They’ve put up the big boy act now they’ve actually got to see it through. Even for us £105m in 3 installments would be obscene for FFP purposes. And they’ve yet to really materialise any sales of note.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It's Quiet 18 - Wanna ring the bell?
- Thread starter tolmie's hairdoo
- Start date
FantasyIreland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 64,697
Must be looking for the keto the deal.Seems Arsenal are stalling on Rice?
richards30
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 27,932
They’ve put up the big boy act now they’ve actually got to see it through. Even for us £105m in 3 installments would be obscene for FFP purposes. And they’ve yet to really materialise any sales of note.
i think the cash to accounting procedure is different i think mate? I think for Grealish, we made the payment in one go as per the release clause but can account the fee over the length of his contract?
blueparrot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 29,434
Wouldn’t make any difference to FFP. The fee is amortised over the contract for FFP. How you pay the fee doesn’t come into it and is only important for the paying clubs cash flow.They’ve put up the big boy act now they’ve actually got to see it through. Even for us £105m in 3 installments would be obscene for FFP purposes. And they’ve yet to really materialise any sales of note.
TheBlueCat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 1,062
Agree with this. Alvarez was a little hit and miss, but it was his first season and we can’t complain about his contribution. Foden is a miles better player though, it has to be said.You've taken some heat for this and rightfully so as it could have been worded better, to say the least, but I will say when he got a run of games as a starter he was underwhelming IMO.
My fear is that if there is some truth to him wanting more minutes, which is understandable, it will inevitably push Phil out to the wing once more as when Alvarez and Haaland did play at the same time, Alvarez occupied much of the areas where we all want to see Phil play.
yeah but that’s because there’s leeway in paying release clauses where the overall value can be shown spread out. I don’t think agreed/dictated instalments over a negotiated fee can be anything else other than how it’s been described. Could be off mark here.i think the cash to accounting procedure is different i think mate? I think for Grealish, we made the payment in one go as per the release clause but can account the fee over the length of his contract?
Does it not differ to how release clauses are paid and showcased? Thanks for clarifying.Wouldn’t make any difference to FFP. The fee is amortised over the contract for FFP. How you pay the fee doesn’t come into it and is only important for the paying clubs cash flow.
Wouldn’t make any difference to FFP. The fee is amortised over the contract for FFP. How you pay the fee doesn’t come into it and is only important for the paying clubs cash flow.
Wages yes 105m having to pay it in two years will go on the books as two years
Calv_from_the_frog
Well-Known Member
I have to say that Wham have massively overplayed their hand here, and they're just hoping that Arsenal agree a deal before they realise what madness 105m and 3 year payment terms is.
If Arsenal were to pull out or to go for Caicedo - who offers them much more - West Ham are fucked ad their entire transfer strategy is based on shifting Rice.
But do Arsenal have the balls for that ?
If Arsenal were to pull out or to go for Caicedo - who offers them much more - West Ham are fucked ad their entire transfer strategy is based on shifting Rice.
But do Arsenal have the balls for that ?
Gaz (FMwkdsoul)
Well-Known Member
the value of the transfer gets amortised over the length of the players contract. Cash on hand and payments whole separate issue and system as far as i remember, been awhile.Wages yes 105m having to pay it in two years will go on the books as two years
@citybrain should know.