The Departure of Macca from Notts at what seems a Ridiculous Low Price as tendered some Speculation, well it as with Me Anyway. This is just my thoughts on the Subject and this is just My Opinion about things. And this an Extension of what I have already commented on another Thread. It was Announced that Notts are in an Healthy Financial Position and that the Club Had No Need To Sell Off It's Star Players. It was also Stated that Notts had a Budget that could Cope Financially with Playing in League 1 and the Lower Half of the Championship.

The Announcement of the Purchase of the site to be turned into the Nest and the total Revamp of the Meadow Lane Pitch up to Premier League Standard, was met with Great Delight by the Notts Fans, however have these Projects come at a Price?  That being the Sale of our Most Prolific Scorer  Macaulay Langstaff   For a Paltry £750,000 ? Did  the Notts board Miscalculate the Budget for the their Two Ambitious Projects?  And  Did they Required Money Quickly  to cover an unseen or unexpected Expense and Selling Macca was their Way Out of a  Financial Problem?

This is of course is Pure Conjecture. But Unforeseen Expenditure Does Arise and Even the Most Astute Finance Personnel Can Sometimes Miss These Problems. What made Me think About this? The Speed in which Macca's Deal was wrapped Up. The Quote Macca made saying he Wanted to Help Notts into League 1. If the Club did Face a Money Problem, and Macca was Told by the Notts Board they needed to Sell him to get them out of a Difficult Position ? It Strikes Me that Macca is the Kind of Guy that would  Accept the Move  to Help The Club Out.

I wonder if this had anything to do with it?

Notts salaries might have been quite high in relation to turnover.

Of course we will probably never know why he was really sold, but it's worth just a calculated guess.

From Google 

"Clubs in the League 1 & League 2 operate within a Spending Constraint framework termed Salary Cost Management Protocol (SMCP). SCMP limits spending on player wages to a percentage of club Turnover.

In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages - in League 2, the limit is 55%. 

There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees". 

The Nest probably made a good profit during the Euros. It was always full, with demand exceeding its capacity of 1,000. The club would have understood the importance of the competition for success. So, it seems unlikely that we sold Macaulay Langstaff at a low price just to recover some money.

Regarding the pitch, it wouldn’t be the first time Notts might have sold a player to fund or pay for changes to the ground. But surely, Notts would have wanted more for a player who had two successful seasons.

I don’t think it’s worth worrying about now. What’s done is done and we can’t change it. The total fee might be more than what has been reported.

I think Premier League fees tend to distort our views on fees further down the pyramid. For context, Max Dean, who's seven years younger than Langstaff and has a potentially significant sell on value, was sold by Milton Keynes for somewhere in the region of £1mil.

We've also got to look at this from a reputational stand point. Would it really have been a good look for Notts to have stood in the way of what might turn out to be Macca's only shot at playing Championship football? We can now say to prospective players "give us a couple of seasons and if all goes well we won't stand in your way. This club can be a great springboard for your career." That's no small thing in my opinion.

If I wanted to make costly changes, I would want the maximum fee from the club’s perspective. There was no need to accept a bid just to cover previous expenditure due to The Nest and the pitch revamp. It would have been more beneficial to wait and see if any other bids came in.

I don’t think there would have been a shortage of teams interested in Macaulay Langstaff. It’s more likely that the club had a good offer, but the upfront fee is misleading.

The problem with transfers these days is that they are always undisclosed and tend to remain private. Journalists also cause headaches with their speculation. Even if they are right, they might not know the inner agreements.

Even if Notts sold Macca to assist with the changes, then so be it. We are a club that requires smart business decisions. Yes, it’s sad to lose such an important player, but the club’s current model shows that recruitment is much more focused on quality, with a few exceptions. We have had more hits than misses, and that’s my takeaway from this.

I am not sure if any of it is connected, but if it is, then £750,000 won't cover those projects. It's possible, but the fee Millwall paid might be higher and just reported incorrectly. Unfortunately, selling players will fund things, but I hope Macaulay Langstaff's departure means we can bring in players that show we are serious about pushing for promotion.

The issue seems to be no other bidders came in, despite the supposed "interest" of other clubs

 

46 minutes ago, Piethagoram said:

The issue seems to be no other bidders came in, despite the supposed "interest" of other clubs

we dont really know how many teams were really interested in macualay langstaff, but we would have thought more formal bids would have come forward. the millwall manager seemed annoyed that the bid became public knowledge, when he refused to answer questions about the deal but acknowledged the interest. i would have thought this would be enough to trigger other clubs.

i dont think macca was sold because we wanted tor recoup some of the money spent, our owners seem to be here for the overall goals to get us back up the leagues.

there must be more to the deal, than what we know so far.

The price was mooted at £2.5   million. Then £750,000 cash transfer. 

Notts would be liable for the remaining three years wages to Macca. This was paid by Millwall as a signing on fee.

When Macca scores a certain amount of goals Notts get another  significant pay day.

When Macca is sold to a Premiership club Notts will have a significant percentage of any fee.

Macca left because he wanted to. Can't fault the lad. Good luck. I believe he will play for England.

Jatta wll be doing impressions of Tommy Lawton this season as Jodi Jones peppers the box with his passes.

We move on. 

@Scotty

How Do You Know This ? It certainly hasn't been Public Knowledge. Do You An Insider At The Club That Feeds You this Information? As You Have Stated Before You're Not Working For The Club.

And £2.5 Million, Certainly Sounds Better Than £750,000. 

@Scotty @Wheelbarrow repair man

In my playbook, if a player is worth £2.5 million you sell him for at least £2.5 million.

Why would you sell a player for £750K if they are worth £2.5 million then hope to earn more if the player is sold on?

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me but perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

Notts may just as well have loaned Macca out to Millwall for a season, Millwall pay increased wages to him, & Millwall could have also paid Notts a fee for every goal he scored.

If Millwall then wanted to buy him, pay Notts the £2.5 million,plus add ons for selling him on.

I don't think we had any say in the transfer fee. Last summer Macca signed a three-year extension to his contract with us. He would never have signed that without a release clause, otherwise he'd have been sacrificing any prospect of moving to a bigger club. It also wouldn't have been in his interest to sign a contract with a huge minimum fee release clause.

So to me it seems likely that he signed a contract including a minimum fee release clause of around 750k. If he hadn't been happy with what we offered last summer, he could have just waited out his original contract and left last winter at the latest, probably for a fraction of what the club has just made. So the deal benefitted both player and club, but it did give him the freedom to move.

The 750k may also just have been the initial fee. We just don't know. 

As for The Nest, I think the club are going to make a packet out of it. With the wage cap, the best way to increase the playing budget is to grow your turnover, and The Nest will contribute to that. 

Now that he’s gone, everything else is irrelevant unless news about the deal and its inner workings comes out. We won’t know anything for certain, and it’s all pure speculation. There’s no harm in discussing it, but it’s all hearsay and opinions.

@DangerousSausage is correct, we wouldn’t have had much say in the matter and we can’t confirm if there were any release terms.

I believe that Macaulay Langstaff requested and wanted the move to happen. He’s performed well in his two-year stint with us, with many memorable moments. It’s a sign that we can nurture talent, make good use of them, and sell them on for a profit.

9 hours ago, Robbie said:

@Scotty @Wheelbarrow repair man

In my playbook, if a player is worth £2.5 million you sell him for at least £2.5 million.

Why would you sell a player for £750K if they are worth £2.5 million then hope to earn more if the player is sold on?

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me but perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

Notts may just as well have loaned Macca out to Millwall for a season, Millwall pay increased wages to him, & Millwall could have also paid Notts a fee for every goal he scored.

If Millwall then wanted to buy him, pay Notts the £2.5 million,plus add ons for selling him on.

I'm suggesting the £2.5 million will be reached. £750k up front payment. Millwall pay Macca £300k up front signing on fee, which also accounts for the after tax wages that Notts are liable to Macca for, which means we are not taxed on that money.

When Macca plays so many games for Millwall, Notts get another pay day.

when Macca scores so many goals for Millwall,  Notts get another pay day.

Most importantly, when Macca is sold to a Premiership outfit, or gets there with Millwall. Notts have another significant pay day.

This is how some football deals are structured now.  Also the brother are very circumspect and don't share what is rightly sensitive data.  Notts will have several significant pay days to come. 

 

Q

On 28/07/2024 at 12:35, allardyces tash said:

Now that he’s gone, everything else is irrelevant unless news about the deal and its inner workings comes out. We won’t know anything for certain, and it’s all pure speculation. There’s no harm in discussing it, but it’s all hearsay and opinions.

@DangerousSausage is correct, we wouldn’t have had much say in the matter and we can’t confirm if there were any release terms.

I believe that Macaulay Langstaff requested and wanted the move to happen. He’s performed well in his two-year stint with us, with many memorable moments. It’s a sign that we can nurture talent, make good use of them, and sell them on for a profit.

This is largely how I feel, we have to move on, and I don't really care much about the fee now.

I'm more determined to see us continue our journey and grow further as a club, whatever the deal is. It's now set in stone, nothing can change it, and we need to make sure we use whatever funds it did give us wisely.