- This topic has 401 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Chelsea have spent an enormous sum. If they have it so be it. I note that a significant sum has come from Abramovic.
Tell me. Is this OK?
We, City, get significant criticism in the press and by fellow posters for spending money we actually have. I do notice a different tone, especially in the press about the level of spending. London team?
There are other clubs who spend who don’t have it but have massive debt. That is what FFP should cover.
Will the spending be successful with Potter in charge or will the egos overtake him?_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
“I note that a significant sum has come from Abramovic.
Tell me. Is this OK?”How come? Roman received no money from sale and was frozen out from chelsea months before sale.
All money has come from the consortium fronted by boehly.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Oh give it a rest Adlab π. Chelsea have quite rightly been hammered from all angles for their unprecedented levels of spending this window. How on earth you’ve managed to miss all that is beyond me. The way you miss all that but the first small sign of Liverpool or Utd getting a decision go their way, your observation levels are off the chart π
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Sorry Ed me aul chum
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Don’t worry Adders, I have exactly the same level of love and respect for your mob as I do for the Jammy Dodgers… you’re both very equal in my eyes and I certainly think I’ve managed to keep my comments for both clubs rather balanced between them, I certainly don’t I’ve left you out. I shall step up my game.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
As I recently said about the recent Liverpool signings, they’ve never played in the Premier league so players like Gakpo and Nunez haven’t hit the ground running. This contrasts with our earlier signings like Van Dijk, Mane, Wijnaldum, Robertson, etc, who all had previous Premier league experience and so they all pretty much hit the ground running and proved successful.
The concern for Chelsea is I don’t think several of their recent signings have played in this league so that does increase the risk. Doesn’t mean they won’t work out and obviously there are several factors that dictate the success of a player, but generally speaking I think the top clubs have historically tended to spend big on players already in the league to have that assurance. With FFP however, maybe that is changing with clubs now spending big on young players from abroad which in turn adds to the inflation. I just worry clubs are now trying to be too clever.
In recent months Liverpool, Chelsea and Man Utd have all spent big on young players from abroad with no previous premier-league experience and already several of those haven’t exactly set the world alight for the money paid granted it’s still early days. Again you look at the Arsenal signings that have helped take them off more recently, Jesus and Zinchenko, again players who’ve already played in the league.
So it could be that FFP causes clubs to start wasting more money than ever.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Lucky, thanks for your reply mate. Only just reading these posts now. Yes, a good simple explanation π
I won’t hide mate as a fan I am a little jealous π But I think it’s the mixture of the high fees and the amount of players brought in, essentially in one wave.
We need context as players have left your club as well as players injured etc. On the subject of ‘spreading the costs’, I don’t believe it’s anything exclusive and Barcelona for example I would suspect would have been following that ‘policy’ for a long time. If it’s agreed between both parties and doesn’t break the rules of fair play, then who are we to raise any complaints.
Cheers
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Nunez for me is max a 30 mil signing. Maybe I’m proved wrong and he becomes somebody special next season. 80 million is inflated, it’s clearly to see. This is going more by trend in my eyes than actually what the player is worth, but then it’s the old chess-nut of a player is worth what people are prepared to pay.
There is a correlation Mikus clear as day on those with PL experience that tend to fit in and flourish.
It’s not to say it’s a set rule as decades back, Chelsea signed many overseas players and to my memory, there were rarely any stand out flops. For all this to function well does require a good nucleus of players in the first place and naturally, good coaching and ultimately, a Top Manager.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Itβs not to say itβs a set rule
No indeed not nil, but there is a correlation I think nonetheless. It’s also the fact that many of these players are so young now, so even if they do come good, you may lose several years developing them. If you are to buy abroad, I think character has to be a big factor. I’ve heard people say for example players don’t generally travel well from the Dutch league, yet we bought Suarez from Holland and he was one of our best ever players because first and foremost, he had that street fighter attitude about him.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Been reading up on the apparent FFP rules, trying to figure out what the Jammy Dodgers have got up their selve and why all the other clubs aren’t following suit with all these 8 year contracts…
Firstly, it obviously helps if you have the money anyway, and with regards to FFP, whatever is “actually” paid doesn’t matter one jot. So, for example, JD pays 80 million for a player on an 8 year contract, he might actually pay this is 2 x 40 million installments, but in the FFP books its 8 x 10million.
Following me so far?
Right, this is the “loop” hole I think Jammy Dodgers are exploting… listen up!!
Under FFP rules (hopefully I was reading them right!), 3 years from now, Jammy Dodgers sell the 80 million pound player for 50 million pounds, which in the real world would mean a loss of 30 million (80-50=30!) but in the FFP world of “make it up as you go along” accounting the player has only cost 30m (3 x 10m), so the books would actually so a “profit” of 20million as has only cost 30 and sold for 50 million (with the remaining 50 million from the original 80 million transfer falling down the back if the FFP sofa, never to beaccounted for again, in every literal sense!)
Naturally, you need a boat load of cash to get the ball rolling but once its rolling….
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Something happened with the last edit!!!
So, too smmerize, the club now has a 20 million FFP profit, which can then be put into and split up into the next transfer (now a max of 5 years), which can then be sold for a profit etc…
You might be losing money in the real world, but in FFP world, you’re actually making a profit each year which goes towards that years “transfer budget”…
Apart from the initial outlay, it could actually quite serious long term benifits for the Jammy Dodgers… as long as they can sell the players for FFP profits… of course, if they don’t, it could be quite disastrous.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Mikus, completely agree 200% True about Suarez. Others I feel we’re expecting maybe a little too much when they move from abroad and try and settle in a new facet entirely. It’s not just the club, but it’s the territory, surroundings, environment, culture, food, people and living standards.
This is why some players I don’t believe are worth what is otherwise blown out of proportion with the fees. I’ve expressed this many times in the past on different forums, and I believe clubs, e.g. own own in Liverpool should keep an open mind and scout for players within the UK. Robertson was a fine example of what can be achieved and there isn’t as such consciousness about abiding by FFP.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
I don’t think that’s how it works Chucky. In that event it would be net 0. Because there is still the remaining 5×10 to account for the final 5 yrs which are yet to be accounted for when he’s sold. But say they sell him for 60mil, they would have a 10mil profit in the FFP books because there’s a 10mil surplus from the remaining 5×10 once the 60mil comes in.
I don’t know how it works with academy players though. I assume that’s where the magic happens because I guess they are just pure profit when they’re sold and it goes straight into the FFP plus account. So if you can create a conveyor belt of academy talent, as Chelsea have done over the years, you’re basically growing money on trees. I stand to be corrected but that’s my understanding
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Banjo, I think you have got a little lost there bud.
In the situation you describe it would not be recorded as 20m profit. Neither is it a 30m loss, because if all that is left on the books is 50m then to sell for 50m would mean breaking even as far as the books are concerned because the previous 30m has been accounted for in the books and the 50m remaining is written off by the fee.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Yeah exactly Ed π
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Good points Mikus about PL proven players. That’s become increasingly difficult now though as all the other PL clubs are so rich now so you have to balance the inflated cost of PL players against the increased likelihood of them succeeding.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Maybe, maybe not, the below is copypasted from one of the many websites….
For example, let us say a team signs a player on a four-year contract for Β£20 million. In accountancy terms, this Β£20 million is not “payable”, or perhaps better to say declarable, up frontβthough under the terms of the agreement between the two teams involved in the transfer, money may indeed exchange hands immediately.
Instead, the cost of the transfer is amortised over the length of the player’s contract, in this case four years.
This means that each “reporting period,” the club will effectively spend (20 divided by four) Β£5 million on this player.
Indeed, under FFP rules the club could sell the same player for only Β£15 million two years after buying him and record a profit, despite receiving less than it paid for him originally.
This is because the value of the player has amortised to Β£10 million with two years left on his deal, meaning the club would record a Β£5 million profit if they then sold him for Β£15 million.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Keep reading it and every way I look at it, under FFP “rules”, it “costs” the club per year the transfer fee divided by the number of years… sell him for less than what he’s cost per year it’s a loss, sell him for more than what he’s cost per year, then it’s a profit… by signing longer contracts, your increasing your chances of making a profit… (all under FFP rules, not the real world!)
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
But banjo it is a surplus as far as the accounts are concerned bud, that’s what you are not getting, because the prior 2 years of costs were already accounted for in previous reporting period.
If sold after 1 year for 15m it would offset remaining 3 years and on accounts it would show as balanced/break even, the 1st year paid and accounted for, the remaining 15m offset by received fee.
If sold after 2 years for 15m then yes will show as a surplus because all that is left to be accounted for is 10m but 15m was received so there is a surplus of 5m plus the wages saved.
After 3 years if sold for 15m it would create surplus of 10m.
There is no magical creation of money ilor profit here, it all adds up and legit.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
80 million transfer fee over 8 years is 10 million per year.
You have a player for 3 years so his cost 30 million so far.
You sell that player for 50 million.
30 Million Cost VS 50 Million Sales = 20 Million Profit!
Don’t forget we’re talking UEFA FFP rules… they’re not supposed to make sense! π
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.