Undisclosed Fee ?
- Thread starter hybrid_x
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Nope, but Tim doesn't throw a hissy fit if he doesn't get every piece of information about transfer fees as far as I am aware.
In the accounts you can see the total spent in the financial year (July-June), £4.5m from memory to June 2012; the amount we still owe other clubs for purchases and the amount they still owe us for sales (both around £1m) and the amount we have depreciated the cost of our players in that year (£2m-ish?). There are no figures for individual players. HMRC are interested only in the taxable profit or loss for the year and not the specific transfer fee for individual players.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 48,522
FFS. Selling clubs may prefer not to disclose as it might cause their fans to think they've been mugged off, and be upset. They also don't want other clubs to know how much cash they have to spend when they go to buy.
Buying clubs don't want their player over burdened with the pressure of a massive fee, or for the fans to think they've been ripped off, or, on the other hand, to say "£150k? Is that all? He's not good enough for us".
I think that's quite simple to understand. It's not underhand as all the fees have to go through the books anyway.
Buying clubs don't want their player over burdened with the pressure of a massive fee, or for the fans to think they've been ripped off, or, on the other hand, to say "£150k? Is that all? He's not good enough for us".
I think that's quite simple to understand. It's not underhand as all the fees have to go through the books anyway.
dougdeep
New member
There's nothing new about undisclosed fees.
Biscuit Barrel
Well-known member
Its not the fans money its the clubs money. It stopps being the fans money when we hand it over to the club. You don't have a right to know how much your local newsagent pays its paper boys just because you spend some money in the shop (not the best of examples, but you get my drift). I grant you that a lot of the clubs income is from fans paying to watch them play, but it is up to the club what they do with the money and they do not have to let the fans know how much of it is spent on bringing a player to the club. It would be interesting to know though!!!!
AZ Gull
@SeagullsAcademy @seagullsacademy.bsky.social
All valid points.
But it doesn't stop most (if not all) the major sports in the US having much greater transparency in terms of player contract length, and detailed salary figures, by year. For instance, those nasty LA Dodgers had a payroll of $220 million last season, whereas the good-guy D'backs were at less than $90 million (and info is freely available on the complete breakdown of these figures, by player).
As far as I am aware, US sports haven't ground to a halt because of this greater transparency.
FFS.
Fair enough, but it's ultimately Tony Bloom's money and decision to make. He's a poker player, and perhaps has the mentality of not revealing any more than he has to, unless the benefits of revealing the fee outweigh the costs, such as for CMS and Buckley, when the club wanted to sell season tickets and having a couple of million pound players was a good way to attract them.
Superphil
Dismember
Plenty on here have catergorically told us what it is, so there you go, not undisclosed at all, albeit, there are about 10 different versions of what it is. 
AZ Gull
@SeagullsAcademy @seagullsacademy.bsky.social
Yep, I agree that most owners would probably feel that providing such information unilaterally would give themselves a competitive disadvantage (although I'm far from convinced about that argument, particularly when people in the industry almost certainly have the means to get that info anyway, if they so desire). And obviously there are significant differences between the US sports "model" and the British one. But I am a proponent of the idea that every club should be required to disclose such info (especially as these sums ultimately get reported in the year-end accounts, in the aggregate, anyway).