Get Well Soon.Apologies. Been in bed with covid for 3 days now and utterly pissed off.
FFP no longer applies, and there is nothing to say selling shares resets everything, all assets and liabilities are inherited normally.Someone in the transfer forum said that Chelsea have a free run at ffp for 3 years as just been taken over.
Is this correct?
If so, why hasn't khaldoon bought city off sheikh mansour and sold it back to him every couple of years?
Then we could spend whatever we wanted.
Someone in the transfer forum said that Chelsea have a free run at ffp for 3 years as just been taken over.
Is this correct?
If so, why hasn't khaldoon bought city off sheikh mansour and sold it back to him every couple of years?
Then we could spend whatever we wanted.
The skimping was on the stadium. It’s not even fit to be an old toilet now.Rags may argue with that - elsewhere SR suggests interest paid during 15yrs to 2020 exceeded £800m(!!), more than the total debt the glazers stuck them with in the first place.
That said, I don't think they have necessarily skimped on player spending, just spent (and/or arranged the squad) very poorly... and long may that continue...
Hopefully about 4 billion quid!Because the headline inference was that ownership investment would not be allowed but payable loans (debt), would be. Either way, if it is allowed that the amortisation of the asset only hits the book proportionately per annum, the fact remains that (loan) debt cannot make any club more sustainable than direct investment, whether from profit/turnover or from owner/investor injection.
Heaven knows how much the debt may rise to at ot if they want to do any, ahem, restoration work (ground or team), given that i think we know there won't be any injection from the glazer pockets...
It was AC Milan IIRC. I can't remember the full details but I think their new ownership model turned out to be loaded with risk and UEFA weren't happy about it as it went totally against their rule that you alluded to which allowed owner investment as long as the business model was a sound one.Uefa did have a rule that new owners could spend a lot more when a new owner takes over as long as they had a plan to eventually get back on track to comply to ffp! One the Italian teams think it was inter they did spend around 350m when they got new owners but that didn’t work out, think they just pulled out of Europe ended up with new new owners too! Premier ffp though don’t have that rule I believe..
Not really.Hypothetical Question for the FFP/amortisation lads, as this is first time this has ever really happened to us.
If we end up selling Jesus, Sterling, Ake and Zinchenko and a couple of fringe players say raising £240m
Then we want to go out and buy £240m of replacements to replenish squad.
On the SSN ticker looks like a great net spend etc, but does it put us at risk with FFP/Sustainability requirements.
Incoming fees go down as a 1 off profit don’t they, but the players who’ve left and players incoming are amortised over the terms of their contracts, typically or 6 years and the FFP monitoring periods are 3 years.
So the fees will be being paid long after the sales profits are out of the accounts?
I wonder if this is why there is talk about not replacing Ake and Sterling if they do leave?
I think the point was, assuming the profit realised on the first player after book value was accounted for was £50m and the second player cost £50m then the 'net spend' was zero. However, in reality the second players cost is amortised over 5 years (so £10m per year) and FFP looks at 3 year periods so, for the first three years after this exchange we have money in = £50m, money out = £30m so overall +£20m and all is well. For the next two years it is money in = £0m, money out = £20m so overall -£20m and potentially a problem.Not really.
If we sign someone for 50m on a 5 year deal and sell him after 3 years, his book value would be 20m. Therfore, if we sell him for 45m, the profit on that deal would be 25m.
If we replaced him with another 50m signing on a 5 year term, he would cost us 10m a year.
Thought you were more cheery than normal :-)Apologies. Been in bed with covid for 3 days now and utterly pissed off.
But you are also taking the exiting player's wages off the payables - if the replacement was on a similar paygrade then the annual (wage) outgoings are flat.I think the point was, assuming the profit realised on the first player after book value was accounted for was £50m and the second player cost £50m then the 'net spend' was zero. However, in reality the second players cost is amortised over 5 years (so £10m per year) and FFP looks at 3 year periods so, for the first three years after this exchange we have money in = £50m, money out = £30m so overall +£20m and all is well. For the next two years it is money in = £0m, money out = £20m so overall -£20m and potentially a problem.
AncoatsI don't see how any rule change in FFP can stop Manchester city now
not unless they come up with a system that only allows free transfer players at the so-called elite clubs to play in Europe then NOTHING can stop Manchester city from bossing Europe for the next 5 to 10 years
Ancoats
like your positivity. Im more glass half full and still think there my be a twist or turn from the establishment. They have worked so hard and with such a crap hand they may just attack again. The FA inquiry is still live, the CFG construct may yet get attention and the sponsorship fair value mechanism Is yet to play out.
That would be "glass half empty" ;)Ancoats
like your positivity. Im more glass half full and still think there my be a twist or turn from the establishment. They have worked so hard and with such a crap hand they may just attack again. The FA inquiry is still live, the CFG construct may yet get attention and the sponsorship fair value mechanism Is yet to play out.
Good spot Centurions. By Jimmy you’ve got to watch yourself posting on here. I’m sure half the posters are ex English teachers!That would be "glass half empty" ;)
Yes, I realise you can't look at a single set of transactions in isolation and, in reality there will be many comings and goings that have to be taken as a whole but I was more just idly speculating if we could inadvertently breach the rules even if we were nominally living within our mean according to the 'net spend' advocates. Which was more of a commentary both on the futility of looking at net spend and the shortcomings of the FFP rules.But you are also taking the exiting player's wages off the payables - if the replacement was on a similar paygrade then the annual (wage) outgoings are flat.
Edit: sorry, that wasn't your point, but surely we'd need a lot of like for like exchanges (or low sales to high purchases) for the amortisation to ever become a real problematic influence on the rolling-period p/l?