Sander Berge

[roperclaret]

Even if you can only hold two thoughts in your head at any given time (1) the fact that we didn't sell anyone last season but (2) spent over £100 million - will tell you that what is coming in will be nothing compared to what is going out.

The auditors warned of a material uncertainty related to cashflow over the summer unless we can sell players. As far as I can see Sheffield United, Forest and Luton don't have one nor do clubs with reported financial issues like Leeds United.

Hi Pete, if as you said earlier, we haven’t paid for the players yet, then how can we have spent £100 million?. If we sold Trafford for say £20 million, surely that means we only really spent £80 mill last year if we haven’t paid for him yet?

[ClaretPete001]

Hi Pete, if as you said earlier, we haven’t paid for the players yet, then how can we have spent £100 million?. If we sold Trafford for say £20 million, surely that means we only really spent £80 mill last year if we haven’t paid for him yet?

It's the problem of language. And for those who don't do accounting It's a bit like if you buy a TV on credit you would say you've spent £300 on a TV but you haven't had £300 out of your bank account so although you've spent £300 you haven't spent £300 in cash you've spent a tenner and owe another £290. But you would say 'I've spent £300'.

We didn't pay £100 million in cash on players we spent £48,362,000 million in cash in the 22/23 accounts to July 31 (Page 17 of the accounts) but that will likely be expenditure on players in the season before as well as this season.

So, no in cash terms we didn't spend anything like £100 million we spent £48,362,000 on players...! It's all in the accounts...! Because we've been tracking the accounts for a few year on the thread NewClaret alludes to we can see over a period how things are changing.

But as I am demonstrating it's not easy to explain. And again to bring it back to the thread - it does relate to whether we sell Sander Berge and whether when we sell him it makes much difference to cashflow, which is where this conversation started.

[roperclaret]

It's the problem of language. And for those who don't do accounting It's a bit like if you buy a TV on credit you would say you've spent £300 on a TV but you haven't had £300 out of your bank account so although you've spent £300 you haven't spent £300 in cash you've spent a tenner and owe another £290. But you would say 'I've spent £300'.

We didn't pay £100 million in cash on players we spent £48,362,000 million in cash in the 22/23 accounts to July 31 (Page 17 of the accounts) but that will likely be expenditure on players in the season before as well as this season.

So, no in cash terms we didn't spend anything like £100 million we spent £48,362,000 on players...! It's all in the accounts...! Because we've been tracking the accounts for a few year on the thread NewClaret alludes to we can see over a period how things are changing.

But as I am demonstrating it's not easy to explain. And again to bring it back to the thread - it does relate to whether we sell Sander Berge and whether when we sell him it makes much difference to cashflow, which is where this conversation started.

Yeah, I suppose this only becomes a problem if we sell him and don’t pay off what we owe to Sheff U. If we did then the model works

[RVclaret]

Yeah, I suppose this only becomes a problem if we sell him and don’t pay off what we owe to Sheff U. If we did then the model works

It’s one of the requirements that you have to pay it off

[ClaretPete001]

Yeah, I suppose this only becomes a problem if we sell him and don’t pay off what we owe to Sheff U. If we did then the model works

Indeed, or if we sell him for less than we bought him for or can't sell him because no one wants to spend £15 million this summer. Equally, someone might be desperate and pay £20 million - who knows.

The last time we got relegated we lost around 16 players. Fortuitously, we had about 10 out of contract and several who had their contracts paid up.

This time we have around 36 first team players most of whom are under contract so it makes things much more difficult for the club when trying to cut the wage bill.

All these things will come into play when the club is considering selling a player. So, the club may want to sell Brownhill because his contract is paid up and Sander had a better season but Sander might have a relegation clause and want to leave because he's facing a 50 per cent pay cut. At which point the club may weigh up whether they could get a better player than Brownhill for the fee they can sell Brownhill for

It will be an interesting summer and an uncertain one for Alan Pace and his team because they are not in control....!

[roperclaret]

It’s one of the requirements that you have to pay it off

Is it? Even if the new buying club only pay you in instalments?

[Big Vinny K]

Is it? Even if the new buying club only pay you in instalments?

Yes - the contract will insist repayment of outstanding transfer fee if a player is sold.
Without this clause it would be carnage and if a club subsequently went into administration the knock on impact to the selling club could put them in serious financial problems too.

[roperclaret]

Yes - the contract will insist repayment of outstanding transfer fee if a player is sold.
Without this clause it would be carnage and if a club subsequently went into administration the knock on impact to the selling club could put them in serious financial problems too.

I thought football creditors money was protected? What would happen if we went into administration tomorrow? Would all the clubs we owe money to lose out?

[Big Vinny K]

I thought football creditors money was protected? What would happen if we went into administration tomorrow? Would all the clubs we owe money to lose out?

Nope football creditors rule does not mean money is protected. It means that players and managers wages and money owed to other clubs takes a higher priority than it normally would as an unsecured creditor in a normal business. That does not mean there is necessarily enough money to pay them or that it’s protected.
A selling club would never rely on that as a back stop - example :

We buy a player for £50m payable over 4 years.
Player has a cracking season and we sell him for £100m.
We decide not to repay the £37.5m owed to the club we bought it from and instead pay the owners a whopping Owen Oyston type dividend emptying all our cash account and reserves at the same time.
We then get put it administration without a pot to **** in and we don’t own our ground and have no other assets.

What good is the football creditors rule to the club we owe £37.5m to then ?

[roperclaret]

Nope football creditors rule does not mean money is protected. It means that players and managers wages and money owed to other clubs takes a higher priority than it normally would as an unsecured creditor in a normal business. That does not mean there is necessarily enough money to pay them or that it’s protected.
A selling club would never rely on that as a back stop - example :

We buy a player for £50m payable over 4 years.
Player has a cracking season and we sell him for £100m.
We decide not to repay the £37.5m owed to the club we bought it from and instead pay the owners a whopping Owen Oyston type dividend emptying all our cash account and reserves at the same time.
We then get put it administration without a pot to **** in and we don’t own our ground and have no other assets.

What good is the football creditors rule to the club we owe £37.5m to then ?

So my question still stands - what if we don’t sell the player but we still owe them 3 payments? Do they get him back?

[Big Vinny K]

So my question still stands - what if we don’t sell the player but we still owe them 3 payments? Do they get him back?

Presumably you mean if there is not enough money to pay them the outstanding transfer payments ?
No they don’t get him back - it’s like any other administration or liquidation in that there is a risk that people or businesses who are owed money do not get paid in full (or at all)
As said the football creditors rule is about creditor priority….nothing else.

When a club is deciding whether to agree being paid by instalments or paid in full up front then that is a decision based on their view of the viability of the club they are dealing with over the period they are agreeing to be paid. The reason that so many of the transfers between premier league clubs are over 3 or 4 years is because even the financially basket case clubs have large revenue streams guaranteed for 3 or 4 years at least.

If a club like Blackburn for example sold Ewood and their training ground and were still losing £20m a year and debts pushing £200m…..and wanted to buy a player for £20m they are going to find it harder to get a club to agree to phase it over 4 years than a club in the EPL.

[MACCA]

So regards Sander Berge, oops wrong thread....

[Paul Waine]

The point on the thread was that it's not easy to just say we will sell players for £21 million and get £21 million cash because we may not have paid for that player yet. Conversely, as CT correctly pointed out, we have taken some of the cash from the sale of players up front. The fag packet conclusion would be this will impact upon cash.

So, I said

Indeed Paul, we know there is cash coming into the club because we have £30 million worth of factored debt, £52 million of unearned income and a £70 million bank loan. All in all over £230 million worth of creditors at the end of July 23.

Your original point seemed to be that there is cash coming into the business. I replied that it is not cash generated by trade but cash generated by debt. We lost nearly £28 million and if you look at the cashflow on Page 17, there is a £15 million cash deficit during the period of the accounts.

So, if you look at Page 36 of the accounts we have £230 million worth of Creditors. Of that £230 million only £68 million is trade creditors. The rest is Bank loans, factored debt and accrued income of £52 million.

On the other hand, we have something like £170 million worth of debtors (Page 35), which consists largely of £124 million taken out of the club by ALK. And just about everyone on here, apart from perhaps yourself, thinks we won't see it again.

And it's not me saying it - it is the auditors because they prepared the accounts and came up with the same view. And while I take your point that a lot may have changed since July 23 but would counter it with the fact that the auditors must have seen cashflow forecasts beyond this summer and into next season and remained unconvinced.

Let me take this through in "bite size" pieces.

If BFC sell a player they will receive payment for that player from the buying club, most likely part in cash and part as a debt to be paid in one or more future instalments. If BFC want to spend all that money immediately, they can factor the debt with a bank so that they have the full amount (less the factoring charge) available to spend.

If BFC has previously bought that player and followed the same payment profile, part payment in cash immediately on signing and part to be paid later, the amount to be paid later is recorded in BFC's creditors.

If BFC have amounts that are due to be paid for players bought in previous transfer windows - that is amounts in creditors - they will be due to pay one or more instalments as they fall due. These instalments are due whether or not BFC sell the player in the current transfer window. However, if BFC do sell the player they may trigger the obligation to pay all the remaining instalments.

My simple point is: if BFC have creditors to pay, selling one or more players brings in cash, both directly and via factoring, to meet some or all other those credit obligations. If they don't sell any players, BFC still has the creditors to pay...

A couple of little factual matters:
1) Auditors don't prepare accounts, they audit the accounts that BFC's directors have prepared.
2) The auditors correctly recorded a "material uncertainty" statement, in accordance with the appropriate International Auditing
Standard. However, the auditors confirmed that the accounts are true and fair and correctly presented on a going concern basis.

[clarethomer]

So my question still stands - what if we don’t sell the player but we still owe them 3 payments? Do they get him back?

If you fail to pay for a transfer, I thought you got transfer embargoed - similarly to what happens when you don’t file accounts on time.

That would happen sooner than missing the 3 payments I would imagine.

[roperclaret]

Presumably you mean if there is not enough money to pay them the outstanding transfer payments ?
No they don’t get him back - it’s like any other administration or liquidation in that there is a risk that people or businesses who are owed money do not get paid in full (or at all)
As said the football creditors rule is about creditor priority….nothing else.

When a club is deciding whether to agree being paid by instalments or paid in full up front then that is a decision based on their view of the viability of the club they are dealing with over the period they are agreeing to be paid. The reason that so many of the transfers between premier league clubs are over 3 or 4 years is because even the financially basket case clubs have large revenue streams guaranteed for 3 or 4 years at least.

If a club like Blackburn for example sold Ewood and their training ground and were still losing £20m a year and debts pushing £200m…..and wanted to buy a player for £20m they are going to find it harder to get a club to agree to phase it over 4 years than a club in the EPL.

Why couldn’t a club ‘repossess’ a player’s registration if the buying club failed and were unable to make outstanding payments?

[Big Vinny K]

Why couldn’t a club ‘repossess’ a player’s registration if the buying club failed and were unable to make outstanding payments?

Why do you think ?
Try and work out yourself why it’s never happened (as far as I am aware)

[ClaretPete001]

My simple point is: if BFC have creditors to pay, selling one or more players brings in cash, both directly and via factoring, to meet some or all other those credit obligations. If they don't sell any players, BFC still has the creditors to pay...

A couple of little factual matters:
1) Auditors don't prepare accounts, they audit the accounts that BFC's directors have prepared.
2) The auditors correctly recorded a "material uncertainty" statement, in accordance with the appropriate International Auditing
Standard. However, the auditors confirmed that the accounts are true and fair and correctly presented on a going concern basis.

Thanks Paul, the auditors qualified the accounts with a material uncertainty. This has not happened to the other relegated sides but it has happened to Everton. The forum can make of that what they will.

The point on the thread is that you can't say that we will get £21 million if we sell a player if we haven't paid up the player's contract. And if we are factoring some of the player sales up front then we can't expect to see a contra of the situation when we have sold players because the money has been taken up front and spent, which is the point CT made.

The subsequent debate centred on whether the factoring of players had ended as a policy of the club. And I don't think it is clear that it has...! Or at least little was offered to suggest it has.

As I said before, I am conscious this is a thread about Sander and while this is relevant I think we are in danger of repeating ourselves.

[Paul Waine]

Why couldn’t a club ‘repossess’ a player’s registration if the buying club failed and were unable to make outstanding payments?

How would a club "repossess" a player? The player left the club that sold him and has a new contract with the club that signed him. Quite likely that the new club was paying hom more money that the selling club. The club that hasn't been paid cannot force the player to play for the club that sold him. If the new club not only fails to pay instalments to the selling club, but also fails to pay the player's wages, then the player is free to sign a contract with a new club...

[ClaretPete001]

Why couldn’t a club ‘repossess’ a player’s registration if the buying club failed and were unable to make outstanding payments?

Because the club doesn't own the player and would have to wait in line for an administrator to dispose of the assets as a whole or individually.

[roperclaret]

Because the club doesn't own the player and would have to wait in line for an administrator to dispose of the assets as a whole or individually.

Nobody ‘owns’ the player. Only the players registration. If a club folds, then the player of course becomes a free agent. But all I’m saying is if another club is still owed money against that registration shouldn’t they have a claim to it (like with banks and mortgages)?

[Paul Waine]

Thanks Paul, the auditors qualified the accounts with a material uncertainty. This has not happened to the other relegated sides but it has happened to Everton. The forum can make of that what they will.

The point on the thread is that you can't say that we will get £21 million if we sell a player if we haven't paid up the player's contract. And if we are factoring some of the player sales up front then we can't expect to see a contra of the situation when we have sold players because the money has been taken up front and spent, which is the point CT made.

The subsequent debate centred on whether the factoring of players had ended as a policy of the club. And I don't think it is clear that it has...! Or at least little was offered to suggest it has.

As I said before, I am conscious this is a thread about Sander and while this is relevant I think we are in danger of repeating ourselves.

The auditors didn't "qualify" the accounts. They signed off the accounts with a true and fair audit report. They also included the "material uncertainty" comment, while confirming this did not change their "true and fair" opinion.

Getting cash in early by factoring debtors of future instalments due from the club(s) one or more players have been sold to is one thing.

If the club sells a new player, Sander Berge, for example, they can use factoring to get in all the initial selling price for that player (less the factoring charge). The club can then use that money. They may spend some on paying off the creditor that was created when the club bought the player. They may use some to pay off other creditors - this can include interest on bank loans and capital repayment of the bank loan (in part). They can also put it towards signing one or more new players.

The key point is selling a player brings in cash and that cash is then available to use as required.

(None of what I've typed above says anything about profits and losses. This is just about cash and how an asset, the player's contract, can be converted to cash).

[ClaretPete001]

Nobody ‘owns’ the player. Only the players registration. If a club folds, then the player of course becomes a free agent. But all I’m saying is if another club is still owed money against that registration shouldn’t they have a claim to it (like with banks and mortgages)?

Who are they going to claim against? The club has sold the contract. The bank still has a contract with the owner of a property.

In reality, clubs don't generally fold like that. There is a period when the club is run by administrators. There are many examples of clubs not paying players' wages but the player has not become a free agent.

Derby is an example of a club in administration https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58649432.

[ClaretPete001]

The auditors didn't "qualify" the accounts. They signed off the accounts with a true and fair audit report. They also included the "material uncertainty" comment, while confirming this did not change their "true and fair" opinion.

Getting cash in early by factoring debtors of future instalments due from the club(s) one or more players have been sold to is one thing.

If the club sells a new player, Sander Berge, for example, they can use factoring to get in all the initial selling price for that player (less the factoring charge). The club can then use that money. They may spend some on paying off the creditor that was created when the club bought the player. They may use some to pay off other creditors - this can include interest on bank loans and capital repayment of the bank loan (in part). They can also put it towards signing one or more new players.

The key point is selling a player brings in cash and that cash is then available to use as required.

(None of what I've typed above says anything about profits and losses. This is just about cash and how an asset, the player's contract, can be converted to cash).

No one is saying the accounts aren't prepared as true and fair. The period referred to is not one covered by the accounting period. The club will have prepared cashflow forecasts in the eventuality of relegation. Everton prepared cashflow statements for two eventualities 1) if they stayed in the PL and 2) if they got relegated because of the material uncertainty identified by the auditors. It's all described in Everton's accounts and I have no doubt our club will have done something similar.

If you are saying the material uncertainty is irrelevant and auditors just waste everyone's time forcing clubs to prepare details cashflow statements then so be it. Who am I to argue with your opinion about auditors warnings.

The key point is selling a player brings in cash and that cash is then available to use as required.

If you think the key point of this thread is the revelation that clubs sell players to get cash in so they can spend it again who am I to argue.

[Stevie Morgan]

The key point is selling a player brings in cash and that cash is then available to use as required.

If you think the key point of this thread is the revelation that clubs sell players to get cash in so they can spend it again who am I to argue.
[/quote]

This seems to be the key point you haven't grasped tho Pete.

[Big Vinny K]

Nobody ‘owns’ the player. Only the players registration. If a club folds, then the player of course becomes a free agent. But all I’m saying is if another club is still owed money against that registration shouldn’t they have a claim to it (like with banks and mortgages)?

The answer is no and it’s not like a bank and mortgages.

Though I think what you are referring to did exist in the slave trade in deepest south Mississippi.

[Paul Waine]

No one is saying the accounts aren't prepared as true and fair. The period referred to is not one covered by the accounting period. The club will have prepared cashflow forecasts in the eventuality of relegation. Everton prepared cashflow statements for two eventualities 1) if they stayed in the PL and 2) if they got relegated because of the material uncertainty identified by the auditors. It's all described in Everton's accounts and I have no doubt our club will have done something similar.

If you are saying the material uncertainty is irrelevant and auditors just waste everyone's time forcing clubs to prepare details cashflow statements then so be it. Who am I to argue with your opinion about auditors warnings.

The key point is selling a player brings in cash and that cash is then available to use as required.

If you think the key point of this thread is the revelation that clubs sell players to get cash in so they can spend it again who am I to argue.

No Pete, you said in your post above that the auditors had qualified the accounts. I have explained that they didn't.

In your new post you are suggesting that the auditors are referring to a new accounting period. Well, "yes and no." Yes, they have looked at the cashflow projections or forecasts that the club has prepared. These projections will have covered the period from December 2023 to December 2024. This period is decided because the accounts would be signed off by the directors in December 2023 and the auditors would issue their audit opinion on the same day. But, no, the auditors aren't auditing the cashflow projection. How can they, it's a forecast or projection, it's not auditable in the way accounts are auditable? The International Auditing Standard requires the auditors to draw attention to any "material uncertainty" in the projections, I.e. something that cannot be known, because it may or may not happen in the 12 months period of the cashflow projection.

We can imagine, just as you describe for Everton, that BFC has 2 scenarios: 1 staying up and 2 relegation. With relegation we know that tv revenues fall, we know that bank loan would have a capital repayment clause, we know that player wages will be reduced and we know that money could be raised by selling players. What no one could say in December 2023 is how much money player sales would raise. BFC has used some assumptions. The auditors have said there is "material uncertainty" about how much money player sales could raise. If I'd been the auditor I'd very likely have done the same. I'd guess you would too.

Btw, the auditors don't force the club to prepare the cashflow projections, they are a normal part of preparing accounts. All entities have to do it to establish for themselves that "going concern" is the correct basis for the accounts.

[ClaretPete001]

No Pete, you said in your post above that the auditors had qualified the accounts. I have explained that they didn't.

In your new post you are suggesting that the auditors are referring to a new accounting period. Well, "yes and no." Yes, they have looked at the cashflow projections or forecasts that the club has prepared. These projections will have covered the period from December 2023 to December 2024. This period is decided because the accounts would be signed off by the directors in December 2023 and the auditors would issue their audit opinion on the same day. But, no, the auditors aren't auditing the cashflow projection. How can they, it's a forecast or projection, it's not auditable in the way accounts are auditable? The International Auditing Standard requires the auditors to draw attention to any "material uncertainty" in the projections, I.e. something that cannot be known, because it may or may not happen in the 12 months period of the cashflow projection.

We can imagine, just as you describe for Everton, that BFC has 2 scenarios: 1 staying up and 2 relegation. With relegation we know that tv revenues fall, we know that bank loan would have a capital repayment clause, we know that player wages will be reduced and we know that money could be raised by selling players. What no one could say in December 2023 is how much money player sales would raise. BFC has used some assumptions. The auditors have said there is "material uncertainty" about how much money player sales could raise. If I'd been the auditor I'd very likely have done the same. I'd guess you would too.

Btw, the auditors don't force the club to prepare the cashflow projections, they are a normal part of preparing accounts. All entities have to do it to establish for themselves that "going concern" is the correct basis for the accounts.

The auditors have written a warning on the accounts submitted to companies House year ended July 31 2023. I didn't say the auditors have audited the cash flow statements. I think you are somewhat misrepresenting the substantive points I am making

I said in the case of Everton the club prepared two cash flow statements in the event of 1) staying in the PL and 2) the event of relegation. I daresay they didn't ask Man City for a cash flow forecast in the event of relegation.

As relegation cannot be confirmed in December 23, the cash flow forecasts must have covered a period subsequent to that or what would the point be? And the material warning does not relate solely to relegation because Sheffield United have not had one nor have Luton or Forest. Only Everton with it's well reported financial issues have one

As I said above if you want to argue that the auditors issued warnings based upon cash flow forecasts prepared for the period from December 2023 to December 2024 because we were likely going to be relegated then so be it. I have no problem with you having that view point.

I don't think this is a sustainable position because of the points I make above. Either address specifically my arguments against your point or let others judge where the common sense of it all lies. We've both had a good say.

[ClaretPete001]

And to make it more clear because again I have rushed a response.,....!

The crux of it is that the other 2 relegated teams and Forest have not had a warning on their accounts. Everton who the auditors say themselves were relatively unlikely to be relegated have had the warning. The inference therefore is that what differentiates the five clubs mentioned above is not relegation but a weak cash position.

And that is the substantive point I have been trying to explain with regard to selling players because it matters when you are selling players.

[Paul Waine]

The auditors have written a warning on the accounts submitted to companies House year ended July 31 2023. I didn't say the auditors have audited the cash flow statements. I think you are somewhat misrepresenting the substantive points I am making

I said in the case of Everton the club prepared two cash flow statements in the event of 1) staying in the PL and 2) the event of relegation. I daresay they didn't ask Man City for a cash flow forecast in the event of relegation.

As relegation cannot be confirmed in December 23, the cash flow forecasts must have covered a period subsequent to that or what would the point be? And the material warning does not relate solely to relegation because Sheffield United have not had one nor have Luton or Forest. Only Everton with it's well reported financial issues have one

As I said above if you want to argue that the auditors issued warnings based upon cash flow forecasts prepared for the period from December 2023 to December 2024 because we were likely going to be relegated then so be it. I have no problem with you having that view point.

I don't think this is a sustainable position because of the points I make above. Either address specifically my arguments against your point or let others judge where the common sense of it all lies. We've both had a good say.

Pete, on page 2 of the Annual Report and Financial Statements the Directors state, "the principal risk to the group is the possibility of the football club's relegation..." "This would result in a reduction in the club's turnover and would bring forward debt reduction measures on external borrowings."

On page 4 the directors address Going Concern, including "The directors are aware of uncertainties involving player trading , which are referenced in the audit report and Note 2.4 titled Going Concern." They go on to state "The directors have considered the financial stability of the group for the next 12 months from the date of signing these financial statements. They have assessed financial performance and are satisfied that it will have sufficient resources available to be able to meet its obligations as they become due and therefore remain confident it will continue to be a going concern."

Let's then look at what BDO say in the Independent Auditor's Report (page 8).

"In our opinion

• the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of the Group's ... affairs as at 31st July 2023...
  the financial statements have been properly prepared..."

Under the paragraph headed "Material Uncertainty Related to Going Concern" BDO state:

We draw attention to note 2.4 to the financial statements concerning the company's ability to continue as a going concern. Should the forecasts, which include receipts from player trading, continuation of external facilities, receipts of factored receivables and operating cost reductions, prepared by the board not be realised, the company would need to find further sources of funding in order to bridge its cash flow position until appropriate player transactions are fulfilled. As stated in note 2.4 these events or conditions indicate that a material uncertainty exists which may cast significant doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern. Our opinion is not modified in respect of this matter."


"In auditing the financial statements , we have concluded that the Directors' use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is appropriate."

Note 2.4 Going Concern is on page 20 of the Annual Report and Financial Statements.

Pete, I don't find anywhere in the accounts where the auditors have used the word "warning" or "warn." They've correctly, in accordance with International Auditing Standards drawn attention to the "material uncertainty." They've also said that the accounts have been correctly prepared using the going concern accounting basis and that their "opinion is not modified in respect of" the material uncertainty.

The answer to the rest of your comments are quoted directly from the Annual Report and Financial Statements.

[Enola Gay]

A very good player, one of the few who looked up to the Premier League and I really hope he sta-

Sorry, wrong thread.

[jedi_master]

A very good player, one of the few who looked up to the Premier League and I really hope he sta-

Sorry, wrong thread.

Everytime this thread gets bumped I am expecting to see him being linked to Wolves or similar - and every single time I am relieved.

[Turftalkers mentor]

I can't think of anyone else. It's his style of play I was referring to. You don't rate Berge?

Overated

[Turftalkers mentor]

Overrated

[Tackler49]

To compare Dobbo with Sander Berge is not fair Dobbo was elegant and glided around the pitch and had the ability to “ghost” into the box at free kicks and corners he also scored 40+goals and had good players around him. Sander can be very easy on the eye when he’s playing well but some of the players around him were not on his wavelength if we are lucky enough to have him next season he could easily be the championship player of the season. The sooner a new manager is appointed the better and he can hopefully persuade Sander and some of VK’s castoffs to stay

[123EasyasBFC]

To compare Dobbo with Sander Berge is not fair Dobbo was elegant and glided around the pitch and had the ability to “ghost” into the box at free kicks and corners he also scored 40+goals and had good players around him. Sander can be very easy on the eye when he’s playing well but some of the players around him were not on his wavelength if we are lucky enough to have him next season he could easily be the championship player of the season. The sooner a new manager is appointed the better and he can hopefully persuade Sander and some of VK’s castoffs to stay

Closest player to Dobbo we have had is Jack cork

[fatboy47]

Berge looked a decent Prem player...as was Cork...neither looked out of place.

Comparisons with Dobson are fatuous though...Dobson was a genuine level above , one of only a handful of truly outstanding players we've had since the early 70s.

[elwaclaret]

I miss the days before computer football management games when fans used to talk about how players could work on the pitch not as stock market investments.

[BigGaz]

I remain wholly unconvinced that we are going to have this supposed queue of clubs braying down our door for him.

[Bullabill]

I miss the days before computer football management games when fans used to talk about how players could work on the pitch not as stock market investments.

Go back far enough and players not only worked on the pitch but did maintenance around the ground such as painting.

[spt_claret]

I remain wholly unconvinced that we are going to have this supposed queue of clubs braying down our door for him.

Any of the promoted sides would benefit from him, though realistically only Southampton might be able to afford him.
Everton would want him but might find money tight.
I could see a few of Bournemouth, Fulham, Brentford, Wolves, Brighton or Palace being interested, but it's whether they're interested enough - the fee we'd charge you're only paying if he's first team and while he could do a job for them all I'm unsure if his position is that high on their priorities.

I think we'll get offers, and unfortunately, I think we'll accept them. He's a very good player who is unlikely to want to spend another year in the Championship if he can help it, he's in his prime and will want to be at the top tier. Not as good as Defour or Cork at their best but right behind them, I hope he stays. Got every attribute needed in spades at Champ level.

[IanMcL]

He and several/many others, will be gone.

[equinox]

He and several/many others, will be gone.

With respect Ian, nice guy that I'm sure you are, you are probably the last person on this messageboard that I would take any notice of when it comes to anything to do with football.

[jlup1980]

I remain wholly unconvinced that we are going to have this supposed queue of clubs braying down our door for him.

He spent two years in the Championship with Sheff Utd. If he were as sought after as people think on here, he wouldn't have needed to do that. At the end of the day, he left them for us, so that shows you not many others were looking at him - it was hardly a vast step up in quality was it!

I think he's a terrific player, someone I would give a pivotal role in the coming season, but I'm with you in thinking he's unlikely to be part of a bidding war. I wouldn't entertain anything shy of £20m for him anyway, such is his importance to our coming season, and I just don't see anyone offering that.

I maintain a midfield three of Cullen, Berge and Brownhill will boss the Championship. Nobody else will have a midfield anywhere near as strong as that. Build the team around those three and we won't be far off.

[Darnhill Claret]

Sander is a very good midfielder, apart from the occasional lapses in concentration.

[ClaretPete001]

He spent two years in the Championship with Sheff Utd. If he were as sought after as people think on here, he wouldn't have needed to do that. At the end of the day, he left them for us, so that shows you not many others were looking at him - it was hardly a vast step up in quality was it!

I think he's a terrific player, someone I would give a pivotal role in the coming season, but I'm with you in thinking he's unlikely to be part of a bidding war. I wouldn't entertain anything shy of £20m for him anyway, such is his importance to our coming season, and I just don't see anyone offering that.

I maintain a midfield three of Cullen, Berge and Brownhill will boss the Championship. Nobody else will have a midfield anywhere near as strong as that. Build the team around those three and we won't be far off.

I think he was one of the stand outs last season. I agree that Cullen, Berge and Brownhill would be the key to next season but I also wonder whether we can afford to keep them all.

I think he would do a good job for other PL sides particularly those that play 4-4-1-1 like Everton in the Doucoure role. I think only Vincent Kompany would play him in a 4-4-2 he's too languid and not quick enough to get up and down in a 4-4-2 in my opinion - for whatever that's worth. Also, got caught playing too deep a number of times.

Not sure what will happen to him I can see both sides of the argument.

[CoolClaret]

He spent two years in the Championship with Sheff Utd. If he were as sought after as people think on here, he wouldn't have needed to do that. At the end of the day, he left them for us, so that shows you not many others were looking at him - it was hardly a vast step up in quality was it!

I think he's a terrific player, someone I would give a pivotal role in the coming season, but I'm with you in thinking he's unlikely to be part of a bidding war. I wouldn't entertain anything shy of £20m for him anyway, such is his importance to our coming season, and I just don't see anyone offering that.

I maintain a midfield three of Cullen, Berge and Brownhill will boss the Championship. Nobody else will have a midfield anywhere near as strong as that. Build the team around those three and we won't be far off.

----------Muric
-----O'Shea-Esteve
-----Cullen-Berge
--------Brownhill

would arguably the strongest spine of any team in Champ history. Should just blow teams off the pitch!

[ClaretPete001]

Sander is a very good midfielder, apart from the occasional lapses in concentration.

It's a chicken and egg argument again. Do players that are expected to have a lot of possession in their own half suffer lapses of concentration simply because of the way the team had to play.

[ClaretPete001]

----------Muric
-----O'Shea-Esteve
-----Cullen-Berge
--------Brownhill

would arguably the strongest spine of any team in Champ history. Should just blow teams off the pitch!

Steady! More cautious folk will wait for sound of t'whistle. As I once said to Ruud Van Wotsit, there's nowt ever been won moving draughts around on a chessboard.

He said, 'wise words Pete'! He didn't really he said 'stop following me or I'll call the police'

[equinox]

----------Muric
-----O'Shea-Esteve
-----Cullen-Berge
--------Brownhill

would arguably the strongest spine of any team in Champ history. Should just blow teams off the pitch!

Would I be being greedy if I wanted an upgrade on Brownhill?

[Darnhill Claret]

No, I don't think it is because of the managers tactics or instructions, if so it means that the fault would be with players not being able to carry out those instructions.
However, football is made up of a player who is in possession of the ball, attempting to help his team to keep possession, until his team can create a chance and hopefully score.
Those not in possession have to do everything they can to gain possession, and until they do that, they have to prevent the other team from scoring.

Sander does have an unfortunate habit of giving possession away too often, when not under a great deal of pressure, and occasionally it will result in his team conceding.
When a player makes a mistake, with a misplaced pass, there is only one person to blame if that is what you want to do. I accept, that as the opposition is trying to force mistakes from us, all our players will make mistakes, some of which will result in conceding a goal.
I prefer to say that the goal at Everton was as a result of a great press from Calvert-Lewin. Don't see the point in looking to blame Muric.
When Muric allowed a backpass from Berge to roll past him, I accept that mistakes like that happen, not often, but they happen. That wasn't the first time that I have seen that happen to a goalkeeper. Although it is a sickener when it happens, teammates and supporters need to get behind the players involved. All keepers, all players, are capable of giving goals away or being partly responsible for conceding, but that's football.
I have to say that our fans this season, on matchdays, have been brilliant at supporting players when we have conceded 'bad goals'.
A lot of posters on here could take note.