Conor Chaplin - Signing Confirmed (Finally!) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Same as we said about McNulty a couple of days ago!
Cavan O'Doherty
Well-Known Member
We’ve bid £250,000 plus add ons according to their newspaper.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
Otis
Well-Known Member
Was hoping it more went ...
Them : We want 500k
Us: No. 250k
Them: 500k
Us: Okay, 300k
Them: No, 500k
Us: 325k
Them: Okay, 475k
Us: 350k
Them: 400k
Us: 425k!
Them 350k
Us: 425k
Them: 300k
Us: Done!!
SkyBlueCRJ
Well-Known Member
350k up front with 100k in add-ons is more than fair given the fact he only has one year left on his contract
Nick
Administrator
It isn't all about actual up front transfer fees. Players and agents need to be paid after that.
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
agreed, but he wont be on any more than Mcnulty
the agent fee on 350k may be 50k or so max
so if we got 1.2m for Mcnulty there is still a sizeable pot
could buy 2 more 200k players with wages + agents with the difference
SkyBlueCRJ
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't add on a considerable amount to the total fee as a combination of transfer/agent/and signing on fee. For instance, apparently last season we spent £113,620 on agent fees from February 1st 2017 to the end of the January transfer window last season - and that was the highest paid out to intermediaries and agents in League Two. Even above Mansfield and Luton. So, I cannot see the agent fee being to extortionate. I couldn't guess the signing on fee but I presume it would be a percentage of his total annual salary - which again wouldn't be steep as we have to comply with FFP and the budget respectively.
better days
Well-Known Member
I think OSB said a club is only allowed to spend 60% of any transfer fees received
At our level wages are usually the biggest factor in getting the best L1 level guys in
Most are on short(ish) contracts and will have been looked at and passed over by higher level clubs for whatever reason - a bit like McNulty until he scored all those goals for us last year
Nick
Administrator
What I mean is that it isn't a case of saying "right we got 1.5m for McNulty so we have to now go and buy players for 1.5m"
It could be that we get some free agents and give them a decent wage instead on a bit more than we could have before. Then there's tax / national insurance etc.
If for example you sign 3 players on a 3k a week contract for 3 years that is going to be most of the McNulty money gone just on wages.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
i think 2 strikers coming in is possible as robins said at kit launch he was working on a new striker regardless of mcnulty staying or going.
SkyBlueCRJ
Well-Known Member
I think that's a common misconception amongst fans that don't understand the background of a football transfer though. They'll just assume if their supported club gets X amount for their player then they automatically believe all of the X amount is readily available to be spent on another. When in reality the fine print in the majority of transfers are different (in relation to the up-front fee) and the cost that comes after such a sale.
Exactly, plus I think we'd also have to pay VAT on top of the transfer fee which stands at 20%.
This could be the case as MR knows how many players are still needed and won't want to waste a significant proportion of the McNulty fee on one player. With rumours of potentially up to a further 4 players coming in (GK, RM, ST x2) I'd assume a bid of around the 300K - 400K is our absolute maximum for Chaplin because as you've said, put just 3 players on first team contracts and the money would be all but spent.
SkyBlueCRJ
Well-Known Member
I'm not 100% but I haven't heard of such a rule being enforced? Is this in the FFP regulations? As I understand it in League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages - nothing is mentioned on percentages of transfers as how would they monitor that. There are no actual restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees.
mark82
Moderator
Don't forget we were still looking at other players regardless of McNulty staying or going. It's not like the fee received has to cover all remaining business (although suspect it will).
mark82
Moderator
Clubs in the League 1 and League 2 operate within a Spending Constraint framework termed Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP). SCMP limits spending on player wages to a percentage of club Turnover. 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.
mark82
Moderator
Turnover definition
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:
Profit on player sales
Any profit made on player sales is included withinTurnover on a cash basis when the instalments are received.
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)
Profit on player sales
Any profit made on player sales is included withinTurnover on a cash basis when the instalments are received.
SkyBlueCRJ
Well-Known Member
Maybe not, but it all depends on how much room in the budget we have left for any further incomings. Given the fact that he received none of the Maddison money it's likely he'll need to dip into the McNulty kitty as we've already brought in 9 players when 8 have departed. Although the budget has gone up, it hasn't gone up by that much. If a further 2/3 (being realistic) are to come in I'd assume a proportion of the McNulty money will have to be used to cover the costs, unless Beavon, Vincenti and Stokes are moved on quickly of course. But even if they do, MR may look for more ambitious targets that we couldn't afford before now that we have more money at our disposal.
Greggs
Well-Known Member
But what if we offered Mcnumpty 5k a week? That still leaves us a big wedge to invest
Nick
Administrator
It was just an example that it isn't just about transfer fees like people seem to think because they watch too much Deadline Day.
SkyBlueCRJ
Well-Known Member
We will have a cap on player salary's that we cannot breach due to FFP. Plus, simply doubling his wage may unrest players within the camp, regardless of his significance to the squad.
SkyBlueCRJ
Well-Known Member
Sorry I got carried away
How many headers did McNulty score ?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Wikipedia is editable by anybody. I could invent myself as a professional footballer and member of the current squad if I wanted to.
SkyBlueCRJ
Well-Known Member
3 out of 28. McNulty is 4 inches taller than Chaplin so what's your point?
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
That said, when I edited JCH's Wiki to say that he'd signed for us on loan until the end of the season with a few to a permanent move at the end of the season, within about 5 mins some uber-geek with too much times on their hands had undone my change and I got an email telling me that I hadn't put a source-and that was for something that had actually happened! It would have taken them less time to google him and see that it was a fact than it did to undo my edit and email me about it...
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
People who hate on Wiki because it's user editable are silly. In straight comparisons it's been found to be more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica. Obviously less so the more niche the topic is, but the idea that "anyone can put anything" shows a huge lack of understanding as to how a wiki operates.
Nick
Administrator
My daughter from 7 in IT has been told never to use it because anybody can edit it so it's not reliable so they aren't allowed to use it. I did offer Encarta but doubt even the IT teacher would know what it was.
