Loan signings (22 Viewers)

[SBAndy]

Lets say we sell Vik for the reported £18m.

Brighton likely to have a sell on between 10% and 20% of Profit - lets call it £2.5m
£3m into club infrastructure (training ground etc)
£1.5m to cover increased rent costs for a few years
£3m as a transfer kitty
leaves £1m a year additional wage budget (plus Vik's wages) for 5 years.

Obviously these are just pie in the sky figures, but even an additional £1m a year, probably only gets you 1 or 2 players at the standard we need.

You can always balance the transfer kitty/wages.... but trying to get fans to sign up to a season ticket after selling your star striker for nearly £20 and replacing him with a free is going to be a struggle.

I look at it from a similar standpoint, but how often are we going to be offering 5-year contracts? I’d ringfence funds to cover 3-year periods. My thinking is along these lines:

£18m fee inwards
£2.5m ‘sell on’ fee outwards
£3.5m operational costs apportionment
£3m additional transfer spend
£9m wage budget boost = £3m per season for 3 seasons

That then gives you maybe £60k additional wage budget per year, again plus Vik’s wage. Room to bring in 3-4 decent players at this level. Then if they all flop and see out their contracts, we’ve managed to cover the cost and can moved back to budgeting accordingly.

It may be a very simplistic way of looking at it but I think any sale - be that Gyokeres, Hamer, O’Hare, whoever - needs to help to boost the wage budget in a more sustainable fashion.

 

---

[Grendel]

Had exactly the same conversation with my lad. Great post

What about the £5 million annual losses?

 

[SBAndy]

Unlikely Gyokeres will be sold for £18m. Seems interested clubs are once again looking elsewhere.

Brighton will have a larger sell on clause than that. I suspect it's around 25% of profit. Hoping it's not higher than that but wouldn't be all that shocked either.

EFL loan is around £2.4m I think. Needs repaying next year unless already paid but I doubt it has been unless i've missed something.

Covering the overheads will be around £5m a season give or take. I'd imagine DK will want them covered as much as possible.

Any transfer instalments we still have remaining will need paying. Not all that uncommon for them to stretch over 3 even 4 years.

Rent costs will be increasing significantly as you've mentioned. We don't know what commercial deal the club is going to get next year either with regards to the stadium. That will also factor into how much will need to be dedicated to covering overheads. Spoke to someone at the club last week who have stated that FG's demands are unsustainable.

Transfer fees are also paid over 2-3 years as mentioned. Will dictate what Robins can do in the summer window - primarily because it depends how much the parent club of targets will want up front for any players we're interested in which require fees to be paid.

Why would Brighton have a 25% sell on fee? I find that kind of suggestion ridiculous.

 

[Bertola]

I look at it from a similar standpoint, but how often are we going to be offering 5-year contracts? I’d ringfence funds to cover 3-year periods. My thinking is along these lines:

£18m fee inwards
£2.5m ‘sell on’ fee outwards
£3.5m operational costs apportionment
£3m additional transfer spend
£9m wage budget boost = £3m per season for 3 seasons

That then gives you maybe £60k additional wage budget per year, again plus Vik’s wage. Room to bring in 3-4 decent players at this level. Then if they all flop and see out their contracts, we’ve managed to cover the cost and can moved back to budgeting accordingly.

It may be a very simplistic way of looking at it but I think any sale - be that Gyokeres, Hamer, O’Hare, whoever - needs to help to boost the wage budget in a more sustainable fashion.

I wasn't suggesting that we offer 5 year contracts, just an increase in the budget for that long, to give us a little security... Obviously you can reduce that security for more of a gamble, that would depend on the risk appetite of Doug and Robins

 

[SBT]

Lets say we sell Vik for the reported £18m.

Brighton likely to have a sell on between 10% and 20% of Profit - lets call it £2.5m
£3m into club infrastructure (training ground etc)
£1.5m to cover increased rent costs for a few years
£3m as a transfer kitty
leaves £1m a year additional wage budget (plus Vik's wages) for 5 years.

Obviously these are just pie in the sky figures, but even an additional £1m a year, probably only gets you 1 or 2 players at the standard we need.

You can always balance the transfer kitty/wages.... but trying to get fans to sign up to a season ticket after selling your star striker for nearly £20 and replacing him with a free is going to be a struggle.

That extra transfer kitty and wage bill would transform the squad (even ignoring that your back of the envelope maths only adds up to £15m rather than £18m). If keeping Vik comes at the cost of five more years of next-to-nothing in terms of transfer investment, plus a dilapidated training ground and rent issues for years to come, then I’m less sure that it’s something we want to do.

If selling Gyokeres isn’t part of the strategy, then we better have a good plan for raising funds in the meantime - things like increased rent costs will have to be paid somehow, whether he’s here or not.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Why would Brighton have a 25% sell on fee? I find that kind of suggestion ridiculous.

You can think it's ridiculous all you like.

But it's pretty common for PL clubs to negotiate high sell-on clauses when they sell young players on. I'd imagine for most it's policy.

Ivan Toney for instance had at least a 30% sell-on clause inserted into his contract.

I'd imagine it's why the club were able to bring Gyokeres in for a relatively nominal fee in Championship terms.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Does feel a bit like the Pressley and Mowbray days where the squad was filled with loans, we know how that turned out in the end. Its unsustainable to think you can earth 3 or 4 loan gems a season to help your position and then have to do it season after season again

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

What about the £5 million annual losses?

What about them?

 

[Northeast sky blue]

Was it Boddy that said we wanted our own players rather than being reliant on loans

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Does feel a bit like the Pressley and Mowbray days where the squad was filled with loans, we know how that turned out in the end. Its unsustainable to think you can earth 3 or 4 loan gems a season to help your position and then have to do it season after season again

We have to believe that it’s possible to compete and recruit more effectively than those around us with more money.

Cause the alternative is league 1 that fits our turnover or Someone who’s willing to lose money year on year, which Doug seems more likely to allow some rather than sisu but not tens of millions like others owners in the championship

 

[Grendel]

What about them?

Whose funding those at the same time as increasing our wage bill through the Gyokeres sale?

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Was it Boddy that said we wanted our own players rather than being reliant on loans

Yes. Which frankly, and I said this at the time, was an idiotic comment to make given how the club operates.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Whose funding those at the same time as increasing our wage bill through the Gyokeres sale?

You

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

I'd forgotten about the EFL loan, but just wanted to highlight that even selling at £18m... the budget wouldn't get a huge increase

In terms of wage structure I doubt it'll change much. FWIW I don't think it really needs to given the amount that is freed up in the summer through departures.

The cost will be in funding the actual transfers - i.e. covering transfer fees, signing on fees and agent fees.

 

[Grendel]

In terms of wage structure I doubt it'll change much. FWIW I don't think it really needs to given the amount that is freed up in the summer through departures.

The cost will be in funding the actual transfers - i.e. covering transfer fees, signing on fees and agent fees.

The real issue is how the money now will be used.

Its not a total clean slate but a lot of the relative high earners (Walker, Waghorn, Kelly etc) will all be gone from the payroll

The wage bill will come down by a large percentage. It clearly has to be replaced but this time hopefully the approach will be more sensible that the last couple of years with nonsense signings of overseas players and contract extensions for players already at or beyond their usefulness date of expiry

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

The real issue is how the money now will be used.

Its not a total clean slate but a lot of the relative high earners (Walker, Waghorn, Kelly etc) will all be gone from the payroll

The wage bill will come down by a large percentage. It clearly has to be replaced but this time hopefully the approach will be more sensible that the last couple of years with nonsense signings of overseas players and contract extensions for players already at or beyond their usefulness date of expiry

The amount of players needed worries me - a rebuild of that size is a huge task for any club let alone for one with such little time and resource at its disposal. This isn't L2 where bringing in players costs peanuts. There are 'hidden' costs which accumulatively isn't going to come cheap.

But yes, irrespective of that hopefully the club has learned from past mistakes and uses the window as an opportunity to take stock of what it has available and uses that to its fullest.

 

[shmmeee]

The real issue is how the money now will be used.

Its not a total clean slate but a lot of the relative high earners (Walker, Waghorn, Kelly etc) will all be gone from the payroll

The wage bill will come down by a large percentage. It clearly has to be replaced but this time hopefully the approach will be more sensible that the last couple of years with nonsense signings of overseas players and contract extensions for players already at or beyond their usefulness date of expiry

Id imagine if we sell Hamer he’s one of the higher earners as well. Vik less likely as he’s on his original contract. The plan has to be to replace with cheaper prospects who become the next Vik/Hamer.

 

[shmmeee]

extensions for players already at or beyond their usefulness date of expiry

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Id imagine if we sell Hamer he’s one of the higher earners as well. Vik less likely as he’s on his original contract. The plan has to be to replace with cheaper prospects who become the next Vik/Hamer.

I think Hamer will go in the summer. His wages aren't sustainable, he isn't likely to sign a new contract and the summer offers the club its last chance to sell really.

It works best for both parties and his fee will be able to be reinvested.

 

[shmmeee]

I think Hamer will go in the summer. His wages aren't sustainable, he isn't likely to sign a new contract and the summer offers the club its last chance to sell really.

It works best for both parties and his fee will be able to be reinvested.

We’ve got to really. The “model” such that it is only works if you realise your gains and reinvest. It’s why I’d sell Vik now (if anyone is actually bidding)

 

[fernandopartridge]

We’ve got to really. The “model” such that it is only works if you realise your gains and reinvest. It’s why I’d sell Vik now (if anyone is actually bidding)

I think it seems pretty clear that our model isn't well developed if it even exists, you'd expect a pipeline of targets to replace players so we can sell at the opportune time. It doesn't sound like we have that at all.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

We’ve got to really. The “model” such that it is only works if you realise your gains and reinvest. It’s why I’d sell Vik now (if anyone is actually bidding)

If we sell half our goal tally and fail to replace, we go down.

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

I think it seems pretty clear that our model isn't well developed if it even exists, you'd expect a pipeline of targets to replace players so we can sell at the opportune time. It doesn't sound like we have that at all.

Problem is if you sell a Vik for (say) £15m, then signing Wayne Scroggins from MK Dons, who was previously worth £1.5m, suddenly becomes worth £4m plus silly wages, as the selling club and agent sees the Vik money and wants a slice of it. It's a weird world, the football market and even if you have a pipeline of targets, the world and his wife seems to leak any interest and gets other clubs bidding/interested (see Gelhardt at Leeds)

 

[shmmeee]

If we sell half our goal tally and fail to replace, we go down.

Or, someone else scores. Like every other time we’ve had a forward in this system.

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

Yes. Which frankly, and I said this at the time, was an idiotic comment to make given how the club operates.

Not sure why it's an idiotic comment, if it's something we're aspiring to do? Think it's something we all agree on?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Problem is if you sell a Vik for (say) £15m, then signing Wayne Scroggins from MK Dons, who was previously worth £1.5m, suddenly becomes worth £4m plus silly wages, as the selling club and agent sees the Vik money and wants a slice of it. It's a weird world, the football market and even if you have a pipeline of targets, the world and his wife seems to leak any interest and gets other clubs bidding/interested (see Gelhardt at Leeds)

I doubt many clubs outside of the top flight genuinely have the sort of bargaining power you describe, it is nonsense. The player would be unsettled straight away.

In any event that's why you need targets, not a single target.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Not sure why it's an idiotic comment, if it's something we're aspiring to do? Think it's something we all agree on?

Because as proven it's completely unachievable within the context of how the club operates. So why say it at all? It was a pointless soundbite that highlights how naive he is.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

I doubt many clubs outside of the top flight genuinely have the sort of bargaining power you describe, it is nonsense. The player would be unsettled straight away.

In any event that's why you need targets, not a single target.

I'd imagine clubs in that situation would probably attempt at driving up the value slightly or asking for more/all upfront. They'd be foolish not to.

But yeah I doubt it's as extreme as the poster is making out. All they'd be doing is pricing themselves out of a sale, potentially causing player unrest as you said.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Or, someone else scores. Like every other time we’ve had a forward in this system.

Walker and Godden remaining. One with no confidence and the other a sick note

 

[shmmeee]

Walker and Godden remaining. One with no confidence and the other a sick note

You’re a cheery fella right now aren’t you?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You’re a cheery fella right now aren’t you?

I do have quite a legitimate reason not to be over the moon but not sharing it on here.

 

[shmmeee]

I do have quite a legitimate reason not to be over the moon but not sharing it on here.

That’s fair. Hope all works out. It’s all temporary in the end

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

Because as proven it's completely unachievable within the context of how the club operates. So why say it at all? It was a pointless soundbite that highlights how naive he is.

MR says he wants a permanent attacking midfielder, striker, centre back. If he doesn't get them in this window, does that make him naive? Not sure Boddy has said anything wrong there to be fair. If he were to say, we don't want to get promoted, he'd be castigated, yet if he said we did, you could again say he's being naive with where the club is at. Fair enough if you don't like Boddy, but think that's the wrong stick to beat him with.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

MR says he wants a permanent attacking midfielder, striker, centre back. If he doesn't get them in this window, does that make him naive? Not sure Boddy has said anything wrong there to be fair. If he were to say, we don't want to get promoted, he'd be castigated, yet if he said we did, you could again say he's being naive with where the club is at. Fair enough if you don't like Boddy, but think that's the wrong stick to beat him with.

Bizarre comparison to make. Doesn't even make sense.

It's yet another in a long line of statements made which actually suggests he lacks awareness of what's achievable within the context of the club's operating model.

As shown by his repeated insistence that the club is trying to emulate Brentford's model.

 

[Skybluedownunder]

If the next signing isn’t smiling like this then I’m going to be disappointed

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk