Dunk to join Fulham this week?

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

That is not including any signing fees.. etc.. So we would still make a loss there..

There's also a net outgoing of approx. £115k/pa in Employers NI.

 

[Bozza]

I also think your numbers are relatively unrealistic. Is Dunk really only on £6k per week? I know this is only an illustration, but I suspect he is on more than that, and I doubt you can get as good a centre half for £10k per week.

I don't know.

However, one version of current events is that he is on £6k and Fulham have offered c£20k.

My point stands though: a lot of people ignore the impact of wages on playing budgets, which becomes greater if one 'expensive' player is sold and people claim the funds could buy 2, 3 or 4 new players.

 

[nwgull]

I hope that CH has used all his motivational skills to persuade Dunk that he can achieve all he wants here at Brighton.

By motivational skills, do you mean offer to treble his salary to match what Fulham have offered?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Is Dunk really only on £6k per week?

You can guarantee that he won't be come 1st September, if he's still here.

 

[Steve in Japan]

By motivational skills, do you mean offer to treble his salary to match what Fulham have offered?

I doubt we could do that, but we should be paying him somewhere near the market rate, whatever that is.

 

[nwgull]

I doubt we could do that, but we should be paying him somewhere near the market rate, whatever that is.

18K a week by the sounds of it!

 

[SweatyMexican]

If we haven't sold at 5m yet, I'd be intrigued as to what our valuation is. Everyone was going on about 4/5M for Ulloa...perhaps 6M, yet we got 9. If he did go, I'd expect the rumoured fee to be somewhat higher than present guesses might suggest.

 

[Triggaaar]

It would be really DIM to sell to Fulham just before our match with them.

Wait until next week if he really must go there.

If the clubs had reached agreement, it would be best to sell just before the match, so there wasn't time for him to be eligible to play.

Without going into specifics it is, as ever, not just about transfer fees. Example:

1. Sell Dunk on, say, £6k/week for £5m. Effect on playing budget over 3 years = +£5.94m
2. Buy a winger for £1.5m on, say £12k/week. Effect on playing budget over 3 years = -£3.37m
3. Buy a CB for £1m on, say, £10k/week. Effect on playing budget over 3 years = -£2.56m

People would complain that only half the money had been reinvested when, in fact, the club is pretty much level overall.

It can be even more complicated if keeping him means we'd have to give him an improved contract.

 

[Betfair Bozo]

I don't know.

However, one version of current events is that he is on £6k and Fulham have offered c£20k.

My point stands though: a lot of people ignore the impact of wages on playing budgets, which becomes greater if one 'expensive' player is sold and people claim the funds could buy 2, 3 or 4 new players.

If those figures are correct then we'd best adjust them quickly. He probably knows that an excellent season with us puts him on the shopping lists of bigger and better than Fulham and he could go there and "fail to settle" anyway but it'd still be difficult to put out of your mind that you could have trebled your salary. Give him an increase, reiterate that the club would do right by him if a Prem team came in for him and sell him for a fair bit more than £5m in the summer (assuming we don't go up.) Ball playing, young English central defenders do not grow on trees.

 

[portslade seagull]

That would be back tracking Utd if the club now let him move to another championship club, just don't see it happening

 

[WhingForPresident]

Anyone noticed this on Dunk's Wikipedia page?

'On 7 August 2015, Dunk decided his career will only progress by leaving Brighton so he handed in a transfer request to try push through a move to Fulham'

 

[BensGrandad]

Anyone noticed this on Dunk's Wikipedia page?

'On 7 August 2015, Dunk decided his career will only progress by leaving Brighton so he handed in a transfer request to try push through a move to Fulham'

I dont think that he would have added that with speculation of premier clubs being interested had it finished after transfer request it might have been believable but not the last bit about Fulham.

 

[NooBHA]

It would be really DIM to sell to Fulham just before our match with them.

Wait until next week if he really must go there.

This is actually a very good point you make. Not that it would be mad to sell him before then but if he is likely to go then will Fulham request that he doesn't play this weekend ?

Another alternative being that if he is sold before the weekend then we would probably insist that he didn't play against us.

I have seen CH hold out and refused to sell Wes Hoolihan from Norwich to Aston Villa but he had the backing of David Mc Nally who refused to sell anyone to Aston Villa following the Paul Lambert affair.

In the end I have a feeling that money will talk and that Dunk will move on. He is a good player and he had a good game last week but I don't see his value going above £4million, so for that reason, I would take the money. I also like the look of the lad Rea as a replacement.

 

[Beach Hut]

If I were Dunk I would wait and see if the Stones transfer to Chelsea goes through as better prospects and money would come from Everton

 

[Bozza]

How can you offer a contract before an offer has been accepted? Is that not tapping up and illegal? Surely contracts can only be discussed after the clubs have agreed a fee?

I think that's the way it's supposed to work but I imagine in many (most?) deals, some form of club/agent discussion is held to validate a deal is worth pursuing.

 

[BBassic]

If he goes I don't think it will be to Fulham.

TB/PB/CH (can't remember which) have already said we don't want to sell to a divisional rival and with Newcastle allegedly sniffing around I would wager he'll go there as A) they're not in our league B) They have a bigger budget and could feasibly offer more than Fulham and C) They could definitely offer more wages than Fulham.

If he goes anywhere that is and I really hope its such a big 'if' that it turns out to be insurmountable.

 

[Triggaaar]

I dont think that he would have added that with speculation of premier clubs being interested

Eh? You were thinking that Lewis Dunk himself could have updated wikipedia?

This is actually a very good point you make.

Not really.

Not that it would be mad to sell him before then but if he is likely to go then will Fulham request that he doesn't play this weekend ?

I can't see why we'd agree to that if they hadn't signed anything. As I said, if he's going there, the deal could be done before the game, but late enough that he hasn't got time to play for them, so he wouldn't play for (or against) either side.

Another alternative being that if he is sold before the weekend then we would probably insist that he didn't play against us.

You can't do that. The method would need to be as I explained.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Without going into specifics it is, as ever, not just about transfer fees. Example:

1. Sell Dunk on, say, £6k/week for £5m. Effect on playing budget over 3 years = +£5.94m
2. Buy a winger for £1.5m on, say £12k/week. Effect on playing budget over 3 years = -£3.37m
3. Buy a CB for £1m on, say, £10k/week. Effect on playing budget over 3 years = -£2.56m

People would complain that only half the money had been reinvested when, in fact, the club is pretty much level overall.

Would we be able to carry over the money from the sale of Dunk should it happen and have it as smaller segments of income over 3 years or will it all be added in year 1? (probably needs someone who knows accountancy a lot better than me to answer)

I ask because that too would affect the above because you could suddenly have a shortfall in years 2 & 3 in your playing budget to cover these extra wages and without the income / budget to pay it, (Dunks cash isn't carried over to pay these ongoing wages) - meaning cuts elsewhere or less buying power in years 2 & 3. (Basically how does amortisation affect purchases funded by sales, seeing as the whole wages of the new signings arn't paid in full in the same financial year as the sale but over several years instead)

If you get the whole lot in year one, then there could be an excess in year one and you end up paying tax on it as a profit.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

If you can't have a players sale money spread over a few years to cover replacement signings in the accounts, maybe that's where some or a lot of the Ulloa money went - on signing loan players like Bennett, Tex and Darren Bent as they would all be single year costs which would mean the money is spent in the same season as we received it and therefore doesn't show as a profit to then be taxed.

 

[Triggaaar]

If you can't have a players sale money spread over a few years to cover replacement signings in the accounts, maybe that's where some or a lot of the Ulloa money went - on signing loan players like Bennett, Tex and Darren Bent as they would all be single year costs which would mean the money is spent in the same season as we received it and therefore doesn't show as a profit to then be taxed.

Tax on profit doesn't even come into it for us, as we're making significant losses. And even if we made a profit, we shouldn't be paying tax as we're carrying old losses forward. It's all about FFP, and as said already, you can't count the proceeds for future seasons - although bonuses paid for a club staying up etc, might come in a later season. I expect a chunk of the Ulloa money went on loans.