Layout 1Speaking to the media in France, the Bordeaux President, Jean-Louis Triaud, has revealed that Bordeaux had initially decided not to let Yoan Gouffran join Newcastle in January.

Only when they agreed a deal for 19 year old Uruguayan striker, Diego Rolan, did they then agree to sell Gouffran in the transfer window.

Rolan was signed from Uruguayan club, Defensor, for a reported 2.8m euros, with Bordeaux seemingly coming out around 1m euros ahead after taking Newcastle’s fee for Gouffran into account.

Speaking to French radio station RMC, this is what President Triaud had to say;

“We hesitated with Gouffran and were going to keep him until the summer, but then reconsidered whether to keep him until the end of his contract or to sell him and get a financial return on him.

We have watched Diego Rolan for some time and we knew we found we could bring him in as a replacement immediately. So in the end it seemed smart to recover some money for Gouffran and invest it  in this player”.

On the evidence so far, I’m relieved that Bordeaux found their replacement because Gouffran’s combination of clever play and work ethic look a real catch for Newcastle.

New issue of our magazine is on sale in all Tyneside newsagents, or order now online for only £3 (plus postage) for Worldwide delivery straight to your door, or why not start a subscription – prices from only £23.

[latest_issue]

9 comments
newcastle7
newcastle7

No matter what happens the accounts tell a true story over a period of time despite the coming and going of players so just get over it.Support the team on Sunday go to the game and take your mates with you

RexN
RexN

@newcastle7 Thanks for the advice. Rather than support the team on Sunday, (most of who are unlikely to be with us next year) I choose to support the long term interests of the club against what Ashley has done to it. You and your friends are welcome to join us.

Sean Kelly
Sean Kelly

as I've said before, the chronicle could and should be doing a great deal more with regards to this aswell. instead of their so called celebrity journalists tweeting absolute shite day in day out whilst sitting on the fence.

LeazesEnder
LeazesEnder

I wonder if the club really did fine Pardew for his 'head-butt'....I suggested at the time it be donated to charity... 


... would that show up in any form?

IntravenusMP
IntravenusMP

@LeazesEnder It 'may' be within the charitable donations and it 'may' be within the salaries however,  but for directors, a company must not divulge individual salaries to the outside world. 

Sickandtiredstill
Sickandtiredstill

@toontooncouk 

Rex -How can players signed in Jan '13 (12/13 accounts period) and players after June 30th '14 (after the 13/14 account period closed) be in the latest accounts?

The money was spent before or after this accounting period. I don't get this one.

IntravenusMP
IntravenusMP

@Sickandtiredstill Becasue when highish earners like Sissoko arrived in January 13, we paid them for services Jan/Feb13-June 13 in the 2013 accounts but Jul 13-Jun 14 in the 2014 accounts so that would help explain why the wage figure was higher. Obviously, as the employer, NUFC are not going to (& must not) divulge the salaries of individuals but it's just an explanation of the higher wage cost.  

RexN
RexN

@Sickandtiredstill Sorry about that. It was to do with the players' wages on one hand and amortisation on the other.


The players signed in January 2013 had 6 months wages in 2012-13, and 12 months wages in 2013-14. That is a partial explanation about the increase in wages. The other side to it is the extra amortisation as compared with the previous year, which is what I was trying to highlight.


As for signings after the end of June 2014, there is a possibility (not explained by the club) that any commitment made can be listed under `accruals'. If a pre-contract agreement has been made but the payment will be made when the contract starts, this is legitimate. There were reports that Colback tried to get out of it when West Ham offered a higher wage but that the agreement ( I believe leaked by sources close to West Ham) suggested that Colback's agreement with NUFC was watertight.


It's fair to say that different clubs may have different policies as to how to account for this sort of thing. It makes for an interesting technicality post-Bosman, particularly with a club that likes to get players cheaply.


I hope that helps.