Marvin said:In that case there's no cap at all. Just pay by instalments - many deals are done that wayBlueAnorak said:Marvin said:I expect this has been done, but it's only just crossed my mind.......
With Fernando deal reportedly close to being announced, I'm reading that there are add-ons as per usual
So how does that work with the 60m Euro cap? Do they value the basic deal.......in which case City have a loophole.....structure every deal with add-ons, or is the whole potential package taken into account even if it will never be realised. Surely not
I'm guessing the cap would be based on the base amount payable.
It will be based on the amount paid over the time period - i.e. now till 1st July 2015.
Matty said:Marvin said:In that case there's no cap at all. Just pay by instalments - many deals are done that wayBlueAnorak said:It will be based on the amount paid over the time period - i.e. now till 1st July 2015.
The instalment method won't work here. If we were to buy a player for £10m, and pay 4 instalments of £2.5m, then UEFA wouldn't care. For the purposes of our sanction (the £49m net spending cap) UEFA would view this as a £10m spend. This isn't an accounting issue for UEFA, or anything to do with instalments, or amortisation, it's a far more simplistic matter. Total value of the spend.
The issue around what happens with add ons is an interesting one, but I don't see how UEFA can count them towards our £49m spend. Fernando might have an appearances add on, or a success add on, neither or which are guaranteed, so UEFA can't assume those costs have been incurred. The add ons would probably fall under the bonuses category and, as such, would be exempt from the transfer cap, in the same way as performance bonuses are exempt from the wage cap.
fbloke said:Matty said:Marvin said:In that case there's no cap at all. Just pay by instalments - many deals are done that way
The instalment method won't work here. If we were to buy a player for £10m, and pay 4 instalments of £2.5m, then UEFA wouldn't care. For the purposes of our sanction (the £49m net spending cap) UEFA would view this as a £10m spend. This isn't an accounting issue for UEFA, or anything to do with instalments, or amortisation, it's a far more simplistic matter. Total value of the spend.
The issue around what happens with add ons is an interesting one, but I don't see how UEFA can count them towards our £49m spend. Fernando might have an appearances add on, or a success add on, neither or which are guaranteed, so UEFA can't assume those costs have been incurred. The add ons would probably fall under the bonuses category and, as such, would be exempt from the transfer cap, in the same way as performance bonuses are exempt from the wage cap.
Pay £5m now and a further £35m after his 120th training session. ;-)
I think it's the principle that is being questioned rather than the practicalities. UEFA have imposed a rule and it is for us to either live with it or to use 'creative accounting' techniques to deal with it. My own way of dealing with it is to take players on 12 month loans with loan fees of, say, £10m, and if we are interested in these same players in a years time when our sanctions may have expired, we hold transfer talks with the parent club. If we are no longer interested or if UEFA smell something fishy, we drop the deal and the player returns to his parent club and we are 'only' £10m the poorer for it.blueparrot said:fbloke said:Matty said:The instalment method won't work here. If we were to buy a player for £10m, and pay 4 instalments of £2.5m, then UEFA wouldn't care. For the purposes of our sanction (the £49m net spending cap) UEFA would view this as a £10m spend. This isn't an accounting issue for UEFA, or anything to do with instalments, or amortisation, it's a far more simplistic matter. Total value of the spend.
The issue around what happens with add ons is an interesting one, but I don't see how UEFA can count them towards our £49m spend. Fernando might have an appearances add on, or a success add on, neither or which are guaranteed, so UEFA can't assume those costs have been incurred. The add ons would probably fall under the bonuses category and, as such, would be exempt from the transfer cap, in the same way as performance bonuses are exempt from the wage cap.
Pay £5m now and a further £35m after his 120th training session. ;-)
Yes but would the selling club accept those terms. To be honest though there may be clever accounting ways around the £49 mill net spend cap, but I don't think the club are that bothered as the intended targets for this summer where never planned to cost more than £49mil net.
I think the club will have a plan that looks ahead 2 or 3 windows at a time now and it would take a very special player becoming available to make them change course, or an unexpected transfer out.
I'm no cynic said:I think it's the principle that is being questioned rather than the practicalities. UEFA have imposed a rule and it is for us to either live with it or to use 'creative accounting' techniques to deal with it. My own way of dealing with it is to take players on 12 month loans with loan fees of, say, £10m, and if we are interested in these same players in a years time when our sanctions may have expired, we hold transfer talks with the parent club. If we are no longer interested or if UEFA smell something fishy, we drop the deal and the player returns to his parent club and we are 'only' £10m the poorer for it.blueparrot said:fbloke said:Pay £5m now and a further £35m after his 120th training session. ;-)
Yes but would the selling club accept those terms. To be honest though there may be clever accounting ways around the £49 mill net spend cap, but I don't think the club are that bothered as the intended targets for this summer where never planned to cost more than £49mil net.
I think the club will have a plan that looks ahead 2 or 3 windows at a time now and it would take a very special player becoming available to make them change course, or an unexpected transfer out.
blueparrot said:I'm no cynic said:I think it's the principle that is being questioned rather than the practicalities. UEFA have imposed a rule and it is for us to either live with it or to use 'creative accounting' techniques to deal with it. My own way of dealing with it is to take players on 12 month loans with loan fees of, say, £10m, and if we are interested in these same players in a years time when our sanctions may have expired, we hold transfer talks with the parent club. If we are no longer interested or if UEFA smell something fishy, we drop the deal and the player returns to his parent club and we are 'only' £10m the poorer for it.blueparrot said:Yes but would the selling club accept those terms. To be honest though there may be clever accounting ways around the £49 mill net spend cap, but I don't think the club are that bothered as the intended targets for this summer where never planned to cost more than £49mil net.
I think the club will have a plan that looks ahead 2 or 3 windows at a time now and it would take a very special player becoming available to make them change course, or an unexpected transfer out.
Yes I see that I just get the impression the club are happy to live with it as it is.
I suppose thats right, though if Di Maria came in then somebody would need to be sold to keep the foreign quota down, which would bring money in but, that's a different discussion.fbloke said:blueparrot said:I'm no cynic said:I think it's the principle that is being questioned rather than the practicalities. UEFA have imposed a rule and it is for us to either live with it or to use 'creative accounting' techniques to deal with it. My own way of dealing with it is to take players on 12 month loans with loan fees of, say, £10m, and if we are interested in these same players in a years time when our sanctions may have expired, we hold transfer talks with the parent club. If we are no longer interested or if UEFA smell something fishy, we drop the deal and the player returns to his parent club and we are 'only' £10m the poorer for it.
Yes I see that I just get the impression the club are happy to live with it as it is.
I think you're right in broad terms.
The problem though is that of Fabregas or Di Maria, players who were not expected to become available and so the cost was not factored in.
Imagine if these players asked for a move to City (As Shaw apparently has to united) but we had to say no based on the limitations UEFA had placed on us.