City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

Chippy_boy said:
Straight line over the contract period.
Click to expand...
Unless they get extended in which case remaining amortisation is spread over he extension . Hence contract extensions for aguero, silva, nasri etc all helped the p and l

One way we could have always got around FFP would be to sell a home grown player or low book value player to NY and then buy them back thus creating a p and l value to benefit and then effectively getting their services back but amortised. A very common trick used by business to boost short term p and l issues with sale and lease back etc etc
 
Out of curiosity and using easy figures...

If a player is bought for 100m on a 5 year contract, his book value diminishes by 20m per year right?
If in his last year, he's worth 20m on the books and you extend for another 5 years, then he'll depreciate at 4m a year right?
But what if you let the full 5 years expire (theoretical book value of 0), then renew. What is his book value deemed to be? (zero?) and is there any sort of 'bridging' contract that could allow a player after 4 years, to agree to renew after 5, but not technically do so (thus being able to have zero book value without running the risk of him leaving on a free)?
 
FanchesterCity said:
Out of curiosity and using easy figures...

If a player is bought for 100m on a 5 year contract, his book value diminishes by 20m per year right?
If in his last year, he's worth 20m on the books and you extend for another 5 years, then he'll depreciate at 4m a year right?
But what if you let the full 5 years expire (theoretical book value of 0), then renew. What is his book value deemed to be? (zero?) and is there any sort of 'bridging' contract that could allow a player after 4 years, to agree to renew after 5, but not technically do so (thus being able to have zero book value without running the risk of him leaving on a free)?
Click to expand...

To answer the first part yes his book value would be zero although you could attach a valuation in the accounts.
Second it would depend on the FA rules, a binding pre-contract might be possible.
 
I thought the Negredo money was already counted? Usually money is accrued when the contract is agreed not when they actually pay which can be much later.
Or is this wrong?
 
My input on educating people about football finance over the years hasn't been wasted I see.

Aguero93:20 added the missing bit of the equation; if we get £20m for Dzeko plus the profit we've made on other deals, the new players should have little or no net impact on the overall bottom line. The downside is that we can only use a transfer profit once of course but we're at the point where we largely have saleable assets. But in the 2016 financial year then we're OK.

As far as revenue is concerned it's the CL where we should get increased revenue this season, with the domestic deal kicking in next year. Plus if the rumours of a new deal with Nike and CFA sponsorship are correct, we're quids in.

We might still need the Sheikh to stump up some cash when we need to buy players but we're self sustaining on a revenue basis and can support significant spend on a regular basis.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
My input on educating people about football finance over the years hasn't been wasted I see.

Aguero93:20 added the missing bit of the equation; if we get £20m for Dzeko plus the profit we've made on other deals, the new players should have little or no net impact on the overall bottom line. The downside is that we can only use a transfer profit once of course but we're at the point where we largely have saleable assets. But in the 2016 financial year then we're OK.

As far as revenue is concerned it's the CL where we should get increased revenue this season, with the domestic deal kicking in next year. Plus if the rumours of a new deal with Nike and CFA sponsorship are correct, we're quids in.

We might still need the Sheikh to stump up some cash when we need to buy players but we're self sustaining on a revenue basis and can support significant spend on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Nike is plastered EVERYWHERE at the CFA, much more so than the ground.

Given that ground hadn't been broken when Nike signed their deal, very unlikely this much placement was included in the original deal

Also the training kits, surely we can't continue wasting that space on a Cityzens logo ? NYCFC have a training kit sponsor ffs
 
Don't quite get what has happened, but am I right in thinking that the Belgian court has sent it on to the EU court and recommended the EU court make a quick decision based on the Belgian court findings and the EU court has said no, it wants to hear the whole thing for itself? (or something similar).
 
keith's curle said:
Don't quite get what has happened, but am I right in thinking that the Belgian court has sent it on to the EU court and recommended the EU court make a quick decision based on the Belgian court findings and the EU court has said no, it wants to hear the whole thing for itself? (or something similar).
Click to expand...
The Belgian Court recommended a provisional judgement to stop the reduction in the the 3 year FFP deficit from €45m to €30m for season 2016/17 - that is the bit that has been rejected.
There still has to be a full hearing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top