But approach has been turned down....

https://thisisfutbol.com/2019/06/blogs/ ... -approach/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Will be a real statement of intent from the board if he's still in the squad when we play Southampton

"Tarkowski was a key player for Wolves last season, making 42 appearances for the Premier League side"

Sloppy much?

What a terrible piece that is - according to this report, Tarks played for Wolves last season and he only has three months left on his contract!

"He still has three months left on his current deal with Burnley"

Very sloppy.

I don’t know why Wolves need to put an offer in, according to the article he played for them 42 times last season. It also says Tarkowski has 3 months left on his contract so there’s no need to sell!

Not the best article I’ve ever read!!

Granted the article is written by some muppet, but the tweet from the Times journalist was what carried the weight for me

They will of got it from the BBC gossip column.

On "Molineux Mix" they seem to think Burnley will want over £20m (I think they could be right!!! ) and that that might be more than he's worth .

they can go and....

Read plenty of links about Wolves and Leicester wanting Tarky. With the prices being touted about for Maguire going to City or United, I’d hope we would accept nothing less than £50m with him having 3 years left on his contract. That being said I’d rather we keep him

If we could sell Wolves a player they already have that would be a neat piece of business.

Hipper wrote:If we could sell Wolves a player they already have that would be a neat piece of business.

Harry Redknapps....the Agent For Tarkowski

I heard when he signed his new long term deal, there was a release fee included. The release fee was said to be 50m.

Not saying we'll get that, not even saying he's worth that, but if he did go I'd expect it to be for far more than 20m.

Personally I think he might go this summer, and I'd like to think for somewhere in the region of 30m

Least surprising news of the summer. £50m and no less.

He’s theirs, for a very large and possibly extortionate fee. Else he’s ours.

Daily Mirror journalist on twitter suggesting we are close to agreeing a fee, but want a replacement first.

MDWat wrote:Daily Mirror journalist on twitter suggesting we are close to agreeing a fee, but want a replacement first.

Craig Dawson, come on down

It’s a shame Gibson isn’t a right sided replacement. Not sure who we should go after.

MDWat wrote:Daily Mirror journalist on twitter suggesting we are close to agreeing a fee, but want a replacement first.

I cant believe that, unless Tarks has expressed a desire to go. We dont need the money, no matter how much they offer us. The only reason to lose him is if he would be upset by staying.

He has 139 followers and is a Brentford fan. I’m expecting Tarks to leave but I’m not sure there’s much in this.

Could be very good business as we make good money with Gibson ready to step in . It would have to be very good money though

Colburn_Claret wrote:I cant believe that, unless Tarks has expressed a desire to go. We dont need the money, no matter how much they offer us. The only reason to lose him is if he would be upset by staying.

Totally agree with this.
And we depended a great deal on the defensive qualities of Tarkowski and Mee, this is the kind of transfer out (if it should happen) that could see us relegated.

Colburn_Claret wrote:I cant believe that, unless Tarks has expressed a desire to go. We dont need the money, no matter how much they offer us. The only reason to lose him is if he would be upset by staying.

Was interesting in the 2017/18 accounts that we would have just about broken even without the Keane & Gray sales.

Last season, only Vokes sold and some £20 million less from the Premier League money. So wrong to think we don’t need the money and Garlick highlighted that in his report that we would need to player trade.

Having said that, there are a lot of people believing things from some of these click bait websites.

ClaretTony wrote:Was interesting in the 2017/18 accounts that we would have just about broken even without the Keane & Gray sales.

Last season, only Vokes sold and some £20 million less from the Premier League money. So wrong to think we don’t need the money and Garlick highlighted that in his report that we would need to player trade.

Having said that, there are a lot of people believing things from some of these click bait websites.

Don't we have £30m (ish) in the bank, CT?

boatshed bill wrote:Don't we have £30m (ish) in the bank, CT?

I wouldn’t have thought so. We made a £30 pre tax profit in 2017/18 based on the full fees for Keane & Gray.

I’ll be very interested to see the 2018/19 accounts next March with losses on player trading and significantly less Premier League money.

If we need to sell before we buy them we are in the **** already

ClaretTony wrote:I wouldn’t have thought so. We made a £30 pre tax profit in 2017/18 based on the full fees for Keane & Gray.

I’ll be very interested to see the 2018/19 accounts next March with losses on player trading and significantly less Premier League money.

£30 profit? What’s that? A couple of twixes?

Foulthrow wrote:£30 profit? What’s that? A couple of twixes?

Three I think

On a serious note we should be absolutely fleecing Wolves if they want Tarky. Haven’t they got billionaire owners? Fifty million should be a starting point.

Blackrod wrote:It’s a shame Gibson isn’t a right sided replacement. Not sure who we should go after.

Not sure I get this `right sided - left sided` mullarkey at centre half. Well, I understand it but I don't for one minute believe it's an absolute `must have` for a decent defence. So many good teams have had two right footed centre halves but no-one bats an eyelid. Now, ones gotta be left footed, and the other right footed. Not buying it i'm afraid. Two decent left footed centre halves will do fine, and we have two.

[quote="ClaretTony"]Was interesting in the 2017/18 accounts that we would have just about broken even without the Keane & Gray sales.

That's not quite the case. We made an operating profit on all activities of £45.1m of which £30.7m was profit on sale of Keane and Gray. After tax of £8.5m the net profit for the year was £36.6m.

Cash at bank at June'18 was £34.4m.

The payment from the PL for 18/19 was around £12.4m down on 17/18 but presumably the amount paid out in bonuses will be down also.

Are there any leading sides who regularly play with 2 Left footed Centre Halves ?

If he goes and I hope not there will be enough money for Gary Cahill's wages.

randomclaret2 wrote:The payment from the PL for 18/19 was around £12.4m down on 17/18 but presumably the amount paid out in bonuses will be down also.

That's spot on random. Down from just over £119m to £107m. The total Wage bill of £81.6m was heavily incentivised based on finishing 7th. The Wage bill therefore to Jun'19 will be significantly less and operating profit should be in the same ball park as the previous year. Plus of course the profit on sale of Sam Vokes and any further sales before the end of June.

randomclaret2 wrote:The payment from the PL for 18/19 was around £12.4m down on 17/18 but presumably the amount paid out in bonuses will be down also.

Hadn’t taken in the presumably lower bonuses although I’d suspect the general wage bill went up. Was the difference only £12.4 million? I’m surprised at that for eight places lower although we did get one extra TV game.

boatshed bill wrote:Totally agree with this.
And we depended a great deal on the defensive qualities of Tarkowski and Mee, this is the kind of transfer out (if it should happen) that could see us relegated.

Keane left and we didn't have a problem.

If it's so vital to have one left footer and one right footer, and bearing in mind that there are more right footers around than left footers, then clearly left footers will be at a premium price. So we sell Ben Mee for £100m and play Gibson and Tarkowski. Simples!

Royboyclaret wrote:That's spot on random. Down from just over £119m to £107m. The total Wage bill of £81.6m was heavily incentivised based on finishing 7th. The Wage bill therefore to Jun'19 will be significantly less and operating profit should be in the same ball park as the previous year. Plus of course the profit on sale of Sam Vokes and any further sales before the end of June.

So are you predicting that we will be reporting a similar profit next March to the one we reported three months ago?

dsr wrote:If it's so vital to have one left footer and one right footer, and bearing in mind that there are more right footers around than left footers, then clearly left footers will be at a premium price. So we sell Ben Mee for £100m and play Gibson and Tarkowski. Simples!

It’s strange but you can play two right footers but it doesn’t work with two left footers.

What's Nixon got to say about this?

ClaretTony wrote:So are you predicting that we will be reporting a similar profit next March to the one we reported three months ago?

Similar operating profit to June'19 of £14m before profit on player trading.

Spijed wrote:Keane left and we didn't have a problem.

A certain poster on here will tell you it's because Keane was utter toss and we were better off without him

Royboyclaret wrote:Similar operating profit to June'19 of £14m before profit on player trading.

Player trading is currently running at a significant loss though.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:A certain poster on here will tell you it's because Keane was utter toss and we were better off without him

Keane was outstanding. We got a really good fee for him at the time but prices have soared since.

ClaretTony wrote:Player trading is currently running at a significant loss though.

Included in the profit & loss account to Jun'19 will be one years amortisation on the costs of any incoming players offset currently by the profit on sale of Sam.

If Tarky is sold before the end of June (as I fully expect) the net profit for the year to Jun'19 will be higher than the £45.1m to Jun'18.

Royboyclaret wrote:Similar operating profit to June'19 of £14m before profit on player trading.

Agree with this - think with the Vokes sale we’ll be posting about £20m profit.

We have generated significant cumulative profits in the last few years. Don’t mistake cash at bank for profit - 2 completely different things.

We should start this financial year with a nice little windfall from the sell on clause for Ings.

We have leeway to do some decent business in the market and not put the club at any risk. Our reserves from recent years profits even given us room to run the club at a loss. I don’t think we would do this but if we did I would only be concerned if our basic wage bill (without bonuses for where we finish) was increasing way beyond what it stands at now....which again I am pretty sure our chairman would never allow.

surely poor business to let a key player go to a rival club and then struggle to find the money to acquire a decent enough replacement.
If we need to sell at this stage, then the business side is in need of an overhaul, and quickly.

ClaretTony wrote:Player trading is currently running at a significant loss though.

Not sure whether that is relevant CT.
If you mean that we paid out more in transfer fees than we bought in last year - then it really isn’t that significant in the way the costs are amortised over the length of the contract. The annual amortised net cost of our transfers in the last 12 months will probably be largely covered by the Ings sell on fee....and more then covered when you add in the Vokes fee.

Of course if you have a number of consecutive years of incoming transfer fees being significantly higher than outgoing transfer fees that will eventually be a problem if you are not covering that by increased commercial revenue or finishing high up the league....but we have a very good track record of selling players at very good profits...and we don’t have a need to do that every single season.

TVC15 wrote:Not sure whether that is relevant CT.
If you mean that we paid out more in transfer fees than we bought in last year - then it really isn’t that significant in the way the costs are amortised over the length of the contract. The annual amortised net cost of our transfers in the last 12 months will probably be largely covered by the Ings sell on fee....and more then covered when you add in the Vokes fee.

Of course if you have a number of consecutive years of incoming transfer fees being significantly higher than outgoing transfer fees that will eventually be a problem if you are not covering that by increased commercial revenue or finishing high up the league....but we have a very good track record of selling players at very good profits...and we don’t have a need to do that every single season.

If costs are amortised over the period of the contract then the accounts will surely also include part of the cost of signings from previous seasons.