Chelsea interest in Callum Wilson (12 Viewers)

[skybluebeduff]

In this instance I'd be happy if it did if they went with it. I can't see it happening though.

Fans groups are already whipping it up to get people annoyed, it's just so they can try and get some protests going and they can stand at the forefront looking proud.

The problem is, so many people believe that any money made by player sales, has been pocketed by SISU.
This is just one example of thousands of example I could post.



Surely there is a way of dispelling this myth by showing these people definitive proof that this isn't the case, something in black and white that can easily be shown to these fans who honestly believe this is what SISU do?

 

---

[SkyBlueCRJ]

I think it is very likely Spurs will be interested in Wilson, Kane out for two months, Son away for over a month and with having the need to finish top four and the Champion league getting to the nitty-gritty, whether they would pay £75millon though that’s perhaps a different question.

Although I think it's 99% certain that they won't since Wilson. Kane's injury could potentially force Levy's hand. No Champions League would be costly for them next season. Especially as they're advertising their new stadium as the only place to watch Champions League football in London....

 

[Spurs 'City Away Kit' Kit]

Don't take this as a confession that I'm a Sisu fan - I'm not but what we have seen is the club becoming self-sustaining and disciplines being put in place that give the club a financial footing that should keep us away from the money troubles we've had in the past which must be the number one priority (ground issues aside). In the absence of a wealthy benefactors or additional revenue that may be achievable from our own ground it is the best we can really hope for. We would all over to see all of the Maddison money and (hopefully) the Wilson money giving us a war chest of £10m for Robins to build a team that can annihilate everyone in League 1 and push for promotion the following season to the Prem but we have to continually fund the academy so we have the chance for the next generation of Maddisons and Wilsons to provide further windfalls, higher wage demands from playing in a higher division, giving Robins to tools to be able to resign the likes of Willis, Burge & Davies or be in a position to entice their replacements to us and having the financial flexibility to continue to attract the likes of Sterling and Thomas to the club - players we could never afford to sign on permanent contracts but currently give far more 'bang for buck' than anyone we could bring in on a perm.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

The problem is, so many people believe that any money made by player sales, has been pocketed by SISU.
This is just one example of thousands of example I could post.

View attachment 11331

Surely there is a way of dispelling this myth by showing these people definitive proof that this isn't the case, something in black and white that can easily be shown to these fans who honestly believe this is what SISU do?

I think a key issue is, is that the lack of communication between the club and fanbase is still pretty poor, and as a result fuels a lot of these comments. The vast majority of fans fail to understand the cost that goes into running a football club but in all fairness to them that's not their job to know that. If the club was more clear about what the money was being used for then the proportion of fans making these remarks would drop. Obviously you can't please the entirety of a clubs' fanbase but it at least would be a start. Don't get me wrong I don't think any amount of communication would win over a fair proportion of our fanbase, but like I said at least it would be a start.

Even when Dave Boddy was questioned about the McNulty money he slipped up in a fans forum during the summer. I remember reading on here that someone said he'd be quoted as saying that some of it would be pumped back into the club but most of it would be used for reinvestment into the squad. But only a week earlier the club more or less said that all of it would be given to MR. Now I understand that a proportion of the fee had to be pumped back into the day to day runnings of the club as the annual cost of running CCFC is probably more than what we got for the JM sell-on - and we need to be street-smart with whatever fee comes into the club to future-proof the club as you can only spend a pound once. Plus it's common for owners to only give a manager a percentage of a transfer fee anyway. But it's the lack of transparency such as this example which is why we have such a pessimistic fanbase and fuels a great deal of frustration amongst large groups of our fans. Which is understandable as they see the likes of Peterborough for instance who consistently reinvest any earnings from player sales back into the squad. Then there's us who sell Leon Clarke and Callum Wilson and replace them with the likes of Shaun Miller and Marcus Tudgay on free transfers. Whilst I don't agree whatsoever with the comments I do understand them as this is what happens when a club's owners fails to communicate with its fanbase.

So, to answer your question. It would help but would it solve the issue? No as people already have their minds made up.

 

[NortonSkyBlue]

Don't take this as a confession that I'm a Sisu fan - I'm not but what we have seen is the club becoming self-sustaining and disciplines being put in place that give the club a financial footing that should keep us away from the money troubles we've had in the past which must be the number one priority (ground issues aside). In the absence of a wealthy benefactors or additional revenue that may be achievable from our own ground it is the best we can really hope for. We would all over to see all of the Maddison money and (hopefully) the Wilson money giving us a war chest of £10m for Robins to build a team that can annihilate everyone in League 1 and push for promotion the following season to the Prem but we have to continually fund the academy so we have the chance for the next generation of Maddisons and Wilsons to provide further windfalls, higher wage demands from playing in a higher division, giving Robins to tools to be able to resign the likes of Willis, Burge & Davies or be in a position to entice their replacements to us and having the financial flexibility to continue to attract the likes of Sterling and Thomas to the club - players we could never afford to sign on permanent contracts but currently give far more 'bang for buck' than anyone we could bring in on a perm.

Sisu fan.....the issues are far deeper than just money at this stage. I agree with you about the self sustaining part and indeed most of your points but we must focus on the ground issues as this is fundamental to our survival.
Where we are playing has to be more important than our league position. I wish it wasn't so.

 

[Spurs 'City Away Kit' Kit]

Sisu fan.....the issues are far deeper than just money at this stage. I agree with you about the self sustaining part and indeed most of your points but we must focus on the ground issues as this is fundamental to our survival.
Where we are playing has to be more important than our league position. I wish it wasn't so.

I know, which is why I said ground issues aside.......

 

[robbiekeane]

giving us a war chest of £10m for Robins to build a team that can annihilate everyone in League 1 and push for promotion the following season to the Prem

Times that by about 10 I think for prem

 

[Spurs 'City Away Kit' Kit]

Times that by about 10 I think for prem

Wolves, Cardiff & Fulham got promoted with net spends of c.£18m, c.£10m & c.£3.6m respectively in the season they won promotion. The 10x spend come when you have to try and stay in the Prem League the following season!!

 

[smileycov]

Wolves, Cardiff & Fulham got promoted with net spends of c.£18m, c.£10m & c.£3.6m respectively in the season they won promotion. The 10x spend come when you have to try and stay in the Prem League the following season!!

Withhout taking away from a very good earlier post. The figures above would be money on top of vast spending in previous seasons. So not really took 3.6m to gain promotion tbf

 

[Grendel]

Wolves, Cardiff & Fulham got promoted with net spends of c.£18m, c.£10m & c.£3.6m respectively in the season they won promotion. The 10x spend come when you have to try and stay in the Prem League the following season!!

The wage bills are huge - Fulham’s was £38 million

 

[Spurs 'City Away Kit' Kit]

Withhout taking away from a very good earlier post. The figures above would be money on top of vast spending in previous seasons. So not really took 3.6m to gain promotion tbf

I agree with that

 

[Spurs 'City Away Kit' Kit]

The wage bills are huge - Fulham’s was £38 million

A phenomenal figure by any standard!

(or about 2 x Alexis Sanchez wages)

 

[mark82]

The wage bills are huge - Fulham’s was £38 million

Yikes. Is that annual? That's just ridiculous and unsustainable.

 

[Grendel]

Yikes. Is that annual? That's just ridiculous and unsustainable.

This is a couple of years old

A club-by-club breakdown of wages in the Premier League & Championship - Planet Football

 

[Spurs 'City Away Kit' Kit]

Yikes. Is that annual? That's just ridiculous and unsustainable.

 

[mark82]

This is a couple of years old

A club-by-club breakdown of wages in the Premier League & Championship - Planet Football

Just shows what we'd be up against to ever compete in the Championship again without a wealthy benefactor or our own ground (with good attendances).

 

[Spurs 'City Away Kit' Kit]

This is a couple of years old

A club-by-club breakdown of wages in the Premier League & Championship - Planet Football

I think I had previously posted the stat they Sky ran whilst Man City were playing Burton last week. The cost of the respective starting 11's was in the region of £250m v £1m.

 

[better days]

I think a key issue is, is that the lack of communication between the club and fanbase is still pretty poor, and as a result fuels a lot of these comments. The vast majority of fans fail to understand the cost that goes into running a football club but in all fairness to them that's not their job to know that. If the club was more clear about what the money was being used for then the proportion of fans making these remarks would drop. Obviously you can't please the entirety of a clubs' fanbase but it at least would be a start. Don't get me wrong I don't think any amount of communication would win over a fair proportion of our fanbase, but like I said at least it would be a start.

Even when Dave Boddy was questioned about the McNulty money he slipped up in a fans forum during the summer. I remember reading on here that someone said he'd be quoted as saying that some of it would be pumped back into the club but most of it would be used for reinvestment into the squad. But only a week earlier the club more or less said that all of it would be given to MR. Now I understand that a proportion of the fee had to be pumped back into the day to day runnings of the club as the annual cost of running CCFC is probably more than what we got for the JM sell-on - and we need to be street-smart with whatever fee comes into the club to future-proof the club as you can only spend a pound once. Plus it's common for owners to only give a manager a percentage of a transfer fee anyway. But it's the lack of transparency such as this example which is why we have such a pessimistic fanbase and fuels a great deal of frustration amongst large groups of our fans. Which is understandable as they see the likes of Peterborough for instance who consistently reinvest any earnings from player sales back into the squad. Then there's us who sell Leon Clarke and Callum Wilson and replace them with the likes of Shaun Miller and Marcus Tudgay on free transfers. Whilst I don't agree whatsoever with the comments I do understand them as this is what happens when a club's owners fails to communicate with its fanbase.

So, to answer your question. It would help but would it solve the issue? No as people already have their minds made up.

Good post
Under FFP rules I believe we aren't actually allowed to spend 100% of any money earned from player sales on the squad
OSB explained it in more detail on a post on a different thread some time ago
Of course Robins would appreciate whatever percentage he does get
The distribution payments from the EFL are due about now I think so we may see offers made to the players whose contracts expire soon once that's in

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

Good post
Under FFP rules I believe we aren't actually allowed to spend 100% of any money earned from player sales on the squad
OSB explained it in more detail on a post on a different thread some time ago
Of course Robins would appreciate whatever percentage he does get
The distribution payments from the EFL are due about now I think so we may see offers made to the players whose contracts expire soon once that's in

I remember discussing this a while back. Is that actually correct though as I've found no evidence to suggest you're not allowed to spend 100% of a fee gained from selling a player as technically incoming transfer fees aren't revenue earned by the club, only an added extra essentially. I could be wrong obviously but from how I see it the only restriction is that a maximum of 60% of turnover can be spent on wages.

 

[steve82]

I remember discussing this a while back. Is that actually correct though as I've found no evidence to suggest you're not allowed to spend 100% of a fee gained from selling a player as technically incoming transfer fees aren't revenue earned by the club, only an added extra essentially. I could be wrong obviously but from how I see it the only restriction is that a maximum of 60% of turnover can be spent on wages.

Some points that might help others with FFP (scmp) and clarifies your point on transfer fees.

In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages - in League 2, the limit is 55%. There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees.

Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:

• Match-day Income
• Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
• TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)

Any profit made on player sales is included with in Turnover on a cash basis when the instalments are received.

Another key point to note... Player Wages and deductions.
Under SCMP, 'Wages' relates to player wages only (director remuneration and general club staff wages are not included in the SCMP calculation). Player wages included in the SCMP calculation relate to all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Wage costs for players loaned out to other clubs are deducted for the period of the loan.

Wage costs for Youth players on a professional contract are also excluded (i.e. players that have been in the club’s Youth Development scheme and have been given a pro contract); they must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[better days]

Some points that might help others with FFP (scmp) and clarifies your point on transfer fees.

In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages - in League 2, the limit is 55%. There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees.

Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:

• Match-day Income
• Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
• TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)

Any profit made on player sales is included with in Turnover on a cash basis when the instalments are received.

Another key point to note... Player Wages and deductions.
Under SCMP, 'Wages' relates to player wages only (director remuneration and general club staff wages are not included in the SCMP calculation). Player wages included in the SCMP calculation relate to all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Wage costs for players loaned out to other clubs are deducted for the period of the loan.

Wage costs for Youth players on a professional contract are also excluded (i.e. players that have been in the club’s Youth Development scheme and have been given a pro contract); they must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks Steve
That's pretty clear
A couple of things jump out
60% of turnover can be spent on player wages
And the turnover is counted at the date it is paid to the club
Almost all transfer fees are paid in instalments over a period of months/years

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Toby fayre, I believe even Kevin Kyle would be worth £70M in a million years..........hmmmm, then again perhaps not!

Well oil and gas will be incredibly scarce in a million years and with inflation as a fossil fuel he may well be worth that. Mind you, he was a fossil when he joined us!

 

[shmmeee]

I know, which is why I said ground issues aside.......

Agreed. Aside from the long term viability of the club, and the league position of the club, Sisu are doing a great job.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Some points that might help others with FFP (scmp) and clarifies your point on transfer fees.

In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages - in League 2, the limit is 55%. There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees.

Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:

• Match-day Income
• Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
• TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)

Any profit made on player sales is included with in Turnover on a cash basis when the instalments are received.

Another key point to note... Player Wages and deductions.
Under SCMP, 'Wages' relates to player wages only (director remuneration and general club staff wages are not included in the SCMP calculation). Player wages included in the SCMP calculation relate to all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Wage costs for players loaned out to other clubs are deducted for the period of the loan.

Wage costs for Youth players on a professional contract are also excluded (i.e. players that have been in the club’s Youth Development scheme and have been given a pro contract); they must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Mind if i add a couple of points to that

Turnover has no set definition and is often agreed by discussion with each club and EFL. The three categories are broadly correct but it doesn't necessarily have to be "football" income eg it could be other income that is guaranteed from investments or rents

Player sales are taken in to account net of player purchase costs in the period. Also included as a deduction from income calculation is the costs of loan players

Player direct costs take in to account including such things as benefits in kind (eg a car) and agents costs, less contributions received for loan deals after allowing for agents costs

Commercial income like, kit sales, hospitality or food & beverages is taken in to account after deduction of any direct costs associated with that income. eg the sale of a shirt less its cost to acquire for stock

SCMP is a calculation it doesn't mean that a club spends to that level, it may be they spend less simply because they don't have the cash flow to spend to the limit. eg if there were substantial overheads to be met and limited support available from the owners

The mix of player ages is important. Too many senior players could restrict the number of players in the total squad. Similarly having a lot of younger players keeps costs down, and could allow a couple of more expensive signings

I think i am right in saying new share issues are also taken into account but financial loans from owners or banks etc are not

I believe the calculation is subject to regular checks by the EFL and the starting calculation is based on the budgets set for a season ahead and adjusted throughout the season to reflect reality

 

[shmmeee]

Mind if i add a couple of points to that

Turnover has no set definition and is often agreed by discussion with each club and EFL. The three categories are broadly correct but it doesn't necessarily have to be "football" income eg it could be other income that is guaranteed from investments or rents

Player sales are taken in to account net of player purchase costs in the period. Also included as a deduction from income calculation is the costs of loans

Player direct costs take in to account including such things as benefits in kind (eg a car) and agents costs, less contributions received for loan deals after allowing for agents costs

Commercial income like, kit sales, hospitality or food & beverages is taken in to account after deduction of any direct costs associated with that income. eg the sale of a shirt less its cost to acquire for stock

SCMP is a calculation it doesn't mean that a club spends to that level, it may be they spend less simply because they don't have the cash flow to spend to the limit. eg if there were substantial overheads to be met and limited support available from the owners

The mix of player ages is important. Too many senior players could restrict the number of players in the total squad. Similarly having a lot of younger players keeps costs down, and could allow a couple of more expensive signings

I think i am right in saying new share issues are also taken into account but financial loans from owners or banks etc are not

I believe the calculation is subject to regular checks by the EFL and the starting calculation is based on the budgets set for a season ahead and adjusted throughout the season to reflect reality

When you say player sales net of players bought in that period, does that mean those players bought don’t show in the 60% SCMP calculation?

Basically if we sell someone for £10m, could we immediately buy £10m of players and be within SCMP? Or are we only allowed £6m or whatever as if often assumed on here when we sell someone?

Do sell on fees count in this?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Full rules can be found here

EFL Official Website - Appendix 5 - Financial Fair Play Regulations

a brief summary here

SCMP (League 1 & 2)

Net Transfer Income – Include actual cash received in the year from other clubs by way of Compensation Fee, Transfer Fee and / or Loan Fee (in these Notes, “Transfer Fees”), less any actual cash paid to other clubs by way of Transfer Fees. Any advances of Transfer Fees from organisations such as Close Leasing can only be included where the instalments being advanced against fall due within the Reporting Period covered by the relevant SCMP Submission.

A sell on fee is part of an overall transfer fee and counts in year received

 

[Speedies_Chips]

Whilst it would be nice to get 7.5 mill from a Wilson transfer, you would think it should be enough to get out of League 1. However, if you were SISU, would you trust Robins to spend it wisely based on how the McNulty money has been squandered on non-striking strikers and non-playing left backs and midfielders.
I am a Robins fan (most of the time!), but you have to question his track record in the transfer market.

 

[Terry_dactyl]

Whilst it would be nice to get 7.5 mill from a Wilson transfer, you would think it should be enough to get out of League 1. However, if you were SISU, would you trust Robins to spend it wisely based on how the McNulty money has been squandered on non-striking strikers and non-playing left backs and midfielders.
I am a Robins fan (most of the time!), but you have to question his track record in the transfer market.

The difference might be that he wouldn’t have to go for potential and could instead go for proven quality.

 

[Skybluefaz]

Whilst it would be nice to get 7.5 mill from a Wilson transfer, you would think it should be enough to get out of League 1. However, if you were SISU, would you trust Robins to spend it wisely based on how the McNulty money has been squandered on non-striking strikers and non-playing left backs and midfielders.
I am a Robins fan (most of the time!), but you have to question his track record in the transfer market.

He got McNulty in for fuck all and he went on to score 28 goals. Decent transfer work. I think we have to look at the bigger wider picture a bit. Look at the mess he took over. The squad was shit albeit he turned results around slightly when he came in. He bought a bunch of players in, some were outstanding or were very good. Mcnulty, Doyle, Kelly, Davies.

Others had big moments Biamou, JCH.

He also utilised Bayliss, and Shipley from the youth setup and over his current tenure he's picked up players from non league to hopefully develop into first teamers. McCallum, Williams, Walters etc.

He got promoted at the first attempt and this season we've been just better than average. Consolidation you might call it. Can't see us making the play offs but don't think we'll go down.

He's done a fantastic job whilst utilising what is probably a tight budget to grow the club in terms of league position and quality of player. The first team is supplemented by loans but does not rely on them.

I now read today that he's already got things ready to go for the summer transfer window on a couple of players so he's also planning ahead.

Mark Robins is doing a fantastic job and deserves more credit than he gets from a lot of city fans.

 

[steve82]

Whilst it would be nice to get 7.5 mill from a Wilson transfer, you would think it should be enough to get out of League 1. However, if you were SISU, would you trust Robins to spend it wisely based on how the McNulty money has been squandered on non-striking strikers and non-playing left backs and midfielders.
I am a Robins fan (most of the time!), but you have to question his track record in the transfer market.

Finger naturally points at Mark Robins as he’s the manager, but surely the finger of assumption stretches to Adi Viveash and now Chris Badlan or the since moved on Tommy Widdrington who was the eyes and ears at the time.

Tommy Widdrington did the business in L2 with MR and Steve Taylor, two of them are now gone with the only main ingredient in the coaching staff changing from summer 17/18 to summer 18/19 transfer window being Adi Viveash now assisting MR in recruitment.

How much swing did/does Adi Viveash have on signings or did we just get a few wrong this year, or is it just bad luck on others or other personal factors come into play that we don’t know about.

Some windows everything clicks, sometimes they don’t and it’s emphasised when others things don’t go your way over that season.

Plenty of factors to consider before the finger solely points at Mark Robins


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Speedies_Chips]

He got McNulty in for fuck all and he went on to score 28 goals. Decent transfer work. I think we have to look at the bigger wider picture a bit. Look at the mess he took over. The squad was shit albeit he turned results around slightly when he came in. He bought a bunch of players in, some were outstanding or were very good. Mcnulty, Doyle, Kelly, Davies.

Others had big moments Biamou, JCH.

He also utilised Bayliss, and Shipley from the youth setup and over his current tenure he's picked up players from non league to hopefully develop into first teamers. McCallum, Williams, Walters etc.

He got promoted at the first attempt and this season we've been just better than average. Consolidation you might call it. Can't see us making the play offs but don't think we'll go down.

He's done a fantastic job whilst utilising what is probably a tight budget to grow the club in terms of league position and quality of player. The first team is supplemented by loans but does not rely on them.

I now read today that he's already got things ready to go for the summer transfer window on a couple of players so he's also planning ahead.

Mark Robins is doing a fantastic job and deserves more credit than he gets from a lot of city fans.

I agree with what you are saying and some of the people he got in when we had no money and his hands were tied have been shrewd acquisitions. I was questioning what he would do with 7.5 mill in his back pocket. Would he use it wisely?

 

[Skybluefaz]

I agree with what you are saying and some of the people he got in when we had no money and his hands were tied have been shrewd acquisitions. I was questioning what he would do with 7.5 mill in his back pocket. Would he use it wisely?

I would say he would. If the transfer did happen I presume we'd never know what he'd get exactly but I'm sure he has several plans in place as he's already said.

He's building something, that extra dosh would hopefully speed up the process.

 

[Captain Dart]

Spanner in the works.

 

[Gint11]

Yep Hugain in on loan until the end of the season. Looks likely Wilson isn’t going there for £50M

 

[SBAndy]

Even from an unbiased perspective, that transfer/loan makes no sense on a number of levels. Firstly, I’m baffled that there is a recall clause in his loan to Milan considering they’d have likely paid a hefty sum for the loan deal to go through. You’ve also got to consider that, whilst he has a reasonable goal scoring record at club level, he’s getting on a bit and has a reputation of missing chances in high-pressure games. I believe he’s worked with Sarri before (may be wrong) but I really can’t see him pulling up trees in the Premier League. Not to say that Wilson wouldn’t be a massive risk considering his relative lack of pedigree and injury issues, but I see far more in a signing like him than Higuain.