to offset other costs. We just don't know.

I wouldn't say it was meaningless. It's fair enough to say X amount has come in and, in line with our owners stated intention, we hope to see some of that being reinvested in new players. If it isn't then we'd at least like some clarification of where the money went especially in cases where we have sold one of our first team players who has had a significant impact on our season's success so far.

[melonhead]

The ultimately dysfunctional way.

believe it has been said that Hal is on 35k and gunter on 25k a week

[Nameless]

I very much doubt we are paying any loan fee at all as that will have all been covered off by the original deal to sell and then loan back. Therefore the only cost will be whatever percentage of his wages we are having to pay.

You would imagine we're paying Hector what we were paying him anyway and Chelsea have decided how much more than that they think he is worth, and are paying that.
Tend to agree that guessing at numbers is a mugs game, but a fairly harmless one if people,recognise it is meaningless.
For a start player wages and fees are part of th cost of running the club and we don't have much idea currently how the Thai's are approaching that. They might be happy to underwrite a level,of operating loss and let the manager have funds generated by sales to reinvest in players, or they might want some of the cash to offset other costs. We just don't know.

I wouldn't say it was meaningless. It's fair enough to say X amount has come in and, in line with our owners stated intention, we hope to see some of that being reinvested in new players. If it isn't then we'd at least like some clarification of where the money went especially in cases where we have sold one of our first team players who has had a significant impact on our season's success so far.

The guessing game is meaningless. Hard to see how it can be anything else ! We have some random numbers which are probably wrong, probably incomplete and probably only part of the picture. We don't really know the wider context of which those numbers are a smallish part . So trying to make hard and fast statements about those numbers may be a fun game but it's meaningless and ultimately pointless because it has no bearing on future transfer dealings. We could rake in £5 million thus window , spend nothing on fees and end up with a better team. Or we could bring in £3 million, spend £5 million and be worse off.
We'll still do it, as fans have always done it, but to me it's the same sort of debate as 'what I'll do with my lottery winnings', and as entertaining and as harmless !

[Extended-Phenotype]

Yeah but it's fair enough to estimate that a rough figure of X coming in should leave us able to reinvest in a replacement

The rough estimate is fair, as if it was say 200k estimate we probably wouldn't expect much if any outlay on new players. But a reasonable wedge being estimated, it's fair to argue we have bunce kicking around to bring in fresh recruits.

I don't think anyone is arguing that what the estimated haul on a player should be instantly pound-for-pound spent on someone new.

It's just throwing some figures around and suggesting we should be in some sort of position to replace.

That's how I was reading it anyways