The Andy Carroll Con

[ChezGiven 0]

does anyone else hate it when people add carroll into transfer dealings but ignore ben arfa? (both deals happened in january) kuqi shouldn;t be included as an "outgoing" either, as he was signed and released in the same period so cancels himself out.

 

 

No because the fee was agreed upon as part of the loan deal.

The fee was agreed on the basis of him making 25 appearances. Meaning we could wait until additional TV revenue had increased our income.

 

I hope Oztoon's sexual performances arent as premature as this thread.

 

you think 4 years is premature

 

you think we sold Carroll 4 years ago?

 

I dont think we will spend £30m this summer and i was hoping we would not sell too many players. Like Stevie, i think we will see lots of new faces this summer but i am more concerned now than i was a few weeks ago about hanging on to everyone so that it results in a stronger first 11 and squad.

 

At present though, would you say we are stronger or weaker than 4 weeks ago? Ba and Merveaux have replaced Nolan and added pace and athleticism and Cabaye has strengthened us in the exact position i said we needed weeks ago.

 

Whether this continues is less certain since all of the stories linking our players away but for now i see them just as media stories and focus on the facts. Nolan out and 3 players in is encouraging even if history and the media suggest things may end up otherwise.

[ChezGiven 0]

If you are going to include non-entities like Campbell and Kuqi, you should include Tozer, Spear etc too for the impact they had on our season.

[toonotl 2977]

does anyone else hate it when people add carroll into transfer dealings but ignore ben arfa? (both deals happened in january) kuqi shouldn;t be included as an "outgoing" either, as he was signed and released in the same period so cancels himself out.

 

 

No because the fee was agreed upon as part of the loan deal.

The fee was agreed on the basis of him making 25 appearances. Meaning we could wait until additional TV revenue had increased our income.

 

Still not a January signing.

[ChezGiven 0]

does anyone else hate it when people add carroll into transfer dealings but ignore ben arfa? (both deals happened in january) kuqi shouldn;t be included as an "outgoing" either, as he was signed and released in the same period so cancels himself out.

 

 

No because the fee was agreed upon as part of the loan deal.

The fee was agreed on the basis of him making 25 appearances. Meaning we could wait until additional TV revenue had increased our income.

 

Still not a January signing.

So when was the money paid then?

[ChezGiven 0]

I wonder if Ernst & Young and HMRC will do away with logic and procedure and count the Ben Arfa money as spent in 2010? I guess they'll just stick to the facts too

[toonotl 2977]

does anyone else hate it when people add carroll into transfer dealings but ignore ben arfa? (both deals happened in january) kuqi shouldn;t be included as an "outgoing" either, as he was signed and released in the same period so cancels himself out.

 

 

No because the fee was agreed upon as part of the loan deal.

The fee was agreed on the basis of him making 25 appearances. Meaning we could wait until additional TV revenue had increased our income.

 

Still not a January signing.

So when was the money paid then?

 

It was paid in January. But for me its not relevant with regards to the money to be spent from the Carroll transfer.

 

The money for Ben Arfa's transfer was obviously allocated, or at least earmarked, prior to January or at least prior to the sale of Carroll.

 

Including Ben Arfa's transfer fee as part of the spending of the money from Carroll's transfer does not wash with me. Unless the board intended to sell Carroll in January prior to loaning Ben Arfa in August.

 

That's just my opinion.

[ChezGiven 0]

Couldnt care less what your opinion is, this is finance, not philosophy.

 

I'll spell it out for you using an example: I pay my taxes quarterly, in September 2010 my taxes for the following year were estimated and i had to pay this amount once every 3 months. This was a more solid committment to a payment than the Ben Arfa one as i would be breaking the law if i didnt pay it. The installments are to help me handle the amount, not based on paying when i owe. When the money came out of my bank account this month, a committment i made last year, is the amount left in my bank unaffected because i made this committment last year or has it reduced my balance?

 

I think you'll find the balance in my account is less the amount of tax i just paid, despite the committment to pay it being set up last September. The impact was this month and my disposable income available for me to spend on new things (are you getting it yet?) is reduced.

 

I should charge a fee for this shit tbh.

[OTF 7295]

Like the money received for a new shirt in the club shop, a transfer fee received is just income to the club, it's not creative accounting, why don't some people get this ???

 

..and what about the loss of our leading scorer and most promising local player in some time? Completely different to selling a shirt. You surely must concede that. Andy Carroll is an asset to the club, one that would have helped to maintain premiership status, helped to sell those same shirts you talk about, would have sold the dream to the local youth coming through, kept fans entertained and attending matches, no doubt kept the tabloids going etc etc.

 

We've been conned into thinking the sale of Carroll was too good to turn down because that money could easily be used to improve our squad. I'd stake my membership here on it.

 

It is only different in terms of magnitude otherwise it is exactly the same. A club asset was sold for a price.

 

Yeah, you're right. Anyone got the number for the Puma sweatshop? We'll get them to churn out some Andy Carrolls. Half a dozen or so at 35M a pop and we'll we debt free. I've seen the light.

[LeazesMag 0]

does anyone else hate it when people add carroll into transfer dealings but ignore ben arfa? (both deals happened in january) kuqi shouldn;t be included as an "outgoing" either, as he was signed and released in the same period so cancels himself out.

 

 

No because the fee was agreed upon as part of the loan deal.

The fee was agreed on the basis of him making 25 appearances. Meaning we could wait until additional TV revenue had increased our income.

 

I hope Oztoon's sexual performances arent as premature as this thread.

 

you think 4 years is premature

 

you think we sold Carroll 4 years ago?

 

I dont think we will spend £30m this summer and i was hoping we would not sell too many players. Like Stevie, i think we will see lots of new faces this summer but i am more concerned now than i was a few weeks ago about hanging on to everyone so that it results in a stronger first 11 and squad.

 

At present though, would you say we are stronger or weaker than 4 weeks ago? Ba and Merveaux have replaced Nolan and added pace and athleticism and Cabaye has strengthened us in the exact position i said we needed weeks ago.

 

Whether this continues is less certain since all of the stories linking our players away but for now i see them just as media stories and focus on the facts. Nolan out and 3 players in is encouraging even if history and the media suggest things may end up otherwise.

 

I think the vast majority of us agreed that Nolan wasn't the most athletic and pacy player in the squad, however in terms of leadership, courage and the intelligence he showed when timing his runs and the scoring of all his goals are massively valuable. He was one of the best captains in the premiership and one of the best I have seen play for Newcastle. In those terms, he will be a huge asset to West Ham just like he was for us, and a very hard act to replace. I doubt very much any of these new signings will do it although we might be pleasantly surprised, unlike some people on here until I see them I will not pass judgement.

 

What is far more worrying is the fact that these things appear to be being done without the managers agreement, its all well and good saying finance can override some things, if ManU can sell Cristiano Ronaldo and think its a good deal then how can we say differently, but the difference is the manager accepted this, and he accepted it because he is given the necessary tools to replace players and continue to purchase players in the way he sees fit for the stature of the club.

 

This is clearly CLEARLY not happening at Newcastle, and has been obvious now for a long time, I fail to see what a few months ie until September 1st, is going to prove. We know that Mike Ashley is going to continue to sell good players and look for cheaper replacements who he equally will hope to sell on in the event they come good, and every sale he makes only furthers our status now, as a selling club being run on the same basis as the clubs who need to sell to survive.

[LeazesMag 0]

Like the money received for a new shirt in the club shop, a transfer fee received is just income to the club, it's not creative accounting, why don't some people get this ???

 

..and what about the loss of our leading scorer and most promising local player in some time? Completely different to selling a shirt. You surely must concede that. Andy Carroll is an asset to the club, one that would have helped to maintain premiership status, helped to sell those same shirts you talk about, would have sold the dream to the local youth coming through, kept fans entertained and attending matches, no doubt kept the tabloids going etc etc.

 

We've been conned into thinking the sale of Carroll was too good to turn down because that money could easily be used to improve our squad. I'd stake my membership here on it.

 

It is only different in terms of magnitude otherwise it is exactly the same. A club asset was sold for a price.

 

Yeah, you're right. Anyone got the number for the Puma sweatshop? We'll get them to churn out some Andy Carrolls. Half a dozen or so at 35M a pop and we'll we debt free. I've seen the light.

 

it's the skunkers mentality mate. He really believes what he is saying

[toonotl 2977]

Couldnt care less what your opinion is, this is finance, not philosophy.

 

I'll spell it out for you using an example: I pay my taxes quarterly, in September 2010 my taxes for the following year were estimated and i had to pay this amount once every 3 months. This was a more solid committment to a payment than the Ben Arfa one as i would be breaking the law if i didnt pay it. The installments are to help me handle the amount, not based on paying when i owe. When the money came out of my bank account this month, a committment i made last year, is the amount left in my bank unaffected because i made this committment last year or has it reduced my balance?

 

I think you'll find the balance in my account is less the amount of tax i just paid, despite the committment to pay it being set up last September. The impact was this month and my disposable income available for me to spend on new things (are you getting it yet?) is reduced.

 

I should charge a fee for this shit tbh.

 

Thanks for the finance lesson. Changes nothing with regards to counting the Ben Arfa transfer in the spending of the Carroll transfer money.

[ChezGiven 0]

Couldnt care less what your opinion is, this is finance, not philosophy.

 

I'll spell it out for you using an example: I pay my taxes quarterly, in September 2010 my taxes for the following year were estimated and i had to pay this amount once every 3 months. This was a more solid committment to a payment than the Ben Arfa one as i would be breaking the law if i didnt pay it. The installments are to help me handle the amount, not based on paying when i owe. When the money came out of my bank account this month, a committment i made last year, is the amount left in my bank unaffected because i made this committment last year or has it reduced my balance?

 

I think you'll find the balance in my account is less the amount of tax i just paid, despite the committment to pay it being set up last September. The impact was this month and my disposable income available for me to spend on new things (are you getting it yet?) is reduced.

 

I should charge a fee for this shit tbh.

 

Thanks for the finance lesson. Changes nothing with regards to counting the Ben Arfa transfer in the spending of the Carroll transfer money.

 

But your opinion of how we should perceive the financial transactions of the club do affect our disposable income? We have £5m more in the bank because toonotl imagines it to be there. Brilliant stuff.

[Phil 6]

Alan Pardew: “We have a big club mentality, and will hold on to our best players,” December 21, 2010

 

When Andy Carroll was sold for 35M in the dying moments of the January transfer window it was a move that was met with a slurry of varied reactions. For the most part there was an initial anger resulting from the sale of our most promising young player. A player who was contracted to the club for another 5 years. A player who many felt we could build the side around. Eventually this anger began to subside, with many consoling themselves with the fact that the club did receive a massive chunk of money for him. A chunk larger than many felt the player was worth. That chunk of cash was only of course going to mean anything to the club if it was consequently reinvested into the strengthening of the team - something that the club and the manager vehemently insisted would be done.

 

Now, almost 6 months later we've still seen very little of that money be spent. Noone would have accepted the sale of Carroll without the knowledge that the money would be used to strengthen the side ad yet that precisely what appears to be happening before our very eyes. No doubt ensuring that this business was conducted at the close of the window has given Ashley and Llambias the power of time. The initial feelings of anger have dissipated, as feelings do over time, and we've been plied with statements to gradual wear down our resolve over the 35 million. At first the insinuation was that it would all be spent on players, then that it would be spent on players and wages (such a bullshit bit of creative accounting it defies words) and now the 35M figure is not something we ever hear. It is clear from the movements in the market that we will be operating at the bargain basement end of the scale. Granted we've signed what appear to be talented players, but with two of them their value was heavily undermined by their poor injury records - an area where we've been burnt in the past. More worrying we sold our leading goal scorer and team captain to a championship team despite him having half of his 4 year contract left to run. At this precise point in time our outgoings only just exceed our incomings - a fact that defies the 35M we apparently would see spent in the summer.

 

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

 

Derek Llambias: “And he won’t take a single penny of this £35 million either - all the money will go to the club and we are already working on identifying transfer targets for the summer. We will spend in the summer. Every penny of the £35 million will stay in the club.”

 

Stay in the club, and be used to strengthen the playing roster are vastly different propositions.

 

Derek Llambias: “ [On Carroll] Yes, he went in our helicopter. But the sooner the deal was done the sooner we could make our own moves in the transfer market. It was already very late.”

 

Lucky he went in the chopper lads, or else we'd never have been able to pull off the massive coup of signing Shefki Kuqi!

 

 

We are three weeks into the window and have signed four players. I'm glad he hasn't blown the lot to appease muppets like you.

[toonotl 2977]

Why so hostile?

 

All I'm saying is that for me I don't include the Ben Arfa transfer as part of the spending of Carroll's transfer fee.

 

I didn't think that was so controversial.

[Toonpack 9390]

Like the money received for a new shirt in the club shop, a transfer fee received is just income to the club, it's not creative accounting, why don't some people get this ???

 

..and what about the loss of our leading scorer and most promising local player in some time? Completely different to selling a shirt. You surely must concede that. Andy Carroll is an asset to the club, one that would have helped to maintain premiership status, helped to sell those same shirts you talk about, would have sold the dream to the local youth coming through, kept fans entertained and attending matches, no doubt kept the tabloids going etc etc.

 

We've been conned into thinking the sale of Carroll was too good to turn down because that money could easily be used to improve our squad. I'd stake my membership here on it.

 

It is only different in terms of magnitude otherwise it is exactly the same. A club asset was sold for a price.

 

Yeah, you're right. Anyone got the number for the Puma sweatshop? We'll get them to churn out some Andy Carrolls. Half a dozen or so at 35M a pop and we'll we debt free. I've seen the light.

 

You're better than that. Don't be a spastic

[ChezGiven 0]

Why so hostile?

 

All I'm saying is that for me I don't include the Ben Arfa transfer as part of the spending of Carroll's transfer fee.

 

I didn't think that was so controversial.

I wasnt being hostile, i was being robust. You should try it when thinking.

 

Edit -

Edited June 24, 2011 by ChezGiven

[toonotl 2977]

Where does thinking Ben Arfa was loaned rather than bought for reasons relating to TV revenue rather than for reasons relating to his questionable temperament and reported difficult nature come into your robust thinking?

[OTF 7295]

It's a fair point. If you believe what they say the sale of Carroll was not even on the cards when Ben Arfa's loan was made permanent. Therefore it's entirely plausible to consider it on its own separate to any other activity in the same window - especially when the club itself has talked openly about it as a discrete figure.

[toonotl 2977]

That's exactly my point. For me, transfer fees spent out of the Carroll transfer money do not include deals that were organised before Carroll was sold. I truly don't think that is such an obscure concept.

Edited June 24, 2011 by toonotl

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Chez is like a highbrow Jeremy Kyle dishin out fiscal advice

[Guest alex]

[Toonpack 9390]

Chez is like a highbrow Jeremy Kyle dishin out fiscal advice

 

 

Chez has common sense.

[peasepud 59]

Couldnt care less what your opinion is, this is finance, not philosophy.

 

I'll spell it out for you using an example: I pay my taxes quarterly, in September 2010 my taxes for the following year were estimated and i had to pay this amount once every 3 months. This was a more solid committment to a payment than the Ben Arfa one as i would be breaking the law if i didnt pay it. The installments are to help me handle the amount, not based on paying when i owe. When the money came out of my bank account this month, a committment i made last year, is the amount left in my bank unaffected because i made this committment last year or has it reduced my balance?

 

I think you'll find the balance in my account is less the amount of tax i just paid, despite the committment to pay it being set up last September. The impact was this month and my disposable income available for me to spend on new things (are you getting it yet?) is reduced.

 

I should charge a fee for this shit tbh.

I can see both sides of this argument, Chez is right as far as Im concerned that the purchase was made in January however you'd be right to argue that the purchase wasnt a new one, we already had Ben Arfa and as far as the fans were aware we were planning on buying him regardless of whether Carroll stayed or went.

 

To then include him as a "its alright we sold Carroll because we got Ben Arfa" would be a strange one.

 

As has been said before, its too early to call either way on this transfer window. We've brought in some early and could continue to. On the other hand we could now get rid of all those that have been mentioned and end up in the brown stuff. Lets see come September, Im sure you can guess what I think the likely scenario is.

 

As for Toonpacks statement that a transfer fee is not creative accounting, no the fee itself isnt but thats not what Oz was getting at, it was the inclusion of future wages into the whole spending of that income.

 

We purchased Cabaye for £4.5m and are paying him £35k p/w on a 5 year contract which equates to a total outlay of £13.6m as far as the club are concerned. So out of the £35m Carroll money we now have £21.4m after Cabaye alone. Stick Ba on the same money and even on a free youve knocked another £9.1m off.

 

Its very creative accounting. It works to a fashion if, when we sell players, we also add their remaining contract wages to the pot but you can be sure that wont happen. We've spent £13m on Cabaye but if we were to sell him next year for £10m say then you can bet your house that the value we get told we're spending is £10m and not £17m as it really should be.

 

As for the original statement from Derek about it all going back into the club then yeah hes right but ultimately that equates to a saving for Ashley.

[ChezGiven 0]

That's exactly my point. For me, transfer fees spent out of the Carroll transfer money do not include deals that were organised before Carroll was sold. I truly don't think that is such an obscure concept.

Its very obscure, in fact i'd argue what you say there doesnt actually mean anything its just a loose connection of concepts. The money left our bank in January reducing the amount of money that was in there in January. The taxman, accountants and anyone with half a brain look at it that way.

 

My objetive is to understand the exact disposable income figure, yours can not be that as its not taking account of the actual finance available but a concept dreamt up on football forum to discount a financial fact.

 

For anyone who doesnt think its that important, its a 14% difference in budget.

[ChezGiven 0]

Chez is like a highbrow Jeremy Kyle dishin out fiscal advice

Its a good analogy that.