It seems some people are seriously suggesting that when we negotiate a fee, we insist with the buying club that we're allowed to reveal the details publically.
sounds a little unrealistic to me.
"but bacon sandwich on the gasroom insists on it"
Don't really see why we should have to wait for regulation to catch up though. Why can't we, as a club, in transfer negotiations say that we have a commitment to our supporters to be completely open about our transfer dealings and make public any transfer fees and agent fees?
You are missing that the other club may not agree. There are probably more important arguments to be won in any negotiation. Hypothetically if the other club said "you can either win the transparency point or win the extra 5% on player X sell-on point" which would you choose?
Bit late to all this since I was out with work all day and evening yesterday but have fans had emails about the scheme, or just read about it on Twitter? Not had anything from the club or Trust directly.
@eric_plant I agree with you that all fees should be transparent, but I do think it would be commercially damaging for WWFC to try and lead the charge.
If no other clubs follow suit, we basically end up playing poker with our cards face up on the table whilst everyone else has them in the pocket.
Why hasn't an email been sent out at the time of the announcement? From the club or from the Trust. Was the scheme a last minute thing? I would have thought the communication strategy should have been a major part of a plan like this.
The thing with transfer fees is that all the clubs know the fees involved in any case. The only people being denied the information are the supporters. They should become public and part of the financial fair play stuff. It won't ever happen without it becoming an absolute requirement for the reasons given above. Given a choice most clubs want to keep money going out a secret.
I wonder if it would be assumed that the January signing we make based on any 500 club money would have a fee the same as the amount raised? I guess some would report it as such.
People talk Chris. Managers, players, agents, office staff. Ask anybody in the know in a club and they could tell you the transfer fees paid on players within their area.
Add to that players wages and club budgets too. It's all available to the inner circle of football. It's how deals get done and often why those deals are kept secret from the outside world.
It has been in the planning for some time, certainly not a last minute thing. As a general rule the Trust member update emails always tend to get sent on the Thursday or Friday before a home game with all relevant items so as to be fresh in people's minds.
I can't remember the last time I got a Thursday/Friday Trust email @DJWYC14 . Am I losing them in spam filters or hasn't there been one for a while? I got the 29th August AGM email and one on the 14th July about Jordon Ibe. Should I be expecting more or is that about it?
If it is I'm more than happy to receive a few more and I'd consider this a pretty poor show.
@Right_in_the_Middle I accept that people in clubs may pick up rumours and snippets here and there through networking and people changing jobs, but that's a bit different to having a confirmed source of actual data. I don't believe that Ainsworth knows accurately the value of each and every undisclosed transfer that happened this summer. I don't believe that undisclosed fees are just to keep fans in the dark.
@Chris
Ainsworth will know or have the ability to find out the transfers within his sphere within the game. He won't be able to find out a transfer in the Premier League but he's know the lower leagues. Agents are the main sources but managers, coaches and CEO's talk to each other about transfers and budgets.
Undisclosed fees are mainly to keep fans in the dark but not just for the knowledge. The theory is it also keeps a bit of pressure off a player when it's not public knowledge how much he cost. Not sure I believe that part but it's one theory I've heard two or three times.
Disclosure of transfer costs including agents fees should be made mandatory based on Financial Fair Play. I don't understand why they are not.
Agree with the second part, but if agents are the main source then there's no way that managers have the correct info. They have no incentive to tell the truth.
I'm only telling you from what I've heard from talking to a couple of managers and a director at a club. I'm not asking for you to believe it or agree. It's not really that important in the bigger picture which I suppose is why nothing changes.
Have you signed up for the 500 club @Chris ? Will be interesting to see if the club or the Trust are quicker at communicating the sign up rate that they were with emailing the database with the initial news.
I must admit I am confused. On the one hand the trust/club are saying they are in discussions with Liverpool which I believed to be simply a matter of agreement to releasing the financial details of the deal NOT receiving the agreed sum in the sell on clause. Yet the 500 Club deal is about getting funds in quickly to spend in January on a player loan/signing on. Surely we will have our money by then, quite frankly I cannot believe we have not had it yet as Liverpool must have been paid so why the hell have we not got ours as these things surely are all written into the contract. Yes Steve Hayes is due his money but there will be funds left from this and what is the point of just paying all the debt and not investing. I have just read an article saying we stretched our budget to the max this season and given all our players currently out injured are due back by January and Gaz is confident in the squads ability when everyone is back, it does beg the question why then are we raising money for a player we might not require or might not even be in the starting 11 ? Something does not seem right to me, maybe I am being cynical but this all seems very strange.
@HG1 said:
I must admit I am confused. On the one hand the trust/club are saying they are in discussions with Liverpool which I believed to be simply a matter of agreement to releasing the financial details of the deal NOT receiving the agreed sum in the sell on clause. Yet the 500 Club deal is about getting funds in quickly to spend in January on a player loan/signing on. Surely we will have our money by then, quite frankly I cannot believe we have not had it yet as Liverpool must have been paid so why the hell have we not got ours as these things surely are all written into the contract. Yes Steve Hayes is due his money but there will be funds left from this and what is the point of just paying all the debt and not investing. I have just read an article saying we stretched our budget to the max this season and given all our players currently out injured are due back by January and Gaz is confident in the squads ability when everyone is back, it does beg the question why then are we raising money for a player we might not require or might not even be in the starting 11 ? Something does not seem right to me, maybe I am being cynical but this all seems very strange.
As I understand it we have to use player sale income to pay off debt to SH until the debt is gone. There is no disgresion allowing us to pay some debt and invest the remainder. So any amount of money for Ibe cannot be invested in the playing squad unless it clears the debt altogether with some left over. Assuming we get proceeds from that sale as a drop feed, it will not clear the debt for some time (if at all - more likely it will help but not wipe the debt out).
In contrast, funds raised through the '500 club' won't be earmarked to pay off SH and can therefore be spent on the playing squad.
Out of interest, why the apparently widespread assumption that the Ibe money will come in instalments - conditional stuff (£x if Ibe plays 30 games, £x if Bournemouth stay up, x if Ibe plays for England etc) I understand, but on the main transfer fee, why would it not come in one go unless there was an explicit term in the contract to the contrary.
So far in 2016 we have or are due to receive unbudgeted income from the FA Cup tie with Villa (£300,000), the sale of Matt Ingram (£500,000) and sell on from Jordan Ibe (£2.2m).
Whilst Steve Hayes clearly needs to be repaid and various debts cleared there must surely be sufficient funds available to allow Gareth's Budget to be increased by £75,000 ?
I am sorry, this does not make any sense. The Club really need to be more financially transparent before Supporters contribute.
Maybe as a previous Poster has suggested the Scheme has been designed to fail as precursor to a take over bid next Summer or earlier.
However, if things really are this bad perhaps we should have a Trust Meeting now and not in November.
Aside from the Villa (reported) £300k we have no idea how the rest of the money is being paid. The fact that Liverpool and WWFC are still negotiating the Ibe deal suggests we don't have it yet. Liverpool might, for example, say £1million cash now or £2million over 5 years plus some extras. Its up to the club to consider what they want and whats best for us.
I am really puzzled as to why some are really against the £75k. If you don't like it don't support it. If you do like it and can support it then do. Whats the problem?
This is embarrassing. I'm sorry but you can put as much community this / community that around it but WWFC is a going concern and asking 500 people to pay £150 to sign a player or two is disgusting. If the management team can't run the business then it needs to be sold or wound up.
Comments
It seems some people are seriously suggesting that when we negotiate a fee, we insist with the buying club that we're allowed to reveal the details publically.
sounds a little unrealistic to me.
"but bacon sandwich on the gasroom insists on it"
I like @eric_plant 's suggestion that all fees must be disclosed, perhaps via a FL or FA regulation.
It's the only way it will ever work. Agents fees should also be disclosed as part of any transfer.
Yep. Make the whole thing transparent
Don't really see why we should have to wait for regulation to catch up though. Why can't we, as a club, in transfer negotiations say that we have a commitment to our supporters to be completely open about our transfer dealings and make public any transfer fees and agent fees?
What am I missing?
You are missing that the other club may not agree. There are probably more important arguments to be won in any negotiation. Hypothetically if the other club said "you can either win the transparency point or win the extra 5% on player X sell-on point" which would you choose?
Bit late to all this since I was out with work all day and evening yesterday but have fans had emails about the scheme, or just read about it on Twitter? Not had anything from the club or Trust directly.
Not had an email, but here's the link:
http://www.wycombewanderers.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/the-500-club-your-chance-to-help-fund-new-signings-3306178.aspx
@eric_plant I agree with you that all fees should be transparent, but I do think it would be commercially damaging for WWFC to try and lead the charge.
If no other clubs follow suit, we basically end up playing poker with our cards face up on the table whilst everyone else has them in the pocket.
There will be a members update email from the Trust this week
Why hasn't an email been sent out at the time of the announcement? From the club or from the Trust. Was the scheme a last minute thing? I would have thought the communication strategy should have been a major part of a plan like this.
The thing with transfer fees is that all the clubs know the fees involved in any case. The only people being denied the information are the supporters. They should become public and part of the financial fair play stuff. It won't ever happen without it becoming an absolute requirement for the reasons given above. Given a choice most clubs want to keep money going out a secret.
I wonder if it would be assumed that the January signing we make based on any 500 club money would have a fee the same as the amount raised? I guess some would report it as such.
@Right_in_the_Middle how do all clubs know the fees involved?
People talk Chris. Managers, players, agents, office staff. Ask anybody in the know in a club and they could tell you the transfer fees paid on players within their area.
Add to that players wages and club budgets too. It's all available to the inner circle of football. It's how deals get done and often why those deals are kept secret from the outside world.
It has been in the planning for some time, certainly not a last minute thing. As a general rule the Trust member update emails always tend to get sent on the Thursday or Friday before a home game with all relevant items so as to be fresh in people's minds.
May I ask an unrelated question, DJ.
Does the trust regard spectator conduct as within its remit of protecting the clubs reputation and heritage? If so, is this currently a concern?
Spectator Behaviour thread imminent.
I can't remember the last time I got a Thursday/Friday Trust email @DJWYC14 . Am I losing them in spam filters or hasn't there been one for a while? I got the 29th August AGM email and one on the 14th July about Jordon Ibe. Should I be expecting more or is that about it?
If it is I'm more than happy to receive a few more and I'd consider this a pretty poor show.
@Right_in_the_Middle I accept that people in clubs may pick up rumours and snippets here and there through networking and people changing jobs, but that's a bit different to having a confirmed source of actual data. I don't believe that Ainsworth knows accurately the value of each and every undisclosed transfer that happened this summer. I don't believe that undisclosed fees are just to keep fans in the dark.
@Chris
Ainsworth will know or have the ability to find out the transfers within his sphere within the game. He won't be able to find out a transfer in the Premier League but he's know the lower leagues. Agents are the main sources but managers, coaches and CEO's talk to each other about transfers and budgets.
Undisclosed fees are mainly to keep fans in the dark but not just for the knowledge. The theory is it also keeps a bit of pressure off a player when it's not public knowledge how much he cost. Not sure I believe that part but it's one theory I've heard two or three times.
Disclosure of transfer costs including agents fees should be made mandatory based on Financial Fair Play. I don't understand why they are not.
Agree with the second part, but if agents are the main source then there's no way that managers have the correct info. They have no incentive to tell the truth.
I'm only telling you from what I've heard from talking to a couple of managers and a director at a club. I'm not asking for you to believe it or agree. It's not really that important in the bigger picture which I suppose is why nothing changes.
Have you signed up for the 500 club @Chris ? Will be interesting to see if the club or the Trust are quicker at communicating the sign up rate that they were with emailing the database with the initial news.
Nope.
I must admit I am confused. On the one hand the trust/club are saying they are in discussions with Liverpool which I believed to be simply a matter of agreement to releasing the financial details of the deal NOT receiving the agreed sum in the sell on clause. Yet the 500 Club deal is about getting funds in quickly to spend in January on a player loan/signing on. Surely we will have our money by then, quite frankly I cannot believe we have not had it yet as Liverpool must have been paid so why the hell have we not got ours as these things surely are all written into the contract. Yes Steve Hayes is due his money but there will be funds left from this and what is the point of just paying all the debt and not investing. I have just read an article saying we stretched our budget to the max this season and given all our players currently out injured are due back by January and Gaz is confident in the squads ability when everyone is back, it does beg the question why then are we raising money for a player we might not require or might not even be in the starting 11 ? Something does not seem right to me, maybe I am being cynical but this all seems very strange.
I think you may be reading too much in to it.
As I understand it we have to use player sale income to pay off debt to SH until the debt is gone. There is no disgresion allowing us to pay some debt and invest the remainder. So any amount of money for Ibe cannot be invested in the playing squad unless it clears the debt altogether with some left over. Assuming we get proceeds from that sale as a drop feed, it will not clear the debt for some time (if at all - more likely it will help but not wipe the debt out).
In contrast, funds raised through the '500 club' won't be earmarked to pay off SH and can therefore be spent on the playing squad.
Out of interest, why the apparently widespread assumption that the Ibe money will come in instalments - conditional stuff (£x if Ibe plays 30 games, £x if Bournemouth stay up, x if Ibe plays for England etc) I understand, but on the main transfer fee, why would it not come in one go unless there was an explicit term in the contract to the contrary.
This is a bit of an odd one.
So far in 2016 we have or are due to receive unbudgeted income from the FA Cup tie with Villa (£300,000), the sale of Matt Ingram (£500,000) and sell on from Jordan Ibe (£2.2m).
Whilst Steve Hayes clearly needs to be repaid and various debts cleared there must surely be sufficient funds available to allow Gareth's Budget to be increased by £75,000 ?
I am sorry, this does not make any sense. The Club really need to be more financially transparent before Supporters contribute.
Maybe as a previous Poster has suggested the Scheme has been designed to fail as precursor to a take over bid next Summer or earlier.
However, if things really are this bad perhaps we should have a Trust Meeting now and not in November.
Aside from the Villa (reported) £300k we have no idea how the rest of the money is being paid. The fact that Liverpool and WWFC are still negotiating the Ibe deal suggests we don't have it yet. Liverpool might, for example, say £1million cash now or £2million over 5 years plus some extras. Its up to the club to consider what they want and whats best for us.
I am really puzzled as to why some are really against the £75k. If you don't like it don't support it. If you do like it and can support it then do. Whats the problem?
This is embarrassing. I'm sorry but you can put as much community this / community that around it but WWFC is a going concern and asking 500 people to pay £150 to sign a player or two is disgusting. If the management team can't run the business then it needs to be sold or wound up.
Okay i admit i joined the 500 club, i had a tax rebate yesterday which was unexpected so easy come easy go i suppose. I await the abuse.