so its now come to light there is no sell on clause as Millwall have paid less than Barnsley gave us.Its common knowledge that they have paid 1.2 million so how much did we get and where has it gone?absolute disgrace and yet more cloak and dagger dealings to hide stuff from fans yet again.lets get these protests started its a joke from top to bottom and we are being taken for mugs.
6 Likes
Where does it says no sell on?
Answer from club to question at working party meeting. We get nothing because they sold him for less than they paid. Given all the instalments and incrementals, the headline figure is probably much higher than the real number, which is probably closer to the GBP600,000 touted when we sold him. Not making excuses, just squashing the sensationalism out of this. Whatever we got, I’m sure it went somewhere in the club, just hard to see as the club don’t ever tell supporters anything, and hide behind the most opaque annual accounts they can produce (and why shouldn’t they?).
4 Likes
I remember asking Dan Mole on Twitter some time back about the Bradshaw Sell on , and In return I received a really sharpe message telling me to leave him alone …
I understand why now … idiot
1 Like
“They are fans at heart but they have a clear vision for the club, they want success and are prepared to work tirelessly for it.”- that was a quote from Luton’'s ex manager towards the board on joining Stoke. Knowone will ever say that about the board Members at Walsall. Bunch of self serving parasites only interested in feathering their own nest. No wonder every transfer is undisclosed!
3 Likes
In all fairness they probably do work hard on the commercial side of the business. I think that’s clear .
1 Like
I remember a figure of £650k being mentioned for Bradshaw: where has the other £600k gone then if Millwall have paid £1.2million and that is less than what Barnsley have given to us? Add in the £1.5 million for Henry and the various other bits from Forde, Deeney add ons and you’ve got nearly £3 million. Where has that been “invested”? It sure as hell ain’t been invested in ground improvements and I don’t remember any big signings over the last 2 years (if you discount Makris who didn’t cost us much net). Walsall F(inancial) C(oncern) - still raking it in for the Pension Fund.
1 Like
Not wanting to sound like a broken record, but it doesn’t matter whether we got £100000 or £1m for Tom Bradshaw.
The effect on the club is the same either way.
5 Likes
You’re absolutely right. I find it really hard to care about this because ultimately any sell on fee wouldn’t be reinvested where it should be anyway.
But unless anyone wants to suggest something fraudulent (and I’d think very carefully before doing that), that transfer money comes into the club and will potentially be used for paying off the owner’s loans to the club, making it far more possible for it to be sold. Is that not the case?
Nobody is suggesting anything fraudulent. But if you don’t reinvest the FULL amount of a transfer in the replacement(s) you are weakening your team.
The play off team was sold en masse, and if they weren’t sold they went on frees and the wages were freed up. I really can’t see where that money went.
We turn a profit every year whether we sell players or not. And that is after any debts are paid. There’s nothing risky about saying this, you can read it in their accounts for yourself.
We are told the club is ran really well financially and is secure. Question is if we receive transfer fees and have to use these on the playing budget to survive, does that mean that if we didn’t unearth or develop a gem we could sell on after a season or two we could be in dire financial trouble?
I would want to know much more before coming to that conclusion. The fact is that we don’t know how much we got for him.We don’t know how much Millwall have bought him for ,We don’t know how both deals are structured.How much is paid up front? How are further payments staged? What we do know is that until recently it has been club policy to only reinvest 50% of transfer monies in the playing budget although I seem to recall that is now 60:40. I suggested last year when meetings where held with JB that this policy be changed so that the Manager is given ALL incoming fees to use.I think those that went made the point but clearly the Club have not responded as we would all like.
The Club must be reasonably “flush” with incoming monies at the moment though since Henry has returned to the first team and I think we get paid so much per game with triggers at 25,50 and 75 games.It will be interesting to see how we use those monies in this window and in the Summer.
Agreed…indeed the one tiny chink of light at the moment is that year on year our indebtedness to JB falls. I would like to see it fall quicker but I do wonder if the falls of the last few years are part of an exit strategy which nobody except JB knows about. Hope springs eternal!!!
We make those repayments BEFORE the profit figure is calculated. And that profit figure is generated whether we sell players or not.
This is not an excuse for not reinvesting the transfer fees made. We are capable of doing both.
Have a read of http://priceoffootball.com/tag/walsall/
Someone with more financial sense than I could make some sense of it, but an interesting read if you’ve not seen it before.
Blockquote from link above
The club clearly have a tight wage budget set each year, but the wage to income ratio increased from 53% to 58%, meaning that the club was paying out ÂŁ58 in wages for every ÂŁ100 of income that was generated in 2017/18. This compares to an average of 100% for clubs in the Championship.
It also says:
Blockquote
It does seem that whilst Walsall are one of the lowest wage payers in the division, they are one of the most generous tenants to their landlord.
8 Likes
Great to see it in writing.
Thanks for the analysis on the club finances. It confirms what a lot of us had already deducted from the figures.
1 Like
Which payments? Loan repayments? If you think those come off profit, can I suggest you look into it a bit further. Loan repayments are balance sheet items, nothing to do with profit. Any interest on the loans,however, would be charged against profit. I honestly can’t remember if he loans us interest free or not.
Where did I say they sit on your profit and loss? My point is that they DON’T effect the profit we make. That we keep up with the payments AND turn a profit WITHOUT reinvesting in the first team.
He does charge interest on the loans. £50,000. £5000 “Other Loan Interest Payable”. And £45,000 “Other Interest Payable” which to be fair could be anything I don’t know if that is connected to Bonser.
All besides the point anyway. He’s the chairmen of the club and it’s main creditor. I don’t really care how he arranges the finances, or what money he’s passing from one hand to the other, he’s not reinvesting where he should.