What are those figures in brackets mate ? You don't seem to have included the £19m we played for villa player in the " for us" ? ...Cheers

If we're armotizing the fees over 5 years... it's 19/5 on this years balances sheet or a 3.8 M loss... so for this year we net 33.7.. (my bad on the 4)

AndyDowsleftflank: yeah.. if we both added 10 M over what the deal would be on the cheap... we both get 8 M this year in FFP gain.

2 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

So we've effectively sold Maatsen for £18m........

Why not just sell him to a club that is willing to pay a good price for him? 

Not true.

And we also didnt really sell him for £38m either.

As ever, the truth is in the middle.

Whilst we dont know for certain, I would imagine the fee would have likely been around £28m. Villa then added on an additional £10m on top, which we can bank for this season as pure profit. We did the same for kellyman - which also gives Villa a nice £10m extra to bank in pure profit.

It is a fantastic move by both clubs.

2 minutes ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

Just correct me if I’m wrong Wearyourblue, but it must be this years amortization cost for the signing. So for our accounts we get 37,5 for Maatsen, minus one year cost for Kellyman which is 4,75 million. In other words for this fiscal year those two transfers gives us 32,75 million towards FFP/PSR

Oh right. Think I got it.

We used to get excited when we bought someone in the " olden days", couldn't wait to see him play for us almost immediately! 

Sometimes now I forget about players we've bought ,. they're everywhere, at different clubs , but not at the club that bought them !

 

2 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Not true.

And we also didnt really sell him for £38m either.

As ever, the truth is in the middle.

Whilst we dont know for certain, I would imagine the fee would have likely been around £28m. Villa then added on an additional £10m on top, which we can bank for this season as pure profit. We did the same for kellyman - which also gives Villa a nice £10m extra to bank in pure profit.

It is a fantastic move by both clubs.

So villa gave us an extra £10 million on top for Maasten, and then we gave Villa an extra £10 million on top for their player ?

Er,.am I missing something here ?

Just now, The Rising Sun said:

So villa gave us an extra £10 million on top for Maasten, and then we gave Villa an extra £10 million on top for their player ?

Er,.am I missing something here ?

When you sell, you get the whole fee as income for this fiscal year. When you buy, the cost is spread over the length of the contract. So lets say we sell Maatsen for 40 mill and buy Duran also for 40 million on a four year deal, you get an income of 40 mill for Maatsen and a cost of 40/4=10 million for Duran. Overall, you’ve made a profit for this fiscal year of 30 million. If you sell for 50 and buy for 50 you get 50 mill income and a cost of 50/4=12,5 million - overall a profit of 37,5 million.

Its a neat little trick to improve your accounts now, but at the same time you get a higher cost for the remaining three years of Durans contract so you are just kicking your problems down the road

"The Rising Sun

So villa gave us an extra £10 million on top for Maasten, and then we gave Villa an extra £10 million on top for their player ?

Er,.am I missing something here ?"

That's the way I'm reading it. I also think that's why we're so focused on low wage players right now.

Just looking at FFP, while Mudryk seems really high for a transfer fee, he costs about the same as Lukaku did if we got Mudryk on the free. I know it's unpopular..but I think we've done some brilliant business for the long term. What really killed our momentum was the Lukaku transfer, and the money we were spending on wages prior to the sale.

Lukaku was 97.5 M Transfer fee over 5 years + 17 M / year in salary =. 36.5 M / year for FFP
Mudryk was 88 M Transfer fee over 7 years + 5M / year in salary = 17.6 M/ year for FFP

"AndyDowsleftflank

When you sell, you get the whole fee as income for this fiscal year. When you buy, the cost is spread over the length of the contract. So lets say we sell Maatsen for 40 mill and buy Duran also for 40 million on a four year deal, you get an income of 40 mill for Maatsen and a cost of 40/4=10 million for Duran. Overall, you’ve made a profit for this fiscal year of 30 million. If you sell for 50 and buy for 50 you get 50 mill income and a cost of 50/4=12,5 million - overall a profit of 37,5 million.

Its a neat little trick to improve your accounts now, but at the same time you get a higher cost for the remaining three years of Durans contract so you are just kicking your problems down the road"

Its not just kicking problems down the road. by out bidding Arsenal by 10 M on Mudryk, we may have saved our selves 5 M over the life of the contract. Overpaying some on the transfer fee allows us to not negotiate against other teams on wages. Low wages make it much easier to sell a player in the future too. Also inflation takes some of the costs away as well. 2M five years from now isn't worth as much as it is today.

I am pretty sure Juve and Barca was it ..who got punished for a similar stunt 

36 minutes ago, Wearyourblue said:

"AndyDowsleftflank

When you sell, you get the whole fee as income for this fiscal year. When you buy, the cost is spread over the length of the contract. So lets say we sell Maatsen for 40 mill and buy Duran also for 40 million on a four year deal, you get an income of 40 mill for Maatsen and a cost of 40/4=10 million for Duran. Overall, you’ve made a profit for this fiscal year of 30 million. If you sell for 50 and buy for 50 you get 50 mill income and a cost of 50/4=12,5 million - overall a profit of 37,5 million.

Its a neat little trick to improve your accounts now, but at the same time you get a higher cost for the remaining three years of Durans contract so you are just kicking your problems down the road"

Its not just kicking problems down the road. by out bidding Arsenal by 10 M on Mudryk, we may have saved our selves 5 M over the life of the contract. Overpaying some on the transfer fee allows us to not negotiate against other teams on wages. Low wages make it much easier to sell a player in the future too. Also inflation takes some of the costs away as well. 2M five years from now isn't worth as much as it is today.

Absolutely, very valid points. But by increasing both transfer fees you ARE choosing maximal profit now and more cost later - potentially giving us more problems in the future

I get it now...but I've also got a migraine!

 

Cheers for the explanation guys. I fkn hate finance/accounting/etc.

13 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

So villa gave us an extra £1million on top for Maasten, and then we gave Villa an extra £10 million on top for their player ?

Er,.am I missing something here ?

Exactly.

We bank an extra profit for FFP this year. As do Villa.

But the £10m extra each club is paying is then spread over the term of the new players contract (to a max of 5yrs) (so assuming the player is on a minimum 5yr contract, it is only “costing” £2m per year). 

In short - it’s an extra accounting profit, of at least £8m this year. For both teams. 
 

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 20242 yr by nonotnowjim

16 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

I think the "playing in a Champions League Final" thing is being very overplayed in terms of where his value is ...

We didn't get a huge fee for Ryan Bertrand and he won the bloody thing LOL.

Tend to agree. Context. Their CL run was an outlier, they were poor in the BL, hence the manager's exit. He always looked good going forward but less assured defending. 

14 hours ago, Jangz said:

I am pretty sure Juve and Barca was it ..who got punished for a similar stunt 

It was the Arthur-Pjanic deal between Juve and Barca. The difference is that Juve and Barcelona massively inflated the players' values in order to book profits and circumvent FFP.  Not for the first time for Juve. There were suspicions about deals involving Danilo and Cancelo and Juve and Man City. It's a fiscal trick not uncommon here in Italy. Serie A TV rights are nowhere near the level of the PL and clubs need to find workarounds. Ultimately Juve were sunk because they're publicly listed on the Italian stock exchange, hence their financial dealings come under the scrutiny of the Guardia di Finanzia, basically the financial arm of the police. 

It then got messier for Juve. During the Covid epidemic, Juve reported that players had agreed to a pay cut. It was later revealed that Juve paid the players in full with the so called reduction paid in the black, under the counter.

Hence the entire board decided it was wise to resign.

Departure now confirmed 

5 hours ago, terraloon said:

Departure now confirmed 

Good luck, Ian!