And if a deal falls through for 50k, that could pay the clubs next HMRC Bill which results in a winding up order, then so be it?
Nice one.
Like I say, no undisclosed fee's is bar far and away the better policy. But until you have a consensus by the majority or clubs, or if you can unequivocally afford for deals to fall through (recent history shows we aren't in that possition) then it would be fool hardy for us to go it alone.
Spearhead the campaign for it yes, go it alone not such a "no brainer".
Trouble is I think this has to happen top down rather than each club deciding on a policy. I'd be proud of Wycombe if they chose to disclose but I don't think it would work unless all other do too.
The usual argument against disclosure is the risk that other clubs will inflate their selling price/reduce their bid in any subsequent transaction if the fee is "substantial". If that were indeed the only reason for non-disclosure, it would be hard to argue against regulations requiring disclosure. Sadly, that seems unlikely to be the case although other arguments could hinge on the (legitimate) complexity of deals which make disclosure (or the format of disclosure) difficult. In situations like that (as in the case of the Ibe deal, we hope) disclosure might justifiably be delayed, if not indefinitely withheld.
@micra if the argument is that it may affect subsequent transfers, if I understand you a club sells player A and another club "adjusts" the price for player B that the first club wishes to sign, then perhaps all fees are confidential for the duration of the transfer window. At the end of the window then all transfer fees should be made clear.
This might be a way of Wycombe leading a transparency campaign without dis-advantage going themselves too much.
@carrickblue said:
micra if the argument is that it may affect subsequent transfers, if I understand you a club sells player A and another club "adjusts" the price for player B that the first club wishes to sign, then perhaps all fees are confidential for the duration of the transfer window. At the end of the window then all transfer fees should be made clear.
This might be a way of Wycombe leading a transparency campaign without dis-advantage going themselves too much.
The hope underlying my comment was that the only reason for Wycombe's seeming reluctance to disclose fees is the commercial one of not wanting to raise expectations about how much they would be prepared to pay (largely hypothetical for the foreseeable future) or how little they might be perceived to be likely to accept.
But of course it is much more complex than that as we saw with the Ingram/Harriman deal and, it would seem, with the Ibe transfer.
The genie is long out of the bottle. Whilst there is a sloshing pot of money, a willing buyer and a willing seller there will be corruption
It don't matter if it's a set of fishing kit for someone's dad or image rights to an offshore company the days of an honest deal are long gone.
Or never existed in the first place. The amounts involved might be higher now, but it wouldn't surprise me if dodgy dealings have existed since the start of the professional era.
@eric_plant No idea, I can't pretend to understand how these things work. My instinctive thought to your question was 'Surely not, why would Boston care if we made it public?' but who knows.
Comments
@Chris no I just wondered why you chose £500?
And if a deal falls through for 50k, that could pay the clubs next HMRC Bill which results in a winding up order, then so be it?
Nice one.
Like I say, no undisclosed fee's is bar far and away the better policy. But until you have a consensus by the majority or clubs, or if you can unequivocally afford for deals to fall through (recent history shows we aren't in that possition) then it would be fool hardy for us to go it alone.
Spearhead the campaign for it yes, go it alone not such a "no brainer".
Transfers have to be transparent don't they?
Trouble is I think this has to happen top down rather than each club deciding on a policy. I'd be proud of Wycombe if they chose to disclose but I don't think it would work unless all other do too.
@peterparrotface No significance to the £500!
The usual argument against disclosure is the risk that other clubs will inflate their selling price/reduce their bid in any subsequent transaction if the fee is "substantial". If that were indeed the only reason for non-disclosure, it would be hard to argue against regulations requiring disclosure. Sadly, that seems unlikely to be the case although other arguments could hinge on the (legitimate) complexity of deals which make disclosure (or the format of disclosure) difficult. In situations like that (as in the case of the Ibe deal, we hope) disclosure might justifiably be delayed, if not indefinitely withheld.
@micra if the argument is that it may affect subsequent transfers, if I understand you a club sells player A and another club "adjusts" the price for player B that the first club wishes to sign, then perhaps all fees are confidential for the duration of the transfer window. At the end of the window then all transfer fees should be made clear.
This might be a way of Wycombe leading a transparency campaign without dis-advantage going themselves too much.
@eric_plant Didn't we pay undisclosed sums for both Harriman and Southwell?
The hope underlying my comment was that the only reason for Wycombe's seeming reluctance to disclose fees is the commercial one of not wanting to raise expectations about how much they would be prepared to pay (largely hypothetical for the foreseeable future) or how little they might be perceived to be likely to accept.
But of course it is much more complex than that as we saw with the Ingram/Harriman deal and, it would seem, with the Ibe transfer.
@Jonny_King maybe. Do you think Boston would have pulled the plug if we'd wanted to make it public?
The genie is long out of the bottle. Whilst there is a sloshing pot of money, a willing buyer and a willing seller there will be corruption
It don't matter if it's a set of fishing kit for someone's dad or image rights to an offshore company the days of an honest deal are long gone.
Or never existed in the first place. The amounts involved might be higher now, but it wouldn't surprise me if dodgy dealings have existed since the start of the professional era.
@eric_plant No idea, I can't pretend to understand how these things work. My instinctive thought to your question was 'Surely not, why would Boston care if we made it public?' but who knows.