Should transfer details be made publicly available?

[wolvesjoe]

A debate and poll for this time of year.

My view is a definite yes. From a democratic standpoint, one of the ways the fans of a club can judge the competence of the people running their club is to see how they manage transfers in and out of the club.

I would also say I dont see much reason for non-disclosure as football insiders can find out real sums fairly easily. Non-disclosure only seems to be a way of keeping the fans in the dark to me.

 

[Scott.Cooper]

I've put not bothered as they are documented in the end-year results anyway.

 

[AW]

Undoubtedly; there is so much money laundering that takes place in football and the majority of this is in relation to transfer dealings.

 

[KiwiWolf]

Undoubtedly; there is so much money laundering that takes place in football and the majority of this is in relation to transfer dealings.

How do you know this?
What actual evidence do you have of money laundering?

 

[manc_wolf]

they are declared in the detailed accounts sent to companies house surely - it's just not declared specifically to the media at the time of the transfer - which I agree with!

if we get £10M for a player, whenever we then go to another club looking to buy another player, they assume we have £10M burning a hole in our pocket, and other players prices go up. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what we're doing now!!

What's the argument for declaring?? I genuinely don't understand - the only reason I can think of why you would publish them is to satisfy the insatiable desires of fans who think they're playing football manager... ???

 

[Mighty Thor]

Undoubtedly; there is so much money laundering that takes place in football and the majority of this is in relation to transfer dealings.

What has that got to do with the public? Are joe public going to do full KYC checks on all players and agents or shoudl that be left to the accountants and tax people with who they have to file accounts with?

 

[Sedgley Gold N Black]

Would be nice for us fans to know.

 

[Bostin]

No. They only serve to increase fans expectation, with idiots demanding that we should now be spending £24m

 

[Deleted member 3545]

If the club is a plc do they have to diclose the fees via company house?

any not to fussed if the fans know or not what the fees are, why should we?

 

[Mighty Thor]

If the club is a plc do they have to diclose the fees via company house?

any not to fussed if the fans know or not what the fees are, why should we?

A PLC has to make their accounts public. Will be on their webiste in investors section. Other companies still have to file but you wont get MD&A like in an annual report.

 

[Skrilla]

We usually find out anyway, so i'm not bothered really.

 

[we8wba]

why? just so fans can moan!

keep it quiet like we always do, people think as we got 24m we have to spend it all well 2m gone gillingham and burnley straight away

 

[dazmanwolf]

If we announce the cash we have been given for players then other teams will try and get it when we buy their players. Prefer the poker face game we play now.

 

[wolfyjoe]

they are declared in the detailed accounts sent to companies house surely - it's just not declared specifically to the media at the time of the transfer - which I agree with!

if we get £10M for a player, whenever we then go to another club looking to buy another player, they assume we have £10M burning a hole in our pocket, and other players prices go up. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what we're doing now!!

What's the argument for declaring?? I genuinely don't understand - the only reason I can think of why you would publish them is to satisfy the insatiable desires of fans who think they're playing football manager... ???

This!

It's sensible to hide our transfer dealings.

 

[wolvesjoe]

No. They only serve to increase fans expectation, with idiots demanding that we should now be spending £24m

Well fans' expectations are justified are they not?? Shouldn't fans be told about how money is going to be spent? Doesnt that make good sense in running a football club, like any other publicly backed institution?

 

[wolvesjoe]

This!

It's sensible to hide our transfer dealings.

We are not really though are we? Insiders know the prices, and in any case they are published annually? That argument just seems like a flimsy smokescreen for the real reason, which is to keep fan pressure and reaction to a minimum, imo.

 

[Mighty Thor]

We are not really though are we? Insiders know the prices, and in any case they are published annually? That argument just seems like a flimsy smokescreen for the real reason, which is to keep fan pressure and reaction to a minimum, imo.

Errr do they? Who does? And of course insiders know the bloody prices as they are INSIDERS!!! Thee and me have no need to know and more importantly no right to know. Wolves are a privately owned business of which we are a customer. Do you think Tesco should tell everyone how much they buy lemon cheesecake from their suppliers from? Or maybe they publish this annually too?

 

[andyc225]

Yes, but to the extent they are now - i.e. undisclosed fees.

 

[wolvesjoe]

Errr do they? Who does? And of course insiders know the bloody prices as they are INSIDERS!!! Thee and me have no need to know and more importantly no right to know. Wolves are a privately owned business of which we are a customer. Do you think Tesco should tell everyone how much they buy lemon cheesecake from their suppliers from? Or maybe they publish this annually too?

At this point in the debate, there is always someone who comes up with the lame supermarket comparison.

A football club is a civic institution, with intense loyalties spanning generations often. Quite unlike a supermarket in fact. The club's owners and board are accountable to that support, and can, like every other civic institution, only be judged with a reasonable amount of information. This very basic democratic principle appears, however, to stick in the throat of Morgan and Moxey.

 

[manc_wolf]

Well fans' expectations are justified are they not?? Shouldn't fans be told about how money is going to be spent? Doesnt that make good sense in running a football club, like any other publicly backed institution?

to a point joe, to a point. we don't have any right to know the intricate details of how the club plans to run it's finances - no club in the land does that, and no fan of any club has the right to that information - in my opinion.

as far as i am aware, the stuff that's made public is ok for me.

i still don't get the argument FOR doing it though!!?? other than "because I'd like to know!!" - someone please help me out here...

 

[Mighty Thor]

At this point in the debate, there is always someone who comes up with the lame supermarket comparison.

A football club is a civic institution, with intense loyalties spanning generations often. Quite unlike a supermarket in fact. The club's owners and board are accountable to that support, and can, like every other civic institution, only be judged with a reasonable amount of information. This very basic democratic principle appears, however, to stick in the throat of Morgan and Moxey.

Wake up call. To M&M you are just a revenue stream. They dont care about you, your feelings, your loyalties. They are running a business not a kibutz.

 

[wolvesjoe]

to a point joe, to a point. we don't have any right to know the intricate details of how the club plans to run it's finances - no club in the land does that, and no fan of any club has the right to that information - in my opinion.

as far as i am aware, the stuff that's made public is ok for me.

i still don't get the argument FOR doing it though!!?? other than "because I'd like to know!!" - someone please help me out here...

I used to get all of Villa's annual reports, which were really superb to be honest.

They had full disclosure of transfer and wage details, with notes from the board of directors on their strategy, and to what degree they felt it had been successful. It was well-produced and highly informative, a world away from the secretive and old-fashioned we know best approach pursued at Wolves.

So PLC's do have to make these things open, and in the process treat their fans with far more respect, I would argue. In the long run, well-run institutions tend to do that, and create a far more trusting relationship with their fans. Public accountability is nowadays seen as a major positive for companies, just not at Wolves.

If that answers your question!

 

[wolvesjoe]

Wake up call. To M&M you are just a revenue stream. They dont care about you, your feelings, your loyalties. They are running a business not a kibutz.

To be honest, you sound like a dinosaur in your thinking. Companies that behave in the way you describe will only create problems and tensions for themselves, (as Wolves have done....although they are not as bad as you imply). Trust and loyalty from customers are invaluable business aims.

 

[Mighty Thor]

I used to get all of Villa's annual reports, which were really superb to be honest.

They had full disclosure of transfer and wage details, with notes from the board of directors on their strategy, and to what degree they felt it had been successful. It was well-produced and highly informative, a world away from the secretive and old-fashioned we know best approach pursued at Wolves.

So PLC's do have to make these things open, and in the process treat their fans with far more respect, I would argue. In the long run, well-run institutions tend to do that, and create a far more trusting relationship with their fans. Public accountability is nowadays seen as a major positive for companies, just not at Wolves.

If that answers your question!

PLC = PUBLIC limited company. Villa were a listed (as in on a stock exchange) business so they had a LEGAL requirement to publish this information to shareholders.

Wolves are privately owned. Steve Morgan is THE shareholder. All he has to do is file accounts with comapanies house. Thsi will not be in teh form of a pretty annual report with lots of discussion. It will be audited P&L, balance sheet and cashflow statement.

 

[Mighty Thor]

To be honest, you sound like a dinosaur in your thinking. Companies that behave in the way you describe will only create problems and tensions for themselves, (as Wolves have done....although they are not as bad as you imply). Trust and loyalty from customers are invaluable business aims.

Agreed, and thats why football fans feel hard done by!? Ultimately fans know owners and CEOs can mug them off but the fans (unlike the traditional 'customer') will still keep coming back. If i get shoddy service at Asda, i will go to Tesco. If i get shoddy service from Wolves do i go support West Brom?

 

[wolvesjoe]

PLC = PUBLIC limited company. Villa were a listed (as in on a stock exchange) business so they had a LEGAL requirement to publish this information to shareholders.

Wolves are privately owned. Steve Morgan is THE shareholder. All he has to do is file accounts with comapanies house. Thsi will not be in teh form of a pretty annual report with lots of discussion. It will be audited P&L, balance sheet and cashflow statement.

We know that.

The point is about the value that information and accountability bring to the relationship with the fans.

 

[Mighty Thor]

We know that.

The point is about the value that information and accountability bring to the relationship with the fans.

Oh...i thought that was my point? In that Wolves publishing 'insider' info is of absolutely zero value to you apart from that you would like to or think you need to know?

You having details of wolves transfers will make absolutely no difference to teh successful running of the club. So why should you have it?

 

[manc_wolf]

I used to get all of Villa's annual reports, which were really superb to be honest.

They had full disclosure of transfer and wage details, with notes from the board of directors on their strategy, and to what degree they felt it had been successful. It was well-produced and highly informative, a world away from the secretive and old-fashioned we know best approach pursued at Wolves.

So PLC's do have to make these things open, and in the process treat their fans with far more respect, I would argue. In the long run, well-run institutions tend to do that, and create a far more trusting relationship with their fans. Public accountability is nowadays seen as a major positive for companies, just not at Wolves.

If that answers your question!

thank you for the detailed and informative response.

I still vote no though.

 

[Doug]

It's all very well in principle, but in practice accountability doesn't work with football fans.

 

[Essex Wolf]

Can't see why things need to be kept under wraps unless there is something to hide.

Bit more openess, honesty and clarity wouldn't go amiss in the game.

 

[RJs Tankard]

No.

Other clubs no how much money we have - so they bump their prices up.

Plus, if a price tag seems a bit OTT, it may put extra pressure on the player - and then he could end up struggling (see Andy Carroll for details....)

The fans don't really need to know. It'll just be used as another stick to beat the club with "OMG we paid HOW MUCH for this sack of $$$$?" or "We only sold X for £500,000? He's worth at least £45m - Moxey Out".

It all comes out eventually anyway further down the line, so I don't see the big deal.

 

[we8wba]

people expect us to have 24m in our bank ready to spend

sorry to dissapoint a few but 2m is lost automatically to burnley and gillingham

then we add that 6m between two deals rumoured to be add ons and not upfront

so that 24m fans expected in our bank ready to spend is realsitcally really 16m before we get started on how much that we get to spend

 

[Big Nosed Wolf]

Yes. It makes no difference that the information might be found in accounts.

Anything which moves towards a more transparent club and game is needed.

Clubs should not be the playthings, or closed little clubs, for the wealthy few.

Too many have the 'doffed cap' attitude, the 'we have no right to know' bull$$$$.

The fans of the club will 'invest' more than most over time.

A quick example I have used before.

Morgan investment since involvement, Approx £30,000,000

Molineux gate receipts over five years at approx £10,000,000 PA = £50,000,000.

Why is there no 'right' to know about the running of the club and its dealings?

 

[Mighty Thor]

Yes. It makes no difference that the information might be found in accounts.

Anything which moves towards a more transparent club and game is needed.

Clubs sould not be the playthings, or closed little clubs, for the wealthy few.

Too many have the 'doffed cap' attitude, the 'we have no right to know' bull$$$$.

The fans of the club will 'invest' more than most over time.

A quick example I have used before.

Morgan investment since involvement, Approx £30,000,000

Molineux gate receipts over five years at approx £10,000,000 PA = £50,000,000.

Why is here no 'right' to know about the running of the club and its dealings?

Sorry to use the same supermarket example again, but I spend over 100 quid at sainsburys every week. Does that mean they should open up their books to me so I can see what their margins are? Football is a business. We are customers.

 

[North West Wanderer]

It's upto the owner. We are consumers of his product.

If we were a Plc then fair enough but we aren't

 

[Big Nosed Wolf]

Sorry to use the same supermarket example again, but I spend over 100 quid at sainsburys every week. Does that mean they should open up their books to me so I can see what their margins are? Football is a business. We are customers.

You seem a litte confused when using and comparing the term 'customer'

On this thread earlier you stated that you would not take your 'business' elsewhere ( to WBA) because you are a Wolves fan. This contradicts your views on how football is a business I suggest.

You are not a 'customer' of WWFC, you are a fan, a supporter of the club. You are unlikely to 'shop' elsewhere.

That you choose to argue that the club is a 'business' only plays into the hands of those who have hijacked the game and made the few wealthy at the expense of the communities from which they came.

Too many have used this 'support' to make themselves very wealthy while the fan has seen their game and clubs prostituted.

WWFC is a cultural, iconic institution which truly belongs to its only constant 'owner', its communty and fans.

If Sainsburys were to close down there are any number of similar places in which to shop.

If WWFC closes down it is non replaceable and why it should not be left to one person for its well being, no matter how well intentioned they may or may not be.

 

[AW]

How do you know this?
What actual evidence do you have of money laundering?

It's a fact. Seen it quoted in places such as 'The Economist'.

 

[Mighty Thor]

It's a fact. Seen it quoted in places such as 'The Economist'.

I am sure i read about Sadams weapons of mass destruction in the economist once too

 

[wolvesjoe]

You seem a litte confused when using and comparing the term 'customer'

On this thread earlier you stated that you would not take your 'business' elsewhere ( to WBA) because you are a Wolves fan. This contradicts your views on how football is a business I suggest.

You are not a 'customer' of WWFC, you are a fan, a supporter of the club. You are unlikely to 'shop' elsewhere.

That you choose to argue that the club is a 'business' only plays into the hands of those who have hijacked the game and made the few wealthy at the expense of the communities from which they came.

Too many have used this 'support' to make themselves very wealthy while the fan has seen their game and clubs prostituted.

WWFC is a cultural, iconic institution which truly belongs to its only constant 'owner', its communty and fans.

If Sainsburys were to close down there are any number of similar places in which to shop.

If WWFC closes down it is non replaceable and why it should not be left to one person for its well being, no matter how well intentioned they may or may not be.

Think you might be wasting your time with this one, BNW. It is an immutable world of profit and loss to him.