Player Watch - Tanguy Ndombele

[kent brockman]

Terminating Ndombele's contract would mean took an immediate hit of £21.7m (2/6 of the £65m we payed for him - he's been here four years, folks!) on the player value side. And that's assuming we didn't pay up any of his contract.

If we had to pay out his contract in full as well then that would indeed take the immediate hit to just under £40m.

However, the important thing is that we're on the hook for that circa £40m anyway if he just sits around not playing. It's only a timing issue. And given we've just had a straight £100m profit from the sale of Kane, now might actually be a good time to take that hit as we can offset the loss against the profit we made on the Kane sale.

Agreed. However, if we loan him out, that 40m hit to the P/L would be reduced by whatever loan fee we get and the percentage of his wages that would be paid by the loaning club.

 

[kent brockman]

Any signings we made this summer will have zero *immediate" impact on profit and loss. You pay e.g. £40m for a player and and get an asset worth £40m so the *immediate* profit and loss impact is zero.

It's literally how Chelsea have been able to spend so much money without breaking FFP.

But they will have to recognise that cost over future years which is where they might come unstuck - basically they need these players to come good and/or for their academy to keep producing players otherwise they'll be in touble.

EDIT: And no, I'm not an accountant! I just have to deal with accountants a lot...

EDIT2: I think a lot of our financial "issues" are specifically about not borrowing any additional money as the terms on our stadium debt may get worse if we take on more debt. So cashflow (which is not the same as profit and loss) is probably more important to us than other clubs.

The transfer fee is amortized over the duration of the contract. So if we sign a player on a five-year contract, 20% of the fee will be amortized (thus reducing our book profit) each year.

 

[TheHodFather]

The transfer fee is amortized over the duration of the contract. So if we sign a player on a five-year contract, 20% of the fee will be amortized (thus reducing our book profit) each year.

Yes, agreed. By "immediate" I mean day 1.

 

[zicomerc]

We set a dangerous precedent terminating Matt Doherty contract with 18 months to go, now every player will expect the same.

I would rather just leave Ndombele out of the squad and nowhere to go. In two years no one will want him, and thus that might be the only incentive he gets to change his stance if he wants a contract elsewhere.

If we rip up his contract he gets exactly what he wants.

 

[homer hotspur]

We set a dangerous precedent terminating Matt Doherty contract with 18 months to go, now every player will expect the same.

I would rather just leave Ndombele out of the squad and nowhere to go. In two years no one will want him, and thus that might be the only incentive he gets to change his stance if he wants a contract elsewhere.

If we rip up his contract he gets exactly what he wants.

I think everyone knew the Doherty situation was an admin oversight. I agree though that we shouldn't pay him off and I will be a bit surprised if he doesn't get separate season loans for this and next season with us paying a large percentage of his wages but saving a bit and getting him out of the way.

 

[Deathrod]

You have to take into money when considering worst signings.
He only cost about £1m, even in the late 90’s that wasn’t significant.

You could reel off a massive list of players ‘worse’ than Ndombele but given his fee and wages, I’m struggling to think of a worse signing.

Taking into account money, but for pure unadulterated inability to actually know how to play football.. Tremz is unmatched.

 

[homer hotspur]

Can he not? Is he not a free agent from then?

No , he has next season with us too

 

[Tucker]

We set a dangerous precedent terminating Matt Doherty contract with 18 months to go, now every player will expect the same.

I would rather just leave Ndombele out of the squad and nowhere to go. In two years no one will want him, and thus that might be the only incentive he gets to change his stance if he wants a contract elsewhere.

If we rip up his contract he gets exactly what he wants.

End of the day, keeping him here, or ripping up his contract won’t make a difference to the balance sheet. The lazy **** will still get his money.

We should probably tell him he can either agree to mutual termination, or be placed on permanent gardening leave.

 

[SuperLuka]

No , he has next season with us too

If his contact is paid off and he's released the. He is a free agent and can join who he wants outside the window.

 

[vegassd]

Terminating Ndombele's contract would mean took an immediate hit of £21.7m (2/6 of the £65m we payed for him - he's been here four years, folks!) on the player value side. And that's assuming we didn't pay up any of his contract.

If we had to pay out his contract in full as well then that would indeed take the immediate hit to just under £40m.

However, the important thing is that we're on the hook for that circa £40m anyway if he just sits around not playing. It's only a timing issue. And given we've just had a straight £100m profit from the sale of Kane, now might actually be a good time to take that hit as we can offset the loss against the profit we made on the Kane sale.

Yeah totally, we are committed to giving him a shed load of money one way or the other. For me, it makes it a bit more understandable why we don't just "tear up the contract" at the start of the window - because it is a hell of a lot of money to lose out on in a single hit. It makes sense to explore as many options as possible, and also let the player see how little interest there is for him.

I've seen people saying that the Saudi transfer window ends later than ours. If we don't manage to shift him this month, maybe there is an outside chance he will agree to terminate mutually so he can pick up a massive Saudi wage on a free. Probably wishful thinking!

 

[WiganSpur]

Terminating Ndombele's contract would mean took an immediate hit of £21.7m (2/6 of the £65m we payed for him - he's been here four years, folks!) on the player value side. And that's assuming we didn't pay up any of his contract.

If we had to pay out his contract in full as well then that would indeed take the immediate hit to just under £40m.

However, the important thing is that we're on the hook for that circa £40m anyway if he just sits around not playing. It's only a timing issue. And given we've just had a straight £100m profit from the sale of Kane, now might actually be a good time to take that hit as we can offset the loss against the profit we made on the Kane sale.

I doubt we'd have to go as far as a full pay off. If the value of his contract was say £20m, I reckon he'd accept a deal that ripped up his contract and paid him half his salary every week for the next couple of years which would cost us £10m. Then he is free to find another club and get that topped up or earn a signing on bonus. Still, it's a last resort though and I reckon we're better trying to find loan deals with heavily subsidised wages until his contract is up. If he's on £200k pw, offer him out on loan and offer to pay £120k or so of it and charge a small loan fee to a club.

 

[Frank Blank]

Can we start a N'Dombele fantasy thread?

I'll kick off by saying Al-Alhi have submitted a £100m bid - and only personal terms have to be worked out.

 

[jay2040]

If we're gonna get upset about the Jewish references (Rightly so) we need the same energy for Islamic slants as well. There is an increasing amount of islamaphobia creeping into the debate on this site since Newcastle and Man City. This is a welcoming site and I think it needs to be called out.

At the same time I respect people calling out the poor human rights records.of Saudi especially with homophobia but keep it on the right side of the line.

I did not see the joke/comment as islamaphobic .
There was no religious reference and us more to do with the country.
Each to their own!

 

[homer hotspur]

If his contact is paid off and he's released the. He is a free agent and can join who he wants outside the window.

Oh yes, if we release him.. I obviously missed the context.

 

[worcestersauce]

If his contact is paid off and he's released the. He is a free agent and can join who he wants outside the window.

That's how I understood it.

 

[worcestersauce]

I doubt we'd have to go as far as a full pay off. If the value of his contract was say £20m, I reckon he'd accept a deal that ripped up his contract and paid him half his salary every week for the next couple of years which would cost us £10m. Then he is free to find another club and get that topped up or earn a signing on bonus. Still, it's a last resort though and I reckon we're better trying to find loan deals with heavily subsidised wages until his contract is up. If he's on £200k pw, offer him out on loan and offer to pay £120k or so of it and charge a small loan fee to a club.

But if he insists on the whole amount he will still be free to find anotgsr club and earn even more money.

 

[WiganSpur]

But if he insists on the whole amount he will still be free to find anotgsr club and earn even more money.

But why would we do that? I am saying there is likely a sweet spot somewhere and room for a mutual termination. Let's say we pay 75% of his contract (so 150k a week for 2 years), then he subsequently finds a club that'll pay him £75k with a signing on bonus, then both parties benefit do they not? Tanguy has a financial incentive to agree and we don't have to pay off the full contract.

 

[mil1lion]

We set a dangerous precedent terminating Matt Doherty contract with 18 months to go, now every player will expect the same.

I would rather just leave Ndombele out of the squad and nowhere to go. In two years no one will want him, and thus that might be the only incentive he gets to change his stance if he wants a contract elsewhere.

If we rip up his contract he gets exactly what he wants.

Doherty went on loan so he was not going to be playing for the remainder of the season. We then terminated to push the Porro deal through as a loan to help Sporting. It was a unique situation where we couldnt register him otherwise but since Doherty was being loaned anyway made sense. It's also not like we haven't released the likes of Rose and Aurier in the past too.

 

[ikky]

If we're gonna get upset about the Jewish references (Rightly so) we need the same energy for Islamic slants as well. There is an increasing amount of islamaphobia creeping into the debate on this site since Newcastle and Man City. This is a welcoming site and I think it needs to be called out.

At the same time I respect people calling out the poor human rights records.of Saudi especially with homophobia but keep it on the right side of the line.

Being a muslim myself my joke was more directed at the Saudi regime and not against Islam. The repressive Saudi regime picks and chooses which Islamic laws suits itself. The ruling class are hardly role models for Muslims.
However I do appreciate your sentiment.

 

[worcestersauce]

But why would we do that? I am saying there is likely a sweet spot somewhere and room for a mutual termination. Let's say we pay 75% of his contract (so 150k a week for 2 years), then he subsequently finds a club that'll pay him £75k with a signing on bonus, then both parties benefit do they not? Tanguy has a financial incentive to agree and we don't have to pay off the full contract.

Why wouldn't he do that if he thinks he can get the full amount?
There may be a sweet spot but that would still depend on him as he would get 100% and could still get a club to pay him £75k.
The one thing we have in our favour is if he aint playing he's not getting his full earnings which might help your possibility.