1 hour ago, Term_X said:

“Buy clause to become mandatory under certain conditions”

FFS, they will do everything in their power to avoid that no doubt.

and just like that, the positivity around this evaporates…

2 hours ago, AJMurphy said:

They did.

We pay it in one go, but spread the cost over the length of the contract for accounting purposes. That's now been capped at five years due to us taking the piss with it early doors and spreading the cost over the 7/8 year contracts.

Someone who works in finance will have to step in to explain why its allowed

Simply because you charge the purchase of an asset to your expenditure account over the same time scale that you utilise the asset. The cash transaction is purely a balance sheet entry.

Whereas selling an asset (footballers are classed as intangible assets) removes your scope to utilise it.

The selling club calculates the profit (or loss) on the transfer as the difference betweeen the fee and the player's net book value. That net book value pretty much being the original capitalized cost of the player minus what has been amortised over the length of time the player has been at the club.

Now lets get back to talking about beer, fans, birds, footie and Enzo being a tosser.

12 minutes ago, loz said:

Simply because you charge the purchase of an asset to your expenditure account over the same time scale that you utilise the asset. The cash transaction is purely a balance sheet entry.

Whereas selling an asset (footballers are classed as intangible assets) removes your scope to utilise it.

The selling club calculates the profit (or loss) on the transfer as the difference betweeen the fee and the player's net book value. That net book value pretty much being the original capitalized cost of the player minus what has been amortised over the length of time the player has been at the club.

Now lets get back to talking about beer, fans, birds, footie and Enzo being a tosser.

ELI10

48 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Also strong rumours about Jackson going to Villa. How do we both avoid issues with uefa with that deal, they cannot loan 2 players from 1pl team.

Jackson won’t be going to Villa in this window

Wait I was saving this gif for a special occasion

From 442...

"English clubs, whether under settlement agreements or not, are increasingly turning to player sales to offset massive operating deficits. Rogers was bought for an initial £7 million from Middlesbrough, and even with potential add-ons of £8 million and his former club having a significant sell-on clause, the record £117 million fee brought a substantial profit to Villa Park.

However, UEFA's rules do not look favorably on players being exchanged between two clubs within a short period, and if they deem it a "player exchange transaction," they will require clubs to reduce the displayed profit in their calculations. Essentially, if UEFA determines that the Rogers deal is linked to a Chelsea player moving in the opposite direction, Villa would need to reduce their Rogers profit to the difference between the net cash received and the fee paid to Chelsea for Garnacho, or anyone else.'""

14 minutes ago, loz said:

Simply because you charge the purchase of an asset to your expenditure account over the same time scale that you utilise the asset. The cash transaction is purely a balance sheet entry.

Whereas selling an asset (footballers are classed as intangible assets) removes your scope to utilise it.

The selling club calculates the profit (or loss) on the transfer as the difference betweeen the fee and the player's net book value. That net book value pretty much being the original capitalized cost of the player minus what has been amortised over the length of time the player has been at the club.

Now lets get back to talking about beer, fans, birds, footie and Enzo being a tosser.

There are basic accounting rules/ regulations FRS and amortisation will almost certainly, in our accounts still be over the contract term. What has changed is that for PSR/FFP and now SCR you can only have a maximum term of 5 years to account for a players costs.

Ironically the rule change has wider impacts . For instance when you extend a contract historically the sum still to be amortised would be re and spread over the new contract length .

For instance historically sign a player on £50m on a five year deal and after three years his amortisation is £10m Pa so after 3 years his value is down to £20 million. Then he signs another deal for an extra 3 years years so back to five years and that £20m would be amortised at the rate of £4 m Pa.That no longer is the case when it comes to FFP etc.

1 hour ago, axman2526 said:

Also strong rumours about Jackson going to Villa. How do we both avoid issues with uefa with that deal, they cannot loan 2 players from 1pl team.

Player transfers between 2 clubs within 45 days are considered by EUFA as player "swaps" and if judged to be so, then the clubs have to reduce the profit they show on their books. Villa and Chelsea are both under certain EUFA conditions imposed after breeches of regulations

Not to worry though, I'm confident that the club knows what they are doing.

👍😂

31 minutes ago, terraloon said:

There are basic accounting rules/ regulations FRS and amortisation will almost certainly, in our accounts still be over the contract term. What has changed is that for PSR/FFP and now SCR you can only have a maximum term of 5 years to account for a players costs.

Ironically the rule change has wider impacts . For instance when you extend a contract historically the sum still to be amortised would be re and spread over the new contract length .

For instance historically sign a player on £50m on a five year deal and after three years his amortisation is £10m Pa so after 3 years his value is down to £20 million. Then he signs another deal for an extra 3 years years so back to five years and that £20m would be amortised at the rate of £4 m Pa.That no longer is the case when it comes to FFP etc.

Yes, that is one of the differences between a tangible asset on your books like Mod's love shack and a football player under the current financial regime

If Mod's love shack is revalued and its useful life extended then you rebate the depreciation charged to revised value and new useful life.

Clearly that has to be different for football.

54 minutes ago, theGreenBaron said:

ELI10

I had to ask my DWI11 (daughter who is 11) what ELI10 meant!

I fundamentally hate people doing the conga and have never joined in on one as a point of principle.

But if we actually get rid of Garnacho with a profit then I’m f**king leading a conga.

Altogether now………

Da da da da da da Da

Da da da da da da. Da.

f**king YESSSSS!

8 minutes ago, loz said:

I had to ask my DWI11 (daughter who is 11) what ELI10 meant!

I had to google that, the spider near my balcony door is the only living creature I could ask. It refused to answer 😡

19 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Player transfers between 2 clubs within 45 days are considered by EUFA as player "swaps" and if judged to be so, then the clubs have to reduce the profit they show on their books. Villa and Chelsea are both under certain EUFA conditions imposed after breeches of regulations

Not to worry though, I'm confident that the club knows what they are doing.

👍😂

This actually has turned out better than could be hoped for .

All sorts of possibilities re the monies. For instance the loan fee could be say £40 million and the final payment on completion of the obligation could be say £2.5 m. UEFA would go bonkers but can’t see that would be against any rules, possibly against the spirt of but who gives a ….

It’s said the conditions are easy to meet so maybe make 10 starts before the next transfer window.

What is really funny in this is that Utd fans were taking the p155 when he signed ( to be fair I think they were justified) but the fact that both in fee terms and of course bearing in mind that he fact that 20% of his fee will have been amortised then we haven’t come too badly out of this.

10 minutes ago, terraloon said:

This actually has turned out better than could be hoped for .

All sorts of possibilities re the monies. For instance the loan fee could be say £40 million and the final payment on completion of the obligation could be say £2.5 m. UEFA would go bonkers but can’t see that would be against any rules, possibly against the spirt of but who gives a ….

It’s said the conditions are easy to meet so maybe make 10 starts before the next transfer window.

What is really funny in this is that Utd fans were taking the p155 when he signed ( to be fair I think they were justified) but the fact that both in fee terms and of course bearing in mind that he fact that 20% of his fee will have been amortised then we haven’t come too badly out of this.

Maybe it will turn out ok for us . I don't know all the rules, but somewhere it said a loan with an obligation to buy could be considered as a player swap. Anyway I think it affects Vills and not us .

Come on you BLUES !!

Confirmed on Sky Sports & BBC ....its done at least for next season. 🙂

Glad he is gone. Hopefully does not end up like a Harvey Elliot situation.

23 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Maybe it will turn out ok for us . I don't know all the rules, but somewhere it said a loan with an obligation to buy could be considered as a player swap. Anyway I think it affects Vills and not us .

Come on you BLUES !!

When they step in is if the terms are certain to be met. Such as he turns up for training on say 50% of occasions . Appearances are a different matter particularly as we have seen Villa basically side line players meaning they have a track record of not fulfilling the terms. Don’t forget we had an obligation to but Sancho which turned out to be we could get out of.

Move the thread. Lock the thread. Delete the thread. Pretend this never happened.

54 minutes ago, terraloon said:

This actually has turned out better than could be hoped for .

All sorts of possibilities re the monies. For instance the loan fee could be say £40 million and the final payment on completion of the obligation could be say £2.5 m. UEFA would go bonkers but can’t see that would be against any rules, possibly against the spirt of but who gives a ….

It’s said the conditions are easy to meet so maybe make 10 starts before the next transfer window.

What is really funny in this is that Utd fans were taking the p155 when he signed ( to be fair I think they were justified) but the fact that both in fee terms and of course bearing in mind that he fact that 20% of his fee will have been amortised then we haven’t come too badly out of this.

I mean one might argue we overpaid for Rodgers on purpose so that we could shift Garnacho. So whatever we overpaid for Rodgers, we are losing on Garnacho.

But who cares. Its not my money.

43 minutes ago, Munkunku said:

Move the thread. Lock the thread. Delete the thread. Pretend this never happened.

What happened? Never heard of any of this. You must have just had a bad dream.

Edited Wednesday at 21:183 days by PhilH930

Now hearing that the Garnacho condition is appearance based. That's dangerous. As @markpitts said recently, look at how they fcked about with Harvey Elliott

Just now, WhiteWall said:

Now hearing that the Garnacho condition is appearance based. That's dangerous. As @markpitts said recently, look at how they fcked about with Harvey Elliott

The flip side is they don’t want a reputation for freezing players out or players of a certain quality won’t go there on loan.

Just now, 19seventyone said:

The flip side is they don’t want a reputation for freezing players out or players of a certain quality won’t go there on loan.

Hope you're right

2 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Hope you're right

It’s the hope that kills you.

That and watching Garnacho.

16 minutes ago, 19seventyone said:

The flip side is they don’t want a reputation for freezing players out or players of a certain quality won’t go there on loan.

There is also the damage it would do to the relationship with us. We just gave them over the odds for a player. Most likely on an under the table conversation on them taking garnacho.