posted Sep 14, 2007

"I am happy, as always, to concede the point in the face of best weight of evidence."

So why is Ruud van Nistlerooy's transfer fee still listed at £10.2m, & van der Sar's still listed at £2.5m please, when the ONLY evidence that has been provided points to them being £12.3m and £2m respectively?

Why is Heinze's transfer still listed at £6.9m, and not the £8m that the evidence you've been provided with shows it to be?

Why is Rooney still shown as £27m, rather than the £25.25m it's, again, been extensively proven to be?

Why is Rossi's transfer still shown as £6m, rather than the £6.7m it's been evidenced to be?

Why is Ebanks-Blake not on the list at £0.2m?

Why does Kuszczak's transfer fee still show as £2.5m, depsite you having been provided with evidence that shows that this fee was quoted when they wanted Rossi on loan for a season? An option we didn't pursue.
We gave them 2 players on permanent transfers, not loan deals, so it hardly makes sense that the transfer fee would be the same now does it?

My understanding, without evidence to support it I'll concede, is that the deal was a straight swap for the England U-18 keeper, Steele, and McShane.
There is no report anywhere that suggests we paid £2.5m for him, so it is only right that you remove this figure until you can prove that it was not a swap deal, and that we did pay for him.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 14, 2007

"The fundamental difference in the two being that ManU did not receive the money for the transfer of the player, they were paid it to give up any claim on a option to buy him that may or may not have been ratified by FIFA and then the courts. It was effectively an out of court settlement by Chelsea. As I have said before the player did not just shoot up in value by a factor of four in those few months playing in the Norwegian league(he actually hardly played at all for Lyn Oslo in that time as I believe it was their close season). Case closed in my view."

Is it not time that you did a little of the work, here? It seems that you have a 'view' on these matters, and it requires almost indisputable evidence for you to accept a counter argument. After all, you haven't presented any real evidence that makes it absolutely clear that what you say is true. You are simply asserting that it is, and that it is your right to do so, because it is your article. Do you not see the inherent unfairness in that?

There are no standards here; no rules or guideline's or method to what we are doing. There should absolutely be so, in my opinion, and it should always come down to evidence. Not how much evidence that we (United fans) can produce, but who can provide the most compelling case. We should then all have the inherent fairness within us to be able to determine who it is that has presented the most persuasive evidence.

You cannot deny that there is very little evidence to support either of our stances, surely? What exactly does a transfer entail, and what is the prerequisite for it to be included in this debate? Manchester United had a signed contract with Mikel. That is most certainly one aspect of a normal transfer. Now, I will accept that this is not like any other transfer that I can think of, but there are presidents. I would imagine that wherever you first found the list of United’s transfer dealings, it was included, was it not? Therefore, we are not the only ones that would include it in such a list.

I am going to suggest that we should test this. Why not see who can find the most evidence for the Mikel deal being included, and excluded, from a list of players that United have bought and sold? After all, you still haven’t answered the question that most bothers me - not satisfactorily, anyway. If that money was then used to add to our incoming transfers, isn't it unfair to leave it out? You can say that it is similar to all other revenue streams, but it simply isn’t. In fact, it is far more similar to a transfer than other revenue streams, so it actually harms your case, from my point of view.

Obi Mikel had signed a contract with United, meaning that he was essentially a United player. The fact that Chelsea stepped in and persuaded him to change his mind, does not alter that in any way. It is quite reasonable, in my opinion, to argue that Chelsea essentially concluded two transfers in one. They paid the money that United would have paid to Lyn Oslo, and also compensated United for both the player and the inconvenience. Are you really saying that United would not have considered the potential of the player that they were losing when discussing the issue of compensation with Chelsea? I don’t believe that for a second, personally.

So, if you can prove that the money paid was exclusively to prevent United from taking the issue any further, I would be happy to see it. Otherwise, your assertion that this matter is closed is more in hope than judgement. I haven’t paid a great deal of attention to this deal, thus far. I most certainly will be doing so, from this moment on.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 14, 2007

redconn - them saying that they conduct further analysis isn't actually a key phrase in supporting the use of the report though.

They presumably analyse all the information they gather, including that from www.bbc.co.uk, and doing so doesn't add any validity or weight to its accuracy I'm afraid.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 14, 2007

redconn

What is that further analysis? Could it not be yet more websites?

In the absence of an explanation for what the 'further analysis' is, it is impossible to say what that means, and therefore, we can only assume that it is more of the same of that which they admit to - websites.

In any case, they specifically claim that they have used 'publicly available information', and that leaves them on a similar footing with myself, yourself, and any one else, for that matter.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 14, 2007

>>In the absence of an explanation for what the 'further analysis' is, it is impossible to say what that means

that was kind of my point

a Liverpool supporter would probably say they gather completely accurate or more relevant data through industry contacts, people at the clubs, etc. to show the most realistic picture possible and United supporters would say it's just more websites and of no real consequence.

Pretty convenient for both sides isn't it?

Enjoy your weekends

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 14, 2007

redconn - but that wouldn't be analysis of the information, that would relate directly to the gathering of the information.

So to say "we analyse the data" does nothing to evidence its accuracy or integrity, it just shows that it was analysed.

I could go out and ask 50 people how much they thought was provided to the Royal family each year from our tax, and when I received those 50 answers and produced some metrics and graphs to illustrate the points of view gathered, and a paragraph giving a summary of the findings, this would constitute me "analysing" the data.
The figures would not necessarily have any basis in fact whatsoever, in fact in this scenario it would be highly unlikely!

Have a good one yourself mate!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 15, 2007

sorry brett but I've lost interest in semantic nitpicking

- Redconn

Had I known you were speaking in Jest or so fed up of the semantics I wouldn't have made serious posts in response. Sorry.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 15, 2007

no worries

it's nothing - I just wasn't having the best of days

sorry to snap at you

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 18, 2007

excerpt from an email I received from Alex Byers at Deloitte Sports Business Group:

"Our Deloitte Annual Review of Football Finance ('ARFF'), a 60+ page report which we publish in May/June each year (latest version published May 2007), contains details of clubs' net transfer spending per financial year for each of the past five seasons in the Appendices. These ne transfer spending figures are taken from the cash flow statements in the clubs' audited financial statements and are reliable figures. However, because clubs' financial year ends differ (i.e. some have May year ends, some June etc) and therefore don't match up with the transfer windows, and because what a club pays in a particular year may not be equivalent to the total transfer fee (i.e. due to instalment payments), you can't compare numbers in ARFF to those in our transfers press releases as you're not comparing apples with apples.

There is also a timing issue. In England, football clubs are either private limited companies or plcs - in either case, Premier League clubs are all of such a size (in terms of revenue) that they have to file audited accounts - the deadline varies depending on whether they are plcs or private companies, but is no more than 10 months. The clubs' accounts are available from Companies House. In respect of their 2005/06 financial years (covering the 2005/06 season), many clubs didn't file their accounts until February/March 2007, which is the reason why our latest ARFF (May 07) contains clubs' 2005/06 financial results. It does not contain information in respect of the summer 2007 transfer window, and the press release that refers to a figure of £51m for Man United is not referring to figures in the ARFF publication.

In respect of our transfers press releases, we use the BBC website and FA Premier League website as our sources because these are the most reliable sources of information we have at the end of the respective transfer window.

Due to the time it takes to finalise and file their audited accounts, clubs won't disclose how much they spent on transfers this summer until their audited accounts are lodged, and they may have up to 10 months after their financial year end to file their audited accounts."

The Premier League website is not a reliable source, as they claim we spent £46m this summer, and then provide a breakdown which shows it to be £48m. They also claim that we sold Jason Euell to Southampton!??
The BBC is also not a reliable source, as has been proven during the course of this discussion.

So this should be enough quantifying evidence that the Deloitte transfer report is not in any way reliable or accurate.
The Annual Review of Football Finance does seem to have quite a bit more integrity though, as it is sourced from the revenue streams of all clubs' audited accounts.
However, due to the limitations Deloitte have stated above, the report that shows the figures for this summer, will not be available until May 2008 at the earliest.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 18, 2007

From: Byars, Alex (UK - Manchester) [mailto:****@deloitte.co.uk]
Sent: 18 September 2007 13:28
To:
Subject: RE: Sports Business Group: Other

As you have correctly demonstrated below, there are a number of different, conflicting sources and reports in terms of individual transfer fees. In our press releases in respect of the amounts spent in the transfer windows we state that the information is taken from publicly available sources. This information has not been audited and the audited numbers often turn out to be very different from those in the public domain.

Our Annual Review of Football Finance is, on the other hand, based on clubs' audited financial statements, in which clubs are required to disclose:

1) How much in total they capitalised (i.e. committed to) in terms of transfer spending during the financial year (within intangible fixed assets, additions); and
2) How much in total they received/paid in respect of transfers during the financial year - which may be different from what they committed to if there are instalment payments.

Clubs are not required to ,and therefore rarely do, disclose in their audited financial statements what they spent in terms of individual players. In terms of appearance-related transfer fees, the treatment by one club may differ from that by another club even if the facts are the same; there is judgement involved and it's up to the individual club's auditors to assess the judgement made by the club in terms of how much transfer fee to capitalise now and how much, if any, to capitalise later.

In our Annual Review of Football Finance, we disclose figures in respect of 1 and 2 above. However, these figures are not broken down by players, nor do match particular transfer windows because clubs' financial year ends do not, in the vast majority of cases, end on 31 August when the summer transfer window closes.

You will not, in my opinion, be able to get a definitive answer, or a 100% reliable list, in terms of transfer spending on individual players by individual clubs.

I hope the above clarifies your further queries.

Kind regards,

Alex

add comment | complain about this comment