The sanctions have been helpful in other ways as well, particularly only having to meet a one year financial target for this and the previous financial year.fbloke said:Prestwich_Blue said:That's the way I'd see it, as long as it wasn't seen as an obvious dodge. So if we're offering £20m and the selling club want £25m, then we pay them the £20m upfront and offer them an extra £5m after two seasons as long as he's played 50 games or something. Or we could do a sell-on percentage.fbloke said:So it would be easier enough to structure a deal that limited the financial outlay in season 1 but still made certain that the selling club were confident that they would be paid what they agreed at the outset?
Any deal could be sweetened with the initial fee being paid in full, at the signing of the deal.
It must be why MCFC accepted this 'limitation' as they already knew that who they wanted would fit into their budget.
It could ironically have helped deflate the expectations of some agents and clubs and saved MCFC some money.
Thanks UEFA ;-)
Prestwich_Blue said:The sanctions have been helpful in other ways as well, particularly only having to meet a one year financial target for this and the previous financial year.fbloke said:Prestwich_Blue said:That's the way I'd see it, as long as it wasn't seen as an obvious dodge. So if we're offering £20m and the selling club want £25m, then we pay them the £20m upfront and offer them an extra £5m after two seasons as long as he's played 50 games or something. Or we could do a sell-on percentage.
It must be why MCFC accepted this 'limitation' as they already knew that who they wanted would fit into their budget.
It could ironically have helped deflate the expectations of some agents and clubs and saved MCFC some money.
Thanks UEFA ;-)
At least we can quote properly. ;-)George Hannah said:I know it helps to think positively when under attack but you two sound as if you actually believe what you are posting. lol
Prestwich_Blue said:At least we can quote properly. ;-)George Hannah said:I know it helps to think positively when under attack but you two sound as if you actually believe what you are posting. lol
I think people completely underestimate how important the resetting of the break-even targets was. That far outweighs any negative aspects of the other sanctions.
George is usually such an optimist :)Prestwich_Blue said:At least we can quote properly. ;-)George Hannah said:I know it helps to think positively when under attack but you two sound as if you actually believe what you are posting. lol
I think people completely underestimate how important the resetting of the break-even targets was. That far outweighs any negative aspects of the other sanctions.
What would they have been if they hadn't been re-set?Prestwich_Blue said:At least we can quote properly. ;-)George Hannah said:I know it helps to think positively when under attack but you two sound as if you actually believe what you are posting. lol
I think people completely underestimate how important the resetting of the break-even targets was. That far outweighs any negative aspects of the other sanctions.
We'd have had to meet a 3-yr aggregate maximum break-even allowable deficit of €45m, which included those two years losses of £150m again, plus the 2013/14 result. And as we wouldn't have been able to use the £80m wage exemption then we'd have certainly failed again if, as stated by the CEO, we break-even in 2013/14. So that £150m loss has been wiped off the slate and we only have to better a €20m deficit for the year just ended, when we should be reporting a break-even surplus. That's why it's so advantageous to us.George Hannah said:What would they have been if they hadn't been re-set?Prestwich_Blue said:At least we can quote properly. ;-)George Hannah said:I know it helps to think positively when under attack but you two sound as if you actually believe what you are posting. lol
I think people completely underestimate how important the resetting of the break-even targets was. That far outweighs any negative aspects of the other sanctions.
Much appreciated, I'm feeling very positive too now!Prestwich_Blue said:We'd have had to meet a 3-yr aggregate maximum break-even allowable deficit of €45m, which included those two years losses of £150m again, plus the 2013/14 result. And as we wouldn't have been able to use the £80m wage exemption then we'd have certainly failed again if, as stated by the CEO, we break-even in 2013/14. So that £150m loss has been wiped off the slate and we only have to better a €20m deficit for the year just ended, when we should be reporting a break-even surplus. That's why it's so advantageous to us.George Hannah said:What would they have been if they hadn't been re-set?Prestwich_Blue said:At least we can quote properly. ;-)
I think people completely underestimate how important the resetting of the break-even targets was. That far outweighs any negative aspects of the other sanctions.