The perceptions and the reality
Back in early August Neil "The Chief" (Wiggum?) Doncaster used his EDP column to "set the record straight" on the mistaken perception "that the club should be awash with cash". One of the reasons he gave for this "huge gap between perception and reality" was that we actually paid much more for Dean Ashton than anyone thought. Astonishingly, given the club's commitment to openness Mr Doncaster failed to mention a far more significant reason why the club was unable to "compete on equal terms with the likes of Birmingham City and West Brom" - the reason being that much of the transfer fee receivable from West Ham in respect of the transfer of Dean Ashton had not been paid. And, as we now know, it still hasn't.
In the summer Nigel Worthington was pilloried for his lack of transfer activity. I wonder why the Chief Executive of a club that "suffers at times from a desire to be as transparent as possible" failed to mention that the manager's inactivity was due not to dilatoriness but due to the fact that his transfer budget was in West Ham United FC's bank account? Mysterious omission isn't it?
West Ham United, a club that made an operating profit of £13.4 million in the year ending 31st May, and which is described by their chairman as being in a strong financial position, have signed nine players since the end of last season. We have signed two. But, to be fair, they did have the use of our transfer budget as well as their own.
Back in May our newest board member wrote of the Ashton transfer saga "with the benefit of hindsight, it would perhaps have been better to cash-in and reinvest last summer". Curiously he failed to mention that the deal eventually struck was structured in such a way that we were unable to re-invest the following summer either - unlike "cash-rich" West Ham who really filled their boots.
I wonder if Clancy will use his EDP column to let us know which bright spark negotiated the Ashton transfer deal with West Ham? Somehow I doubt it. Or failing that I wonder if he will tell us if, had Ashton signed for Wigan or Manchester City, much of the transfer fee would still be outstanding more than nine months after the event. I doubt that too.
On an unrelated personal note I am forswearing alcohol and undertaking a strict physical fitness regime. That way I hope to live long enough to see the transfer fee for Rob Green paid in full.
posted by The King of Prussia @ 3:41 PM
4 Comments:
One thing, KoP: I'm as frustrated as you are over all this, but most transfers of this scale *are* structured like this nowadays: Beckham to Real Madrid was another, you may like to note.
Just as significant as not having much of the Ashton cash to spend, though, was the board's decision to hold a fair bit back in order to pay Worthington off, should it become necessary: which, given that a one-year rolling deal would necessitate the same amount of compensation WHENEVER we got rid of the manager, might well suggest that someone at the club was telling porkies when they insisted the rumours about him not being on a much longer contract weren't true...
Compliments on your blog, by the way: scathing, acerbic, and spot on with almost every post. I do wonder if you're likely to write anything positive about the club anytime soon (let's face it, we may be bad, but at least we're not Newcastle, or Leeds, or Sheffield Wednesday); but then, it's up to the club to make us believe in them again. And at the moment, I can only concur with your scepticism about those in charge: well-meaning they may be, but for want of a better word, they're amateurs, really.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm well aware that many transfers are structured with delayed payments, but that doesn't mean they have to be. And it may well be that it suited us to have a large amount of the payment delayed until after 30th June. But that doesn't explain why so much of the transfer fee is still outstanding now that it threatens the takeover of West Ham.
The explanation is not to be found in our playing circumstances. Clancy himself has acknowledged that with hindsight it might have been an idea to have the proceeds of an Ashton sale available for re-investment in the summer of 2005. So why on earth was the eventual Ashton deal structured so that much of the proceeds were not available in the summer of 2006.
Nor is the explanation to be found in our financial circumstances. Just before the sale of Ashton the "responsible management of our finances" had left us in the position where we had to borrow not only the transfer fee, but also the wages for Robinson. Doncaster has also confirmed that we pay "around £1million in interest and a further £1million in debt repayments" each year. Is it really "responsible management of our finances" to allow a club making an operating profit of £13.4 million and who were able to sign a further nine players after they bought Dean Ashton to owe us millions of pounds for months on end?
There is an issue of transparency here. Why on earth did Doncaster not reveal the true structure of the Ashton deal when supposedly setting the record straight on why the club is not awash with cash?
And it's easy to write something positive: Peter Grant is a magnificent appointment - an intelligent, committed and honest man who will, I suggest, not settle for the same easy relationship with the board that ruined Worthington's tenure at the club. And he stands head and shoulders above all of the other incoherent buffoons whose names were bandied about as possible managers.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home