madras Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 How is it relevant exactly? If someone asks for a pay rise, you do have another option between 'yes' and 'you're sold'. of course you do, but you also think if thats what he wants and we aren't gong to give him it will he agitate for a move and play like it, if so should we sell when we can get the best price. it's why most players who ask for a move end up getting it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 tbf, he did more than ask for a pay rise. He said "I want a payrise or I want to leave". To me in that situation, there is either "Yes" or "you're sold". EDIT: Because he's not Wayne Rooney or Carlos Tevez and we're not Manchester United or City. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 what were the year on year losses ? ie how much did we lose that year and the year before ? Just took the figures out: 2003/04: 4,2m profits before tax and dividends, and 3.95m dvidiends was paid out to the shareholders, aso nothing left 2004/05: Breakeven, but again, 3.95m dividends was paid to the shareholders, so we have a 4m loss 2005/06: 12m loss, and on top of that, 2.6m dividends paid out (2m in shares, 0.6m in cash) Would appreciate if someone can complete the figures afterwards 2006/2007 £30m loss 2007/2008 £20m loss 2008/2009 £15m loss 2009/2010 £17m loss Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Depends on whether you think he wanted to leave or not I suppose. I don't think he did for a single second, certainly not before being told they wanted to sell him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Depends on whether you think he wanted to leave or not I suppose. I don't think he did for a single second, certainly not before being told they wanted to sell him. if he knew they wanted to sell him anyway and it would cost him a couple of million and make him look the bad guy....why hand in a written transfer request ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 what were the year on year losses ? ie how much did we lose that year and the year before ? Just took the figures out: 2003/04: 4,2m profits before tax and dividends, and 3.95m dvidiends was paid out to the shareholders, aso nothing left 2004/05: Breakeven, but again, 3.95m dividends was paid to the shareholders, so we have a 4m loss 2005/06: 12m loss, and on top of that, 2.6m dividends paid out (2m in shares, 0.6m in cash) Would appreciate if someone can complete the figures afterwards 2006/2007 £30m loss 2007/2008 £20m loss 2008/2009 £15m loss 2009/2010 £17m loss So we lose nearly 100m for the last 7 years. Wow, jesus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 If he was desperate to be away, he'd have put this 'request' in earlier, when the club were busy lying to us about his availability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I also think these 'loyalty clauses' might be one of football's biggest myths. It's all Barton's fault. He had one therefore every single player has one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 If he was desperate to be away, he'd have put this 'request' in earlier, when the club were busy lying to us about his availability. His agent hadn't told him about the £££'s he'd earn at Liverpool then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 If he was desperate to be away, he'd have put this 'request' in earlier, when the club were busy lying to us about his availability. His agent hadn't told him about the £££'s he'd earn at Liverpool then. That's a question I wanna ask for a long time: isn't there news/reports that Carroll does not have an agent and the agent involved in the deal is hired by Liverpool? Isn't that illegal to contact the players before the club agrees? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Those questions were on the skysports website, they sent a list to Liverpool which went unanswered. Sure it was posted in the Carroll thread a few weeks back Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 If he was desperate to be away, he'd have put this 'request' in earlier, when the club were busy lying to us about his availability. His agent hadn't told him about the £££'s he'd earn at Liverpool then. He didn't have an agent at the time of the deal, represented himself. All very dodgy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 what were the year on year losses ? ie how much did we lose that year and the year before ? Just took the figures out: 2003/04: 4,2m profits before tax and dividends, and 3.95m dvidiends was paid out to the shareholders, aso nothing left 2004/05: Breakeven, but again, 3.95m dividends was paid to the shareholders, so we have a 4m loss 2005/06: 12m loss, and on top of that, 2.6m dividends paid out (2m in shares, 0.6m in cash) Would appreciate if someone can complete the figures afterwards 2006/2007 £30m loss 2007/2008 £20m loss 2008/2009 £15m loss 2009/2010 £17m loss So we lose nearly 100m for the last 7 years. Wow, jesus. Remember though the profit/loss figures are heavily influenced by player amortisation, and give a somewhat distorted picture of the years in which money was spent over budget and debt was built up. For example the loss in 05-06 was only £12m, but the increase in the debt was £23m due to buying Owen & Luque in that year while the loss in 06-07 was £30m, but the increase in the debt was only £10m as a lot of that loss was amortisation of players already on the books. For last year it looks like most of the loss is amortisation (going off reports the debt has remained steady) so probably not much cash was actually lost as the shortfall was covered by player sales. When we spend the £35m + the rest of the profit from this year on buying players cash up front in the Summer, there wont be an immediate hit of £50m to next years accounts as it will be spread over the next 4/5 years even though it was spent in 2011 from money generated in 10-11. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 does that mean we paid up front for both owen and luque ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 does that mean we paid up front for both owen and luque ? You could say so. We paid 9.5m for Luque and the whole amount was paid to Deportivo. In the balance sheet our debt will goes up immediately about 9.5m, while in the profit and loss account, the 9.5m will be apportioned (most likely by his contract length) and thus approxmiately 2m per year for 5 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 If the club wanted to keep Carroll then they would have done so. They thought it was too good a deal to turn down. Redknapp said the Carroll transfer request made him laugh because it is what clubs ask players to do to deflect criticism of a sale. If it was down to the request for a new contract then the club have happily messed players around on these before - offering contracts then withdrawing them or moving the goalposts so they could have easily given lip service to a new contract - and anyway contracts do not get sorted within a few hours but rather a few weeks which would have taken them through most of the rest of the season. If you believe Milner - and I do - he agreed a contract extension when Ashley bought the club on the same terms that he was already on, on the condition that the club would renegotiate the deal the next year. The club then refused to even talk to him about it causing him to show his annoyance by handing in a transfer request. They then sold him saying he wanted to leave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 You could say so. We paid 9.5m for Luque and the whole amount was paid to Deportivo. In the balance sheet our debt will goes up immediately about 9.5m, while in the profit and loss account, the 9.5m will be apportioned (most likely by his contract length) and thus approxmiately 2m per year for 5 years. Where did you get your information about us paying for Luque up front? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 No. You're including running costs for the next year, tax and all sorts in those numbers. 2005 - Note 27, p43. Debt = £63.3m, Cash in bank = £26.2m, Net debt = £37.2m When Ashley bought the club, the debt was £70m. When Ashley took over the debt was over £72 million and we'd spent our sponsorship money from Adidas and Northern Rock which was still showing on the books as deferred income. We'd spent it but hadn't yet earned it at that time as we still had years to run on those sponsorship deals so it's also a debt. Edit. We also had additional income that year as we received £6.7 million in compensation for Owen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 If the club wanted to keep Carroll then they would have done so. They thought it was too good a deal to turn down. Redknapp said the Carroll transfer request made him laugh because it is what clubs ask players to do to deflect criticism of a sale. If it was down to the request for a new contract then the club have happily messed players around on these before - offering contracts then withdrawing them or moving the goalposts so they could have easily given lip service to a new contract - and anyway contracts do not get sorted within a few hours but rather a few weeks which would have taken them through most of the rest of the season. If you believe Milner - and I do - he agreed a contract extension when Ashley bought the club on the same terms that he was already on, on the condition that the club would renegotiate the deal the next year. The club then refused to even talk to him about it causing him to show his annoyance by handing in a transfer request. They then sold him saying he wanted to leave. Sounds like the Carroll situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 If the club wanted to keep Carroll then they would have done so. They thought it was too good a deal to turn down. Redknapp said the Carroll transfer request made him laugh because it is what clubs ask players to do to deflect criticism of a sale. If it was down to the request for a new contract then the club have happily messed players around on these before - offering contracts then withdrawing them or moving the goalposts so they could have easily given lip service to a new contract - and anyway contracts do not get sorted within a few hours but rather a few weeks which would have taken them through most of the rest of the season. If you believe Milner - and I do - he agreed a contract extension when Ashley bought the club on the same terms that he was already on, on the condition that the club would renegotiate the deal the next year. The club then refused to even talk to him about it causing him to show his annoyance by handing in a transfer request. They then sold him saying he wanted to leave. So he signed a new, four-year contract on the verbal understanding that the contract would be re-negotiated after a year? It'd be interesting to hear the other side of the story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Good luck to you in trying to hear it. And more fool you should you believe them ahead of someone like Milner and his 'agents' the PFA, for good measure... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Good luck to you in trying to hear it. And more fool you should you believe them ahead of someone like Milner and his 'agents' the PFA, for good measure... Do you already know what they're going to say, or do you think that whatever they say is going to be wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Good luck to you in trying to hear it. And more fool you should you believe them ahead of someone like Milner and his 'agents' the PFA, for good measure... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Good luck to you in trying to hear it. And more fool you should you believe them ahead of someone like Milner and his 'agents' the PFA, for good measure... Do you already know what they're going to say, or do you think that whatever they say is going to be wrong? Well if they said something that fitted in reasonably with Milner's story then I would believe them... Fact is, I consider the lad a trustworthy character. Every reference I've ever heard of regarding him from every club he's been associated with suggests he's as straight down the line as they come. So for him to say what he said is striking. It's sheer stupidity to insist upon considering claim and counter-claim as holding equal weight when you've access to wider supporting evidence, particularly regarding character. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Good luck to you in trying to hear it. And more fool you should you believe them ahead of someone like Milner and his 'agents' the PFA, for good measure... Do you already know what they're going to say, or do you think that whatever they say is going to be wrong? Well if they said something that fitted in reasonably with Milner's story then I would believe them... Fact is, I consider the lad a trustworthy character. Every reference I've ever heard of regarding him from every club he's been associated with suggests he's as straight down the line as they come. So for him to say what he said is striking. It's sheer stupidity to insist upon considering claim and counter-claim as holding equal weight when you've access to wider supporting evidence, particularly regarding character. Well as I said in the other thread, I'm not sure you've got the Milner story right, but assuming you have, it's pretty common for a player who wants to leave a club to claim that some verbal promise or understanding has been broken. I just think Milner was wanted by Villa and he wanted to go. He knew he would get more money and he could probably see that problems were developing at Newcastle and wanted to go where the prospects were brighter. From the point of view of his career, he made the right decision. He's an ambitious lad and when the chance came two years later to join a more promising club in Man City, he requested a move similarly. This is what happens in football. I don't particularly blame Milner or Carroll for wanting to move. The club wouldn't have sold either player if they weren't going to get a decent price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now