NorthumberlandBoro
Well-known member
Yes, how on earth have they ended up 2 points ahead of us.
We need to follow their example.
We need to follow their example.
What have Coventry done differently to us?
- Thread starter Doncaster Boro
- Start date
BoroMart
Well-known member
We were rumoured to have about 5m FFP headroom last summer for a CF we didn't sign. Teh sale of Rogers was too late in teh window to adjust our transfer policy and make a replacement signing. Plus the club doesn't want to pay big in the January wndow due to perceived over pricing. Prior to that we were maxed out due to previous expenditures such as Britts fee and wages. So the club has kept its powder dry once and been backed into a corner once.
I'm sure he doesn't want us to run at a loss, but investing in playing assets is just that, investment. If done well you make a profit. We seem to be doing a good job of player investment as a business strategy in the last couple of years.
What we do know is Gibson does not take any money out of the club. If hypothetically we sold Hackney and Rav for 45m+, the club would have zero debts, in fact it would have a cash surplus. But it would be poor on playing assets. It wouldn't make business, football or any sense not to spend that money and history of Gibsons ownership says he absolutely would spend most of that 45m surplus.
Financing? the club would have it's own cash surplus at such sales, but also has the ability to raise capital through loans like many clubs do. The fact the club now has relatively little debt and might get a massive cash influx means that Gibson wouldn't need to put more money in anyway. 2 sales for 45m+ would be self financing for a big player investment and be allowed under FFP. I think you are a lonely voice if you believe we are going to sell Rav and Hackney and spend buttons on squad investment.
J_Boro_Clock
Member
Nothing by the looks of it 
I really don't know what we'll do.
We haven't spent more than £5m on a single player for over 5 years. Lath and Payero have been our biggest signings in that timeframe.
We've had plenty of big sales in that time.
18/19
Traore - £18m
Gibson - £15m
19/20
Braithwaite + Randolph - £10m
20/21
N/A
21/22
N/A
22/23
Tavernier - £11m
Spence - £13m
23/24
Akpom - £12
Rogers - Circa £10m
We have had headroom for the last few windows. As you know, we could have taken a £10m striker on a 5 year contract with annual amortisation value of £2m per annum, There's definitely been headroom to do that.
We haven't for one of 3 reasons in my opinion:
a) Gibson is unwilling to pump that amount of his own money in to fund it - which he would have to do because despite the big sales we are still operating at a loss.
b) We haven't found the correct player
c) It doesn't fit our transfer policy
I find it hard to believe we haven't been able to find a striker in the last 12-18 months. We knew needed one. Our recent history suggest we aren't a club that spends big on signings any more. I believe it's a combination of reason a and reason c. Gibbo has already injected a lot of capital recently to remove a lot of debt. Is he willing to pump in more money to fund transfers? Who knows.
I think Hackney will leave in the summer for a big fee but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that we will immediately reinvest on high value signings other than hope.
You're missing all the insane contacts we had in place and off the top of my head the £14m we blew on bang average players like Saville and Flint in 18/19, we've written off loads of players that cost us loads ie Assombalonga & Fletcher.
Well definitely have more flexibility this summer, short term pain last window rather than pay stupid desperation transfer fees.
BoroMart
Well-known member
The ffp and losses were massively impacted by the Gary monk splurge.
It took 6 full years to remove that mistake from ffp and accounts. So the sales of Traore and Gibson etc were really a consequence of Gary monk signings.
It’s only the last season we have been free from that. If we sell those two players you have indicated. The fees are going to be the two highest we’ve ever received. We will spend a significant portion of that. We don’t need 10 l-15 layers, we need 5-9 players of which maybe 3 or 4 would need to be high quality. For the first time since parachute payment money we will have ffp and accounts that allow us a big spend.
Badonde
Well-known member
Remember the rumour was that we were in the market to buy Tom Cannon in the summer.
Looks like we were gazumped by Leicester - spending £7m for a guy to become their 4th choice striker.
I like to think our owner is still ambitious but it's a tough market to operate in.
At least we would contemplate spending £7m - very few championship clubs would be.
At least we aren't Sunderland
Looks like we were gazumped by Leicester - spending £7m for a guy to become their 4th choice striker.
I like to think our owner is still ambitious but it's a tough market to operate in.
At least we would contemplate spending £7m - very few championship clubs would be.
At least we aren't Sunderland
Frozen Horse
Well-known member
Anyone?
It's a complete guess, but I don't think you're seeing change from £6million (wages and loan fees) for the 2 season-long loans and 2 half-season loans. I think that's a conservative estimate.
Last edited:
LaPennaBianca
Well-known member
I didn't miss them. I said in the last 5 years. They were 6 years ago.
Assambalonga dropped off FFP 2 years ago
Flint we got a resale on and dropped off FFP ages ago
We've had plenty of FFP headroom over the last 12-18 months
r00fie1
Well-known member
Let's not forget the cost of salaries - often as much over a period as the transfer fees.
None of us really know what goes on behind the scenes with regard to player recruitment, but Carrick gave indications both in the Summer and during the January Transfer window that we had tried for players, but had either been out-bid by other clubs or clubs weren't prepared to let them go for what we offered.
We can only control what we can control.
None of us really know what goes on behind the scenes with regard to player recruitment, but Carrick gave indications both in the Summer and during the January Transfer window that we had tried for players, but had either been out-bid by other clubs or clubs weren't prepared to let them go for what we offered.
We can only control what we can control.
BoroMart
Well-known member
I think that 7m was gazumping our 6m max valuation. 6m were the reports at the time. Should Leicester go up, I'm sure he'll be available again, he's nowhere near prem ready. His value will have dropped from the fee Leicester paid too due to a year of inactivity. I wouldn't be surprised if he's on our shopping list again this summer. Jay Stansfield is a decent alternative. 11 league goals in a rubbish Birmingham side, doing shifts at 10 and both wings as well as CF. 21 year old. Anyone playing regularly under the age of 21 has ability and potential. Anyone scoring regularly has excellent potential.Remember the rumour was that we were in the market to buy Tom Cannon in the summer.
Looks like we were gazumped by Leicester - spending £7m for a guy to become their 4th choice striker.
I like to think our owner is still ambitious but it's a tough market to operate in.
At least we would contemplate spending £7m - very few championship clubs would be.
At least we aren't Sunderland
BoroMart
Well-known member
Britt was under contract during the 20/21 season.
That means he still appeared on FFP calculations at the end of the 22/23 season. (20/21 + 21/22 + 22/23). This season 23/24 is the first where we have been able to budget without Britt (and Fletchers) significant costs. In last summers FFP calculation Britt would have alone accounted for about 3.75m transfer fee + 2m final year wages + 'loyalty' bonus + 25% of his agent fees, circa 6m. Fletcher would likely be another 2m.
So we had last summer transfer window where that wasn't involved and this winter one. Which we have already discussed above. Tom Cannon was the target at 6m, january we didn't want to spend because of perceived lack of value. Lets see what we spend this summer, but I suspect it will be 75% of anything incoming, or if we don't sell then around 12m due to money made on Rogers sale and FFP space.
Bruce
Well-known member
I think the other question when it comes to strikers is how good is Latte Lath? Last season, on the basis of 20 games for us, Archer was sold for £18m or so. 11 goals and 6 assists in 20 games (17 starts).
Since he has come back into the team, Latte Lath has 9 games (8 starts), 5 goals, 0 assists. In his first 9 games for us Archer was 8 starts, 4 goals and 2 assists. Statistically, Latte Lath isn't that different from Archer.
Archer is far more clinical as a striker, specialising in 1v1's. Latte Lath's weak point appears to be 1v1's but he's a lot better in the air (Archer got nosebleed if he left the ground) and seems to be more 2-footed. He also seems capable of making a goal for himself whereas Archer had little to offer if he didn't get the service he needed.
I'm not saying that Latte Lath is a better striker than Archer but at his current rate of progression he might soon be. Of course this might just be a little golden patch for him but his improvement since he came back into the team in December is really noticeable.
Up until fairly recently, I thought we needed a first-choice striker with Latte Lath as a back-up. I'm starting to change my mind about that. I was really keen on Tom Cannon but at this point I don't think he would be an improvement on ELL.
Since he has come back into the team, Latte Lath has 9 games (8 starts), 5 goals, 0 assists. In his first 9 games for us Archer was 8 starts, 4 goals and 2 assists. Statistically, Latte Lath isn't that different from Archer.
Archer is far more clinical as a striker, specialising in 1v1's. Latte Lath's weak point appears to be 1v1's but he's a lot better in the air (Archer got nosebleed if he left the ground) and seems to be more 2-footed. He also seems capable of making a goal for himself whereas Archer had little to offer if he didn't get the service he needed.
I'm not saying that Latte Lath is a better striker than Archer but at his current rate of progression he might soon be. Of course this might just be a little golden patch for him but his improvement since he came back into the team in December is really noticeable.
Up until fairly recently, I thought we needed a first-choice striker with Latte Lath as a back-up. I'm starting to change my mind about that. I was really keen on Tom Cannon but at this point I don't think he would be an improvement on ELL.
Yes but were calculating one year of Britt/Fletcher amortisation transfer cost + wages versus 2 or 3 years in the previous summers. Have you just made that loyalty bonus up?
Our total amortisation costs + total wage bill have decreased each year while we have consistently generated large revenue from signings over the last 3 years.
You are right, our FFP headroom now is the highest it's ever been. There's no denying that. But we had plenty of headroom last summer and even more in January and didn't use it. It's just blind faith now that Gibbo will go and use it this summer. There's been nothing from the club to suggest that's what we are going to do.
It's like going to the bank and the bank running an affordability calculation and a credit check and it comes back to say you can borrow a 250k mortgage. You go home and work out your sums and realise that you can't afford the £1200 repayments so you take out a £150k mortgage with £800 repayments,
The next year you've paid your bills on time and your credit has improved and the bank tell you that you can lend 400k. You still can't afford more than the £800 repayments so you stay in your house with your £150k mortgage.
Point being, just because we can spend that money and stay within FFP, doesn't mean we will. The club still has no dosh so any money we spend has to be financed by Gibbo. He's shown no signs over the few years of doing that (even though he could).
I really really hope that we do go and spend and Gibbo gives us a nice £25-30m "SUMMER WARCHEST
". I'm just not convinced we will..
Bruce
Well-known member
I think you can see reasons for that which may be changing.
Summer 21. Warnock in charge after a poor end to the previous season despite a lot of high cost loans. Monk (& Pulis) boom still on the books. Scott comes in as HoF. Net spend of around £5m.
Winter 22. Wilder in charge, going well but Gibson clearly decides that we're not close enough to spend big in the winter. This leads in part to a massive breakdown between Wilder and the club.
Summer 22. Tav and Spence sold. Twin track strategy of buying development players alongside loans and experienced free transfers. Wilder is still sulking and will shortly be sacked.
winter 23. Prestige loans almost get us to promotion.
Summer 23, club at a bit of a crossroads. We decide to spend the transfer budget gained from selling Akpom and Payero on development players. We could have stuck with prestige loans again and spent whatever it took to bring in a marque striker but we went down the "building foundations" route.
Winter 23. Continuing incremental improvements and using loans to plug a never-ending injury crisis. Unexpected sales of Rogers and Crooks happens too late for us to spend the money.
I think we could have spent (fairly) big last summer but we went down a different route. It all depends on what Gibson thinks of our promotion chances in the summer. Assuming we end the season 7th-8th, I can see him releasing funds over and above what we make in transfers and I do think we have flagged next season as, financially, the best time to spend. As you say, whether or not we will is a whole other issue. My guess is that he will have a "warchest" but that we might use half of it in the summer and the rest in the winter if we're in the top 4.
I wouldn't have predicted any of the players we bought last summer and have no idea who our top targets are this summer. I'm assuming we're shopping primarily for Seny Dieng types rather than yet more punts but I don't actually know.
That's the thing isn't it. None of us really know.
I personally expect a similar window to last season. 1 high value sale + 8-10 low value purchases with total spend in the £10-15m range. With a neutral net spend.
Really hope I'm pleasantly surprised and we go and get 2 or 3 proven quality players. We will see...
BoroMart
Well-known member
You said he has been off for two seasons, I was simply correcting that. Yes it’s a declining cost but ~6m is a significant amount of a championship budget.
As already discussed we were usurped in the summer and couldn’t find a player that fitted in the small January window. I’d rather we waited than jumped into another Britt situation.
FFP budget is lost after 3 years, I’d expect this summer to be a serious recruitment one. If we don’t then there’s something to complain about.
As for the personal finance comparison, I leave that to government ministers trying to pretend to pull the wool over voters eyes. Running a business isn’t the same as running personal finance as it’s really unlikely a household can spend 1.5m and turn it into 16m in 6 months. It’s a weak comparison.
He’s just written about 70m in debt off. His financing off the club has been good, great. He’s kept his powder dry to get rid of the Monk failures.
Let’s revisit this again in October after the window has shut
BoroMart
Well-known member
The noises from Carrick are repeatedly about quality not numbers required in the summer. If it’s a total of 10 in though, 4 or 5 of those will really be projects
The comparison was purely to highlight the difference between having the option to spend and being willing or being able to afford to spend. No other reason.
We could spend more than we did last season but for whatever reason we didn't. (Any reason you put forward is result speculation. It could be because we didn't find the right man, it could be that we offers declined, it could be because Gibbo is unwilling, none of us on this board know)
We didn't have to wait for the Rogers sale to spend in January. We already had the FFP scope. We'd had 4 months to find a striker. We either failed to find an available one, or chose not to spend the money. We needed a striker irrelevant of whether Rogers stayed or was sold.
We can spend even more this season, it's yet to be seen whether we do.