CONFIMRED: Sone Aluko

[genome]

Did we get something for Gylfi then?

Probably calculating this wrong but my workings are showing we should've got £1,125,000 from the Gylfi sale to Everton

[Sutekh]

But is he better than McCleary or Barrow? Will he have to wait for an injury to one of those two?

And could Reading field 11 wingers yet?

He's the best male member of the Aluko family....

That's actually debatable depending on how you want to classify "best". His uncle is professor of Chemical Engineering at Howard University in Washington

Additionally he may not even be the best footballer in his family as his sister, Eniola, plays for Chelsea and England.

[The Reverend]

I guess this demonstrates that Financial Fair Play is finally dead and buried? - not that it ever existed for 'big' clubs like QPR who seemed to be allowed to breach the regulations at will and without effective sanction.

It depends how the deals are structured. I doubt we're paying out £7.5m in one lump sum, I expect it's spread over the life of his contract and incentivised, so we won't be making significant losses due to this transfer. It's just another way clubs can skirt round it. Most Championship clubs will be doing it though. And given PSG are making a mockery of FFP with the Mbappe loan/buy deal, they seriously need to go and have a re-think about the whole thing.

I think I read (after Neymar to PSG) that the fee can be spread across the term of the contract - so Sone will impact the FFP rules by <£2M. Lots less if the deal's structured and we don't incur the extras via promotion etc

[muirinho]

current age doesn't matter, the rule is to compensate the developing clubs throughout the players career via transfer fees.

I am confused at some of the detail though. Was just reading on the old Solidarity Mechanism before it was updated and it said that one prominent case was Robbie Keane moving from Leeds to Spurs. When it happened Crumlin United in Ireland were due money as he was there as a schoolboy. A year afterwards it was challenged and overturned and they had to give the money back.

My understanding is they fought for, and got, the money when he moved from Leeds to Spurs. But after that they changed the rules, so when he went from Spurs to Liverpool, they got none of that. The reason is the same reason we wouldn't anything for Gylfi unless he transfers abroad!

http://www.herald.ie/sport/soccer/no-ca ... 80255.html

Now, the schoolboy club who produced the player will only get a payment if the player moves when he's under 23 and if he moves to a club outside of the country. As Robbie is over 23 and is staying in England, we get nothing this time around

Note the bit about club outside the country. Once a player is over 23, it's only international transfers that lead to solidarity payments.

Training compensation will be payable when a player signs his first professional contract with a club that is different from the club(s) that contributed to his training;
By contrast, solidarity payments will only be payable upon the international transfer of a player who is already a professional;

From Law In Sport
https://www.lawinsport.com/articles/ite ... n-football

[Sutekh]

I guess this demonstrates that Financial Fair Play is finally dead and buried? - not that it ever existed for 'big' clubs like QPR who seemed to be allowed to breach the regulations at will and without effective sanction.

It depends how the deals are structured. I doubt we're paying out £7.5m in one lump sum, I expect it's spread over the life of his contract and incentivised, so we won't be making significant losses due to this transfer. It's just another way clubs can skirt round it. Most Championship clubs will be doing it though. And given PSG are making a mockery of FFP with the Mbappe loan/buy deal, they seriously need to go and have a re-think about the whole thing.

Really get fed up with all this lack of visibility and everything being undisclosed and messed at. I think ALL transfer fees for all clubs should have to be declared as well as how that fee is constructed.

When was the last time Reading actually stated how much they paid for a player?

[Sutekh]

Can anyone tell me what Carabao actually tastes like?

Just like any other energy drink. The apple one is actually really nice, they were giving out samples at the play off final.

All energy drinks taste ****** awful. HTH.

[Sanguine]

I think I read (after Neymar to PSG) that the fee can be spread across the term of the contract - so Sone will impact the FFP rules by <£2M. Lots less if the deal's structured and we don't incur the extras via promotion etc

That is correct and the basis for 'football accounting'. A player is an asset and as such 'amortised over the asset's useful life', or in practical terms, the amount paid is spread across the length of their contract.

[Stranded]

current age doesn't matter, the rule is to compensate the developing clubs throughout the players career via transfer fees.

I am confused at some of the detail though. Was just reading on the old Solidarity Mechanism before it was updated and it said that one prominent case was Robbie Keane moving from Leeds to Spurs. When it happened Crumlin United in Ireland were due money as he was there as a schoolboy. A year afterwards it was challenged and overturned and they had to give the money back.

My understanding is they fought for, and got, the money when he moved from Leeds to Spurs. But after that they changed the rules, so when he went from Spurs to Liverpool, they got none of that. The reason is the same reason we wouldn't anything for Gylfi unless he transfers abroad!

http://www.herald.ie/sport/soccer/no-ca ... 80255.html

Now, the schoolboy club who produced the player will only get a payment if the player moves when he's under 23 and if he moves to a club outside of the country. As Robbie is over 23 and is staying in England, we get nothing this time around

Note the bit about club outside the country. Once a player is over 23, it's only international transfers that lead to solidarity payments.

Training compensation will be payable when a player signs his first professional contract with a club that is different from the club(s) that contributed to his training;
By contrast, solidarity payments will only be payable upon the international transfer of a player who is already a professional;

From Law In Sport
https://www.lawinsport.com/articles/ite ... n-football

Sure we won't have got anything but as transfer from/to Swansea to another club in the English league system actually need international clearance, a case could be made for a solidarity payment being due. If someone were so inclined that is.

[Stranded]

I think I read (after Neymar to PSG) that the fee can be spread across the term of the contract - so Sone will impact the FFP rules by <£2M. Lots less if the deal's structured and we don't incur the extras via promotion etc

That is correct and the basis for 'football accounting'. A player is an asset and as such 'amortised over the asset's useful life', or in practical terms, the amount paid is spread across the length of their contract.

So based on this, say we have paid £4m up front with additional payments due for apperances, promotion etc - would it be correct that we would actually spread the £4m over 4 years, so only £1m off this season's budget. Any add-ons will only be added when they come due.

So say £1m is due for 50 appearances, we would spread that over say the last 3 years of the contract if that is activated next season? Meaning next season he costs £1.33m.

[Sanguine]

I think I read (after Neymar to PSG) that the fee can be spread across the term of the contract - so Sone will impact the FFP rules by <£2M. Lots less if the deal's structured and we don't incur the extras via promotion etc

That is correct and the basis for 'football accounting'. A player is an asset and as such 'amortised over the asset's useful life', or in practical terms, the amount paid is spread across the length of their contract.

So based on this, say we have paid £4m up front with additional payments due for apperances, promotion etc - would it be correct that we would actually spread the £4m over 4 years, so only £1m off this season's budget. Any add-ons will only be added when they come due.

So say £1m is due for 50 appearances, we would spread that over say the last 3 years of the contract if that is activated next season? Meaning next season he costs £1.33m.

Yes - the up front payment would be spread over the term of the contract. The add-ons though are time-specific contract terms and the costs hit the accounts when they are incurred, i.e. 'we will pay £1m when he has played 50 times' is wholly applicable to the accounting period in which he plays his 50th game. Likewise promotion, in the season we go up, and so on.

From an FFP perspective, I guess that's where the accountants earn their money, in forecasting our outgoings. In your example, if he plays his 50th game for us next season, and we get promoted, Aluko's 'cost' (before wages etc) in the season might be £3m or so.

[Winston Biscuit]

I think I read (after Neymar to PSG) that the fee can be spread across the term of the contract

very standard on all football transfers and is called 'player amortisation'

You can pay the whole transfer fee up front in one big go if you like and still spread the cost across the length of the initial employment contract.

It's the annual calculated cost that is important to a business much more so than the total outlay. This is why long contracts can be good for the club and short term, free transfers with very high wages can sometimes be not so good.

[Stranded]

That is correct and the basis for 'football accounting'. A player is an asset and as such 'amortised over the asset's useful life', or in practical terms, the amount paid is spread across the length of their contract.

So based on this, say we have paid £4m up front with additional payments due for apperances, promotion etc - would it be correct that we would actually spread the £4m over 4 years, so only £1m off this season's budget. Any add-ons will only be added when they come due.

So say £1m is due for 50 appearances, we would spread that over say the last 3 years of the contract if that is activated next season? Meaning next season he costs £1.33m.

Yes - the up front payment would be spread over the term of the contract. The add-ons though are time-specific contract terms and the costs hit the accounts when they are incurred, i.e. 'we will pay £1m when he has played 50 times' is wholly applicable to the accounting period in which he plays his 50th game. Likewise promotion, in the season we go up, and so on.

From an FFP perspective, I guess that's where the accountants earn their money, in forecasting our outgoings. In your example, if he plays his 50th game for us next season, and we get promoted, Aluko's 'cost' (before wages etc) in the season might be £3m or so.

Thanks - goes a long way to explain why we are suddenly giving out 3 or 4 year contracts as opposed to the 2 years we normally seemed to give. Probably comes from Gourlay's experience of working on big transfers at Chelsea.

[Winston Biscuit]

Fulham wanted this to go through so they could buy Jota from Brentford.

I would have preferred Jota tbh.

[CountryRoyal]

Can anyone tell me what Carabao actually tastes like?

Just like any other energy drink. The apple one is actually really nice, they were giving out samples at the play off final.

All energy drinks taste ****** awful. HTH.

The only one I'll really drink is occasionally the white monster, what ever flavour it is. It's kind of fruity and doesn't have that typical redbull type taste.

[yuomi]

Fulham wanted this to go through so they could buy Jota from Brentford.

I would have preferred Jota tbh.

Heard this too but this morning's talk is that they've offered £15m to NUFC for Gayle.

Which is nuts

[muirinho]

So based on this, say we have paid £4m up front with additional payments due for apperances, promotion etc - would it be correct that we would actually spread the £4m over 4 years, so only £1m off this season's budget. Any add-ons will only be added when they come due.

So say £1m is due for 50 appearances, we would spread that over say the last 3 years of the contract if that is activated next season? Meaning next season he costs £1.33m.

Yes - the up front payment would be spread over the term of the contract. The add-ons though are time-specific contract terms and the costs hit the accounts when they are incurred, i.e. 'we will pay £1m when he has played 50 times' is wholly applicable to the accounting period in which he plays his 50th game. Likewise promotion, in the season we go up, and so on.

From an FFP perspective, I guess that's where the accountants earn their money, in forecasting our outgoings. In your example, if he plays his 50th game for us next season, and we get promoted, Aluko's 'cost' (before wages etc) in the season might be £3m or so.

Thanks - goes a long way to explain why we are suddenly giving out 3 or 4 year contracts as opposed to the 2 years we normally seemed to give. Probably comes from Gourlay's experience of working on big transfers at Chelsea.

Lots of different reasons for longer contracts though, and not necessarily all to do with Gourlay - McCleary got 3 years didn't he? I noticed that the Dave Edwards deal was 2 years, but I guess there wasn't a big transfer fee to try to spread across the contract.

I think after Jason Roberts, the club got a bit burnt by longer contracts, particularly for older players, and backed off - they've only recently started feeding through again.

So - we might have longer deals to spread the fee across. Or because the player wants the security of a longer deal and won't sign otherwise (Maybe both McCleary and Gunter fall into this category). Or because the club wants to hang onto the player as long as possible, but get a decent fee if they move on, rather than having them run down their contract (Kelly etc)

It does show a bit more flexibility about what is offered to the players though, then we've had previously.

[NewCorkSeth]

Just like any other energy drink. The apple one is actually really nice, they were giving out samples at the play off final.

All energy drinks taste ****** awful. HTH.

The only one I'll really drink is occasionally the white monster, what ever flavour it is. It's kind of fruity and doesn't have that typical redbull type taste.

I like the yellow one. It's half juice. Never tried the white one.
I drink a lot of red bull..

[Tommio]

Just like any other energy drink. The apple one is actually really nice, they were giving out samples at the play off final.

All energy drinks taste ****** awful. HTH.

The only one I'll really drink is occasionally the white monster, what ever flavour it is. It's kind of fruity and doesn't have that typical redbull type taste.

Yeah the white zero calorie one is the only energy drink I ever have.

[TBM]

Although a decent player - i would still be pretty pissed off if we don't sign an actual striker, rather than someone who "can play upfront"

[Jim Royal]

Looks like Fulham are using the money to try and get Dwight Gayle.