John Egan Money

I have noticed a convenient theme here. I am not saying Scally is wrong, he probably cant get the money straight away but he is saying in the article we budget 750k in transfers and sell on for the normal budget. I thought this figure has always been 500k. It is just very handy to say we budget for whatever figure we get in thus never having any spare cash to strengthen the side????
 
I raised my eyebrow over that figure. It was usually £500k, this season it’s £750k. Surely there’s no nowhere near as big a financial outlay needed next season that would cause such a shortfall again? Tiny budget, ok crowds for the league, surely making a profit on the RE/MS corner by then? Even taking Anderson into account. We’re not Scunthorpe where every season we’re spending 140% of the precious turnover on budget.
 
Is it £500k? Is it £750k? Does it matter? The theme is the same. The club needs a decent transfer fee every season to balance the books.

I think the interesting thing is the timing of the payments. I would have thought that this would have all been written down in the transfer/tribunal documents. Why is there any cause for debate?
 
Trashbat said:
Why is there any cause for debate?
Click to expand...
Because it's Scally?

With no loans supposedly and, therefore, no interest to pay the clubs coffers should be swelling.

As you say, it should be written down somewhere and agreed or there is [say] an EFL standard. Surely, it cannot come as a surprise.
 
Trev_GFC said:
I raised my eyebrow over that figure. It was usually £500k, this season it’s £750k.
Click to expand...

As the article says Scally plans to take it up with the league, it could be a case he is putting the higher figure out there in order to imply to the league that we need the money paid promptly in order to survive.

Trashbat said:
think the interesting thing is the timing of the payments. I would have thought that this would have all been written down in the transfer/tribunal documents. Why is there any cause for debate?
Click to expand...

The headline says we are "facing a wait for sell-on cash" which suggests Brentford will be happy to delay passing on any fees for a month or two and take the bank interest. I doubt they will authorise the passing on the money they owe us the same day the transfer fee appears in their bank account.

Scally has a reputation according to some for being a late payer and maybe he feels Brentford are guilty of the same in this case.
 
Trev_GFC said:
, ok crowds for the league,
Click to expand...

For us to need another £250k would only need a drop of around 700 season ticket sales which is a distinct possibility.

However I agree with what you say in that Scally will probably say later today that we had always budgeted based on getting £12M for Holy.
 
The way I read the article was that Sheff Utd would be paying the transfer fee over two years - that would make it only right that Brentford don’t give us the money up front. I can’t see any other reason for Brentford to cling onto the money unless there was something in the transfer agreement when he left us.
 
Wayne.Kerr said:
As you say, it should be written down somewhere and agreed or there is [say] an EFL standard. Surely, it cannot come as a surprise.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is written down and Brentford aren't doing what's been agreed? Maybe Brentford are only being paid in installments and are trying to pay us in the same way?
 
madrid_gill said:
Maybe it is written down and Brentford aren't doing what's been agreed? Maybe Brentford are only being paid in installments and are trying to pay us in the same way?
Click to expand...

No, no, no Madrid.

No one on here has any idea what is going on with that transfer deal. But it must be Scally at fault. Get with the program.
 
OneSirKeefy said:
No, no, no Madrid.

No one on here has any idea what is going on with that transfer deal. But it must be Scally at fault. Get with the program.
Click to expand...
Our issue isn’t with the repayment for this, it’s the fact that we’re making £750k loss before transfer fees. Baghdad Rob may be on to something re: overstating losses, as we were probably doing the same re: Centreplate.
 
nibbles said:
...that would make it only right that Brentford don’t give us the money up front.
Click to expand...

This is not what we think is right or wrong. It is what is written in to the commercial contract.

The cash flows that Brentford have negotiated with Sheff Utd are independent of the cash flows that were agreed between Gillingham and Brentford.

Bottom line is: none of us know.

Similar thing happening on the other thread about Freeman’s sell on fee. No-body knows! The sell-on fee could be based on profit. It could be based on the actual fee. Freeman’s sell on fee could be for subsequent sales or it could only relate to the first sale. Unless you have visibility of the contract, you don’t know.

Apologies for picking on you nibbles. :-)
 
The truth is we have no idea of what was concluded in the first agreement.

It's not uncommon for clubs to pay by instalments and, if that was the case, if I were in Brentforfd's shoes I'd want any sell on liability to follow suit. It could be that Gillingham is due a percentage of the agreed fee regardless of the payment terms. We just don't know.

Remember, Scally complained about the ITV Digital deal, although he was more than happy to sign up; he also thought that play-off finalists should get more from the Wembley pot instead of being grateful for having another stab at promotion.
Baghdad_Rob said:
As the article says Scally plans to take it up with the league, it could be a case he is putting the higher figure out there in order to imply to the league that we need the money paid promptly in order to survive.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't accept any figures, who would, unless audited; otherwise he could dream up anything to suit.
Baghdad_Rob said:
The headline says we are "facing a wait for sell-on cash" which suggests Brentford will be happy to delay passing on any fees for a month or two and take the bank interest. I doubt they will authorise the passing on the money they owe us the same day the transfer fee appears in their bank account.
Click to expand...
That is pure speculation and largely irrelevant if you look again at the article.
 
Wayne.Kerr said:
That is pure speculation and largely irrelevant if you look again at the article.
Click to expand...

Everything in this thread is based upon speculation, including your own comments :shrug: People are speculating as to what the article could mean. I doubt the journalist who wrote the article really knows 100% either.
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
Everything in this thread is based upon speculation, including your own comments :shrug: People are speculating as to what the article could mean. I doubt the journalist who wrote the article really knows 100% either.
Click to expand...
Baghdad_Rob said:
Everything in this thread is based upon speculation, including your own comments :shrug: People are speculating as to what the article could mean. I doubt the journalist who wrote the article really knows 100% either.
Click to expand...
I n
Baghdad_Rob said:
Everything in this thread is based upon speculation, including your own comments :shrug: People are speculating as to what the article could mean. I doubt the journalist who wrote the article really knows 100% either.
Click to expand...
I never said it was anything but speculation, although my comments were what you might expect to see in an agreement. As regards the media article, rest assured that Scally penned it or had a say in what was published.
 
Trashbat said:
This is not what we think is right or wrong. It is what is written in to the commercial contract.

The cash flows that Brentford have negotiated with Sheff Utd are independent of the cash flows that were agreed between Gillingham and Brentford.

Bottom line is: none of us know.

Similar thing happening on the other thread about Freeman’s sell on fee. No-body knows! The sell-on fee could be based on profit. It could be based on the actual fee. Freeman’s sell on fee could be for subsequent sales or it could only relate to the first sale. Unless you have visibility of the contract, you don’t know.

Apologies for picking on you nibbles. :-)
Click to expand...

No need to apologise - didn't feel I was being picked on - until you apologised for picking on me that is. I now feel I'm being picked on and feel a second apology for the first apology is in order.

A key factor would be what constitutes 'profit' - is it when the money lands in the Brentford account or when it appears on their balance sheet as money owed to them?

I would argue that until the money is in Brentford's account no profit has been made as Sheff Utd could go under and not pay Brentford a penny more (as unlikely as that is). Therefore the cash flows agreed between Sheff Utd and Brentford would affect those between Brentford and Gillingham.
 
As the Egan transfer was decided by FL tribunal I would've thought payment details would be fairly clear.

Not sure why a club with no debt and that owns its own ground would need to return £750k in players transfers, when a club that had a £10m debt and didn't own its own ground only needed to return £500k.I guess only one person will know the answer to that.
 
So presumably,if we don't sell a player or get a sell on fee from a previous sell, we'd go bust?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.