Harry Kane

[ancoats]

Big question now is what happens next!?

Whilst I don't support players striking (Tevez as an example) if he goes back into training tomorrow it looks a bit of a hollow move today. If he stays away, how long realistically can he do that?

Fascinating to see what happens over the next few days, but the longer he isn't training the more Spurs are mugged off by him. Surely this has to be resolved before the season starts, otherwise it will be such a circus.

I reckon he will be our player by the end of next week.

i can see it now kane sat in his car outside the etihad waiting for the deal to drop hahahaha

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Has he signed yet or not?

 

[Coatigan]

It was announced a couple of weeks ago by Spurs that Kane would miss the start of the season, that's nothing new.

It was not. It was speculated by a journalist at the telegraph, and that speculation then requoted by others.

 

[Stoned Rose]

The Sané money, and (more importantly) the profit on sale, will be in the 2020/21 financial year, which ended in June. But that doesn't really matter because of the way FFP works, with figures aggregated over 3 years.

Also people don't really understand how the whole financing of transfers works.

In a normal year, City would generate around £125m of spare cash from our normal operations. I cant be certain, as we don't publish a separate cash flow statement for the club, only for CFG. But a basic calculation means it will be around that figure. Then incoming transfer fees are added to that cash pot, most of which will be used for paying for transfers in.

There's more that needs to be taken into account on top of that. We may show a book profit on players we sell. If we take Leroy as an example, he cost us £40m (to use a round number) and let's say we sold him for the same amount. But as he'd been here 4 years, we'd have shown £32m amortisation, making his book value only £8m. That means we can book a profit of £32m on his sale. That's not cash but it can be added to the pot as it will cover £32m of amortisation and wages for an incoming player or players. I know we laugh about the Coutinho money, but that's how it works.

And then there's the amortisation and wages saved by him not being here, which is £8m plus whatever a year's wages was for him. Let's say that was £7m, which means we've got £15m extra to play with in that year. That alone covers a years amortisation for a £50m player on £100k a week.

People ask why we bother with an academy when we seem to sell most of the player. But while we sell them relatively cheaply, and they aren't on big wages, it's all profit so selling a couple of decent academy lads, like Harrison & Angelino, brings in £20m profit and that's a full year's amortisation on Grealish. Do similar every year with a few Academy players and that's the Grealish fee fully covered.

I've said this before but in the summer of 2017, when the media went on and on about us spending something like £200m gross and £120m net, our player costs (wages + amortisation) only increased by £8m that year. That's because of wages and amortisation off the books for players we sold or loaned out. That's why net spend is a completely useless comparison.

My man.

 

[wolviedinho]

Has he signed yet or not?

Yep he will be staying at the premier inn for 2 weeks and eating at wetherspoons until the check is cleared by the master of coin levy.

It’s gonna be ok arry. City will not leave you standing alone without a dream in your heart ;)

 

[Stoned Rose]

My post is the brutal reality of the world you exist in. Just as you feed off lesser clubs so do we. Don’t be offended, I paid your club a compliment and even thanked you. Kyle Walker thanks you from behind all his PL titles. I’m sure Carrick, Berbatov, and Sheringham thank you too. I can imagine Bale wakes up everyday looks at his CL winners medals and is grateful for Levy’s willingness to take the money and run. Luka Modric? He thanks you too ...

Accepting your place in football’s ecosystem is liberating. Trust me. Trust us. We’ve been there.

Pied to fuck.

 

[ninjamonkey]

 

[Kakhaber The Great]

Oh the money will get paid and the player will get bought. But winning? That's not something your club really does. Take it from a supporter base that has been there. You're a service company for the country's best clubs. A little bit like Dortmund in Germany or Lille in France.

Thank you for the service you provide btw. It's always good to have a club who will develop talent over years, never really threaten for the major honours, and always be ready and willing to sell when real money comes knocking.

You should have the common decency to put some lube on a post like that...

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The Sané money, and (more importantly) the profit on sale, will be in the 2020/21 financial year, which ended in June. But that doesn't really matter because of the way FFP works, with figures aggregated over 3 years.

Also people don't really understand how the whole financing of transfers works.

In a normal year, City would generate around £125m of spare cash from our normal operations. I cant be certain, as we don't publish a separate cash flow statement for the club, only for CFG. But a basic calculation means it will be around that figure. Then incoming transfer fees are added to that cash pot, most of which will be used for paying for transfers in.

There's more that needs to be taken into account on top of that. We may show a book profit on players we sell. If we take Leroy as an example, he cost us £40m (to use a round number) and let's say we sold him for the same amount. But as he'd been here 4 years, we'd have shown £32m amortisation, making his book value only £8m. That means we can book a profit of £32m on his sale. That's not cash but it can be added to the pot as it will cover £32m of amortisation and wages for an incoming player or players. I know we laugh about the Coutinho money, but that's how it works.

And then there's the amortisation and wages saved by him not being here, which is £8m plus whatever a year's wages was for him. Let's say that was £7m, which means we've got £15m extra to play with in that year. That alone covers a years amortisation for a £50m player on £100k a week.

People ask why we bother with an academy when we seem to sell most of the player. But while we sell them relatively cheaply, and they aren't on big wages, it's all profit so selling a couple of decent academy lads, like Harrison & Angelino, brings in £20m profit and that's a full year's amortisation on Grealish. Do similar every year with a few Academy players and that's the Grealish fee fully covered.

I've said this before but in the summer of 2017, when the media went on and on about us spending something like £200m gross and £120m net, our player costs (wages + amortisation) only increased by £8m that year. That's because of wages and amortisation off the books for players we sold or loaned out. That's why net spend is a completely useless comparison.

We talked about this on the Bolt From The Blue podcast last night:

 

[Stiff Little Wingers]

Tyler will suddenly pick up on this and mention it ever time he’s within a metre of an opposition defender!

Didn't Van Djik go on strike at Southampton? Didn't see much aggro about that