Of course not! But it hardly means the club is involved in money laundering or some such! Blimey, chicken little or what! Someone above got it spot on - you're a master of 2 + 2 = an embezzled, conspiratorial 5!
Who Goes, Who Stays? Championship Here We Come!....
- Thread starter M17TT C
- Start date
Graz
Well-Known Member
1st July is the "official" opening of the transfer window I believe, and date contracts officially start. Several clubs seem to be announcing deals today.
Villa officially announced Tielemans joining today, for example - which seemed odd after already announcing they'd signed him.
Brown Nose
Well-Known Member
No it's not.
I knew what you meant. Not transfer window per se but the date from which the actual contract would start for those 'out of contract' deals. Unless, of course, a club wants to buy out 2 weeks of contract.
If I recall, the club’s financial year ends on 31 May 2023, therefore selling and signing players on 30 June or 1 July would all fall into the 2023/2024 financials and not the 2023/2023 anyways.
Besides, let’s say the cut-off is 30 June, when a player is signed, the amount paid is capitalised as an intangible asset on the balance sheet, and then amortised to the income statement over the duration of the contract (according to the accounting policies in the club’s published financial statements).
In layman terms, if Winks and Coady signed for a combine fee of £18 million on 3 year contracts, that’s £6 million charged to P&L over the next 3 years.
Therefore, deferring the signing by 1 day would only save the club roughly £16000 (£6m over 365 days) from an accounting perspective.
Having said that, someone well-drilled on accounting can let me know the above is all gibberish.
Oh, they won't even need to be well-drilled on accounting to tell you that!
It's just what happens here.But, yes, as has been said, there are a number of perfectly legitimate reasons, or even std accounting ones, for 2 signings to have been done and dusted but not officially signed/announced until a certain date.
On a related 'dates' theme, something that interests me (in my picky pedantic mode) was the appearance of FBS logo-ed shirts etc in the signing vids. Both Coady and Winks (not the New York detective series of the 70s) are wearing the pink FBS shirts... when we're led to believe that FBS was finished come 1 July. Clearly the vids were shot a day or so before the official announcement. On the day they vids were shot, FBS were official sponsors. On the day the vids were released, FBS were (we're led to believe) history. What gives there?
Btw, FBS are still listed as a partner on the club's website. And vice-versa. I wouldn't be surprised if they still have some sponsorship involvement.
Graz
Well-Known Member
Oh, they won't even need to be well-drilled on accounting to tell you that!
But, yes, as has been said, there are a number of perfectly legitimate reasons, or even std accounting ones, for 2 signings to have been done and dusted but not officially signed/announced until a certain date.
On a related 'dates' theme, something that interests me (in my picky pedantic mode) was the appearance of FBS logo-ed shirts etc in the signing vids. Both Coady and Winks (not the New York detective series of the 70s) are wearing the pink FBS shirts... when we're led to believe that FBS was finished come 1 July. Clearly the vids were shot a day or so before the official announcement. On the day they vids were shot, FBS were official sponsors. On the day the vids were released, FBS were (we're led to believe) history. What gives there?
Btw, FBS are still listed as a partner on the club's website. And vice-versa. I wouldn't be surprised if they still have some sponsorship involvement.
They're in home kits with the KP logo but training kits with FBS.
So I suspect it's a bit of both - the videos were shot a couple of days earlier, but clearly the club already knew FBS wouldn't be continuing given the shirt change, so presumably just hadn't got the new training kits with correct sponsors yet.
Makes you wonder why the new training kits were even made with the FBS logo though, if it was a contractual point that their sponsorship would end when we're relegated!
If the club knew, and one would imagine they did, then why wear those shirts at all? Was there nothing else? Were they contractually bound to, as the vids were made before the deal expired. I ain't making a thing of it, nor even suggesting a reason, I'm just idly curious. I'm just wondering what kind of weird contractual, date driven thing ended up in the incongruity.
Last edited:
big_mac4824
Well-Known Member
big_mac4824
Well-Known Member
Ipswich 4/1 and no mention of Covscum or Birmingham ( who I believe have been bought out)
Graz
Well-Known Member
Again, it's based on what people are betting on or where they expect people to bet - not a predicted table.
big_mac4824
Well-Known Member
so the money has been put on us, bold call considering our squad is unknown.
Graz
Well-Known Member
Most people probably think we'll keep hold of more of our squad than we will, not realising how many we'll need to sell and how much of a rebuild job there is to do.
We're also likely to have the biggest budget in the league - largely due to those sales.
A lot of fans of other teams already think we're "buying the league" after spending £15-18m on Coady and Winks. I can see us spending £40-50m this summer.
So IMO it makes sense we're favourites.
The biggest thing working against us is going to be the time needed to sell all of the players, buy new ones, and get the team to gel.
Championship
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Leicester | 44 | 94 |
| 2 | Leeds Utd | 45 | 90 |
| 3 | Ipswich | 44 | 90 |
| 4 | Southampton | 45 | 84 |
| 5 | Norwich City | 45 | 73 |
| 6 | West Brom | 45 | 72 |
| 7 | Hull City | 45 | 70 |
| 8 | Middlesbro | 45 | 66 |
| 9 | Coventry City | 44 | 64 |
| 10 | Preston | 44 | 63 |
| 11 | Bristol City | 45 | 62 |
| 12 | Cardiff City | 45 | 62 |
| 13 | Swansea City | 45 | 57 |
| 14 | Watford | 45 | 56 |
| 15 | Sunderland | 45 | 56 |
| 16 | Millwall | 45 | 56 |
| 17 | QPR | 45 | 53 |
| 18 | Stoke City | 45 | 53 |
| 19 | Blackburn | 45 | 50 |
| 20 | Sheffield W | 45 | 50 |
| 21 | Plymouth | 45 | 48 |
| 22 | Birmingham | 45 | 47 |
| 23 | Huddersfield | 45 | 45 |
| 24 | Rotherham Utd | 45 | 24 |
