Things getting tetchy at 'Boro?

[El Presidente]

Transparent when it suits them it seems...

 

[Buzzer]

Because it would want to remain within a very lucrative league, even if disclosure of transfer fees was a hard and fast rule with which they would have to comply. Of course, if they didn't like it, they would have an absolute right to leave. Wonder who would take, say, Stoke or Swansea's places if they refused to comply; I suspect there'd be quite a long waiting list.

Disclosing fees offers no benefit to the buying club and every benefit to their rivals and future transfer prospects and agents. It doesn't level the playing field but rather queer the pitch by moving any bargaining advantage away from the club. Furthermore, the FA/FL have no jurisdiction on individual deals, how much money players earn and how much they are bought and sold for - and rightly so therefore it would be an odd and unnecessary rule if the FA/FL demanded extra information from football clubs when they can't do anything with it. This mandatory disclosure you're proposing serves no useful purpose.

All clubs are limited companies therefore they are audited every year to ensure everything is above board financially. The auditor's report is the key bit of information that the football authorities should spend time on.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

"As a club, we are keen to ensure our fans receive the correct information and facts rather than read misinformation from outside sources."

If that were true, one possible way to ensure it happened would be to, ooh, I don't know, publish said information yourselves in the first place?

Most amusing piece on one Ramirez, G, on that same newspaper's website. Even carries the suggestion that his sulking reached such epic proportions last season that one of his teammates intervened physically. Chortle.

Did he allow Ramirez to kick his foot?

 

[Motogull]

I think life is always tetchy at Boro. I'm not sure the chairman is quite the club hero some think he is.

 

[WhingForPresident]

Boro seem to have developed a case of the Massives. Will have a good chortle if they cock up again next season.

 

[GT49er]

Disclosing fees offers no benefit to the buying club and every benefit to their rivals and future transfer prospects and agents. It doesn't level the playing field but rather queer the pitch by moving any bargaining advantage away from the club. Furthermore, the FA/FL have no jurisdiction on individual deals, how much money players earn and how much they are bought and sold for - and rightly so therefore it would be an odd and unnecessary rule if the FA/FL demanded extra information from football clubs when they can't do anything with it. This mandatory disclosure you're proposing serves no useful purpose.

All clubs are limited companies therefore they are audited every year to ensure everything is above board financially. The auditor's report is the key bit of information that the football authorities should spend time on.

I never said it would benefit the buying club. The FA/FL can make whatever rules they like, and clubs can choose to obey them, or resign (none will).
I want to see an end to 'undisclosed fee', simple as that. For some strange reason, you don't.

 

[crasher]

Disclosing fees offers no benefit to the buying club and every benefit to their rivals and future transfer prospects and agents. It doesn't level the playing field but rather queer the pitch by moving any bargaining advantage away from the club. Furthermore, the FA/FL have no jurisdiction on individual deals, how much money players earn and how much they are bought and sold for - and rightly so therefore it would be an odd and unnecessary rule if the FA/FL demanded extra information from football clubs when they can't do anything with it. This mandatory disclosure you're proposing serves no useful purpose.

All clubs are limited companies therefore they are audited every year to ensure everything is above board financially. The auditor's report is the key bit of information that the football authorities should spend time on.

There's a lot of logic in what you say but as someone else pointed out, figures who work within the game (managers, agents, chairmen) will know the fees anyway. The real beneficiaries of transparency would be fans.

 

[Buzzer]

I never said it would benefit the buying club. The FA/FL can make whatever rules they like, and clubs can choose to obey them, or resign (none will).
I want to see an end to 'undisclosed fee', simple as that. For some strange reason, you don't.

Fair enough! We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Buzzer]

The real beneficiaries of transparency would be fans.

Genuine question - what would be the benefit to fans of knowing this information? Speaking personally, I don't feel that knowing how much we bought Gross has any significance other than satisfying my curiosity. I'm not trying to be clever here, honestly. I just fail to see the need for it.

 

[El Presidente]

Disclosing fees offers no benefit to the buying club and every benefit to their rivals and future transfer prospects and agents. It doesn't level the playing field but rather queer the pitch by moving any bargaining advantage away from the club. Furthermore, the FA/FL have no jurisdiction on individual deals, how much money players earn and how much they are bought and sold for - and rightly so therefore it would be an odd and unnecessary rule if the FA/FL demanded extra information from football clubs when they can't do anything with it. This mandatory disclosure you're proposing serves no useful purpose.

All clubs are limited companies therefore they are audited every year to ensure everything is above board financially. The auditor's report is the key bit of information that the football authorities should spend time on.

You've got far more faith in auditors than I have, and most small companies are exempt from audits these days anyway.

My big issue in terms of transparency in relation to football is clubs taking advantage of small company exemptions in relation to what is submitted to Companies House.

IMO football clubs are different to most other businesses because they act as a key part of the town/city in terms of bringing people together, and therefore those who support them (not just fans, suppliers who give generous credit terms too etc.) should be entitled to reasonable scrutiny.

It's a shame that the FL don't insist that all clubs submit a full set of accounts to Companies House, wouldn't cost a penny to the club, wouldn't disclose anything too sensitive (as they are usually 9 months out of date anyway) but would at least allow fans to have a greater understanding of the financial performance and position.

 

[El Presidente]

Genuine question - what would be the benefit to fans of knowing this information? Speaking personally, I don't feel that knowing how much we bought Gross has any significance other than satisfying my curiosity. I'm not trying to be clever here, honestly. I just fail to see the need for it.

Agreed on this one, we're just nosey as fans!

 

[Buzzer]

You've got far more faith in auditors than I have, and most small companies are exempt from audits these days anyway.

If the audit is unsatisfactory then the problem lies with the audit firm, not the football club. We both know that there's mandatory checks and disclosures required and that all audit firms work within the same framework. And we also both know that the majority of the 92 clubs are well above the audit threshold with turnover and number of staff so all clubs in the top 2 divisions will be audited.

 

[trueblue]

Genuine question - what would be the benefit to fans of knowing this information? Speaking personally, I don't feel that knowing how much we bought Gross has any significance other than satisfying my curiosity. I'm not trying to be clever here, honestly. I just fail to see the need for it.

Sort of agree....but the fee does provide some context when fans are wondering whether a transfer should be considered a success. If a club's landed some absolute bargains, then you feel it's being well-run, whereas over-priced stinkers give the opposite view. And while football clubs are private companies and increasingly don't actually need the money we pump in, most would accept that being accountable to the fans is part of what keeps it a 'club'.

 

[El Presidente]

Sort of agree....but the fee does provide some context when fans are wondering whether a transfer should be considered a success. If a club's landed some absolute bargains, then you feel it's being well-run, whereas over-priced stinkers give the opposite view. And while football clubs are private companies and increasingly don't actually need the money we pump in, most would accept that being accountable to the fans is part of what keeps it a 'club'.

Whilst fees aren't disclosed, there's always a ball park figure doing the rounds, so fans can still form an opinion.

Assombalonga's deemed success at Boro won't be impacted by whether the fee is £14m or £15m surely?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[El Presidente]

so all clubs in the top 2 divisions will be audited.

...and that includes small clubs such as Crystal Palace

 

[BrianWade4]

Without going into the rights and wrongs of this particular quarrel (I've no idea who is right and who is wrong, and I don't really care) but isn't it about time that 'undisclosed fee' was outlawed by the football authorities. Presumably the clubs have to disclose the information to FIFA/UEFA/the FA/the PL/the EFL or whoever? If so, they should publish it - or make it a rule that it must be disclosed by the club.
Not the wages; just the transfer fee plus add-ons.

If they also passed on details of the agents' commission to the Inland Revenue, I wouldn't mind that too much!

Totally agree
Modern football is a cesspit

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Sort of agree....but the fee does provide some context when fans are wondering whether a transfer should be considered a success. If a club's landed some absolute bargains, then you feel it's being well-run, whereas over-priced stinkers give the opposite view. And while football clubs are private companies and increasingly don't actually need the money we pump in, most would accept that being accountable to the fans is part of what keeps it a 'club'.

I don't see the benefit myself - what difference would it have made if we had spent £15m on knockaert rather than the fee of approximately £2m which we paid for his services?

How would that change (for the better) the way fans take to and get behind new signings or do they carry on with what we have seen in the past and feel they are a cheap often and therefore not good enough for our ambition even though they are yet to kick a ball in anger for the club?

Can't we just judge players by what they do on the pitch rather than try to tie it into other factors like fees and wages, previous clubs played for... etc....

 

[drew]

I thought the fa already knew playerz wages and fees as don't all contracts have to be lodged with them?

As knowing the fees, surely the only gripe is that it doesn't satisfy so.e fans idle curiosity. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[El Presidente]

I don't see the benefit myself - what difference would it have made if we had spent £15m on knockaert rather than the fee of approximately £2m which we paid for his services?

How would that change (for the better) the way fans take to and get behind new signings or do they carry on with what we have seen in the past and feel they are a cheap often and therefore not good enough for our ambition even though they are yet to kick a ball in anger for the club?

Can't we just judge players by what they do on the pitch rather than try to tie it into other factors like fees and wages, previous clubs played for... etc....

I'm with you on this. I think for some fans it's a vanity issue, "Look at me as my team has just spunked £25m on Carlos Kickaball" regardless of how good Carlos is at football.

As far as the Albion are concerned, the best signing they made this summer to date IMO is that of Dale Stephens. In the open market and contracted to a club he would be a £15 million signing based on today's prices.

 

[Weststander]

As far as the Albion are concerned, the best signing they made this summer to date IMO is that of Dale Stephens. In the open market and contracted to a club he would be a £15 million signing based on today's prices.

Totally this. Our best CM and a leader.

Even the posters who didn't rate DS back in May have gone quiet on his many 'weaknesses'.