Raheem Sterling - Done - See main forum

[bluemoon98]

realised RAWK have locked the sterling thread again haha

 

[supercity88]

I honestly think that Txiki is showing his experience here with a clever bidding strategy. He's been involved in enough top level deals to know how to progress it. I think we aren't seeing the whole picture, for a start. I did say earlier that I think the most important think here is that we are the only bidder, and I think we've done that by doing the deal with the player first. I really don't believe that this is like some Moroccon Souk, and we are faxing over "£30m", then "35m", then "37m" etc. I reckon there's one long strategy at play here, and we don't know the half of it. Part of it will be in the payment terms, for a start.

That's exactly how I see it as well. The price has always been quoted as £50m. We'll know full well that's what they want but we'll also know that currently we're the only ones bidding so we've got the time to be clever on this. We've tested the water, we've slightly increased things and if we can get Sterling for less than £50m then we've achieved what we set out to.

Sterling is an excellent player and is still very young. When defenders had Sturridge and Suarez to concern themselves with he was destroying them and was part of an effective attacking unit. This last season he was the sole threat. Stop Sterling and Liverpool had little else to offer as a threat. Teams become much more dangerous when they have lots of attacking options. How will teams cope with Aguero, Silva and Sterling? There's so much ability and movement there that they can't afford to stick two men on Sterling all game so he becomes more potent. He also has the potential to become so good that you can stick 3 players on him and he'll still get past them all. If he does then we've one hell of a side!

 

[VOOMER]

The best decision that Liverpool have made since their current owners took over was turning down Arsenal's bid for Suarez, digging their heels in and making him stay against his wishes. They're bound to be heavily influenced by how that turned out.

What if Suarez hadn't engineered the move with another biting incident as he did at Ajax? The Barcelona deal is on the drip and performance related. The rags had to wait 4 years before they got all the tranny money. The Suarez deal was a great deal, but if PSG and ourself hadn't been stumped by the FFP crap, they may have got more. The yanks will look at the bottom line. Heaven forbid a bad injury next season and any prospective buyer will want to see if he has recovered, which will take him into the last year of the contract and with them not having had him a full throttle. If its then another year without CL, then they could be looking a getting nothing for him! I have a feeling that, the dipper fans and the yanks are singing from very different hymn sheets.

 

[SPIDERBOY]

realised RAWK have locked the sterling thread again haha

Had a look in their transfer forum yesterday......34 threads on page 1....19 of them locked.
Must be a right set of smacked arses.

 

[bluemoon98]

Had a look in their transfer forum yesterday......34 threads on page 1....19 of them locked.
Must be a right set of smacked arses.

jesus, its a mess...

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Why is upfront better for Liverpool? If they need cash for the stadium expansion, then yes, but if it's for players, it makes no difference, as they won't pay up front.

It could even be bad for them depending on how fees in are accounted for under FFP rules. It gives them a bonus for this year, but a hole in future years, which may or may not be a good thing for them.

This is about cash, not accounting. It doesn't matter how City structure the payment from an accounting or FFP point of view. 'Cash is king' is the saying in business, and it's true for football clubs. If they have to borrow money on the strength of guaranteed future instalments (as clubs routinely do) then it costs them money to borrow that money.

Having the money in the bank is what every business wants. No exceptions.

 

[moomba]

daughters happiness in priceless :)

Daughters unhappiness is very expensive too. ;)

 

[bluesince76]

This is about cash, not accounting. It doesn't matter how City structure the payment from an accounting or FFP point of view. 'Cash is king' is the saying in business, and it's true for football clubs. If they have to borrow money on the strength of guaranteed future instalments (as clubs routinely do) then it costs them money to borrow that money.

Having the money in the bank is what every business wants. No exceptions.

But FFP is now about income vs outgoings in any given period, which takes football further away from a traditional business model. Whether you can accept £40m now, but then spread it out as income over a number of years or accrue all the spend against it in one year is down to the vagueries of the UEFA accounting processes, which, as we've seen, are fluid depending on who they are being applied aaginst.

 

[aguero93:20]

But FFP is now about income vs outgoings in any given period, which takes football further away from a traditional business model. Whether you can accept £40m now, but then spread it out as income over a number of years or accrue all the spend against it in one year is down to the vagueries of the UEFA accounting processes, which, as we've seen, are fluid depending on who they are being applied aaginst.

Nope. Sterling was signed 4 years ago for £675k, signed a new 4 year contract 2 years ago so his book value is £169k, so if they sell him for 40m they have a profit on disposal of £39.831m for the current year. It's the new signings that are broken up over years for FFP purposes.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

But FFP is now about income vs outgoings in any given period, which takes football further away from a traditional business model. Whether you can accept £40m now, but then spread it out as income over a number of years or accrue all the spend against it in one year is down to the vagueries of the UEFA accounting processes, which, as we've seen, are fluid depending on who they are being applied aaginst.

You're not getting it mate. If you buy a player for an amount of money then you accrue it in the accounts REGARDLESS of the payment terms.

But this is not about FFP.

Let me put it as simply as I can. LFC will be forecasting that revenue will increase year on year, especially as they are expanding the stadium. If we give them £40m cash then that would enable them to buy their own £60m player and pay over 3 instalments over 6 years. But they'll still have £20m of our cash in the bank to buy another £60m player on the same basis. They know with better tv money and match day income they can fund the second two payments, so we've enabled them to buy the players.

Another way to look at it is that they need to borrow £200m to develop a stadium. To borrow that cash will cost them £300m over ten years. Now, they need to borrow less so the loan of £160m will cost them £250m over ten years. We've saved them £10m by paying upfront.

Of course I'm simplifying it hugely, but cash upfront is more valuable than cash 'on tick' because of interest rates. I'm not even touching on the interest you can gain by having that cash in the bank.