The undisclosed fee

[Gingerblade]

Does anyone know why this has suddenly become the norm regarding transfer fees?

I'd say that something like 75% of fees these days are undisclosed. I can see why clubs would agree to keep the fees a secret, but surely there should be some sort of rule further down the line to release the fees, say at the end of the current season.

This is not a dig at us for keeping the Killa fee undisclosed , its just well and truly getting on my nerves now how every club in the country is trying to keep fees a secret.

 

[Santos]

Does anyone know why this has suddenly become the norm regarding transfer fees?

I'd say that something like 75% of fees these days are undisclosed. I can see why clubs would agree to keep the fees a secret, but surely there should be some sort of rule further down the line to release the fees, say at the end of the current season.

This is not a dig at us for keeping the Killa fee undisclosed , its just well and truly getting on my nerves now how every club in the country is trying to keep fees a secret.

It just makes sense to me. This isn't aimed at you but a lot of fans think they have the right to know everything that goes on, probably made worse by the advent of 24 hour Sports TV, daily local Radio shows and the internet.

From the clubs perspective, if it is released that we've got 2 million for Kigallon then look at signing a replacement or anyone else in this window other clubs would know we've potentially got 2 million to play around with.

Besides, from the reports in the media you can always get close to the ballpark figure.

 

[SotonBlade]

Agree with you on this Santos. It would scupper any future wheeling and dealing if everyone knew how much we had to spend....or not probably, in our case

 

[Robbie]

From the clubs perspective, if it is released that we've got 2 million for Kigallon then look at signing a replacement or anyone else in this window other clubs would know we've potentially got 2 million to play around with.

I kinda agree with this but...........

Besides, from the reports in the media you can always get close to the ballpark figure.

As you say, the media get very close to the figure, so does it really matter?

I agree with the original poster in that, come there financial records at year end we should stipulate what we got from each transfer etc.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

All the transfer figures received will be in next years figures which will be published.

Not a problem for me, we all know the ball park figure.

 

[Robbie]

All the transfer figures received will be in next years figures which will be published.

Not a problem for me, we all know the ball park figure.

Only the total figures get printed though don't they though FB? Not a breakdown of all the transfers.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

But is doesn't take a PHD in rocket science to work it out does it Rob?

Its the idea that the clubs do this to somehow pull the wool over the fans eyes that pisses me off.
Fans needs to realise that any information they are getting from the club is available to everyone and the clubs don't want everyone to know certain information. Usually involving money and how much/little they have to spend.

 

[Revolution]

My theory is that this is sometimes done to avoid embarrassment or criticism of a poor deal, as well as to avoid clubs knowing how flush you are.

My view is that all transfer fees should be made public, as should player's wages and agents fees. The US sports do this and it seems to make for greater transparency.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

But we all know the fee was between £1.75M and £2 Million.

What's the problem?

 

[Selly]

But we all know the fee was between £1.75M and £2 Million.

Do we?

Chances are its undisclosed because one of the clubs wants it to be. Which means that either:

1) we got too little
2) Sunderland payed too much

I know which one my money is on...

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Well I know its between £1.75 M and £2 Million and I think we've got a good deal.

Then again I thought £8 million and a loan back was a good deal for the Kyles.

 

[keenzy]

It just makes sense to me. This isn't aimed at you but a lot of fans think they have the right to know everything that goes on, probably made worse by the advent of 24 hour Sports TV, daily local Radio shows and the internet.

From the clubs perspective, if it is released that we've got 2 million for Kigallon then look at signing a replacement or anyone else in this window other clubs would know we've potentially got 2 million to play around with.

Besides, from the reports in the media you can always get close to the ballpark figure.

on the flip side, say we got £1million for a player and the media reckon it's around £4million, other clubs will think that we have the £4million and put the price up.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Exactamundo Kennzy, it's all part of the game played between the clubs.

The fans just read what is released to the press and swallow it as the club talking directly to them.

 

[Blade58]

It just makes sense to me. This isn't aimed at you but a lot of fans think they have the right to know everything that goes on, probably made worse by the advent of 24 hour Sports TV, daily local Radio shows and the internet.

From the clubs perspective, if it is released that we've got 2 million for Kigallon then look at signing a replacement or anyone else in this window other clubs would know we've potentially got 2 million to play around with.

Besides, from the reports in the media you can always get close to the ballpark figure.

Imo, at a guess, more likely it's to try and stop fans having a good whinge when we only spend £300k from the Killa deal on improving/adding to the squad.

If fans are told it is £2m, then only spend £300k, then uproar. This 'undisclosed' term actually keeps us fans guessing.

 

[BladeInThatcham]

Clubs like to keep their cards very close to their chests. The 'undisclosed' deal for killa - the one people assume is for £1.75m is only paper talk. I would hazard a guess and reckon we have only received approx £1m max with the rest being add ons for appearances and perhaps a sell on clause slapped in there. The complictions to the deal might be such that it would be a pain in the ass for the club to simply state exactly what we have received for him.The supposed £1.75m could be based on:
Fee up front
Appearances
If Sunderland stay up
If sunderland get into europe
Sell on clause
International appearance(s)

 

[Pinchy]

Well I know its between £1.75 M and £2 Million and I think we've got a good deal.

Then again I thought £8 million and a loan back was a good deal for the Kyles.

And you were right. It was a magnificent 'mad to refuse' deal as will become self-evident in the years to come.

 

[GoldCoast Blade]

I think its a good deal for a want away player. Can't realy comment on replacements but on tv Davies looked very mediocre.

 

[Santos]

I kinda agree with this but...........



As you say, the media get very close to the figure, so does it really matter?

I agree with the original poster in that, come there financial records at year end we should stipulate what we got from each transfer etc.

I know what you're saying but atleast if we don't 'admit' to the fee we can retain a bit of bargaining power for any future incomings.

 

[GlosBlade]

...and we have to pay Leeds 20% (not sure if that is of the total fee or of anything above a certain level, a figure of 1 million rings bells) so 'even' if we got 1.75 we will only get 1.4M. Having said all that compared to the 500k we got for Brown in similar circumstances we have probably done as well as could be expected.