Boro`s £24m estimated 5-year player sale loss compared to rest of Championship [Mail]

r00fie1

Well-known member
By Richie Boon
Wednesday, 22nd September 2021, 12:08 pm
b25lY21zOmVlMGQxMzQ0LTM5YjEtNDU3MC05ODRlLTdlZTcxMGVjMWU2YTpkZWJkMGVhNC0wZTBiLTQ2NTYtOWRiNC1mOD...jpg

Middlesbrough's £24m estimated five-year player sale losses compared to Derby County, West Brom & more

The summer transfer window was one of the busiest we've seen in quite some time, as second-tier sides looked to secure themselves bargain deals and strengthen for the 2021/22 campaign.

Middlesbrough brought in no less than 12 new players including the likes of midfielder Martin Payero, full-back Lee Peltier and goalkeeper Luke Daniels all signings permanent deals to see them arrive at the Riverside Stadium.
One area of real interest in modern football is how well clubs invest talent to sell on, with the wildly inflated market meaning a player could be bought for a bargain fee one season and flogged for big money the next.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, some players command multi-million pound fees, before winding down their contracts and leaving for nothing a few years later.
Now the window has closed, we've taken a look (via BettingOdds.com) at how much profit on previously purchased players every Championship club has made over the last five years. Sales of academy players are also factored into the figures.
This is how Middlesbrough's profit percentage on players sold ranks alongside all of their divisional rivals over the past half-decade of transfer activity:

1632334636863.png
1632334727921.png1632334748036.png1632334768437.png1632334803170.png1632334824593.png1632334846791.png1632334894708.png1632334934896.png
Continued...
 
Last edited:

BoroMart

Well-known member
How the hell can stoke lose 94mill on transfers, pay big wages and still not be breaking FFP????
 

r00fie1

Well-known member
How the hell can stoke lose 94mill on transfers, pay big wages and still not be breaking FFP????
Didnt they have the parachute payments up untill a year or two ago?
Not entirely sure.:unsure:
Our losses go back over four years ago - paying daft money for daft players.
Doesnt look like we`re going down that road again anytime soon. [Thank goodness].
 

rbmfc1985

Active member
They came down the season after us, and have gambled even more than we did
But they've had about £90m of extra money from the parachute payments, this is the first year they won't have had any extra money. So if they don't cut back their spending or go up now they'll be in trouble, but they'll have been able to afford it for the last few years.
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
But they've had about £90m of extra money from the parachute payments, this is the first year they won't have had any extra money. So if they don't cut back their spending or go up now they'll be in trouble, but they'll have been able to afford it for the last few years.
Is it that much? 90mill more? I thought it was more in the region of 20 more than us
 
Last edited:

BoroMart

Well-known member
think I ,misunderstood you.

Yes it's 90mill in total they got over 3 years. So this season no Parachute payments, and in fact at the end of this season their calculation for FFP will lose 40mill of parachute payments leaving them in dire trouble.

When we faced this issue, we started selling to avoid punishment. If Stoke carry on, and gamble, they will be in the same hole as Derby in the summer, unless they go up....it's inevitable.
 
Last edited:

rbmfc1985

Active member
Is it that much? 90mill more? I thought it was more in the region of 20 more than us
£90m more than the teams with no parachute payments. It was about £15-20m more than us, but two of their last five seasons have been in the Premier League, so they'll have had far higher income than us over the last five years.
 

jonny_greenings_sock

Well-known member
One could argue that by far the best value for money signing you can make is a sharp Director of Football.

Good article and interesting data that. It’s often skewed by selling one player for a massive profit, like an Adama or a Bellingham or a Ramsdale, higher level would be a Coutinho or a Bale. I’d be really interested to see data on clubs that do it consistently, and I bet it would look something like Leicester, Southampton, Brentford. Internationally you’ve got Sevilla and Ajax who absolute factories.
 

Glover_elbow

Well-known member
Aren't Stoke funded by coats family the people behind betfair. I am sure they won't go under plenty of wedge there
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
£90m more than the teams with no parachute payments. It was about £15-20m more than us, but two of their last five seasons have been in the Premier League, so they'll have had far higher income than us over the last five years.
True, but the wages will have eaten most if not all of that....and then some. But what happens 5 years ago is irrelevant from FFP anyway. It's a 3 year rolling window.

So at the end of this season when they tot up:
21/22 0 parachute payments
20/21 15mill pp
19/20 34mill pp

So that 49mill will offset some of the losses, but they've made huge losses in those 3 years. They lost 91.6mill in 20-21 alone. Although they've tried to right some off by devaluing their playing staff.....which they claim keeps them FFP clean, but that is accounting jiggery-pokery, and they may already be failing FFP, if not no promotion this season and they will be screwed, because they'll be facing that 34mill pp disappearing and massive debts. It's all or nothing for them now, and they have shown zero desire to change from that tactic.
 

rbmfc1985

Active member
think I ,misunderstood you.

Yes it's 90mill in total they got over 3 years. So this season no Parachute payments, and in fact at the end of this season their calculation for FFP will lose 40mill of parachute payments leaving them in dire trouble.

When we faced this issue, we started selling to avoid punishment. If Stoke carry on, and gamble, they will be in the same hole as Derby in the summer, unless they go up....it's inevitable.
Just saw the next reply.

I don't think they're close to Derby levels of trouble, Derby were spending in breach of FFP rules at the time and attempted to fudge their accounts to avoid punishment. Stoke had the money and didn't breach FFP rules when they were spending big. There's no signs that Stoke will do the same and I think their backing is a little more stable than Mel Morris. But they could be in trouble FFP-wise and sanctioned if they aren't careful.
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
Aren't Stoke funded by coats family the people behind betfair. I am sure they won't go under plenty of wedge there
they won't go under no, but that doesn't mean they won't get points penalties and transfer embargos which is looking more and more likely
 
Top
X