The TRUTH re Money

[officer_dibble]

Meh
We have got f*ck all money compared to most premiership and some championship teams
We will sign some more players before the summer ends....cos if we don't we will be relegated
They might not be the players we all want
They won't be here in time for QPR

were my conclusions

[Prufrock]

Calm down. Nobody said we're minted. And you're quite right that the market is slow, slower even than it has been over the last few leave-it-late summers, probably because many of the clubs are as indebted as the rest of our pathetic neo-feudal mortgage-slave society.

Sorry, but I'm still very far indeed from being convinced that Coyle's quotes about having money to spend "could easily explain quite the opposite". I simply can't make that leap of faith, possibly because I couldn't before the quotes, and the quotes give me no clear reason at all to change my belief. If Coyle is lying, he isn't just lying to "the razor sharp journos of the Bolton pissing News", he's lying to every Bolton fan. Might wanna be careful with that.

Nobody says the case (that we have money to spend) is "watertight", although others are resolutely unmoved by quotes from the manager. That's direct quotes, from the manager of the football club. (In the Barclays Premier League.) Where I come from, that's still a source, even if you think he's lying to the entire fanbase. Nobody's "claiming fact or knowledge", although some are getting really quite upset with alternative points of view.

As for believing managerial quotes being equated to swallowing the propaganda of a totalitarian state, I think you might look back on that comparison with a shade of embarrassment. I'd certainly hope so.

I took my cue from this,

"but from the outside it looks increasingly like you're a conspiracy nut in a tinfoil hat, or a Japanese soldier fighting WWII alone in the jungle in the 1970s. "

Fight hyperbole with hyperbole has been my motto throughout the entire existence of the universe.

As for nobody saying the argument we have money to spend is watertight, you might want to do a quick check of the title of this thread.

Ol Red Nose said just the other day United were done for the summer. Was he lying to the fans (given if Sneijder is possible they certainly aren't done)? It's a pretty easy lie to tell anyway, since none of the fans will ever know. It really doesn't seem that far fetched for me for a manager to use what he says to the media to the gain of his club. I'd almost certainly instinctively believe the opposite of whatever Redknapp told the media.

The two alternatives are to say 'We are cash rich and ready to blow it on anybody', or, 'we're skint, honestly, a tenner for Cahill would probably do it'. Given he is clearly not going to say either of those, if he is going to say anything at all he has to say what he did. Does he say nothing at all? -well given our injury problems and lack of depth out wide and up top he may feel he needs to reassure the fans. The problem BWFCi in particular seems to be having is grasping that I'm not saying that IS what he is saying, just that we don't know and both are, to me, perfectly possible. Those quotes don't prove either case, and how you read them depends on where you were before. It just doesn't seem to me like we have any money available. £5million Jeffren story just after we get similar numbers for Ward and Habsi, £2.5 million Eagles and Mears deal just after £2.5 million Taylor exit. Still no concrete moves towards strengthening the front two with a combined age of roughly a million two weeks before the season starts. Our only other transfers outside those mentioned being frees.

The next few weeks will decide who is right. I'd rather not be, but the idea that anybody has proven anything is silly, as is the idea that holding the opposite viewpoint from the TRUTH is stubborn or 'to prove a point', and not just different.

The next few weeks won't decide owt. If we spend a bit folk will claim it's just cos we sold. If we don't spend all it may mean is that the deals Coyle wants weren't possible in what is a slow market. Not spending is not an indication of not having money, see A Wenger over the last few years and continuing.

Just for contrast last season Coyle very definitely made noises that there wasnt much to spend because our wage bill was full and we couldn't shift the players, saying something along the lines of not having much room to bring players in. He wasn't to worried about saying it then, so if that were the case can't see why he'd suddenly start claiming that he was being backed to spend money but wanted to get best value if it were not true.

Fair enough, to a point. If we don't spend any money at all whilst not signing quality on loan, then either we have no money, or Coyle is an idiot. Otherwise, granted perhaps it won't prove either way, but then, like I said, I'm not bothered about being right, or really continuing a hypothetical fictional argument for anything other than it is good to talk about. I still think three players, all strikers/wingers would comfortably be enough this year, if the Cahill situation doesn't change. Again it's because there are teams worse than us, but I think there are quite a few.

[Norpig]

It also means he does not let players go on the cheap, look at Al Habsi he thought he was worth £4m and stuck to his guns until Wigan paid it. If they had not he would still be a Bolton player. Same with Cahill OC think he is worth £20m he will stick out for £20m which is why he is still a Bolton player because Arsenal want a central defender around the £12-15m mark. Therefore, it works both ways, it is an honourable way to do business which does not always work out but it does mean we are less likely to be ripped of which has happened so many times in the past.

[Worthy4England]

It also means he does not let players go on the cheap, look at Al Habsi he thought he was worth £4m and stuck to his guns until Wigan paid it. If they had not he would still be a Bolton player. Same with Cahill OC think he is worth £20m he will stick out for £20m which is why he is still a Bolton player because Arsenal want a central defender around the £12-15m mark. Therefore, it works both ways, it is an honourable way to do business which does not always work out but it does mean we are less likely to be ripped of which has happened so many times in the past.

Our £8.2m record signing just left for nowt.

That's fairly cheap.

[Lord Kangana]

Actually, in the gospel according to St. Owen, more like our £8.85m signing.

[CAPSLOCK]

Actually, in the gospel according to St. Owen, more like our £8.85m signing.

Anyway, how you can believe we have no money when he pisses 3 million away on those two bags of shite mates of his......

[Lord Kangana]

Its interesting though.

How do football deals work?

Do you pay everything up front on the first day, or drip feed it over a series of months?

Because I can tell you now, the six months after the Elmander deal the Pound slumped against the Euro. To almost 1:1. Which would put that e11m a little like, well, 11 million pounds.

Bearing in mind our manager has no reason to lie.

[CAPSLOCK]

Generally...

Deals with foreign clubs are paid over the period of the contract...thats part of the attraction

But this deal, who knows

[Norpig]

It also means he does not let players go on the cheap, look at Al Habsi he thought he was worth £4m and stuck to his guns until Wigan paid it. If they had not he would still be a Bolton player. Same with Cahill OC think he is worth £20m he will stick out for £20m which is why he is still a Bolton player because Arsenal want a central defender around the £12-15m mark. Therefore, it works both ways, it is an honourable way to do business which does not always work out but it does mean we are less likely to be ripped of which has happened so many times in the past.

Our £8.2m record signing just left for nowt.

That's fairly cheap.

OC did try to pursuade the lad to stay but when he saw what he was asking for decided he was not worth the money being asked for. To be fair this was not an OC signing. I was cheaper to let him go than to pay him even more money for no return. In business sometimes you just have to cut your losses especially when the product on offer is shoddy at best.

[CAPSLOCK]

Shoddy?

We'll see who The Messiah turns up who can score the goals to keep us up

Still, if we go down he won't have wasted 8 million and 11? years effort

[William the White]

Shoddy?

We'll see who The Messiah turns up who can score the goals to keep us up

Still, if we go down he won't have wasted 8 million and 11? years effort

I'm curious - given all your negative about coyle postings - would you rather be starting this season with megson?

This is not a wind up - I suppose there may be a small sub culture dreaming of those happy megson days, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were amongst them... Are you?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Clubs frequently, most of the time in fact, pay transfer fees over time, not all at once. The payment details are part of the negotiation.

However, I would but utterly f*ckin' amazed if clubs working in different currencies didn't tie things down to a named exchange rate, at time of transfer. Otherwise they're basically both playing the markets, a financial uncertainty they could both do without.

[Lord Kangana]

Thats actually more difficult to do than it sounds. And would only be at the agreement of the club who's currency they were dealing with. In this case a French club, who stood to lose more under that scenario.

In simple English, that means if the deal was e11m, if I was the selling club I would expect e11m.

In your scenario, they would stand to potentially make less. As equally as you would be utterly f*ckin amazed, I would also. For the opposite reasons.

[Wandering Willy]

Thats actually more difficult to do than it sounds. And would only be at the agreement of the club who's currency they were dealing with. In this case a French club, who stood to lose more under that scenario.

In simple English, that means if the deal was e11m, if I was the selling club I would expect e11m.

In your scenario, they would stand to potentially make less. As equally as you would be utterly f*ckin amazed, I would also. For the opposite reasons.

Not really. They can do it through a bank with a series of forward swaps at the required exchange rate - which of course costs money.

[Lord Kangana]

Theres no bank I know that will give you a fixed forward exchange without significant risk to yourself. They will only fix a risk at a very low level. Which utterly defeats the object of what you're trying to achieve.

Now if you want the full picture, the Euro was bumping along at 1.24/5/6ish to the £ in summer of '08.

By early '09 it was just over 1:1.

If Toulouse agreed to a fixed exchange rate over a period of payments, under these circumstances they would have received significantly less than e11m. I can't see how they would gain in that scenario.

[thebish]

Theres no bank I know that will give you a fixed forward exchange without significant risk to yourself. They will only fix a risk at a very low level. Which utterly defeats the object of what you're trying to achieve.

Now if you want the full picture, the Euro was bumping along at 1.24/5/6ish to the £ in summer of '08.

By early '09 it was just over 1:1.

If Toulouse agreed to a fixed exchange rate over a period of payments, under these circumstances they would have received significantly less than e11m. I can't see how they would gain in that scenario.

sooo... we actually only paid about 4-pence-ha'penny for elmo?

[Lord Kangana]

We only gain if the euro gains not drops in value against the pound.

Ah, sorry, missed the smiley. Shit broadband.

[Wandering Willy]

Taking exchange rate risk out of future cashflows is a common service provided by investment banks to customers. The numbers involved are often bigger than transfer fees but they'll do it for you at a price depending on your credit worthiness. Clubs can also try to match cashflows in a currency if they are active in a particular market eg both sell to and buy from Europe.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

There's not many banks who will happily deal with football clubs anyway. Fewer still if they're also at the mercy of exchange rate fluctuations. Club finances are built on expectations of monies received. I doubt they'd be chuffed to discover those aren't tied down. So, for example, for Elmo we agree to pay Toulouse (?) €4.2m up front with €1m every six months for two (you're right that it would by default be in the recipient's currency, unless agreed otherwise). That would be a typical football deal, only slightly complicated by the currency swap, but I can't see why (both) clubs would build financial uncertainties into their accounts unnecessarily.

As for the French not expecting to lose, they never do expect it, but it happens an awful lot. Shame.

[Wandering Willy]

I imagine that many of the investment banks deal with clubs on the back of relationships with richer owners like Chelsea/Abramovich.

I would think Uncle Eddie has his own investment bankers who we may be able to use.

I do not know this for a fact but the assumption allows me to argue with LK.