His surname was Amesbury,lived there till mid 70's and left the area and the country for awhile,trained as a chef initially Handforth/Wilmslow way.Think his Mam still lived there for a while,lost touch as I moved out of M14,currently exiled in Lobby gobbler landBrooks, Cheeseman or Nield?
I lived next street up on Wykeham.
Not as great as state ?In what sense? If I owe you money but get someone else to pay you on my behalf i still owe you and you still get the income and declare it in the same way. If on the other hand I say you owe my company x amount but you actually owe me y then my accounts are wrong and are affected in a much more serious way. but for the arguments about related parties etc the former does not seem to be much of an issue but if it where the later then its more serous regardless of who related party issues
But does this actually mean that a club can borrow for example 200 million, spend it all on transfers, and in FFP terms this is no different to if a club sold players for 200 million first?To add to Stefan's reply to you, if we receive money from a sponsorship contract, that's revenue so goes into the Profit and Loss Account. We've received money (income) in consideration of an agreement to provide something, which in this case is publicity/advertising. In accounting terms, you debit the bank account (which is a balance sheet item) and credit the commercial revenue account (a P&L account item) with the cash received.
If we receive money from a loan, that's a balance sheet transaction. We've received an asset (cash) in return for accepting a liability to the lender. So in accounting terms we debit cash again but this time we credit a loan account. Both of these are on the balance sheet so the money received doesn't go into the P&L account (although any interest we pay will).
That, to me, shows the weakness of FFP as it stands. At the end of the day it's cash in the bank which you can spend the cash on players however it comes in, via a loan, sponsorship or the sale of a player. Obviously, if it's from the latter two, it's money that's been "earned" - money in, money out - whereas if that's a loan, it's not "earned" money and you've increased your liabilities. But FFP doesn't look at liabilities, just income and expenses. What UEFA should be doing is asking the likes of Chelsea and United how they would repay the debts they have (Chelsea's £1.4bn debt to Abramovich and United's now £650m debt to their lenders) if they needed to.
FFP, if it was seriously concerned with the fininacial sustainability of clubs, should be insisting that any debt is repayable over a given period, say 10 years for debt like United's or Chelsea's and maybe 20-25 years for infrastructure-related debt. Or else the notional repayment figure that would be required to settle that debt should be added to allowable FFP expenses. So if a club's notional debt repayment schedule under current interest rates would involve paying back £50m a year for a number of years, that £50m should be added to expenses for FFP purposes so the club can't spend that. That, to me, would level the playing field for clubs that don't have huge debts.
That's going to be one big ass banner is it not?
Oh, and you're not in charge of spelling for it.
Up g14 fundament. They threatened a breakaway yet again and rewrote the rules to cover P&L rather than balance sheet. Mr. Platini, of course, signed up. See that old interview with Platini by Martin Samuels.It’s interesting that pre-ffp as we know it now , platini ranted on about how unfair it was on everyone that some clubs could compete in, and win, the Cl, whilst carrying huge amounts of debt.
He even named two clubs that he saw as serious culprits, one not so far away, and one from west London.
Where did that idea go?
No mate it wasn’t. I don’t think he would have classed himself as a big red, he had a blue heart, just got brought up wrongNot Mickey Chapman was it?
He was a big mate of my old man and was the only big red I remember living on Lowthorpe Street during that era.
Granted, a couple might have been hiding the fact through fear.
Borrow the money to buy a player for £100m on a five year contract. For the purposes of ffp, that goes into expenditure as £20m per year for the transfer, plus wages etc, plus interest on the loan. Borrowings naturally on the balance sheet as debt. If you are Barca or RM, by the magic of Spanish politics you wont be called in a hurry by the bank for not meeting your repayment obligations.But does this actually mean that a club can borrow for example 200 million, spend it all on transfers, and in FFP terms this is no different to if a club sold players for 200 million first?
If yes it would mean that Barca and Real could borrow that money from the Spanish taxpayers, and use it outspend a club like City in the transfer market who raised money by selling shares in the company to Silverlake.
That seems absurd to me.
In the post-covid world I'd have thought their assets are likely to be considerably devalued.