"Keep in touch until January"

[sheffielder]

Agreed. A few years ago we were always told we were struggling to stay within FFP but now it's not even trotted out as an excuse, which makes me think it isn't an issue.

Does anyone actually think Leicester wouldn't want him off the wage bill just for even half or a third cutting in costs? Or they could just pay him the full amount not even to play in u21 or any game whatsoever.

 

[robbiez666]

So hammonds wages would not be covered by the 2million and Murphy wages then?

It doesn't work like that, does it? Murphy's wages would go towards the overall turnover and thus raise our limit, but I don;t believe they would have anything directly to do with FFP?

 

[sheffielder]

It doesn't work like that, does it? Murphy's wages would go towards the overall turnover and thus raise our limit, but I don;t believe they would have anything directly to do with FFP?

Sorry, what? Murphy's 2m counts as turnover that can be used to spend on the squad, whether that be transfer or wages.. then add his wage.

 

[robbiez666]

Does anyone actually think Leicester wouldn't want him off the wage bill just for even half or a third cutting in costs? Or they could just pay him the full amount not even to play in u21 or any game whatsoever.

You would assume, since he's surplus there, they'd happily have him being showcased in League 1 to be snapped up by a championship club for a million plus in January. It would benefit player and club. Maybe we're only prepared to loan with a view to permanent but not prepared to pay the going price for his signature?

 

[Blade58]

'Oh and we now have more, Jim Phipps has just tweeted - "100% of the transfer fee will be instantly made available to Nigel Adkins"

So according to 'big Jim'..yes...I guess the key words are 'will be instantly made available'...I doubt we've received 100% as yet so guess Adkins has received nothing of the Murphy cash as of now...still, he should be able to plan and bring his targets in now knowing that 100% of this cash will be available to him...it's a puzzle isn't it?

Do you have a link to that Esa? Can't seem to find it

Cheers

 

[robbiez666]

Sorry, what? Murphy's 2m counts as turnover that can be used to spend on the squad, whether that be transfer or wages.. then add his wage.

I'm no expert on this whatsoever, but selling a player for £1-1.5 million doesn't mean you can add that figure on to the wage bill. We are only allowed a percentage of turnover to spend on wages.

 

[sheffielder]

You would assume, since he's surplus there, they'd happily have him being showcased in League 1 to be snapped up by a championship club for a million plus in January. It would benefit player and club. Maybe we're only prepared to loan with a view to permanent but not prepared to pay the going price for his signature?

You would have thoughto so Robbie, but I imagine big Mal went in and took the piss. Strange how these deals have been so close yet at the last minute something goes scupper. I can't explain how the club is not willing to pay what is needed to get a key player

 

[Pinchy]

We have not missed out on either Hammond or Burn. They are still Nigel's primary targets. He believes they will make a real difference.

Fulham won't let Burn go yet. He is presently the only back-up to their first choice centre-backs Ream and Stearman. When Hutchinson and Budurov get fit it is likely to be a different matter.

Nigel wants Hammond on loan with a permanent deal in place for January. Leicester want a different arrangement.

It may well be that we have to wait until January for both. Nigel is willing to do that because he wants particular players not Anyoldfucker and Eeldofanow. It has absolutely nothing to do with money. We were and are willing to spend money on both.

"Jimmy White's Deadline Day Army."

 

[robbiez666]

You would have thoughto so Robbie, but I imagine big Mal went in and took the piss. Strange how these deals have been so close yet at the last minute something goes scupper. I can't explain how the club is not willing to pay what is needed to get a key player

Or pay a bit less to get someone not quite as good, b ut an improvement, on a temporary basis. You really have to wonder about our Board.

 

[sheffielder]

I'm no expert on this whatsoever, but selling a player for £1-1.5 million doesn't mean you can add that figure on to the wage bill. We are only allowed a percentage of turnover to spend on wages.

You're right, so 60% of the transfer fee and his wages can be used. Hammond must have gold boots and a Bentley

 

[Esablade]

Do you have a link to that Esa? Can't seem to find it

Cheers

Yup, I'm not on Twitter where big Jim originally posted it, but I remember the tweet being quoted on here and elsewhere at the time...this discussion was on Sheffield forum.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1418128

 

[sothall blade]

You would have thoughto so Robbie, but I imagine big Mal went in and took the piss. Strange how these deals have been so close yet at the last minute something goes scupper. I can't explain how the club is not willing to pay what is needed to get a key player

t

You would have thoughto so Robbie, but I imagine big Mal went in and took the piss. Strange how these deals have been so close yet at the last minute something goes scupper. I can't explain how the club is not willing to pay what is needed to get a key player

that fuckin fax machine again ! Mccabe must be waiting till there is a sale on at staples

 

[robbiez666]

You're right, so 60% of the transfer fee and his wages can be used. Hammond must have gold boots and a Bentley

I'm not sure whether it goes on straight away or whether it goes on at the next transfer window. Maybe they FA don't accept 'undisclosed fee' as an actual figure!

 

[Pinchy]

As amazing as it was to just about do enough to scrape past Rochdale at home, it's about seeing the bigger picture.

You couldn't see a postage stamp on an envelope...

 

[Silent Blade]

Stop bloody whingeing will you, it's getting really boring.
We're sixth, five points off the lead which is nothing at this stage.
We are scoring goals for fun, something we've not seen for years.
Done is back, Brayford's coming back, Adams is starting to show his potential, lots more positives and people are moaning about McCabe, Phipps, "the board", we will sell our best players in January like we did last January (except we didn't) ... it's pathetic frankly.

It annoys me when people think it is easy to buy success

 

[Woodwardfan]

If only we were in a loan window and could easily take someone on a temporary basis.

I think I covered that Pete but there is a downside to taking on a temporary loanee in the middle of October if it is hoped/expected the real targets will be available in January.

As you know, any loanee probably lacks match fitness, has to get to know the lads and settle in, only to go back to his club before long.

Maybe Adkins thinks we can and should and will do better with what we've got for the next 10 weeks or so.

For example, our next few games appear much less demanding and we could play a bit of catch-up over the next month

 

[robbiez666]

We have not missed out on either Hammond or Burn. They are still Nigel's primary targets. He believes they will make a real difference.

Fulham won't let Burn go yet. He is presently the only back-up to their first choice centre-backs Ream and Stearman. When Hutchinson and Budurov get fit it is likely to be a different matter.

Nigel wants Hammond on loan with a permanent deal in place for January. Leicester want a different arrangement.

It may well be that we have to wait until January for both. Nigel is willing to do that because he wants particular players not Anyoldfucker and Eeldofanow. It has absolutely nothing to do with money. We were and are willing to spend money on both.

"Jimmy White's Deadline Day Army."

So, if this period costs us promotion then the blame lies squarely with Adkins then?

I would have assumed he'd be prepared to compromise on a temporary basis until January?

 

[sheffielder]

You couldn't see a postage stamp on an envelope...

Stop trolling you pleb

 

[SwissBlade]

...but, according to rumours, those players mentioned appeared willing to play for Adkins in L1...with Hammond it was rumoured to be the percentage of wage and with Burn Fulham don't/didn't have the strength in depth to let him go at that time...

Which is my point...

 

[Sean Thornton]

Or pay a bit less to get someone not quite as good, b ut an improvement, on a temporary basis. You really have to wonder about our Board.

Or maybe Adkins doesn't want to do that and it's not a board decision?

 

[Pinchy]

Stop trolling you pleb

There should be a comma after "trolling" and a full stop after "pleb".

You may be prepared to take lectures from a dull but self-important refugee from Teenage Illiterate Lager Drinkers; I am not.

 

[sheffielder]

There should be a comma after "trolling" and a full stop after "pleb".

You may be prepared to take lectures from a dull but self-important refugee from Teenage Illiterate Lager Drinkers; I am not.

I am guessing you're inbetween wanks.

 

[Sean Thornton]

You're right, so 60% of the transfer fee and his wages can be used. Hammond must have gold boots and a Bentley

The transfer proceeds only become avaiable when the cash is received. If Brighton are paying in instalments the turnover calculation is amended as the money comes in. Unless anyone knows where we were at with regards to FFP limits prior to the deal though, it's all guesswork.

 

[MobileBlade]

If it's FFP rules then what is wrong with telling us that robbie?

If we can't/won't pay what Leicester want, I'm not sure what is wrong with saying so?

Does our Nige only have two targets in the whole of the FL?

Surely there is a plan 'B' ?

Because owner donations count towards revenue (if he puts a million in we can spend £600K of it on wages) so people will then start moaning at him to start putting in his hand in his pocket. He can't win. Better to keep shut. So when people moan about spending money on the pitch instead of wages it makes no sense. 60% max can go on wages, hence why the new pitch, ticket office etc (though capitalised over a number of years).

 

[Pinchy]

So, if this period costs us promotion then the blame lies squarely with Adkins then?

I would have assumed he'd be prepared to compromise on a temporary basis until January?

Why should "this period" cost us promotion? It's a long season. We will finish above all the teams presently above us in any event.

Unlike you, me and the Deadline Day Devotees, Nigel Adkins has done this before. It's pretty naive and quite insulting to suggest he's strolling along in some sort of daydream, blissfully unaware of what's needed, whilst Jimmy White's Deadline Day Army know better...

 

[Sean Thornton]

I see the Murphy fee is £2 million when we are deciding how much money the board have but arent spending but a lot less when they are being slated as selling our best player for peanuts.

 

[Blade58]

Yup, I'm not on Twitter where big Jim originally posted it, but I remember the tweet being quoted on here and elsewhere at the time...this discussion was on Sheffield forum.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1418128

Sorry Esa, thought you meant he'd just quoted it this morning.

I knew about the original statement from Jimbob

As I have said in a previous thread, every time Jimbob makes such a statement, I can't help thinking there's always two different ways of looking at it and could have a double meaning

 

[Sean Thornton]

Do you have a link to that Esa? Can't seem to find it

Cheers

I don't recall the word " instantly" being in it. It was along the lines of would be made available for spending on team matter - my words btw - which anyone with any sense would have read as for transfer fees and wages but was seized upon as being for fees. Jim could have course been clearer, but isn't he a lawyer?

 

[Sean Thornton]

I'm not sure whether it goes on straight away or whether it goes on at the next transfer window. Maybe they FA don't accept 'undisclosed fee' as an actual figure!

When received. The contracts with the actual figures are sent to the FA/FL as part of the registration process.

This has all been discussed and clarified at length many times before.

 

[robbiez666]

Why should "this period" cost us promotion? It's a long season. We will finish above all the teams presently above us in any event.

Unlike you, me and the Deadline Day Devotees, Nigel Adkins has done this before. It's pretty naive and quite insulting to suggest he's strolling along in some sort of daydream, blissfully unaware of what's needed, whilst Jimmy White's Deadline Day Army know better...

because, like any period in the season, if we dropped too many points up until January, we might leave ourselves too much to pull back. None of us know where any of us will be at the end of the season, but I do find it amusing that you state things like they're fact when as far as I know you;re not Nigel Adkins or on the Board.