Wesley Fofana - He is no more - finished - forgotten.

[PAPA LAZAROU]

46 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

Callum Smithson our head of technical scouting who is very highly thought of and Rudkin whose role is involved with dealing with transfers anyway

Not needed then.

[Grebfromgrebland]

56 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

How would having the head of recruitment in a month ago have helped free up wages? Issue is turnover to wage ratio. That video posted in the thread explained it very clearly - we have the 7th highest wage in the league, but our turnover is nowhere near the big boys. Hence us having a 105% W/T but Spurs having a 57%. 

It would've helped in that someone like Glover is said to be good at being creative in getting rid and acquiring players. 

 

If we had someone in charge to help with these deals to get people out we could reduce our wage bill.

 

It's not just about bringing players in. 

[sacreblueits442]

3 hours ago, foxinsocks said:

I am not dure it will count as revenur... but it should be a debit against player cost gor ffp :-)

but this is the wrong season for that to matter

....it would be interesting if the FFP ratio (90%, 80%, 70%)  needs to be in place at the start or at the end of the season!!!

I would think it would be at the end of the season, or else our stated 105% would mean for this season we are infringing FFP and liable to be sanctioned. Any incoming transfer fee I would believe would count as trading and therefore count as income where we could then offset it against wages (bringing the ratio down).

Wages 192m (105%)

Revenue: 182m (calculated)

Fofana Transfer: 85m (40m being payment upfront, 45m accrued)

 

Revenue= 182m +40m = 222m

Ratio: 222/192 = 0.86 (86%) - this would take us under the threshold for this period, any further sales would have a similar effect on the figures.

  We would have to replace him, so a transfer fee would have to be paid as well as wages, something like £60k a week, even spending £25m as a replacement would impact the ratio and push it back up again.

  Our only real practical course of action is to sell players, and not look to replace them, in order to bring the ratio back in line.

 

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

It would've helped in that someone like Glover is said to be good at being creative in getting rid and acquiring players. 

 

If we had someone in charge to help with these deals to get people out we could reduce our wage bill.

 

It's not just about bringing players in. 

I'm prepared for someone to correct me on this but I don't think getting shot of our dross would fall under his remit as head of recruitment.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Guest said:

I'm prepared for someone to correct me on this but I don't think getting shot of our dross would fall under his remit as head of recruitment.

Believe it falls under the auspices of 'arr Jon', no?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Believe it falls under the auspices of 'arr Jon', no?

That's my (limited) understanding, yeah. I take "head of recruitment" to be essentially synonymous with "chief scout".

[moore_94]

10 minutes ago, Guest said:

That's my (limited) understanding, yeah. I take "head of recruitment" to be essentially synonymous with "chief scout".

I think there is some involvement in dealing with clubs and agents in the role - but I would think that would be more in terms of building relationships so you are in their “good books” when trying to find available players etc.

Below is a job spec Brentford have used previously when advertising for their Head of Recruitment role

Edited 9 August 2022 by moore_94

[sacreblueits442]

14 minutes ago, Guest said:

I'm prepared for someone to correct me on this but I don't think getting shot of our dross would fall under his remit as head of recruitment.

....you would think to some extent it would impact his job!!!

He cannot bring in players if there is no room for them at the club, so he would have to liaise with the club and other relevant departments as to how and when spaces are going to be available. He would need to be applying pressure on certain individuals (department) in order for him to do his job.

Edited 9 August 2022 by sacreblueits442
Spelling Error.

[foxinsocks]

31 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....it would be interesting if the FFP ratio (90%, 80%, 70%)  needs to be in place at the start or at the end of the season!!!

I would think it would be at the end of the season, or else our stated 105% would mean for this season we are infringing FFP and liable to be sanctioned. Any incoming transfer fee I would believe would count as trading and therefore count as income where we could then offset it against wages (bringing the ratio down).

Wages 192m (105%)

Revenue: 182m (calculated)

Fofana Transfer: 85m (40m being payment upfront, 45m accrued)

 

Revenue= 182m +40m = 222m

Ratio: 222/192 = 0.86 (86%) - this would take us under the threshold for this period, any further sales would have a similar effect on the figures.

  We would have to replace him, so a transfer fee would have to be paid as well as wages, something like £60k a week, even spending £25m as a replacement would impact the ratio and push it back up again.

  Our only real practical course of action is to sell players, and not look to replace them, in order to bring the ratio back in line.

 

 

Sorry

.. last comment was poor typing. 

I understood the limit was on all player costs ... acquisions less disposals plus wages ( inc all fees). However, imo purchase payments should be expensed over the contract period... say four years.  So player sales should show as income less any remaining book value ( unexpensed).

I am pretty sure the new rules will apply at the end of the 2324 season retrospectively.

I cant really predict the impact of ins and outs...  but selling players beyond their first contract, or home grown, should really help.  The wages will remain the big issue as they are already too high.  Basically we should only offer wages of half the amount of players that leave...  (the new player wage budget)... and assume our out of contract players are leaving. However we are in the habit of agreeing new extended contracts at much higher wages.  These roll on wages (or new contracts fir out of contract or ecidting players like vardy) should be taken out of the new player wage budget above if we to make the reductions.

So if we give say justin a big new contract then that will reduce the wages for new players.

These are the type of guidelines that we need.

Edited 9 August 2022 by foxinsocks

[foxinsocks]

Btw out fd seens a sensible man who would win any budget areguments with rudders.

[moore_94]

 

[fox_up_north]

This needs putting to bed, really. Either sell for stupid money or stay. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....you would think to some extent it would impact his job!!!

He cannot bring in players if there is no room for them at the club, so he would have to liaise with the club and other relevant departments as to how and when spaces are going to be available. He would need to be applying pressure on certain individuals (department) in order for him to do his job.

Yeah of course they're connected but what I'm saying is that our difficulties shifting players don't have anything to do with Glover not having started yet because it wouldn't have been, and won't be, his job to get rid of them, which is the impression a few posters seem to be under.

[KFS]

Just now, moore_94 said:

 

This is painfully naive from Brendan. Champions League playing center backs have struggled to get into that France squad. He would also play regularly for Chelsea.

[splinterdream]

2 hours ago, Kuredufox said:

Its not about money, we have money just not room in the squad. We need to shift players first.

If money isn’t a problem then you’d think we’d just take a loss on some of the dross we’ve given contracts too, or negotiate the rest of their contract and let them find clubs on a free. 
 

I’d say it is absolutely about money and we just won’t accept taking a loss and moving on.

[ARM1968]

Nice if true. Still don’t see us turning down £85-£100 million. Hopefully Chelsea pull out or their interest goes soft. 

[dmayne7]

1 minute ago, KFS said:

This is painfully naive from Brendan. Champions League playing center backs have struggled to get into that France squad. He would also play regularly for Chelsea.

Exactly. He would be playing regularly. Not going to spend £80m on him to have him sit on the bench.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, KFS said:

This is painfully naive from Brendan. Champions League playing center backs have struggled to get into that France squad. He would also play regularly for Chelsea.

Not as certain as at Leicester though is it: Koulilbaly starts sure, and do they have anyone else yet? Maybe not, but they may by the time the window closes.

[Dahnsouff]

All feels like a bluff anyway

[Lambert09]

5 minutes ago, KFS said:

This is painfully naive from Brendan. Champions League playing center backs have struggled to get into that France squad. He would also play regularly for Chelsea.

i’m fully brendan out but let’s not jibe him for this. He’s trying to keep one of our star assets at the club of course he’s going to make that case. 

 

Look how long it took saliba to settle in, it only takes the manager to not rate you. I personally don’t think there’s any chance he wouldnt be a nailed on starter but if i was brendan i’d be planting that seed as well 🤷‍♂️

Edited 9 August 2022 by Lambert09

[ARM1968]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

All feels like a bluff anyway

For what?

[Leeds Fox]

That almost sounds like a ‘if you’re staying, you’re playing. So put the effort in to have a chance of making the France squad.’

[splinterdream]

Could someone put the athletic article up on here please, not sure how to get past paywall

[StanSP]

9 minutes ago, KFS said:

This is painfully naive from Brendan. Champions League playing center backs have struggled to get into that France squad. He would also play regularly for Chelsea.

Not sure it's that naive. 

 

[sacreblueits442]

4 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

If money isn’t a problem then you’d think we’d just take a loss on some of the dross we’ve given contracts too, or negotiate the rest of their contract and let them find clubs on a free. 
 

I’d say it is absolutely about money and we just won’t accept taking a loss and moving on.

....we have a small budget to play with,  every pound helps in this scenario, taking a loss on players does not help us!!!

Paying off contracts serves no purpose as we are still going to show the payoff in our books as wages for the financial year. If we have to bring in replacement players we will still have to pay them, putting our wage bill ratio way over what it should be. We need to sell and not replace.