Tooling up: The summer 2024 transfer thread

[GhostoftheBok]

Think that's only part correct - so yeah, their registration is recognised. There was alway a Directors, statement in the Accounts about value of the squad as a sell on estimate. It used to seem pretty hypothetical to me and got knocked down a shitload when we got relegated from the Prem and again when we got relegated from the Champo.

It feels like the woodenist of dollars in a pretty fcuked up business model.

Without getting into the weeds, it's not as hand-wavey as it might appear.

Anyone who runs a business will recognise that accounts for external and internal assessment differ.

If you have a 25-year-old and a 33-year-old who are both on 2 year deals on similar terms then you can account for them as almost identical assets in one sense, but they don't function in the same manner at all.

For example, you can convert the 25-year-old into a more valuable, longer term asset (for almost zero cash outlay) by agreeing to renew his contract. Whilst there's always the "will he renew?" element, it's not exactly a woolly value assessment. With the older player you really only have one way to view them, a depreciating asset - unless you want to saddle the manager (And possibly his replacement) with a player who aged out a while ago.

There's then the apparently objectionable way to view it, which is as an asset that can be converted back into cash. Most lenders do include estimates of cash-value of assets in risk assessments of various kinds (or at least they've always told me so when dealing with family businesses), but the real value of that in football is that a lot of money comes in from stakeholders. You're not usually popping down to Lloyds for a loan these days, unless you're dealing with the more brick and mortar parts of the business.

If you're looking for cash to invest in the playing squad then the ability to turn those assets back into cash really does matter and it will always be a bit woolly. The kinds of groups that will lend you money for that purpose will generally be well versed (or at least believe themselves to be well versed) in this specific business and thus prepared to deal in those kinds of hypotheticals. Usually you don't want to be taking out loans specifically to buy players, but people do. We've offset the inherent risk by using this horrible bond model, so if things don't work out we never have to pay the money back. "Clever", I suppose...in one sense.

Football finances are the wild west in comparison to (reaching for an example I am also familiar with) an automotive company, but they're only as nuts as the people involved allow them to be. Our guys seem to at least be trying to keep things sane.

Markham has produced a squad that competes, can retain it's value for a number of years and has the potential to be converted into cash. How we deal with balancing those aspects is obviously about choices and how much of each part matters to an investor varies heavily depending on the investor in question.

I imagine our Swiss friends, from the limited information we have about them, are putting their money in based on the potential the club has for success. Quite how they calculate that none of us know, but they're prepared to invest a bit based on it. FV in general is also doing precisely that.

Deloittes and football's other friendly assessment bods will only care about the current state of contracts etc when they're signing off on stuff, which is precisely right. Your accounts as a business aren't, as Trump is currently proving, about how you're feeling that day. The contract value of the squad matters here, but so does our ability to extend it without burning through our limited cash reserves every 12-24 months.

The stakeholders who are apparently being asked to put in cash specifically to fund players (from what Sharon was saying in Parliament about "having a go") will probably care about whether those players are likely to ever raise enough cash for them to get that money back. If they are open-ended loans with no repayment guarantee then god bless them.

Obviously the main thing that matters is winning football matches, but all this stuff is important too. We have to have a sensible, long term view of the finances around the squad - especially annual cash outlay and the dreaded "recoupability".

[dave the minion]

** Warning: (boring) accountancy explanation coming up......

Old (> 20 years ago) accounting rules used to be that players value was not recognised on the balance sheet, so the directors would always come up with a hypothetical valuation to give an indication of value. If this was in the Directors report then this part of the accounts was not subject to audit so they could largely put what they wanted in there! The cost of buying (and proceeds from selling) players went straight to the profit & loss account in the year they were bought (or sold) - this meant the accounts of clubs were meaningless, as you could be running up huge operating losses but report a stinking profit if you sold a big player.

After the Bosman ruling the accounting treatment also changed. When a player was bought he then went onto the balance sheet at the value of his cost, which was then expensed to the profit & loss account over the length of the contract - so if we paid 750k for Collins on a 3 year contract, 250k a year would hit the profit and loss account and at the end of 3 years his "value" on the balance sheet would be nil - just like buying a property or a machine. This was better as it mirrored the fact that at the end of a players contract they could move for free, and therefore had no "value", plus it also meant that the reported profits or losses were more "normalised".

I've not read club accounts for a while, so don't know what Directors statements about value exist, but if they do quote a value that is different from the accounting carrying value on the balance sheet, this would need to be substantiated somehow as the auditors now report on the Directors statement (albeit lightly). I guess the valuation piece is particularly pertinent for home-grow players or free transfers, who by definition are on the books at nil (no fee paid) but do still have a value to the club as they would have a resale value?

I guess things may have changed again, but I think this is where we are still at.

[Worthy4England]

Fairly sure they still had a "number" in the mid-noughties accounts. I know why it was there - laymans - to say to all, this crock of shit business model has assets, it's not that bad. Honest.

But given that amount would likely be raised in a fire sale, I always thought it questionable at best.

Our last season in the Prem, we declared ~£50m, I wondered what they were sniffing. Year after in the Champo without any notable sales it was £14m.

Does Sir like hus eggs sunny-side up?

[TANGODANCER]

More boring (but relevant) stuff in an oft repeated but true fact, just to help pass the time:

When Nat Lofthouse signed professional forms for Bolton Wanderers, he was paid £10 as a signing on fee, as were the whole team, making their combined team value at the time £110. Nat was ashamed to take the money home as it was more then a couple of weeks wages for his miner dad. He played for the team after doing a shift down the pit and went to training on the bus. I often saw Graham Stanley, another Wanderers player catching the same Halliwell bus as me, with his gear in a sports bag. He also always went on the top deck so he could smoke his small cigars. In 1948/9 when I started attending the embankment end of Burnden Park, the entrance fee was tuppence( two old pence).

As anything but historical facts you may yawn and say, yeah, right, but fact it was, so where did it all go crazy? The words: computer, transfer, SKY and television" help paint the picture, but are only the straight line pieces in the jigsaw puzzle. The money grabber investors and agents etc, were soon on the scene quicker than the fox-hounds at Holcombe Hunt. And thus it all became what today we know as professional football. As stories go, it's on a par with Robin Hood and King John for robber barons...but then, you know that anyway, it's just that these days it's the baddies that win most of the battles...Ah well, on with it. Que Sera...

[Worthy4England]

When you are embarrassed about your signing-on fee. It's already started to go wrong. The things that came later have amplified it, but it's already in train, right there.

[sonicthewhite]

I see that all the retained lists from outside the Prem are now circulating. Haven't a clue about any of them

[officer_dibble]

Calvin Ramsay on loan to Wigan for the season. I’m sure he’ll be absolutely fecking brilliant!

[GhostoftheBok]

Calvin Ramsay on loan to Wigan for the season. I’m sure he’ll be absolutely fecking brilliant!

Probably.

What on earth happened there? Genuinely mystified

[Bertie Wooster]

Calvin Ramsay on loan to Wigan for the season. I’m sure he’ll be absolutely fecking brilliant!

Probably.

What on earth happened there? Genuinely mystified

Ian Evatt.

[GhostoftheBok]

Ian Evatt.

Gesundheit.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

[GhostoftheBok]

I assume the relevant story there is Moulden?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I assume the relevant story there is Moulden?

Has been linked, aye.

[GhostoftheBok]

Has been linked, aye.

Yes. I've said before the goalkeepers aren't my chosen specialised subject, as it were, but I do want to see a young, talented lad in the stable to push Baxter and develop over the longer term.

The fact Moulden is well-regarded and a local lad means I'd be happy to see him show up, though it's not like Baxter where everyone and his mum already knew the guy was brilliant for the level. Moulden's reputation is that he's certainly talented enough to be a first choice league keeper, but nobody I've spoken to seems to be sure at what level.

With Baxter as first choice he does seem to tick a lot of boxes - including his style of play.

Baxter, Moulden and Coleman as a 3 looks, on paper, pretty solid.

Still, just rumours for now and Hutchinson (who had his extension triggered) isn't much younger. So I also wouldn't be surprised if we didn't add a new keeper.

[jmjhb]

I'd be happy with Moulden but the position is not an immediate priority.

[GhostoftheBok]

I'd be happy with Moulden but the position is not an immediate priority.

No, but if we have identified a new keeper as needed then when they come in in relation to others probably doesn't matter.

There will be a budget per position. We won't exceed it - by putting the money from a keeper into the wages for a winger, for example.

[Worthy4England]

I'd be happy with Moulden but the position is not an immediate priority.

No, but if we have identified a new keeper as needed then when they come in in relation to others probably doesn't matter.

There will be a budget per position. We won't exceed it - by putting the money from a keeper into the wages for a winger, for example.

Sorta interesting that when Shazza pointed to injuries, it was Baxters cslled out, not Dion or Ric...

[GhostoftheBok]

Sorta interesting that when Shazza pointed to injuries, it was Baxters cslled out, not Dion or Ric...

Rightly, I'd say. I think everyone agreed beforehand that Baxter was the one player we couldn't lose and still go up. Turned out we were right.

Missing all of them was awful, but Baxter was the killer.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I'd be happy with Moulden but the position is not an immediate priority.

No, but if we have identified a new keeper as needed then when they come in in relation to others probably doesn't matter.

There will be a budget per position. We won't exceed it - by putting the money from a keeper into the wages for a winger, for example.

Sorta interesting that when Shazza pointed to injuries, it was Baxters cslled out, not Dion or Ric...

Aye, when my mate pointed me at the video, he said "don't watch it if you're called Joel Coleman"

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/2 ... rs-target/
Iles ruling out a rumour we were in for Taylor Moore but confirming we do have defensive targets in mind.