Balance Sheet

Discussion in 'Transfer forum' started by Daz_Blue, 4 Jul 2017.

  1. SWP's back

    SWP's back

    Joined:
    29 Jun 2009
    Location:
    by the pool
    You're being overly pedantic here and you know it. If you can't assume that people would mean in this financial year then you're being obtuse on purpose and I can't be arsed replying to you.
     
  2. Cityfan

    Cityfan

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2009
    I'm not being pedantic without purpose there is absolutely no point in looking at purchases on an amortised annual cost basis for this year without adding in every other member of the squads costs to see what the total cost for the year is. De Bruyne's £50+M over 6 years is every bit as relevant to the accounts as anyone bought this window. What is being looked at is a net spend.
     
  3. SWP's back

    SWP's back

    Joined:
    29 Jun 2009
    Location:
    by the pool
    But we had operating profit of £90m last year with KDB's contract taken into account. We already know that baseline. We know that (wages aside), that allows us considerable transfer spend this year as costs are amortised.

    Net spend is irrelevant. Taken by itself, one wouldn't know if we have £50m net, £150m net or £300m net to play with. Selling a player (such as KDB) for £50m this year may look like a lot in terms of net sales but in reality it's a profit of £16.66m and not as helpful to us as selling Nacho for £25m. Do you see my point?
     
  4. Cityfan

    Cityfan

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2009
    I see your point yes but there are two other factors in that we don't know how much of the profits we will assign to transfers and how much we may need to assign to other things.If you were doing it on annual amortised basis and looking at what we have free, you also need to look at the amounts we are no longer attributing to Navas, Clichy, Caballero etc.
     
  5. Prestwich_Blue

    Prestwich_Blue

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2006
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wherever I lay my hat that's my home
    You've pretty well nailed it I'd say and, along with SWP's Back's post above I'd say my mission to educate and inform on matters financial, is done.

    We could spend £250m this summer and also generate a transfer profit of £50m from the sale of players who have little residual value (such as Hart). So that would mean, at least for that year, effectively a zero net spend (assuming all the players bought are given 5 year contracts). But next year we might sell no one and have the next £50m instslnent of amortisation hitting the P&L account. And of course we have to have the hard cash to finance those deals as the Sheikh isn't paying the lot up-front anymore.

    That's why it's a real financial balancing act.
     
  6. blueparrot

    blueparrot

    Joined:
    7 Jun 2012
    It is a balancing act, but if we can finance it with sales this year, aren't the Etihad and Nike deals up for grabs ? That should help going forward.
     
  7. SWP's back

    SWP's back

    Joined:
    29 Jun 2009
    Location:
    by the pool
    Yes. Also true, hence I was asking the OP originally to work all of that out for me so I don't have to do it.
     
  8. SWP's back

    SWP's back

    Joined:
    29 Jun 2009
    Location:
    by the pool
    Yep plus we are now generating a nice profit.
     
  9. Cityfan

    Cityfan

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2009
    OK fair enough.
     
  10. Hart loan added
     

Share This Page