He is stating fact. The transfer fee for Cancelo wasn’t what you state. What you are stating is the relative EFFECT of the two deals.Simon Rag Stone still writes it up as a City Sign Cancelo for £60m when it really cost us £26m!
No.
If you do the Danilo math, then you have to count Cancelo at £60M!
The fees are all to help out Juventus.
The needed to raise money on their books this year, and because of the amortisation, selling Cancelo for €65m and buying Danilo for €37 nets them a €24m profit this year.
If we'd given them Danilo for 0 and paid €28m for Cancelo then they'd have made a €4m loss this year despite the net amount of cash and the players being identical.
What you are saying makes sense, but only if the Cancelo and Danilo deals where not related, which they were. One does not happen without the other.No.
If you do the Danilo math, then you have to count Cancelo at £60M!
Still no. Sorry. You didn’t study maths at Uni, did you?! ;-)What you are saying makes sense, but only if the Cancelo and Danilo deals where not related, which they were. One does not happen without the other.
Meaning it is perfectly fair and proper to account for them on a net basis (a combined transaction).
You treat them separately:What you are saying makes sense, but only if the Cancelo and Danilo deals where not related, which they were. One does not happen without the other.
Meaning it is perfectly fair and proper to account for them on a net basis (a combined transaction).
Uni?!? More like elementary school.Still no. Sorry. You didn’t study maths at Uni, did you?! ;-)
JuventusUni?!? More like elementary school.
If you account a €37m profit against the sale of Danilo, then the acquisition of Cancelo is a €65m expense, as outlined in the public statement by Juventus. Only the difference is €28m, not the fee for Cancelo.
Our accountants might be good, but they're not magicians.
Explain mate?
To be fair, the details of the deal were first reported on Sky immediately after the announcement he'd signed. Sky & the BBC must be getting briefed from the same source.Probably been said already. I see the BBC has managed to turn this deal, which right from the outset was being reported as a €55m deal into a £60m deal.
I don’t understand what they achieve by reporting like this. According to them Danilo is valued at £34m in the deal which makes Cancelo £26m. Surely, it would be the other way round even if the figures were correct.
It doesn’t really matter but this poor, lazy reporting makes me crazy.
Welcome to Manchester Mr Cancelo, we are all looking forward to seeing you play for The Champions.
OK, let’s finish this once and for all.What you are saying makes sense, but only if the Cancelo and Danilo deals where not related, which they were. One does not happen without the other.
Meaning it is perfectly fair and proper to account for them on a net basis (a combined transaction).
Still no. Sorry. You didn’t study maths at Uni, did you?! ;-)
Are you mistaking me for someone else, as you have quoted my same post twice?OK, let’s finish this once and for all.
How much did your last car cost?
How much was your trade-in worth?
OK, now, how much was the invoice for the last car you bought?
What was your net cost?
We can do this all day, but Cancelo cost £60M and our books will reflect that when we amortize him for FFP, just as Juve will add the sale of Cancelo and the amortization of Danilo in Juve’s books.
Beyond this, I can’t help you. Be well.
Doffs cap in admiration.I did, actually, double first in economics and statistics (with some data analytics mixed in, which is my current profession). ;-)
To the clubs, they are separate and distinct transactions, even though both teams wanted to be certain they had a replacement, seeing as they are both covering the same position, at the time of sale. We can discuss this forever, so I’ll leave it alone.We’re talking about two different things: accounting for purposes of intrinsic value (public; my and @Stoned Rose statements) and the book value (private; what you and I have expounded on previously).
As I said before, for intrinsic value, it is perfectly fair and proper to account on a net basis. We aren’t keeping account for either club, or answering a case of FFP compliance to UEFA, so there’s no reason for either of us to attempt to parse the exact book figures for a transaction we have no detailed knowledge of. We couldn’t if want to do so.
Possibly. I’m surfing between two forums while watching the news and, at one point, eating!!Are you mistaking me for someone else, as you have quotes my same post twice?
You treat them separately:
Going back to previous quote:
Taking Danilo’s book value into account
(27m amortised over 2 years of a 5 year contract).
His book value was about £17m.
We’ve sold him for 34 so made about 17m on him.
Cancelo’s fee is 60m so that’s 12m a year amortisation.
This means this year we’ll make a net 5m in our p&l 17m profit on the sale of Danilo less the 12m amortisation on Cancelo.
For years 2-5 of cancelo’s contract we’ll see a 12m hit to our p&l.
Only shared because you asked, mate. ;-)Doffs cap in admiration.
We could indeed debate part of this forever, but I wouldn’t debate the book value, as I couldn’t, given I don’t know enough about the transaction to do that. In my world we refer to that as having an insufficient universe for analysis (returning to low confidence).To the clubs, they are separate and distinct transactions, even though both teams wanted to be certain they had a replacement, seeing as they are both covering the same position, at the time of sale. We can discuss this forever, so I’ll leave it alone.
Possibly. I’m surfing between two forums while watching the news and, at one point, eating!!
Here you are. ;-)<iframe width="640" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PPvRsLWlDXw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>