Radamel Falcao Zarate

Prestwich_Blue said:
Jonjo said:
Directly from the article, lol, and people think I made that up haha

The only club that looks vulnerable is Manchester City, whose loss for FFP is still a frightening £142 million.
Click to expand...
I've been alerted to your presence and asked to educate you.

No one is arguing with the Swissramble blog but there's a few things that you clearly don't understand about FFP.

1) Last year's results don't count towards FFP, which is why the club deliberately made the loss as big as it could by getting some expenses out of the way that might have hampered us in the following years, which do count. So we got rid of about £30m in those accounts.

2) The first set of results that count are the next ones for the year to May 2012 but even then, they have to be added to next year's results before you can calculate your FFP result. So you can't look at just one year and say we'll fail.

3) The results for the previous financial year which should be out shortly will be considerably better than those as the 2011 results didn't include the new Etihad deal or the income from the CL. I'd expect us to see an income figure 50% better than the £153m we reported last year. We'll still show a fair sized loss but the trend is getting better every year. The results for this current financial year (to May 2013) will be even better still and could show us with either a small loss or breaking even.

4) As it says in the article, he believes we can write off £21m of allowable expenditure each year for FFP. It may well be more than that as we're spending a lot of money on the new training campus but we'll stick with that figure.

5) If we make an £85m loss this year and say a £25m loss next year, we'll have an aggregate loss for the first FFP assessment of £110m. We can knock £42m off that as per (3) giving an FFP-adjusted loss of £68m (or €85m at current exchange rates).

6) So that's a fail at first glance as the allowable limit is €50m but there's a rule that allows you to offset wages paid in the year to 2012 to players who signed their current contract before June 2010 and that will be about £45m (or €55m).

7) Bringing that into the equation gives us a final FFP-adjusted loss of €30m, which is well inside the maximum allowable loss of €50m.

So whatever happened in the year to 2011 is competely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

OOH SHIT, YOU'RE RIGHT! :S
 
Jonjo said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Jonjo said:
Directly from the article, lol, and people think I made that up haha

The only club that looks vulnerable is Manchester City, whose loss for FFP is still a frightening £142 million.
Click to expand...
I've been alerted to your presence and asked to educate you.

No one is arguing with the Swissramble blog but there's a few things that you clearly don't understand about FFP.

1) Last year's results don't count towards FFP, which is why the club deliberately made the loss as big as it could by getting some expenses out of the way that might have hampered us in the following years, which do count. So we got rid of about £30m in those accounts.

2) The first set of results that count are the next ones for the year to May 2012 but even then, they have to be added to next year's results before you can calculate your FFP result. So you can't look at just one year and say we'll fail.

3) The results for the previous financial year which should be out shortly will be considerably better than those as the 2011 results didn't include the new Etihad deal or the income from the CL. I'd expect us to see an income figure 50% better than the £153m we reported last year. We'll still show a fair sized loss but the trend is getting better every year. The results for this current financial year (to May 2013) will be even better still and could show us with either a small loss or breaking even.

4) As it says in the article, he believes we can write off £21m of allowable expenditure each year for FFP. It may well be more than that as we're spending a lot of money on the new training campus but we'll stick with that figure.

5) If we make an £85m loss this year and say a £25m loss next year, we'll have an aggregate loss for the first FFP assessment of £110m. We can knock £42m off that as per (3) giving an FFP-adjusted loss of £68m (or €85m at current exchange rates).

6) So that's a fail at first glance as the allowable limit is €50m but there's a rule that allows you to offset wages paid in the year to 2012 to players who signed their current contract before June 2010 and that will be about £45m (or €55m).

7) Bringing that into the equation gives us a final FFP-adjusted loss of €30m, which is well inside the maximum allowable loss of €50m.

So whatever happened in the year to 2011 is competely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

OOH SHIT, YOU'RE RIGHT! :S
Click to expand...
Thank you and goodbye.
 
Jonjo said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Jonjo said:
Directly from the article, lol, and people think I made that up haha

The only club that looks vulnerable is Manchester City, whose loss for FFP is still a frightening £142 million.
Click to expand...
I've been alerted to your presence and asked to educate you.

No one is arguing with the Swissramble blog but there's a few things that you clearly don't understand about FFP.

1) Last year's results don't count towards FFP, which is why the club deliberately made the loss as big as it could by getting some expenses out of the way that might have hampered us in the following years, which do count. So we got rid of about £30m in those accounts.

2) The first set of results that count are the next ones for the year to May 2012 but even then, they have to be added to next year's results before you can calculate your FFP result. So you can't look at just one year and say we'll fail.

3) The results for the previous financial year which should be out shortly will be considerably better than those as the 2011 results didn't include the new Etihad deal or the income from the CL. I'd expect us to see an income figure 50% better than the £153m we reported last year. We'll still show a fair sized loss but the trend is getting better every year. The results for this current financial year (to May 2013) will be even better still and could show us with either a small loss or breaking even.

4) As it says in the article, he believes we can write off £21m of allowable expenditure each year for FFP. It may well be more than that as we're spending a lot of money on the new training campus but we'll stick with that figure.

5) If we make an £85m loss this year and say a £25m loss next year, we'll have an aggregate loss for the first FFP assessment of £110m. We can knock £42m off that as per (3) giving an FFP-adjusted loss of £68m (or €85m at current exchange rates).

6) So that's a fail at first glance as the allowable limit is €50m but there's a rule that allows you to offset wages paid in the year to 2012 to players who signed their current contract before June 2010 and that will be about £45m (or €55m).

7) Bringing that into the equation gives us a final FFP-adjusted loss of €30m, which is well inside the maximum allowable loss of €50m.

So whatever happened in the year to 2011 is competely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

OOH SHIT, YOU'RE RIGHT! :S
Click to expand...

35den5.jpg
 
Did he make a **** of you or did you make a **** of yourself ? Your trying to make an argument out of a subject that you clearly have not fuckin got a clue about !
 
Jonjo said:
Directly from the article, lol, and people think I made that up haha

Quote:

''The only club that looks vulnerable is Manchester City, whose loss for FFP is still a frightening £142 million.''
Click to expand...

The thing is THEY don't know our finance situation and you quoting that makes you naive
 
JamesMCFC said:
Jonjo said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
I've been alerted to your presence and asked to educate you.

No one is arguing with the Swissramble blog but there's a few things that you clearly don't understand about FFP.

1) Last year's results don't count towards FFP, which is why the club deliberately made the loss as big as it could by getting some expenses out of the way that might have hampered us in the following years, which do count. So we got rid of about £30m in those accounts.

2) The first set of results that count are the next ones for the year to May 2012 but even then, they have to be added to next year's results before you can calculate your FFP result. So you can't look at just one year and say we'll fail.

3) The results for the previous financial year which should be out shortly will be considerably better than those as the 2011 results didn't include the new Etihad deal or the income from the CL. I'd expect us to see an income figure 50% better than the £153m we reported last year. We'll still show a fair sized loss but the trend is getting better every year. The results for this current financial year (to May 2013) will be even better still and could show us with either a small loss or breaking even.

4) As it says in the article, he believes we can write off £21m of allowable expenditure each year for FFP. It may well be more than that as we're spending a lot of money on the new training campus but we'll stick with that figure.

5) If we make an £85m loss this year and say a £25m loss next year, we'll have an aggregate loss for the first FFP assessment of £110m. We can knock £42m off that as per (3) giving an FFP-adjusted loss of £68m (or €85m at current exchange rates).

6) So that's a fail at first glance as the allowable limit is €50m but there's a rule that allows you to offset wages paid in the year to 2012 to players who signed their current contract before June 2010 and that will be about £45m (or €55m).

7) Bringing that into the equation gives us a final FFP-adjusted loss of €30m, which is well inside the maximum allowable loss of €50m.

So whatever happened in the year to 2011 is competely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

OOH SHIT, YOU'RE RIGHT! :S
Click to expand...

35den5.jpg
Click to expand...

meme-like-a-boss.png
 
Looks like Atleti are lining up Huntelaar as his replacement... free transfer/Bosman next summer! What a bargain that would be and the £45million+ from Falcao would help with their debts as they sign another of the most clinical strikers around for nothing (albeit a couple of levels down from Falcao).
 
MSP said:
they're really in form when it comes to signing strikers..

Aguero and Forlan, Falcao and Huntelaar would make a poker of aces.
Click to expand...

They seem to be able to communicate well to strikers and make them feel like the main man. No other comparison in world football really.
 
Not really what we need as good as he is. Even if we sold one of Mario or Dzeko, just replace them with guidetti.

I'm more worried about our midfield tbh. Barry has two or so years left in his engine, Rodwell is inexperienced, & Milner can't dictate/ or keep the game flowing the same way that Barry does.

Imo, our midfield isn't as strong as we make it out to be.

Yaya is a beast though.
 
Train said:
Not really what we need as good as he is. Even if we sold one of Mario or Dzeko, just replace them with guidetti.

I'm more worried about our midfield tbh. Barry has two or so years left in his engine, Rodwell is inexperienced, & Milner can't dictate/ or keep the game flowing the same way that Barry does.

Imo, our midfield isn't as strong as we make it out to be.

Yaya is a beast though.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, whilst is very nice shopping for strikers we have something glaring at us that is clearly our downfall, and especially at Chamions League level, and that is our midfield.

We need another Yaya quality player next to Yaya.
 
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