The Agenda (Merged)

[Prestwich_Blue]

But as I said earlier, it may well depend on how we structure the actual deal, rather than the payments (which don't matter as you rightly say).

If we do a deal for a straight £30m then that's what goes in the books, whether we pay that in one lump sum or three instalments. But if we do a deal for £20m with another £10m contingent on hitting certain milestones (goals scored, games played, trophies won, etc) then I'm less sure about how we account for it. From what Mullock is saying I get the impression we only need to account for the add-on payments once the milestone is achieved.

Exactly as I read it. The fee has to be accounted for immediately, regardless of the payment terms, but if we agree to pay a £15m upfront fee and then £15m only if he's made 50 appearances or whatever, then it's a simple and pretty much incontestable workround. Still probably better payment terms than everyone else offers.

It's an interesting and encouraging article and reinforces my view that we did a good deal and uefa saved face.

Under normal accounting procedures:

Timing of payment is usually not a factor in deciding when the purchase that it is associated gets recorded in the books of account as an asset or expense.

If part of a fee is contingent on something that has not happened yet, it is not normally be deemed a liability until the contingent event actually - if ever - occurs and therefore there is no asset or expense to record.

So let's say we agree a fee for Bony which is structured so we pay a guaranteed £15m, with a contingency of up to £10m extra payable in 2015/16 and up to £5m in 2016/17 based on achieving certain targets.

I take it that we'd book the £15m right away, together with a contingent liability (and presumably a creditor?) of £15m. So the transfer spend reported is £15m. Then any payments that were called off in those two years are added to the value of the contract and reduce the liabilty. Is that correct?

 

[mad4city]

Part of the problem is that for decades, everything we did was seen through the prism of United and how it related/ compared to them. It was consequently always reported that way and the processed reinforced itself for the next event.
Remember when the Mirror contrasted our Auto Windscreen crowd (or was it the League Cup?) with United Champions league attendance? It wasn't enough to remark upon how far we'd fallen (however inaccurate the story versus the rest of our attendances that year), they couldn't comprehend of interpreting it any other way than in comparison to United.
It still persists today but it has undoubtedly begun to wane. United declining fortunes haven't encouraged the comparison. Whether that's evidence of bias, agenda or demographics, is a moot point.
Undoubtedly, we are now seen as Manchester City, not the other Manchester team.
The club has done remarkably well in establishing that profile in such a short space of time. What remains now is a question of perception. What will people think of Manchester City in ten years time?
The club has chosen to try and influence that future perception with deeds rather than propaganda. It's an admirable approach but one that I fear may not be enough. Football allegiances are notoriously entrenched. We need get into the propaganda war. Not necessarily ban but certainly put pressure on those who derogate us and encourage those who don't with exclusives and inside info.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Part of the problem is that for decades, everything we did was seen through the prism of United and how it related/ compared to them. It was consequently always reported that way and the processed reinforced itself for the next event.
Remember when the Mirror contrasted our Auto Windscreen crowd (or was it the League Cup?) with United Champions league attendance? It wasn't enough to remark upon how far we'd fallen (however inaccurate the story versus the rest of our attendances that year), they couldn't comprehend of interpreting it any other way than in comparison to United.
It still persists today but it has undoubtedly begun to wane. United declining fortunes haven't encouraged the comparison. Whether that's evidence of bias, agenda or demographics, is a moot point.
Undoubtedly, we are now seen as Manchester City, not the other Manchester team.
The club has done remarkably well in establishing that profile in such a short space of time. What remains now is a question of perception. What will people think of Manchester City in ten years time?
The club has chosen to try and influence that future perception with deeds rather than propaganda. It's an admirable approach but one that I fear may not be enough. Football allegiances are notoriously entrenched. We need get into the propaganda war. Not necessarily ban but certainly put pressure on those who derogate us and encourage those who don't with exclusives and inside info.

There's also an element of our support who can't seperate us from United, and this thread illustrates it clearly.

A negative headline about City becomes some kind of pro-United conspiracy. People seem unable to comprehend that for every United fan in the country there are ten people who detest them.

 

[Bill]

Surely all it says it that MCFC have found a way to comply with FFP and still buy players ?
Cheating is not in my opinion implied merely that the FFP rules were not harsh enough to stop a business plan that could overcome its objective.

In other words it criticises UEFA not City.

You infer as you please
It's just that it is usually at odds with most City fans

I think I agree with you there SF.

However, do we as City fans ,have our own Agenda that seeks to criticise everything that is not 100% pro City ?.

no we don't. we don't want bias either for or against us. a lot to ask a journo but just tell the fucking truth.

 

[Len Rum]

Part of the problem is that for decades, everything we did was seen through the prism of United and how it related/ compared to them. It was consequently always reported that way and the processed reinforced itself for the next event.
Remember when the Mirror contrasted our Auto Windscreen crowd (or was it the League Cup?) with United Champions league attendance? It wasn't enough to remark upon how far we'd fallen (however inaccurate the story versus the rest of our attendances that year), they couldn't comprehend of interpreting it any other way than in comparison to United.
It still persists today but it has undoubtedly begun to wane. United declining fortunes haven't encouraged the comparison. Whether that's evidence of bias, agenda or demographics, is a moot point.
Undoubtedly, we are now seen as Manchester City, not the other Manchester team.
The club has done remarkably well in establishing that profile in such a short space of time. What remains now is a question of perception. What will people think of Manchester City in ten years time?
The club has chosen to try and influence that future perception with deeds rather than propaganda. It's an admirable approach but one that I fear may not be enough. Football allegiances are notoriously entrenched. We need get into the propaganda war. Not necessarily ban but certainly put pressure on those who derogate us and encourage those who don't with exclusives and inside info.

There's also an element of our support who can't seperate us from United, and this thread illustrates it clearly.

A negative headline about City becomes some kind of pro-United conspiracy. People seem unable to comprehend that for every United fan in the country there are ten people who detest them.

Last sentence is arguable for this country and certainly not true in the global market which is dominated by United followers. Obviously this is a major consideration in the way we are reported on by the media.
The ratio you quoted for United fans to haters is probably the reverse in the media.

 

[tonea2003]

Part of the problem is that for decades, everything we did was seen through the prism of United and how it related/ compared to them. It was consequently always reported that way and the processed reinforced itself for the next event.
Remember when the Mirror contrasted our Auto Windscreen crowd (or was it the League Cup?) with United Champions league attendance? It wasn't enough to remark upon how far we'd fallen (however inaccurate the story versus the rest of our attendances that year), they couldn't comprehend of interpreting it any other way than in comparison to United.
It still persists today but it has undoubtedly begun to wane. United declining fortunes haven't encouraged the comparison. Whether that's evidence of bias, agenda or demographics, is a moot point.
Undoubtedly, we are now seen as Manchester City, not the other Manchester team.
The club has done remarkably well in establishing that profile in such a short space of time. What remains now is a question of perception. What will people think of Manchester City in ten years time?
The club has chosen to try and influence that future perception with deeds rather than propaganda. It's an admirable approach but one that I fear may not be enough. Football allegiances are notoriously entrenched. We need get into the propaganda war. Not necessarily ban but certainly put pressure on those who derogate us and encourage those who don't with exclusives and inside info.

There's also an element of our support who can't seperate us from United, and this thread illustrates it clearly.

A negative headline about City becomes some kind of pro-United conspiracy. People seem unable to comprehend that for every United fan in the country there are ten people who detest them.

Last sentence is arguable for this country and certainly not true in the global market which is dominated by United followers. Obviously this is a major consideration in the way we are reported on by the media.
The ratio you quoted for United fans to haters is probably the reverse in the media.

maybe maybe not but obviously the reason for the bluemoon brethren getting hot under the collar over our biased reporting and the very reason why de niro's wish for truthful reporting is just a pipe dream

 

[r.soleofsalford]

You infer as you please
It's just that it is usually at odds with most City fans

I think I agree with you there SF.

However, do we as City fans ,have our own Agenda that seeks to criticise everything that is not 100% pro City ?.

no we don't. we don't want bias either for or against us. a lot to ask a journo but just tell the fucking truth.

well said, honesty is want we want not made up bollox.

 

[lazza]

journalists, ex-players, for various reasons already thoroughly explored in this thread, have manifestly felt since 1st September 2008 that we don't belong at the pinnacle of the English game.

This, for me, exactly sums it up. If you were to ask 100 journalists who is at the pinnacle of the game in England, how many would say City? Despite having the best trophy record over the last 4 seasons, I doubt that there would be a majority voting for City.

 

[OB1]

Exactly as I read it. The fee has to be accounted for immediately, regardless of the payment terms, but if we agree to pay a £15m upfront fee and then £15m only if he's made 50 appearances or whatever, then it's a simple and pretty much incontestable workround. Still probably better payment terms than everyone else offers.

It's an interesting and encouraging article and reinforces my view that we did a good deal and uefa saved face.

Under normal accounting procedures:

Timing of payment is usually not a factor in deciding when the purchase that it is associated gets recorded in the books of account as an asset or expense.

If part of a fee is contingent on something that has not happened yet, it is not normally be deemed a liability until the contingent event actually - if ever - occurs and therefore there is no asset or expense to record.

So let's say we agree a fee for Bony which is structured so we pay a guaranteed £15m, with a contingency of up to £10m extra payable in 2015/16 and up to £5m in 2016/17 based on achieving certain targets.

I take it that we'd book the £15m right away, together with a contingent liability (and presumably a creditor?) of £15m. So the transfer spend reported is £15m. Then any payments that were called off in those two years are added to the value of the contract and reduce the liabilty. Is that correct?

You are correct that we would record the £15m as an asset at the outset and that would appear in the balance sheet and be amortised to the income statement over the contact term.

The contingent liablity would be recorded as a note to the financial statements but no asset or liability is recorded in the accounting records. The note in the published accounts would be adjusted according to the circumstances prevailing at the balance sheet date.

If one of the contingent events occurs, the cost would be recorded in the books of account at that point by debiting "cost of player registrations" and crediting "trade creditors".

Contingent liabilities are not recognised as accounting entries.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Under normal accounting procedures:

Timing of payment is usually not a factor in deciding when the purchase that it is associated gets recorded in the books of account as an asset or expense.

If part of a fee is contingent on something that has not happened yet, it is not normally be deemed a liability until the contingent event actually - if ever - occurs and therefore there is no asset or expense to record.

So let's say we agree a fee for Bony which is structured so we pay a guaranteed £15m, with a contingency of up to £10m extra payable in 2015/16 and up to £5m in 2016/17 based on achieving certain targets.

I take it that we'd book the £15m right away, together with a contingent liability (and presumably a creditor?) of £15m. So the transfer spend reported is £15m. Then any payments that were called off in those two years are added to the value of the contract and reduce the liabilty. Is that correct?

You are correct that we would record the £15m as an asset at the outset and that would appear in the balance sheet and be amortised to the income statement over the contact term.

The contingent liablity would be recorded as a note to the financial statements but no asset or liability is recorded in the accounting records. The note in the published accounts would be adjusted according to the circumstances prevailing at the balance sheet date.

If one of the contingent events occurs, the cost would be recorded in the books of account at that point by debiting "cost of player registrations" and crediting "trade creditors".

Contingent liabilities are not recognised as accounting entries.

You have to love this forum for the wealth of information you can glean. Thanks for posting this, it's very helpful! (And I am NOT taking the piss!)