[Football] Undisclosed

[dejavuatbtn]

I quite like the fact that we appear to be the exception to bragging about how much we have spent on transfers. As others have said, Bloom is a poker player. Don’t give any information away unless you really have to.
Let’s just judge the players on how well they play and not how much they cost.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Because there is no advantage whatsoever in telling every other club what we paid for a player

I'm guessing that the big clubs' mega transfers release the numbers for commercial reasons (because it helps shirt sales, image and tv rights, and probably increases overseas income etc)

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I am guessing so when we buy future players other clubs do not use the fee quoted to inflate their price and likewise when we sell they don’t know how much money we have in our pockets

Both clubs agree secrecy, for commercial reasons.

But I have faith in the figures eventually stated by the BBC, Argus and broadsheets. Sometimes the club later give the media a clue, to get it out there in quashing wild exaggerations with "The club have let it be known that figures quoted are wide of the mark" or "Press reports stating a club record fee was paid are incorrect".

A year later, the published company accounts give accurate information on aggregate sums paid in a season and post balance sheet, in the notes to the accounts and directors report.

But this doesn't really answer the point, because surely all clubs will follow the same thinking. Yet when you look at lists of transfers in the papers, almost every transfer has a valuation against it except Brighton's, which are all 'undisclosed', undisclosed', 'undisclosed'.

So I don't think that this secrecy is the real reason why our fees are undisclosed. I think it is because our local journalists don't push the club or have sources, whereas at other clubs there is far more of an effort to get the real figures out there - or at least a best-guess estimate.

 

[Lindfield by the Pond]

I'd like to know, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter who spent what.

This piece from planetfootball.com looks at the correlation between amount spent and final league position.

https://www.planetfootball.com/in-depth/investigating-whether-link-transfer-spend-pl-position/

Wolves and Fulham beware, splashing the cash don't mean a thing. Although last year we were the expception, 15th highest spenders who finished 15th.

Our Net spend was 5th highest in last summers transfer window.

 

[Lurchy]

I quite like the fact that we appear to be the exception to bragging about how much we have spent on transfers. As others have said, Bloom is a poker player. Don’t give any information away unless you really have to.
Let’s just judge the players on how well they play and not how much they cost.

It's largely because we don't have to disclose that information. A lot of the other clubs who do disclose have no choice, they legally have to do it due to the 'ownership' model. If a club is listed on a stock exchange they have to disclose the fee (whether they are the buying or the selling club, as it could affect their share price).

I think it is because our local journalists don't push the club or have sources, whereas at other clubs there is far more of an effort to get the real figures out there - or at least a best-guess estimate.

A lot of the clubs we deal with aren't listed on one of the stock exchanges, so there's no need for them to disclose either that makes things a little bit more difficult. Naylor often puts in his coverage a rough figure or shoots one down if what's being reported is massively out. Also think we as a club have a little bit more class than the majority of the others clubs in even letting out figures! Why weaken your hand when you don't have to?

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

Our Net spend was 5th highest in last summers transfer window.

According to a piece in the Telegraph, to reach the top 6, you need to be in the top 6 spenders for both transfers and wages.

If only we payed Dale Stephens £400k a week.

 

[lancyclaret]

Undisclosed means that the club does not want to let fans know that they (the club) have paid over the odds for a player.

If the club thinks they have made a good deal (bargain), it often lets fans know the exact amount.

Similar when selling. Announce the fee if club receives more than it hoped; undisclosed if received less than it hoped.

 

[grawhite]

Why are the majority of our signing fees 'undisclosed', not just in this window but previous ones also? Just curious!!

Probably because we’re not a club that like to gloat, look at what we spent on a player.

 

[GT49er]

Bloom’s wealth is also undisclosed perhaps it’s how he prefers to do business.

Daft comparison. That's entirely different from transfer fees - and it's private. Same as the player's wages - wouldn't expect that to be made public either.

Why do you need to know so badly?

Because I'm interested, OK? It used to be exciting when we bought a new player at a price which seemed amazing at the time. £25K for Ken Beamish - wow! we've got a £25K striker! £400K a few years later for Michael Robinson - yes, knowing the size of the fees was all part of the fun.