One thing we may have missed....

[Norfolk N Chance]

I know I have........if these \"stars\" get their dream move we get a % of the move!

[FuzzyDuck]

As McKay's contract is with the club.  And he has the final say on who comes and goes, will he not also profit if a proper rovers player, like George Friend is sold?

[Filo]

I know I have........if these \"stars\" get their dream move we get a % of the move!

Are you sure, or does agent Mckay get a %age?

another thing to consider is if the player that comes in is already a free agent, then there will be no transfer fee to pay for the \"buying\" club, so we would get a %age of zero!

[Norfolk N Chance]

http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/sall_linked_with_rovers_1_3902360

Mentioned here as well as Sall

[Chrisd_123]

Yeah, seems as if we get a % of the fee if they are finally sold by their parent club. It may not be much each time but surely 4/5 players and we'll have made a fair whack off of this. Really hope this works out. It just seems too perfect to be true.

[DearneValleyRover]

I expect any money we get and in the case of the free agents as part of their signing on fee, will only cover the wages and any bonus paid to them while with us.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

It was always stated as the case, unfortunately too many want the thing to fail so conveniently miss out the finer detail of the deal.  Getting a fee for a player we have on cheap wages on a short loan is great for us surely?

[Chris]

This will only work with loans though, surely? There will be no future fees for players like Chimbonda, Diarra and Diouf.

[DearneValleyRover]

This will only work with loans though, surely? There will be no future fees for players like Chimbonda, Diarra and Diouf.

Unless it's part of the signing on fee arranged when Players sign for clubs.

[Mr1Croft]

It was always stated as the case, unfortunately too many want the thing to fail so conveniently miss out the finer detail of the deal.  Getting a fee for a player we have on cheap wages on a short loan is great for us surely?

It's irrelevant on whether we want it to fail or not; the risk of it failing seems more apparrent.

But this is only something McKay has contracted wth the club, nothing is written in stone there are still stages that is out of our control;

1) Allow the player to go on loan at DRFC and still pay all of his wages minus £2000

2) When he finishes his loan with Doncaster Rovers and returns; any future sale resolves in Doncaster getting a %, possibly no more than 15% (and we would be lucky to get that for 3 months of paying less than half of his wages)

3) He has to actually get sold for us to get anything; what if he isn't sold that season but is sold the next season; the parent club can say the loan move changed nothing.

Other club have to agree to our terms, said player has to therefore play for it to work out, and then he must get sold before the next season.

If we are paying them £2000 for 3 months thats around £24000. If were only receiving 5% of the transfer fee we only make a profit if he is later sold for over £480000, and I can't see us getting many deals better than 5%.

So everytime a player comes here and performs like Harry Worley (or does not get sold later) we will lose £24000, should this happen 4 times in a season that is £96000, that is if £2000 is the maximum we spend on their wages.

Plus 3 months here playing in the Championship is not a very long time for a club to scout him and pay millions, so I can't see the percentage when it does pay off, to be that bigger from the normal style of buying and selling your own talent. We also have to think about McKay, is he and the club are splitting it down the middle (say 2.5% each) and I'm presuming the club are paying a small wage anyway (if there is a contract) then how is the club going to operate at a profit? This stratergy is one that if it works will make someone money; but not make them rich.

Lets look at the differences between this loan technique and the standard style.

Standard:
Club A approach Club B, Club A would like a player from Club B on loan.
Club B asks how much wages they are prepared to pay him, Club B considers Club A's answer, depending on the availablility of the player, the stature of the two clubs and the amount of money the player is on, Club B may not have to pay any wages in the loan spell, or could pay most or all.
Player goes on loan to Club A, and then returns. Club A may have negotiated a future transfer fee for them to buy him or even a future 'first dibs' if the club ever wish to sell.

New:
DRFC approach Club A, they would like a player from Club A on loan to revive his career, said player is possibly seeing the best part of £30000 a week paid to him.
Club A asks DRFC how much they are prepared to pay, club DRFC says £2000, maximum.
Club A agrees for the £30000 player to go to DRFC for three months, despite DRFC paying less than 10% of his wages.
DRFC aren't finished they also want 5% off any future transfer sale. Club A consider it before giving in to DRFC.
Therefore for 3 months Club A pay £336000 (£28000 X 12) for the players wages, then if the player is sold for £1 million later, Club A are to pay out a further £50000 to DRFC, so the money gained after sale is:
Club A: £1000000-£50000 (Doncaster's %) = £950000-£336000 (players wage) = £614000
DRFC: £50000-£25000 (Mckay's share) = £25000-£24000 (player's wage) = £1000

So if a player is a sucess we stand to make £1000 on a £1 million sale. If it fails the club loses £24000 and whatever McKay is paid. So if it fails once, it would need lots of sales and some very good negoiating asking for deals such as 15% and above to even consider making a profit, that is why I say it is too risky and that is why it jepordises this club.

It's as if the £4 million wage cut is room for this to fail.

Just doesn't sound rewarding enough and I would rather be looking to loan players with the veiw to buy them afterwords not watch them get snapped up while we make a £1000.

But you know each to their own and everything...

[Wellred]

It was always stated as the case, unfortunately too many want the thing to fail so conveniently miss out the finer detail of the deal.  Getting a fee for a player we have on cheap wages on a short loan is great for us surely?

It's irrelevant on whether we want it to fail or not; the risk of it failing seems more apparrent.

But this is only something McKay has contracted wth the club, nothing is written in stone there are still stages that is out of our control;

1) Allow the player to go on loan at DRFC and still pay all of his wages minus £2000

2) When he finishes his loan with Doncaster Rovers and returns; any future sale resolves in Doncaster getting a %, possibly no more than 15% (and we would be lucky to get that for 3 months of paying less than half of his wages)

3) He has to actually get sold for us to get anything; what if he isn't sold that season but is sold the next season; the parent club can say the loan move changed nothing.

Other club have to agree to our terms, said player has to therefore play for it to work out, and then he must get sold before the next season.

If we are paying them £2000 for 3 months thats around £24000. If were only receiving 5% of the transfer fee we only make a profit if he is later sold for over £480000, and I can't see us getting many deals better than 5%.

So everytime a player comes here and performs like Harry Worley (or does not get sold later) we will lose £24000, should this happen 4 times in a season that is £96000, that is if £2000 is the maximum we spend on their wages.

Plus 3 months here playing in the Championship is not a very long time for a club to scout him and pay millions, so I can't see the percentage when it does pay off, to be that bigger from the normal style of buying and selling your own talent. We also have to think about McKay, is he and the club are splitting it down the middle (say 2.5% each) and I'm presuming the club are paying a small wage anyway (if there is a contract) then how is the club going to operate at a profit? This stratergy is one that if it works will make someone money; but not make them rich.

Lets look at the differences between this loan technique and the standard style.

Standard:
Club A approach Club B, Club A would like a player from Club B on loan.
Club B asks how much wages they are prepared to pay him, Club B considers Club A's answer, depending on the availablility of the player, the stature of the two clubs and the amount of money the player is on, Club B may not have to pay any wages in the loan spell, or could pay most or all.
Player goes on loan to Club A, and then returns. Club A may have negotiated a future transfer fee for them to buy him or even a future 'first dibs' if the club ever wish to sell.

New:
DRFC approach Club A, they would like a player from Club A on loan to revive his career, said player is possibly seeing the best part of £30000 a week paid to him.
Club A asks DRFC how much they are prepared to pay, club DRFC says £2000, maximum.
Club A agrees for the £30000 player to go to DRFC for three months, despite DRFC paying less than 10% of his wages.
DRFC aren't finished they also want 5% off any future transfer sale. Club A consider it before giving in to DRFC.
Therefore for 3 months Club A pay £336000 (£28000 X 12) for the players wages, then if the player is sold for £1 million later, Club A are to pay out a further £50000 to DRFC, so the money gained after sale is:
Club A: £1000000-£50000 (Doncaster's %) = £950000-£336000 (players wage) = £614000
DRFC: £50000-£25000 (Mckay's share) = £25000-£24000 (player's wage) = £1000

So if a player is a sucess we stand to make £1000 on a £1 million sale. If it fails the club loses £24000 and whatever McKay is paid. So if it fails once, it would need lots of sales and some very good negoiating asking for deals such as 15% and above to even consider making a profit, that is why I say it is too risky and that is why it jepordises this club.

It's as if the £4 million wage cut is room for this to fail.

Just doesn't sound rewarding enough and I would rather be looking to loan players with the veiw to buy them afterwords not watch them get snapped up while we make a £1000.

But you know each to their own and everything...

So on the basis of your argument the same will apply no matter who we sign whether it be on loan or on a permanent contract?

We sign Mark Wilson for free, we agree to pay him £2k a week. After 5 years we give him a free transfer.

We lose £530,000.

[DearneValleyRover]

It was always stated as the case, unfortunately too many want the thing to fail so conveniently miss out the finer detail of the deal.  Getting a fee for a player we have on cheap wages on a short loan is great for us surely?

It's irrelevant on whether we want it to fail or not; the risk of it failing seems more apparrent.

But this is only something McKay has contracted wth the club, nothing is written in stone there are still stages that is out of our control;

1) Allow the player to go on loan at DRFC and still pay all of his wages minus £2000

2) When he finishes his loan with Doncaster Rovers and returns; any future sale resolves in Doncaster getting a %, possibly no more than 15% (and we would be lucky to get that for 3 months of paying less than half of his wages)

3) He has to actually get sold for us to get anything; what if he isn't sold that season but is sold the next season; the parent club can say the loan move changed nothing.

Other club have to agree to our terms, said player has to therefore play for it to work out, and then he must get sold before the next season.

If we are paying them £2000 for 3 months thats around £24000. If were only receiving 5% of the transfer fee we only make a profit if he is later sold for over £480000, and I can't see us getting many deals better than 5%.

So everytime a player comes here and performs like Harry Worley (or does not get sold later) we will lose £24000, should this happen 4 times in a season that is £96000, that is if £2000 is the maximum we spend on their wages.

Plus 3 months here playing in the Championship is not a very long time for a club to scout him and pay millions, so I can't see the percentage when it does pay off, to be that bigger from the normal style of buying and selling your own talent. We also have to think about McKay, is he and the club are splitting it down the middle (say 2.5% each) and I'm presuming the club are paying a small wage anyway (if there is a contract) then how is the club going to operate at a profit? This stratergy is one that if it works will make someone money; but not make them rich.

Lets look at the differences between this loan technique and the standard style.

Standard:
Club A approach Club B, Club A would like a player from Club B on loan.
Club B asks how much wages they are prepared to pay him, Club B considers Club A's answer, depending on the availablility of the player, the stature of the two clubs and the amount of money the player is on, Club B may not have to pay any wages in the loan spell, or could pay most or all.
Player goes on loan to Club A, and then returns. Club A may have negotiated a future transfer fee for them to buy him or even a future 'first dibs' if the club ever wish to sell.

New:
DRFC approach Club A, they would like a player from Club A on loan to revive his career, said player is possibly seeing the best part of £30000 a week paid to him.
Club A asks DRFC how much they are prepared to pay, club DRFC says £2000, maximum.
Club A agrees for the £30000 player to go to DRFC for three months, despite DRFC paying less than 10% of his wages.
DRFC aren't finished they also want 5% off any future transfer sale. Club A consider it before giving in to DRFC.
Therefore for 3 months Club A pay £336000 (£28000 X 12) for the players wages, then if the player is sold for £1 million later, Club A are to pay out a further £50000 to DRFC, so the money gained after sale is:
Club A: £1000000-£50000 (Doncaster's %) = £950000-£336000 (players wage) = £614000
DRFC: £50000-£25000 (Mckay's share) = £25000-£24000 (player's wage) = £1000

So if a player is a sucess we stand to make £1000 on a £1 million sale. If it fails the club loses £24000 and whatever McKay is paid. So if it fails once, it would need lots of sales and some very good negoiating asking for deals such as 15% and above to even consider making a profit, that is why I say it is too risky and that is why it jepordises this club.

It's as if the £4 million wage cut is room for this to fail.

Just doesn't sound rewarding enough and I would rather be looking to loan players with the veiw to buy them afterwords not watch them get snapped up while we make a £1000.

But you know each to their own and everything...

Doncaster Rovers are not approaching any players under the new policy. Agent Willie McKay is saying players A,B,C,D,E ETC... are available Mr.Saunders, take them on trial and have a look, see what you think, if your interested I'll put an arrangement in place with the parent club. It's upto McKay to deliver then.

[Mr1Croft]

It was always stated as the case, unfortunately too many want the thing to fail so conveniently miss out the finer detail of the deal.  Getting a fee for a player we have on cheap wages on a short loan is great for us surely?

It's irrelevant on whether we want it to fail or not; the risk of it failing seems more apparrent.

But this is only something McKay has contracted wth the club, nothing is written in stone there are still stages that is out of our control;

1) Allow the player to go on loan at DRFC and still pay all of his wages minus £2000

2) When he finishes his loan with Doncaster Rovers and returns; any future sale resolves in Doncaster getting a %, possibly no more than 15% (and we would be lucky to get that for 3 months of paying less than half of his wages)

3) He has to actually get sold for us to get anything; what if he isn't sold that season but is sold the next season; the parent club can say the loan move changed nothing.

Other club have to agree to our terms, said player has to therefore play for it to work out, and then he must get sold before the next season.

If we are paying them £2000 for 3 months thats around £24000. If were only receiving 5% of the transfer fee we only make a profit if he is later sold for over £480000, and I can't see us getting many deals better than 5%.

So everytime a player comes here and performs like Harry Worley (or does not get sold later) we will lose £24000, should this happen 4 times in a season that is £96000, that is if £2000 is the maximum we spend on their wages.

Plus 3 months here playing in the Championship is not a very long time for a club to scout him and pay millions, so I can't see the percentage when it does pay off, to be that bigger from the normal style of buying and selling your own talent. We also have to think about McKay, is he and the club are splitting it down the middle (say 2.5% each) and I'm presuming the club are paying a small wage anyway (if there is a contract) then how is the club going to operate at a profit? This stratergy is one that if it works will make someone money; but not make them rich.

Lets look at the differences between this loan technique and the standard style.

Standard:
Club A approach Club B, Club A would like a player from Club B on loan.
Club B asks how much wages they are prepared to pay him, Club B considers Club A's answer, depending on the availablility of the player, the stature of the two clubs and the amount of money the player is on, Club B may not have to pay any wages in the loan spell, or could pay most or all.
Player goes on loan to Club A, and then returns. Club A may have negotiated a future transfer fee for them to buy him or even a future 'first dibs' if the club ever wish to sell.

New:
DRFC approach Club A, they would like a player from Club A on loan to revive his career, said player is possibly seeing the best part of £30000 a week paid to him.
Club A asks DRFC how much they are prepared to pay, club DRFC says £2000, maximum.
Club A agrees for the £30000 player to go to DRFC for three months, despite DRFC paying less than 10% of his wages.
DRFC aren't finished they also want 5% off any future transfer sale. Club A consider it before giving in to DRFC.
Therefore for 3 months Club A pay £336000 (£28000 X 12) for the players wages, then if the player is sold for £1 million later, Club A are to pay out a further £50000 to DRFC, so the money gained after sale is:
Club A: £1000000-£50000 (Doncaster's %) = £950000-£336000 (players wage) = £614000
DRFC: £50000-£25000 (Mckay's share) = £25000-£24000 (player's wage) = £1000

So if a player is a sucess we stand to make £1000 on a £1 million sale. If it fails the club loses £24000 and whatever McKay is paid. So if it fails once, it would need lots of sales and some very good negoiating asking for deals such as 15% and above to even consider making a profit, that is why I say it is too risky and that is why it jepordises this club.

It's as if the £4 million wage cut is room for this to fail.

Just doesn't sound rewarding enough and I would rather be looking to loan players with the veiw to buy them afterwords not watch them get snapped up while we make a £1000.

But you know each to their own and everything...

So on the basis of your argument the same will apply no matter who we sign whether it be on loan or on a permanent contract?

We sign Mark Wilson for free, we agree to pay him £2k a week. After 5 years we give him a free transfer.

We lose £530,000.

It is actually £520,000 (2000 X 52 X 5) but who's counting.

Your totally missing the point in it's entirity.

In football you always lose and make money and you have to risks with players, some pay off some don't.

With this strategy McKay is using, we can only make money through this scheme, we cannot sell our players because McKay only wants players to be loaned to us, and not buy them, so if we sell players chances are they won't be replaced with transfers only loans. Which in turn means the club loses assets which makes the club less appealing in terms of how much it is worth etc., it is financial suicide...

[Mr1Croft]

Doncaster Rovers are not approaching any players under the new policy. Agent Willie McKay is saying players A,B,C,D,E ETC... are available Mr.Saunders, take them on trial and have a look, see what you think, if your interested I'll put an arrangement in place with the parent club. It's upto McKay to deliver then.

Exactly, this whole plan is built around trusting an football agent's word.

[DearneValleyRover]

Doncaster Rovers are not approaching any players under the new policy. Agent Willie McKay is saying players A,B,C,D,E ETC... are available Mr.Saunders, take them on trial and have a look, see what you think, if your interested I'll put an arrangement in place with the parent club. It's upto McKay to deliver then.

Exactly, this whole plan is built around trusting an football agent's word.

True but all Transfer Policy's are like that. The manager see's a player he wants, asks the Board if the money is there. Board/Manager approach Club/Agent. Agent then runs round other Clubs trying to get a better deal (Jason Shackell) The only difference in this, is that the middle man isn't running round trying to shaft us because he would be shafting himself. This experiment (for want of a better word) is as much a risk to McKay as us, if he fails to deliver then his own income suffers, yes he's in it for the money but it has to work to make some.

[sedwardsdrfc]

the idea is not to make a profit on the players been sold on but for the club as a whole to loose less money by slashing the wages.

also every club would make a loss on every player because of the wages they are paying them will always go over the value of the transfer more so if they have been with us a long time.

you cannot take wages in to account when looking at profit/loss on a player because they are in theory earning that money by playing well for the club the only numbers we should really look at are transfer fees.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

You miss one vital factor though.  Three players earning 2k each is surely better than the current model of spending 6k on one average player?

It's all well and good saying we have that extra cost, but what about the cost saving on the alternate option that could potentially arise?

Would you pay Wayne Thomas 4k or have Chimbonda and Ilunga at 2k each?

[Mr1Croft]

You miss one vital factor though.  Three players earning 2k each is surely better than the current model of spending 6k on one average player?

It's all well and good saying we have that extra cost, but what about the cost saving on the alternate option that could potentially arise?

Would you pay Wayne Thomas 4k or have Chimbonda and Ilunga at 2k each?

But with Wayne Thomas there is always the possibility that we could sell him on and make money, Chimbonda and Ilunga we are paying them 'dead money' which we will never see a huge return because they are not assets of Doncaster Rovers.

Sucess is driven by heavy investment in football, and we will not carry on paying £2000a week for players, once the clubs who are loaning them out realise we need them more than they need the loan players they will demand more of the wage is paid.

It comes down to trusting McKay to deliver; I for one wouldn't trust him to bring home my tea!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Your argument is clearly flawed though, we didn't make money on Thomas.  We lost on a transfer fee for Heffernan and Thornton remember.

If the club demands more money then we don't have to keep them and we get someone else surely?  If you were a finance man at those other clubs at the crunch would you take 2k a week or 0k a week?  I know as a finance guy what I do and thats's be the most cost effective.  There's always the chance someone will outbid us and so be it, but that's not to the detriment of us then is it?

You're also assuming that all the deals will be loans, they will not all be loans.  Some of these younger players could get 2/3 year deals and be sold on.  Yes loans and short term deals are part of it but not a whole part of it.  The extension of Sullivan today proves that point doesn't it?

[hoolahoop]

Yeah, seems as if we get a % of the fee if they are finally sold by their parent club. It may not be much each time but surely 4/5 players and we'll have made a fair whack off of this. Really hope this works out. It just seems too perfect to be true.

Chris this strategy is a load of bollox and spells ruin........please will you all wake up.

[Thinwhiteduke]

Chris this strategy is a load of bollox and spells ruin........please will you all wake up.

Agreed.

[Nudga]

Chris this strategy is a load of bollox and spells ruin........please will you all wake up.

Agreed.

Not quite though, it's like having to rent a house because you can't get a decent mortgage and not being able to keep up with the Jones'. Although in this case Rovers stand to make a couple of quid rather than the 2k being \"dead money\". Now I am not saying I 100% like this new model but I am prepared to see how it pans out before judging anyone.

[dickos1]

we signed many many players on short termm contracts in the past, the chimbonda signing is the exact same situation as say oster, fortune, keegan, and im sure there has been many others i have missed.

[Berkshire Rover]

we signed many many players on short termm contracts in the past, the chimbonda signing is the exact same situation as say oster, fortune, keegan, and im sure there has been many others i have missed.

D'souza
Naylor,
Barnes

There's three more for you.

[Norfolk N Chance]

Chris this strategy is a load of bollox and spells ruin........please will you all wake up.

Agreed.[/quote

Christ...... I have been on this forum for years seen milions upon millions of opinions but honestly do not understand the ISSUE re Willy/ regime!

But hey I am not intelligent enough to read the Daily Mail to embrace their points of views.....mmmm but maybe I have my own!

Think the saddest thing is the opinions are disrespecting the GOD called JR!!!!!

[Muttley]

we signed many many players on short termm contracts in the past, the chimbonda signing is the exact same situation as say oster, fortune, keegan, and im sure there has been many others i have missed.

No, it's not.

In the past we could select player's that fitted our playing style, met the manager's requirement for temperament/work ethic etc, were within budget.

Now we can \"choose\" from whichever players one agent thinks he can make a few quid out of.

Okay, so DS has a got a veto, but what's that really worth when, say, all our \"resident\" right backs have been transferred out to save £4m pa and then WM get's a big money deal for Chimbonda so he's out of the door and all WM can rustle up is a gun-totin' crackhead who once played for Equatorial Guinea. What's DS to do then?

[Norfolk N Chance]

we signed many many players on short termm contracts in the past, the chimbonda signing is the exact same situation as say oster, fortune, keegan, and im sure there has been many others i have missed.

No, it's not.

In the past we could select player's that fitted our playing style, met the manager's requirement for temperament/work ethic etc, were within budget.

Now we can \"choose\" from whichever players one agent thinks he can make a few quid out of.

Okay, so DS has a got a veto, but what's that really worth when, say, all our \"resident\" right backs have been transferred out to save £4m pa and then WM get's a big money deal for Chimbonda so he's out of the door and all WM can rustle up is a gun-totin' crackhead who once played for Equatorial Guinea. What's DS to do then?

Disagree Chimbonda is good!

[Wellred]

Nobby old mate I really think it is time to give in.
You can only bang your head against the wall for so long.

If some people don't want to accept what is happening so be it.

No matter what you or I or anyone else who is prepared to see what happens says some people will still have their own views and are not prepared to give what the directors are trying to achieve a chance.

[dickos1]

And the players were signing now will be ones that Saunders thinks can play to the style he wants us to play. And yes they're also within budget. When we signed oster everybody was worried he would leave after his short contract was up. 6 names have been mentioned already, some have gone some are still here who's to say that won't be the case with the ones were supposedly signing this season..
If sod was still here and none of this McKay business had come about, sod would of probably signed a left back on loan due to spurts injury, probably somebody not as good as llunga, so at the minute the only difference is chimbonda and he's a top class player. All this fall out is ridiculous an over something that is yet to happen, all the rumours and coverage means jack shit.
If we do sign 6 or 7 foreign journey men I'll be as unhappy as the next man but at the minute it's not happened. So what the problem??
Saunders has been here for well over a month now and the only difference is one player and people are acting like we've got a whole new team already and sacked off the others. It's unreal..

[Norfolk N Chance]

Nobby old mate I really think it is time to give in.
You can only bang your head against the wall for so long.

If some people don't want to accept what is happening so be it.

No matter what you or I or anyone else who is prepared to see what happens says some people will still have their own views and are not prepared to give what the directors are trying to achieve a chance.

Agreed Wellend ......enough is enough....we can do no more.....