Palace supposedly make derisory bid for Dunk

[Cowfold Seagull]

Ulloa was sold because he really wanted to go and the club would not stand in his way. The club had no intention of selling him until his head is turned. If Dunk's head is turned he will go, but if he wants to stay, he will stay, no matter how high the bid.

Maybe....

Dunky, and his family, are all Albion through and through, so I can't see him wanting to leave . . . Hope I'm right.

If the club want to sell him though . . .

 

[AZ Gull]

Dunky, and his family, are all Albion through and through, so I can't see him wanting to leave . . . Hope I'm right.

If the club want to sell him though . . .

That didn't seem to stop him from refusing to play in the Capital One Cup tie at Southend last season, though.

 

[Eeyore]

I think what Paul Barber is saying is we will sell, but like Leo, you aint arf gonna have to put up some dough.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

I think what Paul Barber is saying is we will sell, but like Leo, you aint arf gonna have to put up some dough.

That's football though isn't it? every player is for sale if a another club bids high enough.

 

[Eagle_83]

According to twitter rumours, it Was Derby who bid for Dunk!

Bullet dodged!

 

[KZNSeagull]

Could not the sales of both Ulloa and Buckley have had something to do with avoiding a transfer embago?

It's possible I suppose but Paul Barber was adamant on the Albion Roar that the club did not have to sell Ulloa. The Ulloa sale went through after the closing period for the FFP accounts and it did not therefore reflect until the following season, so I doubt it was a "we have to sell someone now as we need the cash" scenario.

The consistent message from the club for the last few seasons is that we have not needed to sell anyone for financial reasons. If that is not true, I would think that someone, somewhere would have let slip by now and as far as I know, they have not.

 

[bhanutz]

Bullet dodged!

Yeah cause you have got whats his name.....Scott someone!

 

[Marshy]

Thats a lot of money for a centre back who has never played in the Premier League.

indeed it is, just dont think we will let him go for less.

 

[Swillis]

Yeah cause you have got whats his name.....Scott someone!

Take the pish as much as you like, Dann is a very good player. Between Dann and Dunk I would pick Dann every time.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Take the pish as much as you like, Dann is a very good player. Between Dann and Dunk I would pick Dann every time.

Shame your disco dancing manager doesn't have the same confidence as you.

 

[Betfair Bozo]

Take the pish as much as you like, Dann is a very good player. Between Dann and Dunk I would pick Dann every time.

One of your chaps opined that Dunk would be the perfect replacement for Delaney. Dann is obviously an excellent central defender, Delaney is past his best.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

It's possible I suppose but Paul Barber was adamant on the Albion Roar that the club did not have to sell Ulloa. The Ulloa sale went through after the closing period for the FFP accounts and it did not therefore reflect until the following season, so I doubt it was a "we have to sell someone now as we need the cash" scenario.

The consistent message from the club for the last few seasons is that we have not needed to sell anyone for financial reasons. If that is not true, I would think that someone, somewhere would have let slip by now and as far as I know, they have not.

Ulloa was sold during the financial year 2014/15, ending 30 June 2015.
The published accounts for the football club (ie BHAFC Ltd; the FL member and therefore the legal entity subject to FFP) for that period show an operating loss of £7.361M
The accounts also show a surplus on player trading of £6.236M, largely down to the sale of Buckley and Ulloa, without which the operating loss would have been £13.6M. My contention is that we would have failed FFP without this surplus and been subject to sanction (eg a transfer ban) from the FL during 2015/16.
Both myself and, more importantly, El Pres have mentioned this point previously, albeit maybe in relation to the holding company accounts

 

[bhanutz]

Take the pish as much as you like, Dann is a very good player. Between Dann and Dunk I would pick Dann every time.

Dunk is twice the player Scott whats his name is!

 

[KZNSeagull]

Ulloa was sold during the financial year 2014/15, ending 30 June 2015.
The published accounts for the football club (ie BHAFC Ltd; the FL member and therefore the legal entity subject to FFP) for that period show an operating loss of £7.361M
The accounts also show a surplus on player trading of £6.236M, largely down to the sale of Buckley and Ulloa, without which the operating loss would have been £13.6M. My contention is that we would have failed FFP without this surplus and been subject to sanction (eg a transfer ban) from the FL during 2015/16.
Both myself and, more importantly, El Pres have mentioned this point previously, albeit maybe in relation to the holding company accounts

I understand that, but you are making it sound like they had to be sold to meet FFP - they were both sold at the beginning of that financial year, not the end. The club had nearly an entire year to modify it's spending or increase income if they had to if they had both stayed. Conversely, perhaps, the club spent more than they budgeted for originally in that financial year precisely because those two had been sold?

If they were sold at the end of the 2015 financial year I would agree with you, but as they were not, I am not so sure.

 

[CPFC G]

Dunk is twice the player Scott whats his name is!

 

[Swillis]

Dunk is twice the player Scott whats his name is!

 

[Swillis]

One of your chaps opined that Dunk would be the perfect replacement for Delaney. Dann is obviously an excellent central defender, Delaney is past his best.

Possibly, not sure he would come to us though or if we are even after him. Bottom line is, if Dunk wants to go anywhere he will go.

 

[8ace]

Aren't Dann and Dunk both players who's greatest asset is the aerial ability
Not sure that they'd work that well as a partnership.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

I understand that, but you are making it sound like they had to be sold to meet FFP - they were both sold at the beginning of that financial year, not the end. The club had nearly an entire year to modify it's spending or increase income if they had to if they had both stayed. Conversely, perhaps, the club spent more than they budgeted for originally in that financial year precisely because those two had been sold?

If they were sold at the end of the 2015 financial year I would agree with you, but as they were not, I am not so sure.

Not at all, I'm just quoting information from the audited accounts.
If BHA hadn't sold Ulloa and Buckley and not bought anybody then the operating loss would have been £13.6M; the £6.236M being a surplus after the costs of player purchases throughout the season have been deducted from the transfer incomes received. The max FFP loss permitted for 2014/15 was, I think, £6M.
During the season the club did increase income from commercial sponsorship and grants (+£1.1M) but this was balanced, broadly speaking, by reductions in match day income and central FL distributions.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

I understand that, but you are making it sound like they had to be sold to meet FFP - they were both sold at the beginning of that financial year, not the end. The club had nearly an entire year to modify it's spending or increase income if they had to if they had both stayed. Conversely, perhaps, the club spent more than they budgeted for originally in that financial year precisely because those two had been sold?

If they were sold at the end of the 2015 financial year I would agree with you, but as they were not, I am not so sure.

Not at all, I'm just quoting information from the audited accounts.
If BHA hadn't sold Ulloa and Buckley and not bought anybody then the operating loss would have been £13.6M; the £6.236M being a surplus after the costs of player purchases throughout the season have been deducted from the transfer incomes received. The max FFP loss permitted for 2014/15 was, I think, £6M.
During the season the club did increase income from commercial sponsorship and grants (+£1.1M) but this was balanced, broadly speaking, by reductions in match day income and central FL distributions.