Charlie Austin (papertalk)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 94 of 104 < 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 >

tonypeers5 Wallington 05 Jan 16 8.49am
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03 Warnock has said on talk sport that he tried to sign Austin when he was manager but we couldn't meet QPR's valuation. He has also spoken to him recently and said that he should look at Palace because of our attacking lineup. The only problem is that he may choose to stay at QPR to wind down his contract as he wanted to leave in the summer and QPR put a ridiculous price tag on him. I suppose watch this space is in order It's Red and Blue that unites us
Alert a moderator to this post

tonypeers5

Wallington 05 Jan 16 8.49am

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03

Warnock has said on talk sport that he tried to sign Austin when he was manager but we couldn't meet QPR's valuation. He has also spoken to him recently and said that he should look at Palace because of our attacking lineup. The only problem is that he may choose to stay at QPR to wind down his contract as he wanted to leave in the summer and QPR put a ridiculous price tag on him. I suppose watch this space is in order

It's Red and Blue that unites us

Alert a moderator to this post

A89M Streatham 05 Jan 16 9.39am
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03 Quote tonypeers5 at 05 Jan 2016 8.49am Warnock has said on talk sport that he tried to sign Austin when he was manager but we couldn't meet QPR's valuation. He has also spoken to him recently and said that he should look at Palace because of our attacking lineup. The only problem is that he may choose to stay at QPR to wind down his contract as he wanted to leave in the summer and QPR put a ridiculous price tag on him. I suppose watch this space is in order I heard that interview this morning on TalkSport as well. I understand his frustration that QPR put such a high valuation on his head but to wind down your contract and go for free to spite them strikes me as very petulant which wasn't how I perceived CA, especially due to him not getting any younger and with the Euros around the corner. Maybe I should take what Warnock says with a pinch of salt but he’s usually quite honest with his opinions on the station. Apparently we bid for Gomis as well but it wasn't enough.
Alert a moderator to this post

A89M

Streatham 05 Jan 16 9.39am

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03

Quote tonypeers5 at 05 Jan 2016 8.49am

I heard that interview this morning on TalkSport as well. I understand his frustration that QPR put such a high valuation on his head but to wind down your contract and go for free to spite them strikes me as very petulant which wasn't how I perceived CA, especially due to him not getting any younger and with the Euros around the corner. Maybe I should take what Warnock says with a pinch of salt but he’s usually quite honest with his opinions on the station.

Apparently we bid for Gomis as well but it wasn't enough.

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 05 Jan 16 10.23am
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03 Quote sydtheeagle at 04 Jan 2016 4.46pm Quote Rudi Hedman at 04 Jan 2016 11.20am I would like to see us sign Remy or Austin but it won't be just £8mil. It'll be £8mil plus more than the usual % signing on fee or Austin might just refuse to leave. I'm not really worrying about it as Palace's finances are in secure hands but these details are a factor. Let's be realistic. QPR were talking about 12 million in the summer and will now take less. Being realistic, I suspect that will be presented in public as 8 million (a sop to the fans) but the reality is that usually means closer to 6 or 7 million. Remember also that in most transfers, 1/2 is paid up front and the rest in installments so the immediate cost to Palace is then 3-3.5 million. Let's say QPR take one of our players as a makeweight (take your pick from Gayle, Campbell, Mariappa, etc.) Might not happen, but it's possible. Say that player is valued at 2 million. Now, we're down to possibly 4 million (or less), on top of which we've got someone's salary off the books. Austin, meantime, is going to want his signing-on fee. Let's say 5 million. But no one wants a taxable sum of 5 million quid in one go so that's going to be paid in installments over a number of years and, with negotiations in mind, some of it is probably going to be incentivised. It might be that we offer 3.5 million guaranteed that rises to 6 million instead of 5 if he scored 20 goals in the Prem. You get the idea. The real way these things work out is not the made-up numbers you see in the papers. In the end, using roughly the example above, we buy Austin for 3.5 million in cash and a similar amount (or less) in up front signing fee. The balance of both is written off in the summer anyway because if we turn another profit this year (which we will) then monies owed in transfer fees will be a useful way of reducing our taxable income. My only real point here is to show that there are plenty of reasons this deal can get done. That doesn't mean it will be, but it does mean many of the reasons people think are issues are not issues at all. Syd, Austin earns well over the top tax threshold every month. It doesn't matter whether £5 mil is paid in one go or in instalments. It'll be taxed at the top rate of tax. The only way it won't is if it's paid to Charlie Austin's petpup sports marketing enterprises Ltd. And most people in a position to accept £5mil IF they score 20 goals a season or £3mi if they don't as opposed to a definite £5mil regardless of how many goals will take the definite £5mil. Again, that's still £5mil. Last night on Talksport's Sportsbar Jason Cundy was talking about CA going anywhere, mainly Spurs. Cundy reckons he won't be going anywhere and it's pretty much from the angle I saw it yesterday. Okay, he was talking about £12mil as a transfer fee but he still reckons CA won't be going anywhere because it's so stacked in his favour. He just doesn't have to. All the kicking and screaming QPR do, he doesn't have to move. The huge fee they had on him might eventually defeat themselves. Andy Goldstein mentioned Newcastle and Cundy dismissed their chances. The one thing that might make this happen is our need to nudge Gayle out of the club. It's clearly going to be difficult to do, and I don't know if he'd go to a champ outfit anyway. I also doubt QPR would want Campbell. The other point about delaying transfer receipts is that you're saying that the benefit will occur the year(s) we make losses. I doubt Parish has losses planned for any years in the future, ground rebuild or not. The money is in the bank for that anyway. I get what you're saying but it's for chairmen who kick the can down the road for success now and denial of true company finances. Sounds like politics. Edited by Rudi Hedman (05 Jan 2016 10.28am) COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 05 Jan 16 10.23am

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03

Quote sydtheeagle at 04 Jan 2016 4.46pm

Quote Rudi Hedman at 04 Jan 2016 11.20am

I would like to see us sign Remy or Austin but it won't be just £8mil. It'll be £8mil plus more than the usual % signing on fee or Austin might just refuse to leave. I'm not really worrying about it as Palace's finances are in secure hands but these details are a factor.

Let's be realistic. QPR were talking about 12 million in the summer and will now take less. Being realistic, I suspect that will be presented in public as 8 million (a sop to the fans) but the reality is that usually means closer to 6 or 7 million. Remember also that in most transfers, 1/2 is paid up front and the rest in installments so the immediate cost to Palace is then 3-3.5 million. Let's say QPR take one of our players as a makeweight (take your pick from Gayle, Campbell, Mariappa, etc.) Might not happen, but it's possible. Say that player is valued at 2 million. Now, we're down to possibly 4 million (or less), on top of which we've got someone's salary off the books.

Austin, meantime, is going to want his signing-on fee. Let's say 5 million. But no one wants a taxable sum of 5 million quid in one go so that's going to be paid in installments over a number of years and, with negotiations in mind, some of it is probably going to be incentivised. It might be that we offer 3.5 million guaranteed that rises to 6 million instead of 5 if he scored 20 goals in the Prem. You get the idea. The real way these things work out is not the made-up numbers you see in the papers.

In the end, using roughly the example above, we buy Austin for 3.5 million in cash and a similar amount (or less) in up front signing fee. The balance of both is written off in the summer anyway because if we turn another profit this year (which we will) then monies owed in transfer fees will be a useful way of reducing our taxable income.

My only real point here is to show that there are plenty of reasons this deal can get done. That doesn't mean it will be, but it does mean many of the reasons people think are issues are not issues at all.

Syd, Austin earns well over the top tax threshold every month. It doesn't matter whether £5 mil is paid in one go or in instalments. It'll be taxed at the top rate of tax. The only way it won't is if it's paid to Charlie Austin's petpup sports marketing enterprises Ltd. And most people in a position to accept £5mil IF they score 20 goals a season or £3mi if they don't as opposed to a definite £5mil regardless of how many goals will take the definite £5mil. Again, that's still £5mil.

Last night on Talksport's Sportsbar Jason Cundy was talking about CA going anywhere, mainly Spurs. Cundy reckons he won't be going anywhere and it's pretty much from the angle I saw it yesterday. Okay, he was talking about £12mil as a transfer fee but he still reckons CA won't be going anywhere because it's so stacked in his favour. He just doesn't have to. All the kicking and screaming QPR do, he doesn't have to move. The huge fee they had on him might eventually defeat themselves. Andy Goldstein mentioned Newcastle and Cundy dismissed their chances.

The one thing that might make this happen is our need to nudge Gayle out of the club. It's clearly going to be difficult to do, and I don't know if he'd go to a champ outfit anyway. I also doubt QPR would want Campbell.

The other point about delaying transfer receipts is that you're saying that the benefit will occur the year(s) we make losses. I doubt Parish has losses planned for any years in the future, ground rebuild or not. The money is in the bank for that anyway. I get what you're saying but it's for chairmen who kick the can down the road for success now and denial of true company finances. Sounds like politics.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (05 Jan 2016 10.28am)

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

slubglurge welling 05 Jan 16 10.40am
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03 Austin wont go anywhere. If he goes on a free in the summer he can negotiate a 100k pw salary
Alert a moderator to this post

slubglurge

welling 05 Jan 16 10.40am

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03

Austin wont go anywhere. If he goes on a free in the summer he can negotiate a 100k pw salary

Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle England 05 Jan 16 11.48am
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03 Quote Rudi Hedman at 05 Jan 2016 10.23am The other point about delaying transfer receipts is that you're saying that the benefit will occur the year(s) we make losses. I doubt Parish has losses planned for any years in the future, ground rebuild or not. The money is in the bank for that anyway. I get what you're saying but it's for chairmen who kick the can down the road for success now and denial of true company finances. Sounds like politics. Edited by Rudi Hedman (05 Jan 2016 10.28am) No, I was saying the opposite. You want expenses (money you owe for transfer fees in this example) in the years you make PROFITS, not losses. The money you pay out reduces the size of your profit and therefore your taxable (corporate) income. So the real cost of the transfer is the amount of the fee minus the amount of tax you don't have to pay on the lower profit. Given (I think) that corporate tax is around 20%, it reduces the fee in real terms by that amount. In simple terms: Palace Annual Profit: 20 million quid taxable at 20% Austin fee (debt): 8 million Adjusted Taxable Profit: 12 million @ 20% Taxable sum saved: 20% of 8 million = 1.6 million Real cost of Austin: 6.4 million (The above is just a very rough guide. Numbers are not accurate, obviously.) Edited by sydtheeagle (05 Jan 2016 11.51am) Edited by sydtheeagle (05 Jan 2016 11.51am) Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.
Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle

England 05 Jan 16 11.48am

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03

Quote Rudi Hedman at 05 Jan 2016 10.23am

Edited by Rudi Hedman (05 Jan 2016 10.28am)

No, I was saying the opposite. You want expenses (money you owe for transfer fees in this example) in the years you make PROFITS, not losses. The money you pay out reduces the size of your profit and therefore your taxable (corporate) income. So the real cost of the transfer is the amount of the fee minus the amount of tax you don't have to pay on the lower profit. Given (I think) that corporate tax is around 20%, it reduces the fee in real terms by that amount.

In simple terms:

Palace Annual Profit: 20 million quid taxable at 20%
Austin fee (debt): 8 million
Adjusted Taxable Profit: 12 million @ 20%
Taxable sum saved: 20% of 8 million = 1.6 million
Real cost of Austin: 6.4 million

(The above is just a very rough guide. Numbers are not accurate, obviously.)

Edited by sydtheeagle (05 Jan 2016 11.51am)

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Alert a moderator to this post

Monty the Eagle Lima 05 Jan 16 12.49pm
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03 Quote sydtheeagle at 05 Jan 2016 11.48am Quote Rudi Hedman at 05 Jan 2016 10.23am The other point about delaying transfer receipts is that you're saying that the benefit will occur the year(s) we make losses. I doubt Parish has losses planned for any years in the future, ground rebuild or not. The money is in the bank for that anyway. I get what you're saying but it's for chairmen who kick the can down the road for success now and denial of true company finances. Sounds like politics. Edited by Rudi Hedman (05 Jan 2016 10.28am) No, I was saying the opposite. You want expenses (money you owe for transfer fees in this example) in the years you make PROFITS, not losses. The money you pay out reduces the size of your profit and therefore your taxable (corporate) income. So the real cost of the transfer is the amount of the fee minus the amount of tax you don't have to pay on the lower profit. Given (I think) that corporate tax is around 20%, it reduces the fee in real terms by that amount. In simple terms: Palace Annual Profit: 20 million quid taxable at 20% Austin fee (debt): 8 million Adjusted Taxable Profit: 12 million @ 20% Taxable sum saved: 20% of 8 million = 1.6 million Real cost of Austin: 6.4 million (The above is just a very rough guide. Numbers are not accurate, obviously.) Edited by sydtheeagle (05 Jan 2016 11.51am) Edited by sydtheeagle (05 Jan 2016 11.51am) Strictly speaking it wouldn't matter when you incurred the cost as you can carry forward the losses to use against taxable profits in future periods (providing they are the same type). Saying that wouldn't the cost of the transfer etc be capitalised and amortised over the length of the contract? Never bothered looking at the CPFC accounting policies. With a reducing headline CT rate the spreading of this transfer would obviously push the cost up (reduced tax savings) but then when you take into account the time value of money...bored now! To conclude, I think he would be a great signing!
Alert a moderator to this post

Monty the Eagle

Lima 05 Jan 16 12.49pm

Send a Private Message to Monty the Eagle

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03

Quote sydtheeagle at 05 Jan 2016 11.48am

Quote Rudi Hedman at 05 Jan 2016 10.23am

Edited by Rudi Hedman (05 Jan 2016 10.28am)

In simple terms:

(The above is just a very rough guide. Numbers are not accurate, obviously.)

Edited by sydtheeagle (05 Jan 2016 11.51am)

Strictly speaking it wouldn't matter when you incurred the cost as you can carry forward the losses to use against taxable profits in future periods (providing they are the same type).

Saying that wouldn't the cost of the transfer etc be capitalised and amortised over the length of the contract? Never bothered looking at the CPFC accounting policies.

With a reducing headline CT rate the spreading of this transfer would obviously push the cost up (reduced tax savings) but then when you take into account the time value of money...bored now!

To conclude, I think he would be a great signing!

Alert a moderator to this post

laddo london 05 Jan 16 1.25pm
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03 Sadly he's not interested in joining us. Need to move on to the next target. laddo "People say, live fast, die young. I say live fast, die old. That's me, the non-conformist". David Brent.
Alert a moderator to this post

laddo

london 05 Jan 16 1.25pm

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03

Sadly he's not interested in joining us. Need to move on to the next target.

laddo

"People say, live fast, die young. I say live fast, die old. That's me, the non-conformist".
David Brent.

Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop Portishead 05 Jan 16 1.39pm
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03 Quote laddo at 05 Jan 2016 1.25pm Sadly he's not interested in joining us. Need to move on to the next target. based on?
Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop

Portishead 05 Jan 16 1.39pm

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03

Quote laddo at 05 Jan 2016 1.25pm

Sadly he's not interested in joining us. Need to move on to the next target.

based on?

Alert a moderator to this post

laddo london 05 Jan 16 2.21pm
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03 Quote silvertop at 05 Jan 2016 1.39pm Quote laddo at 05 Jan 2016 1.25pm Sadly he's not interested in joining us. Need to move on to the next target. based on? Trust me. We're interested, he's not. Unless there is a massive change from Austin's camp we won't get him. laddo "People say, live fast, die young. I say live fast, die old. That's me, the non-conformist". David Brent.
Alert a moderator to this post

laddo

london 05 Jan 16 2.21pm

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03

Quote silvertop at 05 Jan 2016 1.39pm

Quote laddo at 05 Jan 2016 1.25pm

Sadly he's not interested in joining us. Need to move on to the next target.

based on?

Trust me. We're interested, he's not. Unless there is a massive change from Austin's camp we won't get him.

laddo

"People say, live fast, die young. I say live fast, die old. That's me, the non-conformist".
David Brent.

Alert a moderator to this post

Leicestershireeagle South Leicestershire 05 Jan 16 2.23pm
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03 Quote laddo at 05 Jan 2016 1.25pm Sadly he's not interested in joining us. Need to move on to the next target. You have to question his motives, then. When he said no in the summer, you could somewhat see why; a team that finished 10th, so could one way or another. Lots of teams above them. Come now though, we're above and/or competing with a lot of teams of similar stature, so you'd have to imagine he sees a future warming the bench at one of the big boys, or the likes of Spurs and Liverpool are curious. If players are taking a snapshot of the PL right now, there's not that much that differentiates us from the likes of Southampton, Swansea, Stoke etc; all clubs that were probably above us in the pecking order last summer. That could stay the same come this summer, but right this I think it's a fair assessment. If Austin doesn't want to come, and Chelsea won't sell Remy, then I guess we will be looking abroad. RED AND BLUE ARMY!
Alert a moderator to this post

Leicestershireeagle

South Leicestershire 05 Jan 16 2.23pm

Send a Private Message to Leicestershireeagle

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03

Quote laddo at 05 Jan 2016 1.25pm

Sadly he's not interested in joining us. Need to move on to the next target.

You have to question his motives, then.

When he said no in the summer, you could somewhat see why; a team that finished 10th, so could one way or another. Lots of teams above them.

Come now though, we're above and/or competing with a lot of teams of similar stature, so you'd have to imagine he sees a future warming the bench at one of the big boys, or the likes of Spurs and Liverpool are curious.

If players are taking a snapshot of the PL right now, there's not that much that differentiates us from the likes of Southampton, Swansea, Stoke etc; all clubs that were probably above us in the pecking order last summer. That could stay the same come this summer, but right this I think it's a fair assessment.

If Austin doesn't want to come, and Chelsea won't sell Remy, then I guess we will be looking abroad.

RED AND BLUE ARMY!

Alert a moderator to this post

selectamic Crawley, west sussex 05 Jan 16 2.41pm
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03 I love all the speculation. How do people know that "he didn't want to come" in the summer or "doesn't want to come" or even if we were in for him in the first place? Would be a great signing if it comes off, but I think we will be looking elsewhere.
Alert a moderator to this post

selectamic

Crawley, west sussex 05 Jan 16 2.41pm

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03

I love all the speculation. How do people know that "he didn't want to come" in the summer or "doesn't want to come" or even if we were in for him in the first place?

Would be a great signing if it comes off, but I think we will be looking elsewhere.

Alert a moderator to this post

bubble wrap Carparks in South East London 05 Jan 16 2.51pm
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03 Personally think he is letting his contract run down so that he can command a massive signing on fee all for himself in the Summer. He is being paid good money by QPR and is in no rush to leave so cannot blame him really. Will be set for life.
Alert a moderator to this post

bubble wrap

Carparks in South East London 05 Jan 16 2.51pm

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Charlie Austin (rumour)' by james03

Personally think he is letting his contract run down so that he can command a massive signing on fee all for himself in the Summer. He is being paid good money by QPR and is in no rush to leave so cannot blame him really. Will be set for life.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 94 of 104 < 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Charlie Austin (papertalk)

Site Map

Sponsors