Spotty's Seriously Sub-standard Second Rate Transfer Thread.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm glad that we've gone from the position of a 750K fee agreed with Wednesday and Wednesday picking up his wages, to a free transfer and us having to pay a severance fee to the player.

What a relief they appointed that amazing negotiator Robinson what would we do without him?

Birch, Davies et al. I'm afraid to say that day by day I'm wondering what the hell you are doing. Something here really isn't right to me, something isn't making sense.

[Burnden Paddock]

I'm glad that we've gone from the position of a 750K fee agreed with Wednesday and Wednesday picking up his wages, to a free transfer and us having to pay a severance fee to the player.

What a relief they appointed that amazing negotiator Robinson what would we do without him?

Birch, Davies et al. I'm afraid to say that day by day I'm wondering what the hell you are doing. Something here really isn't right to me, something isn't making sense.

Except they weren't. Hence the new deal.

[thebish]

I'm glad that we've gone from the position of a 750K fee agreed with Wednesday and Wednesday picking up his wages, to a free transfer and us having to pay a severance fee to the player.

What a relief they appointed that amazing negotiator Robinson what would we do without him?

Birch, Davies et al. I'm afraid to say that day by day I'm wondering what the hell you are doing. Something here really isn't right to me, something isn't making sense.

I think you might be making the mistake of accepting every internet rumour as fact...

maybe some of uit doesn't make sense because it never happened?

[LeverEnd]

I'm glad that we've gone from the position of a 750K fee agreed with Wednesday and Wednesday picking up his wages, to a free transfer and us having to pay a severance fee to the player.

What a relief they appointed that amazing negotiator Robinson what would we do without him?

Birch, Davies et al. I'm afraid to say that day by day I'm wondering what the hell you are doing. Something here really isn't right to me, something isn't making sense.

Except they weren't. Hence the new deal.

Nor should they pick up his wages. He was clearly overpaid by Championship standards. We've lost the fee because he refused to move without a severance package to cover the wage gap, as is his right. It's gone straight into his bank account whether it's come from us or them and we've been bent over on another transfer through our own incompetence. If he'd made a sustained contribution over his time at the club I'd wish him well, but as it is I'm struggling.
I really hope when this is all done and dusted that the fingers of blame are pointed publically and people's reputations hung out to dry.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I'm glad that we've gone from the position of a 750K fee agreed with Wednesday and Wednesday picking up his wages, to a free transfer and us having to pay a severance fee to the player.

But are either of those scenarios actually the case? Seems to me that while a fee was agreed Wednesday never pledged to pick up his full wages - that's why it looks like it fell down when they were in discussion with Mavies, and presumably asking him if he was willing to drop the wages he was owed by us.

And now, it seems to me what might happen is that Wednesday pay his "severance fee" - the wage surplus he is owed by the contract signed by him and BWFC (Freedman/Gartside/Davies) in 2013 – but they don't pay us a fee for the transfer of his registration. So rather than paying us £750,000 which we then have to pay Mark Davies, perhaps they pay it directly to the player. Fag-packet maths would indicate that that is somewhere in the order of £10,000 per week over the 18 months remaining of his BWFC contract – so if he's on £20kpw here, he can switch to £10kpw there without personally feeling the pinch until next summer, while Wednesday keep their overheads down.

Much of this is supposition, albeit based on fairly typical football transfer activity. But I honestly don't think either of the situations you suggest – (1) We receive fee, SWFC match MD's wage (2) We don't receive fee and we have to pay MD - has happened.

[Hoboh]

I hope Hillsborough has good medical facilities, they'll need them!

Pleased if we are finally losing an overpaid, part time, crock!

[BWFC_Insane]

We agreed a fee and allowed him to talk to Wednesday. Who then couldn't agree wages with him.

However, that a) isn't our problem and b) what is the point of paying money to get rid at this stage?

It means cashflow in the immediate future is actually worse due to severance (as BN state). And whilst a few months down the line it is a significant wage off the books, by then we're either gone or have new owners who could hopefully buy a little more time to sell him on slightly better terms.

I think it is madness. One thing selling players for cash to improve cashflow in the current situation. But another to be getting nothing at all for them or even losing out slightly just to get them off the books when there isn't a long term plan in place as yet.

[Jugs]

Best Mark Davies goal was v Blackpool. It was perhaps one of the best goals I've seen at the Reebok, especially team goals. Fantastic talent. Sad to see him go.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Iles has updated his story and is indeed using the phrase "Wanderers pay off part of his outstanding contract to facilitate the move to the Owls". Also says the remaining 18 months on the player's contract was worth around £1.2m plus bonuses. Fagpacket maths again but £1.2m divided by 75 (weeks in 18 months) is £16,000.

[Jugs]

We agreed a fee and allowed him to talk to Wednesday. Who then couldn't agree wages with him.

However, that a) isn't our problem and b) what is the point of paying money to get rid at this stage?

It means cashflow in the immediate future is actually worse due to severance (as BN state). And whilst a few months down the line it is a significant wage off the books, by then we're either gone or have new owners who could hopefully buy a little more time to sell him on slightly better terms.

I think it is madness. One thing selling players for cash to improve cashflow in the current situation. But another to be getting nothing at all for them or even losing out slightly just to get them off the books when there isn't a long term plan in place as yet.

I think I'm agreeing with this. Finances are not my forte, but I can't understand how this deal benefits us in the long or short-term, especially if we do find a buyer soon.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

It means cashflow in the immediate future is actually worse due to severance (as BN state). And whilst a few months down the line it is a significant wage off the books, by then we're either gone or have new owners who could hopefully buy a little more time to sell him on slightly better terms.

Yeah, no argument with that. It's cost-cutting not asset-selling.

[Peter Thompson]

I'm glad that we've gone from the position of a 750K fee agreed with Wednesday and Wednesday picking up his wages, to a free transfer and us having to pay a severance fee to the player.

What a relief they appointed that amazing negotiator Robinson what would we do without him?

Birch, Davies et al. I'm afraid to say that day by day I'm wondering what the hell you are doing. Something here really isn't right to me, something isn't making sense.

If true and we have had to pay severance pay to get M Davies off our books, then I hope the mercenary cnut gets 1 of his season ending injuries in his 1st few games for SWFC.

So not only are we not getting a transfer fee we are also paying him to leave - this is why BWFC are in such a sorry state of affairs, we are and have been run & owned by absolute incompetent muppets (i.e. ED & PG) and now it appears that we have Birch & Robinson taking on the muppet / clueless roles....

[thebish]

We agreed a fee and allowed him to talk to Wednesday. Who then couldn't agree wages with him.

However, that a) isn't our problem and b) what is the point of paying money to get rid at this stage?

It means cashflow in the immediate future is actually worse due to severance (as BN state). And whilst a few months down the line it is a significant wage off the books, by then we're either gone or have new owners who could hopefully buy a little more time to sell him on slightly better terms.

I think it is madness. One thing selling players for cash to improve cashflow in the current situation. But another to be getting nothing at all for them or even losing out slightly just to get them off the books when there isn't a long term plan in place as yet.

except that there very well MIGHT be a lomg term future for the club - and they don't want people like you popping up in 2yrs time saying - "it was utter MADNESS for the club not to get Mavis's wages off the books when we had the chance - I'm starting to think this new team is well dodgy and summat is seriously wrong..." or summat!

[BWFC_Insane]

We agreed a fee and allowed him to talk to Wednesday. Who then couldn't agree wages with him.

However, that a) isn't our problem and b) what is the point of paying money to get rid at this stage?

It means cashflow in the immediate future is actually worse due to severance (as BN state). And whilst a few months down the line it is a significant wage off the books, by then we're either gone or have new owners who could hopefully buy a little more time to sell him on slightly better terms.

I think it is madness. One thing selling players for cash to improve cashflow in the current situation. But another to be getting nothing at all for them or even losing out slightly just to get them off the books when there isn't a long term plan in place as yet.

except that there very well MIGHT be a lomg term future for the club - and they don't want people like you popping up in 2yrs time saying - "it was utter MADNESS for the club not to get Mavis's wages off the books when we had the chance - I'm starting to think this new team is well dodgy and summat is seriously wrong..." or summat!

There isn't any long term future under current ownership. If we were far enough down the line that a potential new owner was dictating the current to existing owners we'd know about it.

This cannot be part of any long term plan.

[Peter Thompson]

We agreed a fee and allowed him to talk to Wednesday. Who then couldn't agree wages with him.

However, that a) isn't our problem and b) what is the point of paying money to get rid at this stage?

It means cashflow in the immediate future is actually worse due to severance (as BN state). And whilst a few months down the line it is a significant wage off the books, by then we're either gone or have new owners who could hopefully buy a little more time to sell him on slightly better terms.

I think it is madness. One thing selling players for cash to improve cashflow in the current situation. But another to be getting nothing at all for them or even losing out slightly just to get them off the books when there isn't a long term plan in place as yet.

Totally agree - its utter madness, but we should be used to it by now knowing the clowns who run BWFC

[Hoboh]

We agreed a fee and allowed him to talk to Wednesday. Who then couldn't agree wages with him.

However, that a) isn't our problem and b) what is the point of paying money to get rid at this stage?

It means cashflow in the immediate future is actually worse due to severance (as BN state). And whilst a few months down the line it is a significant wage off the books, by then we're either gone or have new owners who could hopefully buy a little more time to sell him on slightly better terms.

I think it is madness. One thing selling players for cash to improve cashflow in the current situation. But another to be getting nothing at all for them or even losing out slightly just to get them off the books when there isn't a long term plan in place as yet.

except that there very well MIGHT be a lomg term future for the club - and they don't want people like you popping up in 2yrs time saying - "it was utter MADNESS for the club not to get Mavis's wages off the books when we had the chance - I'm starting to think this new team is well dodgy and summat is seriously wrong..." or summat!

There isn't any long term future under current ownership. If we were far enough down the line that a potential new owner was dictating the current to existing owners we'd know about it.

This cannot be part of any long term plan.

There isn't ANY fcuking future under the current owner, please note owner, unless he pays the taxman, something he seems less than keen to do. (mind you I cannot say I totally blame him when the big multi's cannot be arsed paying or pursued for it either)

[thebish]

We agreed a fee and allowed him to talk to Wednesday. Who then couldn't agree wages with him.

However, that a) isn't our problem and b) what is the point of paying money to get rid at this stage?

It means cashflow in the immediate future is actually worse due to severance (as BN state). And whilst a few months down the line it is a significant wage off the books, by then we're either gone or have new owners who could hopefully buy a little more time to sell him on slightly better terms.

I think it is madness. One thing selling players for cash to improve cashflow in the current situation. But another to be getting nothing at all for them or even losing out slightly just to get them off the books when there isn't a long term plan in place as yet.

except that there very well MIGHT be a lomg term future for the club - and they don't want people like you popping up in 2yrs time saying - "it was utter MADNESS for the club not to get Mavis's wages off the books when we had the chance - I'm starting to think this new team is well dodgy and summat is seriously wrong..." or summat!

There isn't any long term future under current ownership. If we were far enough down the line that a potential new owner was dictating the current to existing owners we'd know about it.

This cannot be part of any long term plan.

(I didn't say there was a long term plan under current ownership!)

but, of course it can easily make sense...

we plan to sell the club

getting mavis off the wage bill makes the club less expensive to run - hence, more attractive to a buyer. simple.

[Hoboh]

We agreed a fee and allowed him to talk to Wednesday. Who then couldn't agree wages with him.

However, that a) isn't our problem and b) what is the point of paying money to get rid at this stage?

It means cashflow in the immediate future is actually worse due to severance (as BN state). And whilst a few months down the line it is a significant wage off the books, by then we're either gone or have new owners who could hopefully buy a little more time to sell him on slightly better terms.

I think it is madness. One thing selling players for cash to improve cashflow in the current situation. But another to be getting nothing at all for them or even losing out slightly just to get them off the books when there isn't a long term plan in place as yet.

except that there very well MIGHT be a lomg term future for the club - and they don't want people like you popping up in 2yrs time saying - "it was utter MADNESS for the club not to get Mavis's wages off the books when we had the chance - I'm starting to think this new team is well dodgy and summat is seriously wrong..." or summat!

There isn't any long term future under current ownership. If we were far enough down the line that a potential new owner was dictating the current to existing owners we'd know about it.

This cannot be part of any long term plan.

(I didn't say there was a long term plan under current ownership!)

but, of course it can easily make sense...

we plan to sell the club

getting mavis off the wage bill makes the club less expensive to run - hence, more attractive to a buyer. simple.

I'd say getting Mavies off the wage bill might mean having someone in the team who plays for more than five mins per game!

[BWFC_Insane]

of course it can...

a plan to sell the club

getting mavis off the wage bill makes the club less expensive to run - hence, more attractive to a buyer. simple.

By that logic we should pay someone a few hundred grand to take the hotel (or another other asset) off our hands, thus reducing the cost of running the business for a new owner.....

It is one thing selling on the cheap, another paying him off to leave and having no income as a result.

[LeverEnd]

[we plan to sell the club

getting mavis off the wage bill makes the club less expensive to run - hence, more attractive to a buyer. simple.

I think it is that simple yes.