Pompey Takeover Saga

[Winchester Red]

Depends if the manager's brief is to make money by selling players (then ok) or to get results on the pitch (not ok).

 

Holloway and Dario Grady are on the same deal

[rallyboy]

Gemmel, re the list of participants - there are a few more supporting roles - Don't forget the manky crack addict that let Avram f"ck her behind a skip, or the kids from the charity who got to go out on the pitch and then got mugged by Storrie as soon as the photographer had gone.

 

Or the kitman's son, he's proved to be proper ITK.

And Ben Haim should get a special mention for doing more damage to the business than David Nugent in taking wages under false pretences - and of course Niemi, he took a load of cash out just for sitting on his ar$e.

 

A cast of thousands....though it's more about quantity than quality.

 

Did we mention the mush who asked Storrie if he was having a larf?...

 

 

 

 

But back to today, Chanrai won't be happy about parachute payments going to players, that's his money.

And they'll need just about all of the money advanced to get them to next season, then what?

[badgerx16]

You don't find it problematic that the manager of the club is given an economical incentive to continually shift players out as he personally cashes in on every transfer? This is the very reason football agents are being called the leeches of the footballing world as they are constantly trying to arrange for a sale of their client so they can get a slice of the cake. PFC took this discrepancy between the sporting interests (keeping a stable squad together) and personal economical interest to an entirely new level - unless this is a phenomenon that is used at every club (which I would frankly find quite shocking!).

 

Is NA on a similar deal? Other clubs?

 

HollowHead is supposed to have the same arrangement here at Bloomfield Road

[Corporate Ho]

This one’s for the real bed wetters on here, but who else is missing from this sordid little list of players (Help with some of Duncans prep and planning ahead of the book, commissioned to start on 21/02/12). I’m sure I’m missing loads…….

 

 

Milan Mandric, Harry Redknapp, Peter Storrie, Sacha Gaydamak, Arcadia Gaydamak, Tanya Robins, Paul Hart, Al Fahim,. Ali Al Faraj, Balram Chanarai, Levi Kushnir, Daniel Azougy, Avram Grant, Mark?? (First lawyer guy) , Andrew Anroid, David Lumpitt, Peter kubik, Steve Clotterill, Vladimir Antonov, Roman Dubov, Michael Appleton, Penny Morant, David Cameron, Mike Handcock,, HMRC, Rosie47, Lithuanian pensioners, Peter Cala, Bad Company.

 

Christ, for investigative genius' who journalists run to for advice (pmsl) you really do miss some big ones, don't you.

 

Try Shlomo Narkis, Yoram Yossifoff, Ron Maneh, Marc Rich, Pierre Falcone, Jean-Christophe Mitterrand, President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, Lev Leviev.

 

All these names have been discussed at length on Pompey Online and in articles written by various Pompey fans for sites such as 200 Percent.

[Scummer]

Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but this to me was the biggest shock of the Redknapp case. It's wrong on so many levels and noone seems to have picked up on it...

 

May also indicate why Redknapp didn't fit in here. Think about it, if you are incentivised on a percentage of net profit made on the difference between the price paid for a player and the price he's sold for, it's in your interest to turn your squad over on a regular basis.

 

It's most definitely not in your interest to bring youth players through the ranks (Lowe's approach), as they wouldn't be included in your bonus scheme.....

[Sevvy]

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/549142777?-11209

 

This makes you want to laugh out loud

[trousers]

@pn_neil_allen: Etuhu future out of #Pompey hands. http://t.co/Xg87CPza

 

Michael Appleton has admitted Kelvin Etuhu’s Pompey future is in the hands of the Football League.

The former Manchester City midfielder has impressed since arriving as a free agent last month.

Appleton had thought he had signed the 23-year-old on a deal until the end of the season, with an option for another 12 months.

 

However, the Football League insisted the deal must be a month-by-month arrangement.

It means their approval is required each month to extend Etuhu’s stay.

 

His initial deal is up on February 20 – the same day as Pompey’s winding-up court hearing.

And Appleton is desperate for the go-ahead to keep him at Fratton Park.

 

He said: ‘Apparently Kelvin is for an initial month – and that was due to the Football League more than us. Kelvin himself would have liked to have signed a proper deal until the end of the season and so would we.

 

‘But due to where we are with the Football League and what we can and can’t do, we have to submit it month-by-month and they assess it month-by-month.

 

‘I can only go by what I am being told.

‘I can’t see there being a problem.

 

‘He’s here at the minute – he has been around the club for three months – and I don’t think we are breaking rules.

‘I don’t think we are gaining any advantage whatsoever.

 

‘We lost a player in Hermann Hreidarsson to Coventry and replaced him with someone like Kelvin, who certainly isn’t getting any more in terms of finance.

 

‘He is very dynamic, quick, strong and has played a lot of football in wide areas.

‘Whether he plays there or centrally I think you have a seen a glimpse of what he’s going to bring to the football club.

‘We want to keep him as long as we can.’

 

Appleton currently possesses just 17 senior players in his squad.

He can ill-afford the possibility of being blocked from retaining Etuhu.

 

Yet the Football League are maintaining close scrutiny on club finances during these worrying times.

Even with the departure of Ryan Williams, league chiefs have refused to give the green light to a replacement.

For the smallest squad in the Football League, it’s going to be another gruelling battle.

Appleton added: ‘This is a part of the season where you need to look after your players, especially one with such a small squad and the age of which they are.

 

‘In February and March you have got to be really careful with the players and make sure you have got eagle eyes.

‘That is a time where you need to look after them and make sure they don’t blow up – like last season.’

 

Edited 9 February, 2012 by trousers

[Saint Lindford]

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/549142777?-11209

 

This makes you want to laugh out loud

 

 

'The club has also been nominated for the Tokio Marine Family Club of the Year'. Surely the SKATES have got an unfair advantage in that award!!

[View From The Top]

Christ, for investigative genius' who journalists run to for advice (pmsl) you really do miss some big ones, don't you.

 

Try Shlomo Narkis, Yoram Yossifoff, Ron Maneh, Marc Rich, Pierre Falcone, Jean-Christophe Mitterrand, President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, Lev Leviev.

 

All these names have been discussed at length on Pompey Online and in articles written by various Pompey fans for sites such as 200 Percent.

 

Maybe those clever pompey folk could explain to us then about this bit of land you own that Tesco's is going to give you £20m for.

[sfc1971]

What is the cut off date for any points deduction to carry over to next season ? I think they are trying to pull a fast one.

[Viking Warrior]

The courts will clear the skates of any wrong doing. The judges like to see the HMRC take a stuffing from good honest working football managers and football clubs.

 

Judges like to release criminals after all . Al Qatada for one. A threat to the uk and he is released.

And I have just watched another dodgy geezer on sky. Anybody else notice he wasnt wearing a seat belt as he drove up to the ,media and then drove away. Scandalous

 

I got done for not wearing a seat belt in a car park > i was putting on before I drove on to the main road. but I still got done.

One rule for the law abiding and one for dodgy geezers. No wonder I have no respect for the judicial system and police

[Lazlo78]

How is it wrong? In any other sector if you make your employer a big profit on a transaction you may have the right to a bonus, so a football manager making profit at what he does best how is that so different.

 

Bankers get bonuses for exactly the same thing,salemen get bonuses for selling more stuff. There's absolutely no difference, buy em cheap,sell them dear.

 

But is that really an apt analogy? As others have pointed out, if for some reason there is value in keeping your assets (in this case players) stable, then why give a key person an economical incentive to sell and buy? Look at our HCDAJFU threads where we discuss potential transfers based on a lot of factors such as current squad, player availability, club ambition, club economical prowess etc. - all from a sports perspective. I don't see us talking about which players could land our staff the biggest bonus.

 

Would you find it to be ok if Adkins currently was on a similar deal? IMHO, such a deal would cast a shade of doubt over every transfer about who's the real beneficiary.

[Appy]

What is the cut off date for any points deduction to carry over to next season ? I think they are trying to pull a fast one.

 

It was March time when it happened to us, but it is probably earlier this year due to the season finishing earlier.

[pfc123]

Depends if the manager's brief is to make money by selling players (then ok) or to get results on the pitch (not ok).

 

Holloway and Dario Grady are on the same deal

 

Exactly. So, a) Redknapp is not guilty of tax evasion, and b) he's not unique in football for negotiatiing a commission on player transfer profits. And to show how 'reckless' Redknapp's purchases were, here are some profit/loss figures on player transfers in and out of FP since Gaydamak arrived until 2009-10:

 

2005/2006: £6,007,500 (transfers in) - £0 (transfers out) = LOSS £6,007,500*

 

2006/2007: £7,609,500 (transfers in) - £6,497,000 (transfers out) = LOSS £1,112,500

 

2007/2008: £46,929,700 (transfers in) - £20,470,000 (transfers out) = LOSS £26,459,700

 

2008/2009: £25,098,000 (transfers in) - £49,083,500 (transfers out) = PROFIT £23,985,500

 

2009/2010: £8,277,000 (transfers in) - £36,757,000 (transfers out) = PROFIT £28,480,000

 

Total Transfer Activity Profit between 2005/06 & 2009/10 = £13,501,300

 

Now, to be fair, from that £13m profit figure we have to take agents fee's on purchases (usually between 5%-10% but we'll say 10%) = £9.3m, + Redknapps commission on sales which we now know was @ 5% = £5.65m.

 

So £14.95m goes out on commission, which leaves the sell on clauses, a lot of which, but not all will equal out as players have moved on again since, i.e. Crouch to Stoke.

 

This is a guess, but the probable overall loss is somewhere between £1.5m and I don't know, £10m? depending on what other fee's were paid to whom.

 

It's pretty clear that there are quite a few people who take a cut on the in's and out's, but even allowing for that and sell on clauses, it's a not a bad record. Very few Premiership clubs make money on players, and it's even more remarkable the fee's we got considering the whole football world knew we were in trouble and had to sell.

 

Where it's gone wrong is that a large chunk of this money, presumably along with a large slice of the Sky tv money was sucked out of the club thus leaving us with a massive hole in the finances.

 

Overall, whether you agree with Redknapp earning a commission or not (and agreed, there is always going to be a temptation to buy rather than bring youth through) his record of buy low, sell high is pretty good.....

[Window Cleaner]

[quote=Lazlo78;1268391

 

Would you find it to be ok if Adkins currently was on a similar deal? IMHO, such a deal would cast a shade of doubt over every transfer about who's the real beneficiary.

 

Wouldn't worry me at all. Football clubs are businesses just like any other. If you've got a competent manager who can make you a few bob by selling players that he no longer wants then he deserves to share in the spoils.

 

Harry Rednapp is a good football manager, more fool us for ****ing him off and not letting him do his job in the only way he knows.

 

Rupert must have taken a few bob from transfers as well mustn't he,in dividends and the like.

[Lazlo78]

Have you taken absurd player wages into account in your calculations?

[Window Cleaner]

Exactly. So, a) Redknapp is not guilty of tax evasion, and b) he's not unique in football for negotiatiing a commission on player transfer profits. And to show how 'reckless' Redknapp's purchases were, here are some profit/loss figures on player transfers in and out of FP since Gaydamak arrived until 2009-10:

 

2005/2006: £6,007,500 (transfers in) - £0 (transfers out) = LOSS £6,007,500*

 

2006/2007: £7,609,500 (transfers in) - £6,497,000 (transfers out) = LOSS £1,112,500

 

2007/2008: £46,929,700 (transfers in) - £20,470,000 (transfers out) = LOSS £26,459,700

 

2008/2009: £25,098,000 (transfers in) - £49,083,500 (transfers out) = PROFIT £23,985,500

 

2009/2010: £8,277,000 (transfers in) - £36,757,000 (transfers out) = PROFIT £28,480,000

 

Total Transfer Activity Profit between 2005/06 & 2009/10 = £13,501,300

 

Now, to be fair, from that £13m profit figure we have to take agents fee's on purchases (usually between 5%-10% but we'll say 10%) = £9.3m, + Redknapps commission on sales which we now know was @ 5% = £5.65m.

 

So £14.95m goes out on commission, which leaves the sell on clauses, a lot of which, but not all will equal out as players have moved on again since, i.e. Crouch to Stoke.

 

This is a guess, but the probable overall loss is somewhere between £1.5m and I don't know, £10m? depending on what other fee's were paid to whom.

 

It's pretty clear that there are quite a few people who take a cut on the in's and out's, but even allowing for that and sell on clauses, it's a not a bad record. Very few Premiership clubs make money on players, and it's even more remarkable the fee's we got considering the whole football world knew we were in trouble and had to sell.

 

Where it's gone wrong is that a large chunk of this money, presumably along with a large slice of the Sky tv money was sucked out of the club thus leaving us with a massive hole in the finances.

 

Overall, whether you agree with Redknapp earning a commission or not (and agreed, there is always going to be a temptation to buy rather than bring youth through) his record of buy low, sell high is pretty good.....

 

 

Now it would seem to me that Harry's commission was on profits on sales and not total sales.5% on 13 million profit would be about 500K or so, not 5.65 million.

[Lazlo78]

Now it would seem to me that Harry's commission was on profits on sales and not total sales.5% on 13 million profit would be about 500K or so, not 5.65 million.

 

Edit: totally misread you there. Previous quite was:

 

"His contract includes commission on net transfer profits of 10%"

Edited 9 February, 2012 by Lazlo78

[Ken Tone]

Surely the really signifcant point here is that he was (is?) on a percentage of all profitable transfers, but does not lose on any deficit transfers? It is an absurd perverse incentive for a club to put in a manager's contract. All he needs to do is sign up loads of players , not caring what silly wages they are on btw, then sell as many as he can. Some are bound to make a profit. He doesn't care if others are left on big wages, millstones around the club's neck, or sold at a huge loss ...not his problem.

 

This is totally different from the sort of incentive scheme that exists in some industries, that might pay a percentage of net, total profit.

 

And the further gobsmacking fact that came out recently is that Storrie was also on a similar deal. You have to wonder how someone like Mandaric ever gotto be rich in the first place when he is that daft!

 

 

Exactly. So, a) Redknapp is not guilty of tax evasion, and b) he's not unique in football for negotiatiing a commission on player transfer profits. And to show how 'reckless' Redknapp's purchases were, here are some profit/loss figures on player transfers in and out of FP since Gaydamak arrived until 2009-10:

 

2005/2006: £6,007,500 (transfers in) - £0 (transfers out) = LOSS £6,007,500*

 

2006/2007: £7,609,500 (transfers in) - £6,497,000 (transfers out) = LOSS £1,112,500

 

2007/2008: £46,929,700 (transfers in) - £20,470,000 (transfers out) = LOSS £26,459,700

 

2008/2009: £25,098,000 (transfers in) - £49,083,500 (transfers out) = PROFIT £23,985,500

 

2009/2010: £8,277,000 (transfers in) - £36,757,000 (transfers out) = PROFIT £28,480,000

 

Total Transfer Activity Profit between 2005/06 & 2009/10 = £13,501,300

 

Now, to be fair, from that £13m profit figure we have to take agents fee's on purchases (usually between 5%-10% but we'll say 10%) = £9.3m, + Redknapps commission on sales which we now know was @ 5% = £5.65m.

 

So £14.95m goes out on commission, which leaves the sell on clauses, a lot of which, but not all will equal out as players have moved on again since, i.e. Crouch to Stoke.

 

This is a guess, but the probable overall loss is somewhere between £1.5m and I don't know, £10m? depending on what other fee's were paid to whom.

 

It's pretty clear that there are quite a few people who take a cut on the in's and out's, but even allowing for that and sell on clauses, it's a not a bad record. Very few Premiership clubs make money on players, and it's even more remarkable the fee's we got considering the whole football world knew we were in trouble and had to sell.

 

Where it's gone wrong is that a large chunk of this money, presumably along with a large slice of the Sky tv money was sucked out of the club thus leaving us with a massive hole in the finances.

 

Overall, whether you agree with Redknapp earning a commission or not (and agreed, there is always going to be a temptation to buy rather than bring youth through) his record of buy low, sell high is pretty good.....

[Window Cleaner]

Exactly. And that's the problem - this isn't about the figure at the bottom line, it's about the enormous amounts of transfers in and out that is above that figure.

 

How so, pfc's figures show that they made an overall profit, how did that contribute to their massive losses,easy answer it didn't.

When your revenues decrease you have to sell assets to boost the balances and lower salarial mass,Harry did that for them.

 

Portsmouth's cash problems are structural and certainly don't come from transfer dealings because at the end of the day they made money from that sector.Their problem seems to be that each new owner just takes on the debt of his predecessor and is always looking for payback,they are bound to lose money because they don't have enough fans to support whatever it is they're trying to do.

[pfc123]

Have you taken absurd player wages into account in your calculations?

 

No. We're not talking about wages, we're talking about is it justifiable for a manager to take a cut on transfers....

[Gemmel]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/pfa_seek_answer_to_pompey_wages_woe_1_3500725?commentspage=2

 

 

PFA looking to help, but pompey players have been brilliant...........

 

 

The club has been through the mangle but the problem is a little bit inherited from the past.‘This has been inherited difficulties coming from not the best financial propriety from the past.’

 

Now is that article saying there is only sixteen million left of parachute payments, or two lots of sixteen. The answer to that question...in my opinion dcitates their fate

[View From The Top]

No. We're not talking about wages, we're talking about is it justifiable for a manager to take a cut on transfers....

 

On this point fish f**ker, I agree that it's a fair thing to do. They buy cheap, improve a player and sell high. No issues from me as long as tax is paid on it!

[pfc123]

Surely the really signifcant point here is that he was (is?) on a percentage of all profitable transfers, but does not lose on any deficit transfers? It is an absurd perverse incentive for a club to put in a manager's contract. All he needs to do is sign up loads of players , not caring what silly wages they are on btw, then sell as many as he can. Some are bound to make a profit. He doesn't care if others are left on big wages, millstones around the club's neck, or sold at a huge loss ...not his problem.

 

This is totally different from the sort of incentive scheme that exists in some industries, that might pay a percentage of net, total profit.

 

And the further gobsmacking fact that came out recently is that Storrie was also on a similar deal. You have to wonder how someone like Mandaric ever gotto be rich in the first place when he is that daft!

 

How the hell can you insert a clause that renders a manager liable for transfer losses?

 

On that basis you buy player 'A' at the age of 29 for say £1m. Three years later at the age of 32 he leaves for a lower league club because his career is winding down for say, £200k. He's given you three very good years, but you're going to penalise the manager because age has caught up with the player are you?

 

If clauses like that were in place, no manager would ever be brave enough to buy anyone for fear that it's going to cost him a fortune if the players worth less when he leaves!

[hutch]

Now is that article saying there is only sixteen million left of parachute payments, or two lots of sixteen. The answer to that question...in my opinion dcitates their fate

They only ever had a maximum of £16m to collect. Advances to see them through their last season in the PL (c.£10m) and the Football Creditors (£22.4m) saw to that.

 

If they still have £16m left to collect, I would be surprised to say the least.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Christ, for investigative genius' who journalists run to for advice (pmsl) you really do miss some big ones, don't you.

 

Try Shlomo Narkis, Yoram Yossifoff, Ron Maneh, Marc Rich, Pierre Falcone, Jean-Christophe Mitterrand, President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, Lev Leviev.

 

All these names have been discussed at length on Pompey Online and in articles written by various Pompey fans for sites such as 200 Percent.

 

Did the Pompey Online forums and 200 Percent articles mention all those figments of your imagination - the Chinese/Scandinavian/African billionaires rich beyond our wildest dreams - that you regularly use to come out with?

[pfc123]

On this point fish f**ker, I agree that it's a fair thing to do. They buy cheap, improve a player and sell high. No issues from me as long as tax is paid on it!

 

Yes, Pony fiddler, I agree. The tax should be paid.

[Lazlo78]

How so, pfc's figures show that they made an overall profit, how did that contribute to their massive losses,easy answer it didn't.

When your revenues decrease you have to sell assets to boost the balances and lower salarial mass,Harry did that for them.

 

Portsmouth's cash problems are structural and certainly don't come from transfer dealings because at the end of the day they made money from that sector.Their problem seems to be that each new owner just takes on the debt of his predecessor and is always looking for payback,they are bound to lose money because they don't have enough fans to support whatever it is they're trying to do.

 

I edited my above post as I totally misread yours. I agree with Ken Tone's argument that pfc123's calculations are useless as HR obviously was not charged money every time he sold a player...

[Lazlo78]

How the hell can you insert a clause that renders a manager liable for transfer losses?

 

On that basis you buy player 'A' at the age of 29 for say £1m. Three years later at the age of 32 he leaves for a lower league club because his career is winding down for say, £200k. He's given you three very good years, but you're going to penalise the manager because age has caught up with the player are you?

 

If clauses like that were in place, no manager would ever be brave enough to buy anyone for fear that it's going to cost him a fortune if the players worth less when he leaves!

 

Ken Tone's argument still stands - he is not arguing that you penalise managers for buying players, he argues that you do not reward them for selling players. This creates a situation where the manager is primarily interested in seeing a lot of players pass through club which is incidentally where the wage issue come in - with the absurd wages given to players it's no shock that you have been able to tap up players at the end of their contracts and later sell them for a handy profit. Consequences? Harry earns dough, player gets silly wages that no other club could compete with, and poor old Pompey is f*cked over again.

 

Yet you defend him and say that you applaud when he has made a profit on the player. Take a look at what it cost your club for Harry to make a buck in the transfer market...

[pfc123]

I edited my above post as I totally misread yours. I agree with Ken Tone's argument that pfc123's calculations are useless as HR obviously was not charged money every time he sold a player...

 

Oh right, so you want the manager to pay a fee every time he sells a player? Interesting idea. Can't see it catching on somehow....

[pfc123]

Ken Tone's argument still stands - he is not arguing that you penalise managers for buying players, he argues that you do not reward them for selling players. This creates a situation where the manager is primarily interested in seeing a lot of players pass through club which is incidentally where the wage issue come in - with the absurd wages given to players it's no shock that you have been able to tap up players at the end of their contracts and later sell them for a handy profit. Consequences? Harry earns dough, player gets silly wages that no other club could compete with, and poor old Pompey is f*cked over again.

 

Yet you defend him and say that you applaud when he has made a profit on the player. Take a look at what it cost your club for Harry to make a buck in the transfer market...

 

It only cost the club because the guy who owned the club started sucking money out and allowing the debt to get higher and higher. How can Redknapp be blamed for that? How many managers get anywhere NEAR balancing the ins and outs? Very, very few...

[Ken Tone]

How the hell can you insert a clause that renders a manager liable for transfer losses?

 

On that basis you buy player 'A' at the age of 29 for say £1m. Three years later at the age of 32 he leaves for a lower league club because his career is winding down for say, £200k. He's given you three very good years, but you're going to penalise the manager because age has caught up with the player are you?

 

If clauses like that were in place, no manager would ever be brave enough to buy anyone for fear that it's going to cost him a fortune if the players worth less when he leaves!

 

Quite ,but that is just another illustration of why/how Redknapp's contraxct was perverse. It encouraged him to work against the interests of the club. It's nt less silly to ignore the same issues when looking at profit.

 

And you can't ignore wages in this.

 

Heis an admittedly exaggerrated example for you, to make the point in simple terms

 

Redknapp signs 10 players for £1 million each, persuading Storrie (who is on same daft incentive deal so is very easily persuaded) to give them all generous 5 year contracts at wages of £2 million per year --which is why so many players are prepared to sign for a small club (eg Tel Ben Haim .. £40 k a week? Sol Campbell .. £100k a week?)

 

One year later one of the 10 has had a fairly successful season and is sold for £2 million. Redknapp and Storrie each get £200,000 (to be fair I'm not sure what percentage Storrie got). The other 9 stay on the books costing the club £18 million a year, not even playing for the first team in some cases, but the club does get the tiny compensation of about £500,000 or less left from the profit on the one successful sale by the time the agents etc had also had their cut.

 

Redknapp then signs some more players, with a similar pattern year after year. Result he gets rich ..club goes broke. Oh and 'Appy 'Arry gets reputation for beig shrewd wheeler dealer. Look at that bloke he signed for only £1million and sold for 2 only a year later.

 

This may seem a familar story to Bournemouth , West Ham , Portsmouth , and presumably one day, Spurs.

[saint si]

Oh right, so you want the manager to pay a fee every time he sells a player? Interesting idea. Can't see it catching on somehow....

 

No i think the point is that that is what your maths implies.

 

To get a real view of the amount Redknapp obtained in bonuses you need to filter down to only the net profitable players.

[TopGun]

One of the posters on the News is claiming that their academy (???) players have been sent home until further notice and will become free agents next week unless the situation is resolved.

[Ken Tone]

Oh right, so you want the manager to pay a fee every time he sells a player? Interesting idea. Can't see it catching on somehow....

 

No of course not, but you should not give in a percentage of profits either! That's just as absurd unless you look at theannual net profit /loss of the business as whole.

[Gemmel]

Can we move on from arry on this thread??

 

I don't see any massive issues in managers being bonused on the the net profit of player sales. I imagine it is fairly common place in football. Sure there are ways to open it up to a bit of abuse, but then there is in most bonus schemes. However if storries bonus scheme really was based on the amount spent, then that was just plain stupid and deserves the scrutiny of the only feasible answer to question...WHY??

[View From The Top]

Quite ,but that is just another illustration of why/how Redknapp's contraxct was perverse. It encouraged him to work against the interests of the club. It's nt less silly to ignore the same issues when looking at profit.

 

And you can't ignore wages in this.

 

Heis an admittedly exaggerrated example for you, to make the point in simple terms

 

Redknapp signs 10 players for £1 million each, persuading Storrie (who is on same daft incentive deal so is very easily persuaded) to give them all generous 5 year contracts at wages of £2 million per year --which is why so many players are prepared to sign for a small club (eg Tel Ben Haim .. £40 k a week? Sol Campbell .. £100k a week?)

 

One year later one of the 10 has had a fairly successful season and is sold for £2 million. Redknapp and Storrie each get £200,000 (to be fair I'm not sure what percentage Storrie got). The other 9 stay on the books costing the club £18 million a year, not even playing for the first team in some cases, but the club does get the tiny compensation of about £500,000 or less left from the profit on the one successful sale by the time the agents etc had also had their cut.

 

Redknapp then signs some more players, with a similar pattern year after year. Result he gets rich ..club goes broke. Oh and 'Appy 'Arry gets reputation for beig shrewd wheeler dealer. Look at that bloke he signed for only £1million and sold for 2 only a year later.

 

This may seem a familar story to Bournemouth , West Ham , Portsmouth , and presumably one day, Spurs.

 

No, not Spurs. Arry has no say in any of the contracts, wages or fees.

[Lazlo78]

Oh right, so you want the manager to pay a fee every time he sells a player? Interesting idea. Can't see it catching on somehow....

 

That's very creative. Do you think I'm suggesting this or just avoiding to comment on the real issue?

 

Basically the situation is a moral one and it has nothing to do with Pompeys demise (even though you keep turning it that way to portray Harry as a hero in unfortunate circumstances). Is it ok for a football manager to receive money for selling players or does it constitue a conflict of interests? Theoretically you could have a manager whose primary goal wasn't to win games, wasn't to build a strong squad, wasn't to invest in the future, wasn't to strengthen the infrastructure of the club - his primary goal was to increase net transfer profits!

 

As stated above my view is that it was a playground for Harry to maximise his profit at the expense of the club. At least an arrangement such as Pompey's opens up for this sort of criticism which could be an argument for steering well clear of it.

 

As an analogy: I usually ask salesmen if they get a fixed wage or are on a commission. If their income is dependent on each sale I find their arguments less credible as they have an economical incentive to sell me goods regardless of what's best for me. So please relate to the question about conflict of interests not on what some idiot with a Yakuza tattoo on his forehead did to you poor souls...

 

Edit: or seemingly, do not relate to the question as others are bored with this particular strand of the discussion. Sorry, let's get back to something about Pompey away attendance figures

Edited 9 February, 2012 by Lazlo78

[trousers]

One of the posters on the News is claiming that their academy (???) players have been sent home until further notice and will become free agents next week unless the situation is resolved.

 

Hmmm.....another 'slight of hand' to ensure their available squad is small enough to warrant 'emergency' signings...?

[daveygwyatt]

Exactly. So, a) Redknapp is not guilty of tax evasion, and b) he's not unique in football for negotiatiing a commission on player transfer profits. And to show how 'reckless' Redknapp's purchases were, here are some profit/loss figures on player transfers in and out of FP since Gaydamak arrived until 2009-10:

 

2005/2006: £6,007,500 (transfers in) - £0 (transfers out) = LOSS £6,007,500*

 

2006/2007: £7,609,500 (transfers in) - £6,497,000 (transfers out) = LOSS £1,112,500

 

2007/2008: £46,929,700 (transfers in) - £20,470,000 (transfers out) = LOSS £26,459,700

 

2008/2009: £25,098,000 (transfers in) - £49,083,500 (transfers out) = PROFIT £23,985,500

 

2009/2010: £8,277,000 (transfers in) - £36,757,000 (transfers out) = PROFIT £28,480,000

 

Total Transfer Activity Profit between 2005/06 & 2009/10 = £13,501,300

 

Now, to be fair, from that £13m profit figure we have to take agents fee's on purchases (usually between 5%-10% but we'll say 10%) = £9.3m, + Redknapps commission on sales which we now know was @ 5% = £5.65m.

 

So £14.95m goes out on commission, which leaves the sell on clauses, a lot of which, but not all will equal out as players have moved on again since, i.e. Crouch to Stoke.

 

This is a guess, but the probable overall loss is somewhere between £1.5m and I don't know, £10m? depending on what other fee's were paid to whom.

 

It's pretty clear that there are quite a few people who take a cut on the in's and out's, but even allowing for that and sell on clauses, it's a not a bad record. Very few Premiership clubs make money on players, and it's even more remarkable the fee's we got considering the whole football world knew we were in trouble and had to sell.

 

Where it's gone wrong is that a large chunk of this money, presumably along with a large slice of the Sky tv money was sucked out of the club thus leaving us with a massive hole in the finances.

 

Overall, whether you agree with Redknapp earning a commission or not (and agreed, there is always going to be a temptation to buy rather than bring youth through) his record of buy low, sell high is pretty good.....

 

Hmmm what happens when you factor in player wages.. Would suggest that the player wage increase dwarfs transfer profit..

[suewhistle]

If you've got a competent manager who can make you a few bob by selling players that he no longer wants then he deserves to share in the spoils.

 

No, no, no! The whole point is that you measure the right thing in order to reward people: whether bottom line club profits or in footie terms league position etc. Rewarding the buying and selling of players distorts the process of achieving success for the club. It's the same in business as I pointed out. Anybody who has dealt with metrics in business/computing knows you have to measure the right thing: no good achieving 100 transactions per person per day if 50% are incorrect or you are miss-selling PPI insurance or whatever..

[Joey-deacons-left-nut]

No. We're not talking about wages, we're talking about is it justifiable for a manager to take a cut on transfers....

 

In most lines of business though, the bonus is at the end of the year out of a bonus pot. Its generally not a percentage of a specific transaction. Otherwise you could do one big transaction that nets a tidy sum and lots of small transactions that make losses that dwarf the profit and still take a bonus.

 

That's why it's dodgy.

[Jonnyboy]

Exactly. So, a) Redknapp is not guilty of tax evasion, and b) he's not unique in football for negotiatiing a commission on player transfer profits. And to show how 'reckless' Redknapp's purchases were, here are some profit/loss figures on player transfers in and out of FP since Gaydamak arrived until 2009-10:

 

2005/2006: £6,007,500 (transfers in) - £0 (transfers out) = LOSS £6,007,500*

 

2006/2007: £7,609,500 (transfers in) - £6,497,000 (transfers out) = LOSS £1,112,500

 

2007/2008: £46,929,700 (transfers in) - £20,470,000 (transfers out) = LOSS £26,459,700

 

2008/2009: £25,098,000 (transfers in) - £49,083,500 (transfers out) = PROFIT £23,985,500

 

2009/2010: £8,277,000 (transfers in) - £36,757,000 (transfers out) = PROFIT £28,480,000

 

Total Transfer Activity Profit between 2005/06 & 2009/10 = £13,501,300

 

Now, to be fair, from that £13m profit figure we have to take agents fee's on purchases (usually between 5%-10% but we'll say 10%) = £9.3m, + Redknapps commission on sales which we now know was @ 5% = £5.65m.

 

So £14.95m goes out on commission, which leaves the sell on clauses, a lot of which, but not all will equal out as players have moved on again since, i.e. Crouch to Stoke.

 

This is a guess, but the probable overall loss is somewhere between £1.5m and I don't know, £10m? depending on what other fee's were paid to whom.

 

It's pretty clear that there are quite a few people who take a cut on the in's and out's, but even allowing for that and sell on clauses, it's a not a bad record. Very few Premiership clubs make money on players, and it's even more remarkable the fee's we got considering the whole football world knew we were in trouble and had to sell.

 

Where it's gone wrong is that a large chunk of this money, presumably along with a large slice of the Sky tv money was sucked out of the club thus leaving us with a massive hole in the finances.

 

Overall, whether you agree with Redknapp earning a commission or not (and agreed, there is always going to be a temptation to buy rather than bring youth through) his record of buy low, sell high is pretty good.....

 

Yet poor old arry is a borderline retard who never went to school and thinks the Internet is an angling term.

It all stinks.

[Corporate Ho]

Maybe those clever pompey folk could explain to us then about this bit of land you own that Tesco's is going to give you £20m for.

 

I've already explained it. Take a look a couple of pages back. PCC have outlined this land and stated they're willing to explore the option of a CPO to reunite it with the club and allow the stadium to be redeveloped. If we last that long

 

The Anybody else notice he wasnt wearing a seat belt as he drove up to the ,media and then drove away. Scandalous

 

I got done for not wearing a seat belt in a car park > i was putting on before I drove on to the main road. but I still got done.

One rule for the law abiding and one for dodgy geezers. No wonder I have no respect for the judicial system and police

 

Life's been cruel to you, hasn't it? It's like reading a Milan Kundera novel

 

Have you taken absurd player wages into account in your calculations?

 

Portsmouth's cash problems are structural and certainly don't come from transfer dealings because at the end of the day they made money from that sector.Their problem seems to be that each new owner just takes on the debt of his predecessor and is always looking for payback,they are bound to lose money because they don't have enough fans to support whatever it is they're trying to do.

 

Hmmm what happens when you factor in player wages.. Would suggest that the player wage increase dwarfs transfer profit..

 

Why is it that despite having it pointed out to you countless times that you keep on about player wages and say we couldn't afford them on our gates? You always (conveniently) forget that the year we won the cup, our turnover was £70m because the SKY deal was pumping nearly £50m a year into our coffers. Gate revenue was of realtively little importance. Even then our gate revenue was far greater than many similar sized PL clubs from the north as our ticket prices were way above theirs.

 

As for where our problems stemmed from, I'd suggest it comes not from transfer fees or wages we paid but more to do (as PFC and I have pointed out before) on where the transfer fees and SKY monies disappeared to - along with owners being allowed to loan debt onto the club and then walk away still legally owed millions despite bankrupting us

[pfc123]

In most lines of business though, the bonus is at the end of the year out of a bonus pot. Its generally not a percentage of a specific transaction. Otherwise you could do one big transaction that nets a tidy sum and lots of small transactions that make losses that dwarf the profit and still take a bonus.

 

That's why it's dodgy.

 

Actually, if a manager wants an incentive clause in his contract, a better way of doing it would be for the football club to propose something llike 'As long as the club is financially sound, you can use any net profit made on player sales to add to our existing player purchase budget.' You then add a personal financial incentive to the manager of a bonus depending on finishing position in the league and progress in the various cup competitions.

 

The bottom line is that these clauses CAN work if drafted carefully, e.g. Dario Gradi at Crewe. He knows he's never likely to get Crewe much above Championship level at best, but at least he has financial inventive in developing youth to be sold on.

 

It's probably the only way Crewe have managed to tempt him to stay for so long, as they almost certainly couldn't compete with some basic salaries he must have been offered over the years by other clubs....

[COMEONYOUREDS]

http://fansonline.net/portsmouth/mb/view.php?id=407077

 

I don't see how those retards can take digs at our attendances, how many did they get against Barnet earlier in the season?

 

4,464

[eurosaint]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/pfa_seek_answer_to_pompey_wages_woe_1_3500725?commentspage=2

 

Interesting that the PFA say that Pompey need the parachute money to pay the players !

It contradicts the view that they have the funds but only the (lack of) validation order is holding them back !!

It's 10 days now since the staff should have been paid and nothing has happened, this strongly implies to me that they are totally skint !!

[hutch]

And Chainrai's statement in the hong Kong press that he has already advanced them the money to pay the January wages.

[pfc123]

Why is it that despite having it pointed out to you countless times that you keep on about player wages and say we couldn't afford them on our gates? You always (conveniently) forget that the year we won the cup, our turnover was £70m because the SKY deal was pumping nearly £50m a year into our coffers. Gate revenue was of realtively little importance. Even then our gate revenue was far greater than many similar sized PL clubs from the north as our ticket prices were way above theirs.

 

As for where our problems stemmed from, I'd suggest it comes not from transfer fees or wages we paid but more to do (as PFC and I have pointed out before) on where the transfer fees and SKY monies disappeared to - along with owners being allowed to loan debt onto the club and then walk away still legally owed millions despite bankrupting us

 

Hmmm, agree. The sobering thing for Pompey fans is the fact that if the Gaydamaks had been straight and not allegedly plundered the cash, there's a good chance that Redknapp would never have walked and that we''d be still in the Premiership now.

 

Whatever. We'll survive in one way or another.....

[Pugwash]

What's all this b0ll0cks about 17 senior players? The only youngster I can see in their squad of 19 is Webster. Yet another massaging of the truth from the South's seediest parlour.