Ronnie Edwards

[Norfolkbee]

It has been publicly stated that Barnet get half of any fee for Edward's, but are we sure it is the same for EMC?

[jerroll]

It has been publicly stated that Barnet get half of any fee for Edward's, but are we sure it is the same for EMC?

Definitely not , Posh paid a proper upfront fee for Ephron. More likely 5-15% I would suspect.

[WhetstoneBee]

Posh are after a loan back like Shots and Bromley have seen, so far those bidding have refused the request hence no sale.

Market is very quiet as said above, but still time for movement.

Anyway, it's bonus money for us whatever we get, remember it'll come in instalments not a full lump and no telling it would invested in the team, the football club is a loss maker.

Very true, supporters need to realise at this level we cannot expect TK to keep putting money in to keep improving when attendances are one of the lowest in the league.

Of course but it goes back to the age old point of No Barnet fc = A significantly smaller fortune for Mr TK.

Barnet FC don't make TK any money whatsoever unless it's the sale of the player, we're the loss making part of his empire.

He accrued a huge amount from the sale of Underhill and purchase of The Hive. None of that would have been possible without his ownership of Barnet FC, which has enabled him to acquire what the Sunday Times estimated a few years ago to be £131m in assets. The club itself may not make a profit in terms of football-related income alone but it has been the vehicle for a huge amount of money being made.

[MCB]

It has been publicly stated that Barnet get half of any fee for Edward's, but are we sure it is the same for EMC?

Definitely not , Posh paid a proper upfront fee for Ephron. More likely 5-15% I would suspect.

Was only £200-350k from memory as he was in the last year of his contract, so Posh have turned around a 2-3 million profit after 18 months (rumoured £3.5 mill according to posh fans). So everyone is happy, and we'll have six figures hitting our account too.

[hoppy]

It has been publicly stated that Barnet get half of any fee for Edward's, but are we sure it is the same for EMC?

Definitely not , Posh paid a proper upfront fee for Ephron. More likely 5-15% I would suspect.

I have read that Coventry paid Posh the transfer fee upfront.
If true, whatever percentage we get, can we assume we get that upfront too, rather than in instalments?

[jerroll]

It has been publicly stated that Barnet get half of any fee for Edward's, but are we sure it is the same for EMC?

Definitely not , Posh paid a proper upfront fee for Ephron. More likely 5-15% I would suspect.

I have read that Coventry paid Posh the transfer fee upfront.
If true, whatever percentage we get, can we assume we get that upfront too, rather than in instalments?

When i said upfront i meant they agreed a proper fee unlike the Edwards deal , would expect it was in instalments.

[tonbridgebee]

Posh are after a loan back like Shots and Bromley have seen, so far those bidding have refused the request hence no sale.

Market is very quiet as said above, but still time for movement.

Anyway, it's bonus money for us whatever we get, remember it'll come in instalments not a full lump and no telling it would invested in the team, the football club is a loss maker.

Very true, supporters need to realise at this level we cannot expect TK to keep putting money in to keep improving when attendances are one of the lowest in the league.

Of course but it goes back to the age old point of No Barnet fc = A significantly smaller fortune for Mr TK.

Barnet FC don't make TK any money whatsoever unless it's the sale of the player, we're the loss making part of his empire.

The point that I’m making is that despite making a loss, we are the main enabler of his continued growth.

We're not though, TK would make much more without BFC, hire out the stadium to someone else instead equals more income and no loss as per the rest of the site making him money.

[tonbridgebee]

Posh are after a loan back like Shots and Bromley have seen, so far those bidding have refused the request hence no sale.

Market is very quiet as said above, but still time for movement.

Anyway, it's bonus money for us whatever we get, remember it'll come in instalments not a full lump and no telling it would invested in the team, the football club is a loss maker.

Very true, supporters need to realise at this level we cannot expect TK to keep putting money in to keep improving when attendances are one of the lowest in the league.

Of course but it goes back to the age old point of No Barnet fc = A significantly smaller fortune for Mr TK.

Barnet FC don't make TK any money whatsoever unless it's the sale of the player, we're the loss making part of his empire.

He accrued a huge amount from the sale of Underhill and purchase of The Hive. None of that would have been possible without his ownership of Barnet FC, which has enabled him to acquire what the Sunday Times estimated a few years ago to be £131m in assets. The club itself may not make a profit in terms of football-related income alone but it has been the vehicle for a huge amount of money being made.

Yes he made money from the Underhill sale, the club making a loss all the time it was there, no different to now. Agree his purchase of the club has given him the wealth, but it also gives him a loss making business every year.

[thebeekeeper]

Very true, supporters need to realise at this level we cannot expect TK to keep putting money in to keep improving when attendances are one of the lowest in the league.

Of course but it goes back to the age old point of No Barnet fc = A significantly smaller fortune for Mr TK.

Barnet FC don't make TK any money whatsoever unless it's the sale of the player, we're the loss making part of his empire.

He accrued a huge amount from the sale of Underhill and purchase of The Hive. None of that would have been possible without his ownership of Barnet FC, which has enabled him to acquire what the Sunday Times estimated a few years ago to be £131m in assets. The club itself may not make a profit in terms of football-related income alone but it has been the vehicle for a huge amount of money being made.

Yes he made money from the Underhill sale, the club making a loss all the time it was there, no different to now. Agree his purchase of the club has given him the wealth, but it also gives him a loss making business every year.

It depends how you spin it I suppose - if all the facilities at The Hive were under the umbrella of Barnet Football Club then would it still be loss making? We seem to count these other businesses as separate (as they are in the accounts), but at most clubs things like the banqueting and venue / pitch hire wouldn't be separate entities, they'd be revenue streams for the club, I think.

This idea that Barnet FC is loss making... well, yes, pretty much every football club in the country is loss making if you strip away all of the wider revenue and focus purely on the business of squad costs and attendances.

Also, wasn't the whole point of the move to The Hive (from a Barnet supporter point of view) meant to be that the various other revenue streams would allow the club to push on through the divisions? So it's not some kind of magnanimous act from TK that he keeps funding Barnet, the other businesses should exist for that very reason, in my opinion.

[beew]

He can also claim the clubs losses, as a tax break for the other companies that make money.

[letchbee94]

The wait goes on.

[beew]

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/spo ... on-4508030

A bigger price for EMC tham first thought, no hint of the percentage cut, but over £1 million is ours

[Jimbokav1971]

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/spo ... on-4508030

A bigger price for EMC tham first thought, no hint of the percentage cut, but over £1 million is ours

Good link.

It's interesting reading all the rubbish in this thread when faced with accurate info straight from DMAC himself.
He's been pretty clear about how he does business when buying players, (and specifically when buying players from us), so for people to expect something else to have happened is pretty strange.

The only bad news is that £0 is payable immediately so no reason for TK to increase whatever budget he has agreed with DB for the 2nd half of the season as a result of this.

A fee of (at least) £1M to Barnet and an estimated fee of £4M-£5M suggests that the % clause we had on EMC was somewhere in the region of 25%-30% and of course there will be further clauses on top of that, (because that's the way that DMAC does business).

That we don't get any money until the Summer, (and then probably not a huge lump sum all at once), is probably neither here nor there, because the income is guaranteed even if it's £1M over 36 or 48 months or whatever. Then there is the clauses that DMAC inserted in the Cov contract that sees additional fees made if for example Cov get promoted to the Premier League and the like. We will continue to get 25%-30% of these fees in exactly the same way we will get a cut of whatever future fees Posh receive for Jack, (or Ronnie when the deal is made).

Staying on Ronnie for a moment, the suggestion that he will somehow be worth significantly less in the Summer than he is now is folly. The issue with the Ronnie bids in Jan wasn't that they weren't big enough. It's that nobody was willing to pay the money AND let him return to Posh on loan until the end of the season. That was the barrier. His contract might expire in the Summer of 2025, but I would bet my left nad that DMAC has at least a +1 year option on him. Ronnie's value isn't falling. It's rising. If Posh get promoted this season, (looks like there is a decent chance), then his valuation will rise significantly. If they miss out on promotion then his value will still rise because he will have another impressive season under his belt. He's fantastic every single week!

The idea that TK was going to take this £1M EMC money and spend it on the club as additional income is for the birds. He is NEVER going to do that in a million years. (That being said, did the Jack money pay for the scoreboards?) As far as he's concerned though, the money is all his because the club makes a sizeable loss rather than a profit. How much smaller the loss might be if some of the non-footballing businesses at The Hive paid a proper rental income to the FC is up for debate, (and a whole different can of worms).

[antbfc]

all good points Jim. I do wonder if the money received will go someway to offset the capital cost increase in the new stand? Surely more tax efficient.

[becbee]

Very interesting article. Quite rare fir a Chairman to be so informative.