Sergio Aguero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thaksinssoldier said:
there is no way its viable...probably enquiring to take him on loan and part subsidise the wage.

We need to make a profit on Tevez.Fact.FFP means we need to recoup some of the wages outlayed and theres no way we sell for a loss on that.Same goes for Adebayor,hence why we told Real to do one with their offer.

Not strictly true. Amortisation for players already on the books prior to this season is exluded. Their wages, however, will be included.

Tevez was bought for £25M on a 5 year deal - that's amortisation of £5M per annum - effectively depreciating him by £5m a year. His 'book' value is now £15M, so anything over that is a 'profit' on the books, but again would be excluded from the FFP rules because he was bought before the rules kicked in.
 
Their wages, however, will be included.

Wages on players signed before 1st June 2010 don't count. Tevez was bought prior to 1st June last year. Classify him to be held for sale he costs us nothing under FFPR whether he stays or not or whether he plays or not. We could dump him in reserves it doesn't hurt us, we could allow him to play still costs us nothing. Sell him for anything above 15m we make a profit. No wonder the club are laid back about him. And all the so called deadwood for that matter because they also were signed prior to 1st June 2010, why do you think the club has separated them from main squad, they are a group who will all be clasified as held for sale.
 
Rammyblues said:
Their wages, however, will be included.

Wages on players signed before 1st June 2010 don't count. Tevez was bought prior to 1st June last year. Classify him to be held for sale he costs us nothing under FFPR whether he stays or not or whether he plays or not. We could dump him in reserves it doesn't hurt us, we could allow him to play still costs us nothing. Sell him for anything above 15m we make a profit. No wonder the club are laid back about him. And all the so called deadwood for that matter because they also were signed prior to 1st June 2010, why do you think the club has separated them from main squad, they are a group who will all be clasified as held for sale.
and who said our owners were fools when first splashing the cash and then the way they have frozen out the deadwood

they are very sharp
 
Rammyblues said:
Their wages, however, will be included.

Wages on players signed before 1st June 2010 don't count. Tevez was bought prior to 1st June last year. Classify him to be held for sale he costs us nothing under FFPR whether he stays or not or whether he plays or not. We could dump him in reserves it doesn't hurt us, we could allow him to play still costs us nothing. Sell him for anything above 15m we make a profit. No wonder the club are laid back about him. And all the so called deadwood for that matter because they also were signed prior to 1st June 2010, why do you think the club has separated them from main squad, they are a group who will all be clasified as held for sale.

Don't think you're right on this. Wages do count regardless of when the player was signed. Wages are effectively a 'running cost' of the asset, so is a P&L entry. It's only the amortisation that's excluded.
 
jimbo101 said:
Rammyblues said:
Their wages, however, will be included.

Wages on players signed before 1st June 2010 don't count. Tevez was bought prior to 1st June last year. Classify him to be held for sale he costs us nothing under FFPR whether he stays or not or whether he plays or not. We could dump him in reserves it doesn't hurt us, we could allow him to play still costs us nothing. Sell him for anything above 15m we make a profit. No wonder the club are laid back about him. And all the so called deadwood for that matter because they also were signed prior to 1st June 2010, why do you think the club has separated them from main squad, they are a group who will all be clasified as held for sale.

Don't think you're right on this. Wages do count regardless of when the player was signed. Wages are effectively a 'running cost' of the asset, so is a P&L entry. It's only the amortisation that's excluded.

Finally managed to find this among my bookmarks

ONE EARLY LOOPHOLE
Neatly tucked away in the last provision of the final annex of the rules is an avenue for clubs
applying for a UEFA license to remove some of its wage expenditure from the break-even
calculation. Annex XI(2) states that for applications for the first two monitoring periods, the
2013-14 and 2014-15 seasons, if ‘the break-even deficit…exceeds the acceptable deviation’
provisions, a club will not be sanctioned so long as it:
‘reports a positive trend in the annual break-even results; and
‘the aggregate break-even deficit is only due to the annual break-even deficit of the
reporting period ending in 2012…to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June
2010.
21
Therefore, even if a club fails to meet the standard deviation target in the first two monitoring
periods when applying for a UEFA license, the club can remove all wage costs from their 2011-
12 accounts for players whose contracts were already in place prior to 1 June 2010.

Additionally, it appears contract renegotiations after 1 June 2010 for an existing contracted
player would be classed as a new contract for the purposes of this provision (see Annex
XI(2)(ii).
22
With the FFPRs’ first monitoring period being the 2013-14 season, this loophole will only be
available to clubs whose players entered into a contract before 1 June 2010 with that club and
whose contract had not subsequently been renegotiated or extended prior to 1 June 2010.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume9/number1/geey/geey.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.