Why undisclosed?

[SouthEssexBlade]

yeh because nobody will know it's over £80m! shhhh

Which is why clubs like us without a pot to piss in, rarely disclose a fee!

 

[alcoblade]

and I just see you've adopted the "if we replace" stance.

To be fair, I think from the off I've just said I will judge on what we do after the transfer, and on numereous occassions have raised the suspicion that we will fuck it right up.



UTB

 

[norfolkblade]

This undisclosed thing does my head in.

Football should be a transparent business as far as I'm concerned (and I'm sure that's what we've been told United will be) and this "Undisclosed" transfer business should be abolished. Publish the transfer fee, and anything else that's relevant, like the agent fee, etc.

 

[Toronto Blade]

I don't think the wolves are too bothered about any undisclosed fee they have bags to spend they are happy with the deal and probably went along with the Blades request as they had already inflicted enough damage.
As far as it tells other clubs how much we have to spend doesn't ring .
The club with the player sets the fee they want for their player not us,just because we might have 200,000 to spend it doesn't mean we spend the 200 on their one player that cash might be for two.
If we can't meet their evaluation for their player we don't get him no cloak and dagger there you come up with the fee or you don't get him.
Undisclosed because the Blades didn't want to publish what he was sold for a reason only they know.

 

[Blade58]

If the Sheff Telegraph is correct, it wasn't £750k at all:

"Although fees in the region of £750,000 have been suggested, this newspaper understands that the actual amount is somewhat less."


The £250k seems plausible to me

£250k + MacD's wages = 1 x player in/2 x players in/no players in?

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

It's an interesting notion to not only publish the fee of a transfer but also a breakdown of the whole finances of it.

A full disclosure of what every party is getting in a transfer might shock the hell out of the average fan, and just add another nail to the coffin of the game. Many are disillusioned and fed up with the game now. Knowing the murky world of the finance behind the transfer system will turn loads more away from the game. People will be staggered that players don't want to move every 6 months!

 

[sheffielder]

If the Sheff Telegraph is correct, it wasn't £750k at all:

"Although fees in the region of £750,000 have been suggested, this newspaper understands that the actual amount is somewhat less."


The £250k seems plausible to me

£250k + MacD's wages = 1 x player in/2 x players in/no players in?

I tried to explain this last week, however most know better on here. If McDonald was on 3k a week for example and signed a 2 year contract (£300k) why is it that some expect the buy out of his contract to be more than double this. United would have had no leverage or surely McDonald's agent would have said 'well if you value him at £750k then pay the man'

 

[SwissBlade]

I get your point here Swiss.

However...if they did release the fee and McDonald had gone for £200k....would you be happy?

In all honesty no, transfer fees mean nothing to me

 

[SwissBlade]

I tried to explain this last week, however most know better on here. If McDonald was on 3k a week for example and signed a 2 year contract (£300k) why is it that some expect the buy out of his contract to be more than double this. United would have had no leverage or surely McDonald's agent would have said 'well if you value him at £750k then pay the man'

Exactly. I think some on here live in a dream world.

As for transparency, the club submit accounts to be audited, do us fans have to know too?

 

[secretchief]

Perhaps in those circumstances we could have explained to the agent that if buyout clauses aren't automatically inflated they cease to have a point. A release clause isn't a straightforward valuation of the player. They are a concession to the player but should, notionally, be weighted towards that club in that they are pitched at a value that the club can afford to lose. There is no reason I can think of why the buyout clause should be commensurate with the player's wages. McDonald might have been paid £3k a week or whatever, that's no reflection of what he was worth as an asset because as an asset he is worth whatever people are prepared to pay. Fundamentally, the buying club aren't simply 'buying out' the player's wages, as you well know. They are buying the ability to speak to the player. That could be any amount.

 

[Grecian2000]

do us fans have to know too?

Why should we not know?

Supporters, be it armchair paying their Sky subs, or those of us who can be arsed to rock up at grounds, are the lifeblood of the game. Why would anyone want to keep the people without whom the game wouldn't exist in the dark?

I, for one, don't mind what the fee was as long as we get a better player in to replace him with. Wibble.

 

[Balham Blade]

I tried to explain this last week, however most know better on here. If McDonald was on 3k a week for example and signed a 2 year contract (£300k) why is it that some expect the buy out of his contract to be more than double this. United would have had no leverage or surely McDonald's agent would have said 'well if you value him at £750k then pay the man'

You're confusing the value of McDonald's contract with us (£150k pa in your example) with the notional value of his registration, which was held by United.

The transfer fee is the price paid by the buyer for the asset, which is the player's registration not their contract. If it was just the value of their contract, Luis Suarez would have gone to Arsenal for £25m (3years x 52 weeks x estimated £160,000 per week = £24,960,000) and Spurs wouldn't be able to get anywhere close to the ridiculous £100m they're demanding from Real Madrid for Bale.

Exactly. I think some on here live in a dream world.

As for transparency, the club submit accounts to be audited, do us fans have to know too?

Who's living in a dream world? I don't think we got £750k but I'd be very surprised if it was less than £500k.

 

[secretchief]

Fundamentally, if the figure of the release clause is a no-brainer for the buying club (as this one seems to have been), then whoever negotiated it dropped the ball badly.

And there should have been something in there about it coming from a club in a higher division, just as a matter of course. That way at least whoever ok'd it wouldn't have to cry the usual crocodile tears about 'not standing in x's way' but could point to it in print. Most people have had so much jizz sucked out of them following sale after sale after sale they would probably have gone along with it then.

 

[Balham Blade]

Fundamentally, if the figure of the release clause is a no-brainer for the buying club (as this one seems to have been), then whoever negotiated it dropped the ball badly.

And there should have been something in there about it coming from a club in a higher division, just as a matter of course. That way at least whoever ok'd it wouldn't have to cry the usual crocodile tears about 'not standing in x's way' but could point to it in print. Most people have had so much jizz sucked out of them following sale after sale after sale they would probably have gone along with it then.

That's only true in this division. McDonald will have to massively up his game to succeed at Championship level as he's a bit of a liability defensively, particularly against pace and/or movement. I would imagine that's why Weir tried him out in the #10 position.

As I said above, I very much doubt that when McDonald signed in 2012 anyone would have thought that there would be a League One club who could a) afford McDonald's release clause and b) convince McDonald that joining them was a step up.

What's done is done and now it's up to the club (and the management team in particular) to react positively.

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

A guy on twitter met McCabe and family at La Manga yesterday (and seems to have photo evidence to back it up). Said that McCabe discussed football matters at the club and the bloke says the clause was 250k. Could be bull of course but that's what his assertion is having spoken to him.

I like that piece of misinformation by Mr McC!

 

[bartman]

A guy on twitter met McCabe and family at La Manga yesterday (and seems to have photo evidence to back it up). Said that McCabe discussed football matters at the club and the bloke says the clause was 250k. Could be bull of course but that's what his assertion is having spoken to him.

Why would any director disclose a fee to someone he doesn't know when it has just been announced it is undisclosed. ? I think the phrase 'a guy on twitter' sums it up really