Garcia: <redacted>

[Bozza]

Unless I was under the influence more than I thought... there are also some posts from last night which have been deleted from this thread??

1 deleted (and quotes of that post) and 1 edited (and quotes of that post).

The <redacted> bit was, genuinely, tongue-in-cheek in relation to the Telegraph article being upated and a suggestion, on this thread, that the thread title was changed to reflect that.

 

[Goldstone1976]

People may note that the article in question now has no mention of budgets:



...has become...

Deleted, just for absolute safety.

 

[Titanic]

Now that is interesting. Why would a national newspaper change its copy after publication? Given that it's all in quotation marks, isn't the most likely reason that the paper has conceded that the removed words were not said? Those words were the juiciest part of the article; I can't think of any other reason why they'd be removed...

Anyone in the press care to comment on whether there might be another reason?

Just to clarify, Oscar was not misquoted, but the quote was taken out of context (and the Telegraph were happy to rectify in order to reflect the point Oscar was making). He was speaking about the cost saving the club has had to make to bring down the overall budget of running the club - however the playing budget has increased slightly on that of last year.

That was not always the case (as Tony points out in his SP interview) as we expected to have to cut the playing budget by a small amount. However, the work that went in to cost saving in the summer and additional revenue generation (with huge help from the fans) has meant we have been able to slightly increase the budget.

See above.

 

[Goldstone1976]

See above.

Thanks, I hadn't seen Insider's post when I replied to Bozza's post. Will teach me to read the whole thread before posting!

 

[Tooting Gull]

To be honest, this is one of the plusses of having the good media relations Brighton enjoys and cultivates. The Telegraph and Jon Liew didn't have to change that, as it was said, however awkward. But Brighton are pretty fair with the media, so when the request comes in to the paper that the comment was both unintentional, ambiguous and potentially very misleading and causing an issue, the editor is far more happy to oblige with the alteration.

Contrast this with Forest. They ban media who asks questions they don't like and don't give the same access as the rest of the league to players, so when they lose to Yeovil everyone has a field day. Had Forest made the above request at the moment, it would almost certainly have been rejected.

 

[Stat Brother]

So am I right in thinking this time it wasn't actually 'our' fault.

Not that makes the serious ball ache for Bozza any better.

 

[Acker79]

So am I right in thinking this time it wasn't actually 'our' fault.

Not that makes the serious ball ache for Bozza any better.

No. The original article is still unedited on this thread, whereas one post (and its quotes) has been deleted, and another (and its quotes) edited.

 

[KZNSeagull]

To be honest, this is one of the plusses of having the good media relations Brighton enjoys and cultivates. The Telegraph and Jon Liew didn't have to change that, as it was said, however awkward. But Brighton are pretty fair with the media, so when the request comes in to the paper that the comment was both unintentional, ambiguous and potentially very misleading and causing an issue, the editor is far more happy to oblige with the alteration.

Yup! Good work all round, I would say.

 

[Titanic]

So am I right in thinking this time it wasn't actually 'our' fault.

Not that makes the serious ball ache for Bozza any better.

No - I don't think you are right - I suspect it was the (IMHO LAUGHABLY STUPID) posts that were deleted that were at issue.

 

[Giraffe]

It's gone up, maybe not massively, but it's gone up.

It would have to given the injuries we have and the need for loan players.

What has indisuptedly gone down though is the transfer budget for players. I say indisputedly on the basis Bloom is now saying we won't be active in January. Therefore we have spent no money this season compared to a fair whack last season and the season before last. Understandably so though.

 

[El Presidente]

It would have to given the injuries we have and the need for loan players.

What has indisuptedly gone down though is the transfer budget for players. I say indisputedly on the basis Bloom is now saying we won't be active in January. Therefore we have spent no money this season compared to a fair whack last season and the season before last. Understandably so though.

As has been said before, it depends on how the Albion calculate their player budget. If it is for player wages and transfer fees PAID, then it seems a bit strange that the kitty is bare. However, if transfer fees are spread over the contract terms in the calculations, then a full year's charge for CMS, Ulloa, Buckley et al will take a big chunk out of the budget.

I've asked Insider to clarify on an ATC question, not being a smarty pants, we all care passionately about the Albion, and so a bit of transparency from the club would perhaps restore some goodwill, which seems to have ebbed away for a variety of reasons in recent months.

 

[AZ Gull]

Back on the original topic, Gus signed a five year contract in September 2011, along with Tanno (not sure about Chas).

He was sacked on 23rd June, which went to subsequent appeal, but it would be interesting to see in which year's accounts his compensation (if there is any) for the remainder of his contract appears. If we assume that he is on a good contract (say £1 million a year for him and Tanno) then if this is included in the playing budget (on the grounds that the manager/coach are part of the overall playing staff), then it could reduce what is available for player signings.

Lots of ifs in the above I appreciate, but the numbers might explain some of the confusion. We should also remember that last season the majority of the wages of Bridge, Upson and Hammond were being paid by their parent clubs. I suspect that is the case to a degree with Andrews and Ward though.

El Pres - surely Poyet will not have been entitled to any compensation, given the nature of his dismissal? Why on earth would the club have gone through the process they did, and reached the decision they did, if they were still going to pay compensation at the end of it anyway? Surely they would just have fired him at the end of the season, if that was the case.

Paul Barber, asked about the Poyet situation at the Supporters' Club AGM in August, stated this:

In an era of Financial Fair Play we've got a bigger responsibility than ever to protect the club's assets, including the contracts with personnel and the money those contracts are worth. If we start taking decisions because it's an easy route out then we're in a dangerous situation.

I would find it extraordinary if Poyet was paid any compensation.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

El Pres - surely Poyet will not have been entitled to any compensation, given the nature of his dismissal? Why on earth would the club have gone through the process they did, and reached the decision they did, if they were still going to pay compensation at the end of it anyway? Surely they would just have fired him at the end of the season, if that was the case.

Paul Barber, asked about the Poyet situation at the Supporters' Club AGM in August, stated this:



I would find it extraordinary if Poyet was paid any compensation.

yes it is highly unlikely that Poyet will be paid any compensation however as with all legal wranglings the club will need to budget for the possible outcome of having to pay

 

[B.W.]

Was this sort of article not what the Poyet haters wet themselves about?

Should be an interesting response to it. Our budget isn't the problem, the injuries are.

WTF!!?? How is that article in ANY way similar to Gus' disloyal egocentric loud-mouthed BS!?

 

[El Presidente]

El Pres - surely Poyet will not have been entitled to any compensation, given the nature of his dismissal? Why on earth would the club have gone through the process they did, and reached the decision they did, if they were still going to pay compensation at the end of it anyway? Surely they would just have fired him at the end of the season, if that was the case.

Paul Barber, asked about the Poyet situation at the Supporters' Club AGM in August, stated this:



I would find it extraordinary if Poyet was paid any compensation.

I simply don't know the answer, remember Tanno was reinstated by the club following the investigation, Chas left by 'mutual consent', and Gus's dismissal was confirmed. They are very murky waters, will have to await the accounts coming out to see if it gives any further details.

United paid out £6.3 million to SAF's staff who were dismissed when Moyes was appointed manager, relative chicken feed for a club of that stature, but the numbers in football are eye-watering.

 

[drew]

Care to explain? Unless I am confused, we clearly haven't spent as much money as last year, meaning the budget has gone down?

The point of a budget which no one seems to have mentioned is that it is the available money to spend. We may well not have spent the budget for the year as we may sign someone in January or even further loan signings. If we had spent the entire budget on transfer fees (ie spent by the end of August), including wages and other fees, then we would not be able to bring in loan players without sending others out on loan, and we wouldn't have an option to increase the strength of the team in January. Only a fool would spend the entire budget by the end of August just for the sake of spending it. If the right players aren't available at the right price then you hold some back till they are.

Back on the original topic, Gus signed a five year contract in September 2011, along with Tanno (not sure about Chas).

He was sacked on 23rd June, which went to subsequent appeal, but it would be interesting to see in which year's accounts his compensation (if there is any) for the remainder of his contract appears. If we assume that he is on a good contract (say £1 million a year for him and Tanno) then if this is included in the playing budget (on the grounds that the manager/coach are part of the overall playing staff), then it could reduce what is available for player signings.

Lots of ifs in the above I appreciate, but the numbers might explain some of the confusion. We should also remember that last season the majority of the wages of Bridge, Upson and Hammond were being paid by their parent clubs. I suspect that is the case to a degree with Andrews and Ward though.

Has Poyet actually initiated legal proceedings against the club. He said he would but not sure anything has actually been confirmed. The appeal was an internal appeal which concurred with the original decision.

 

[AZ Gull]

I simply don't know the answer, remember Tanno was reinstated by the club following the investigation, Chas left by 'mutual consent', and Gus's dismissal was confirmed. They are very murky waters, will have to await the accounts coming out to see if it gives any further details.

United paid out £6.3 million to SAF's staff who were dismissed when Moyes was appointed manager, relative chicken feed for a club of that stature, but the numbers in football are eye-watering.

I'm sure there WOULD have been compensation for Tanno and Oatway, as they weren't terminated. But if there was compensation paid to Poyet, I simply don't know why the club would have gone through the process they did.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

the other point is the club don't want to give the impression to other clubs that they have money to spend as if they stated they had 2m to spend in jan, the selling clubs would think they could push for more however if they say we're not going to spend in january and then change their mind they might be in a slightly stronger position to get the best price.

Also doesn't it undermine the current players saying in september/october that they will be buying replacements in january and therefore possibly affect squad moral?

 

[cloud]

I would have thought it would improve player morale, since it increases the likelihood of playing in the Premiership

 

[AZ Gull]

yes it is highly unlikely that Poyet will be paid any compensation however as with all legal wranglings the club will need to budget for the possible outcome of having to pay

I simply don't know the answer, remember Tanno was reinstated by the club following the investigation, Chas left by 'mutual consent', and Gus's dismissal was confirmed. They are very murky waters, will have to await the accounts coming out to see if it gives any further details.

If Walt Jabsco's write-up on Tony Bloom's Q&A with the NWSS is accurate, the club does not expect Poyet to follow through with a legal claim, and they have not made a charge to the accounts for a potential financial settlement.