Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

The Transfer Thread.


Recommended Posts

 

Adding a 29yr old on >£50k / week over 3 years is just the opposite of what we need really. The club is going in a different direction I think. We dont create chances for our forwards. Big if but if money is tight we need to prioritise the supply.

 

Mikel isn't on far off that and he's 31.

 

On a 6 month contract

 

Plus 3k per appearance on his basic and 20k per win if we get promoted. It all adds up.

 

I hope we have to pay him 391k from another 17 appearances and 17 wins. It’ll all be worth it ;)

 

Yes, but he isnt far off what Austin is on but until June. So less than a million if you figures are correct. Not much of a liability compared to a deal on a permanent for Autin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Mikel isn't on far off that and he's 31.

 

On a 6 month contract

 

Plus 3k per appearance on his basic and 20k per win if we get promoted. It all adds up.

 

I hope we have to pay him 391k from another 17 appearances and 17 wins. It’ll all be worth it ;)

 

Yes, but he isnt far off what Austin is on but until June. So less than a million if you figures are correct. Not much of a liability compared to a deal on a permanent for Autin.

Yeah i agree. Was just pointing out the high relative figures is all. Was alluding more to the style of player than the finances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll tell you what if the following go

 

Batth

Leadbitter

Downing - cannot play

Fletcher

Asombalonga

Gestede

 

Our squad is very short of numbers. 3 of those - Batth, Leadbitter, Downing are a given I think.

 

Hope the snow doesn’t stop us getting folk to Rockliffe to sign!

 

Im already prepared for the “ we were close 2-3 targets moved away from us on deadline day. We have a great group and we will try hard to get promoted this season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll tell you what if the following go

 

Batth

Leadbitter

Downing - cannot play

Fletcher

Asombalonga

Gestede

 

Our squad is very short of numbers. 3 of those - Batth, Leadbitter, Downing are a given I think.

 

Hope the snow doesn’t stop us getting folk to Rockliffe to sign!

 

Im already prepared for the “ we were close 2-3 targets moved away from us on deadline day. We have a great group and we will try hard to get promoted this season.

 

It is starting to look like that. That would be totally deflating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll tell you what if the following go

 

Batth

Leadbitter

Downing - cannot play

Fletcher

Asombalonga

Gestede

 

Our squad is very short of numbers. 3 of those - Batth, Leadbitter, Downing are a given I think.

 

Hope the snow doesn’t stop us getting folk to Rockliffe to sign!

 

Im already prepared for the “ we were close 2-3 targets moved away from us on deadline day. We have a great group and we will try hard to get promoted this season.

 

It is starting to look like that. That would be totally deflating.

In their defence they have only had 4-5 months to prepare :s

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm pretty sure when you buy a player the accounting goes across the length of the contract, so 10m fee on a 4 year contract is 2.5m per in the books. I may be misunderstanding.

 

I would imagine it's similar for sales too. 

 

Although I do find it odd that we've supposedly received nothing so far, I wonder how often a sale is made with 0 cash up front at all.

 

I think it does. It allows a 39 million deficit over three years. By pushing Leeds payments to a later year we extend our income hence making it easier to comply a few years down the line when the first year is gone and the period is years 2,3 and 4. Maybe instead of two payments of 5 million in year 1 and 2 we now get 5 million in year 2 and three. That’ll allow us to use part of that income as far as the period of years 3,4 and 5.

 

When you buy a players it does get spread out over the length of the contract that is correct.  Using Bamford as the example, we signed him for £6m, I can't remember what contract he had but let's say 4 years.  So his book value at the point we sign him is £6m but over the course of his contract that value decreases by £6m/4 = £1.5m each year in the accounts.  

 

So let's say we sold Bamford after 2 years, his book value would be £3m.  But the sale price of £10m has to be accounted for at that point in time.  In this case it is sale price minus book value or £10m-£3m which gives us a £7m profit for accounting purposes in that period and that's what FFP looks at.  It doesn't actually matter when or how Leeds pay the transfer fee.  That's how I understand it works but I don't work in Football so God knows :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree. Definitely the sort of player we need to be targeting. Bring in a top attacking presence behind him and Hugill/Britt and we'd be onto something.  Remains to be seen so far though.

 

Adding a 29yr old on >£50k / week over 3 years is just the opposite of what we need really. The club is going in a different direction I think. We dont create chances for our forwards. Big if but if money is tight we need to prioritise the supply.

 

Mikel isn't on far off that and he's 31.

 

On a 6 month contract

 

Plus 3k per appearance on his basic and 20k per win if we get promoted. It all adds up.

 

Cheap as chips  :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll tell you what if the following go

 

Batth

Leadbitter

Downing - cannot play

Fletcher

Asombalonga

Gestede

 

Our squad is very short of numbers. 3 of those - Batth, Leadbitter, Downing are a given I think.

 

Hope the snow doesn’t stop us getting folk to Rockliffe to sign!

 

We won't miss Leadbitter.  Whilst we need them for cover, Gestede and Fletcher haven't played that much.  I'm absolutely certain that something will be done about Downing's contract so he will be here and he will be playing.  Batth will be missed in terms of the numbers we have and Assombalonga will be unless we get a replacement.  However, it's entirely likely that only Batth and Leadbitter will not be here after the window shuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But structuring the Paddy deal like this isn’t particularly bad. You’d all be up in arms if we failed to comply with FFP in two years because we didn’t plan ahead.

 

Does it work like that though?  FFP is an accounting thing rather than an actual look at cash flow.  I would have thought that a player sale would have to be accounted for at the time it takes place regardless of when the payments are made?

 

I'm pretty sure when you buy a player the accounting goes across the length of the contract, so 10m fee on a 4 year contract is 2.5m per in the books. I may be misunderstanding.

 

I would imagine it's similar for sales too. 

 

Although I do find it odd that we've supposedly received nothing so far, I wonder how often a sale is made with 0 cash up front at all.

 

That is accounting and the way you deal with your assets in the books. FFP looks at income and outcome over a three year period. Not how a club writes down the value of an asset in the books. You can do all sorts of payments. Everything up front, break it up in small parts or start of with a big lump sum and then one extra payment etc.

 

FFP looks at the entire club which is why parachute payments are so important and that’s why it’s smart to delay the transfer payments in those years to when you don’t get the parachute money anymore.

 

That’s how I’ve understood the FFP anyway. Maybe we have an accountant on board who can tell us the ins and outs of it all because I’ve probably not used the right accounting terms :)

 

 

BD and brunners almost right with the whole assets, expense/incomes. Incomes/expenses directly effect our assets. If you merged both your points together you'd be spot on.

 

 

I'll use an example. Imagine we sign a player for £10 Million over a 5 year contract. We would split the cost of that £10 million over the 5 years. In regards to FFP in year 1 we would show an expense of £2 Million. Then in our Assets we would show the players value of £8 Million. Year 2 we would show an expense of £2 Million and the players value (Asset) would now be £6 Million. This would continue until we sell the player or the value becomes £0. 

 

 

It is very much like how you treat the purchase of a car or machinery in accounts too.

 

Edit: CT beat me to it! Haha

Link to post
Share on other sites

But structuring the Paddy deal like this isn’t particularly bad. You’d all be up in arms if we failed to comply with FFP in two years because we didn’t plan ahead.

 

Does it work like that though?  FFP is an accounting thing rather than an actual look at cash flow.  I would have thought that a player sale would have to be accounted for at the time it takes place regardless of when the payments are made?

 

I'm pretty sure when you buy a player the accounting goes across the length of the contract, so 10m fee on a 4 year contract is 2.5m per in the books. I may be misunderstanding.

 

I would imagine it's similar for sales too. 

 

Although I do find it odd that we've supposedly received nothing so far, I wonder how often a sale is made with 0 cash up front at all.

 

That is accounting and the way you deal with your assets in the books. FFP looks at income and outcome over a three year period. Not how a club writes down the value of an asset in the books. You can do all sorts of payments. Everything up front, break it up in small parts or start of with a big lump sum and then one extra payment etc.

 

FFP looks at the entire club which is why parachute payments are so important and that’s why it’s smart to delay the transfer payments in those years to when you don’t get the parachute money anymore.

 

That’s how I’ve understood the FFP anyway. Maybe we have an accountant on board who can tell us the ins and outs of it all because I’ve probably not used the right accounting terms :)

 

 

BD and brunners almost right with the whole assets, expense/incomes. Incomes/expenses directly effect our assets. If you merged both your points together you'd be spot on.

 

 

I'll use an example. Imagine we sign a player for £10 Million over a 5 year contract. We would split the cost of that £10 million over the 5 years. In regards to FFP in year 1 we would show an expense of £2 Million. Then in our Assets we would show the players value of £8 Million. Year 2 we would show an expense of £2 Million and the players value (Asset) would now be £6 Million. This would continue until we sell the player or the value becomes £0. 

 

 

It is very much like how you treat the purchase of a car or machinery in accounts too.

 

Edit: CT beat me to it! Haha

 

I get how you write down assets in the books like you do with machinery in a manufacturing firm etc. But FFP specifically looks at income and out come. Using Bamford as an example. If we got the 10 million up front it would count towards FFP:

 

Year 1: 10 million

Year 2: 0 million

Year 3: 0 million

 

Over that period we are allowed a deficit of 39 million and the 10 million would weigh agains that. But after the 3rd year that income would be "gone" and not counted in the FFP anymore. This is what teams in bother with FFP would do. Demand up front payment of the fee to instantly comply with FFP.

 

If we delay the payment to later:

 

Year 1: 0 million

Year 2: 5 million

Year 3: 5 million

 

Over that period we are allowed a deficit of 39 million and the 10 million would weigh agains that. Same as the previous example.

 

However, it gets interesting when looking further ahead:

 

Year 2: 5 million

Year 3: 5 million

Year 4: 0 million

 

That way the 10 million is also weighs against FFP as far as year 4. In year 3-5 it would only be 5 million weighing against FFP.

 

The last example would be a good choice for Boro, considering our income will drop in the immediate future due to no parachute payments. We also sold a lot of players over the last two summers, so it would make sense to delay payments.

 

The way I see it FFP looks at the actual money going in and out of the club over a set period of three years, and not how you write down the value of an asset. This is likely also the main reason why there is no set rule about how clubs negotiate a transfer. Some deals pay the fee up front, some spread it evenly out and some have few large chunks. 

 

Someone elese mentioned earlier that Blackburn did the exact same thing when we bought Rhodes, as his fee was better used in the next period of calculating FFP.

 

If a club is over the FFP limit they can sell a player and demand the fee up front in order to get below the FFP limit in the current period, which is what Villa we supposed to do until a new owner popped up and the somehow were allowed to let him plough money into the club or at least get an extended period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll tell you what if the following go

 

Batth

Leadbitter

Downing - cannot play

Fletcher

Asombalonga

Gestede

 

Our squad is very short of numbers. 3 of those - Batth, Leadbitter, Downing are a given I think.

 

Hope the snow doesn’t stop us getting folk to Rockliffe to sign!

 

Im already prepared for the “ we were close 2-3 targets moved away from us on deadline day. We have a great group and we will try hard to get promoted this season.

 

It is starting to look like that. That would be totally deflating.

 

This is exactly what I've been bracing myself for over the past few weeks. All I was hoping for was a right winger so we could have VLP on one side and someone with a bit of pace and desire on the opposite wing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does it work like that though?  FFP is an accounting thing rather than an actual look at cash flow.  I would have thought that a player sale would have to be accounted for at the time it takes place regardless of when the payments are made?

 

I'm pretty sure when you buy a player the accounting goes across the length of the contract, so 10m fee on a 4 year contract is 2.5m per in the books. I may be misunderstanding.

 

I would imagine it's similar for sales too. 

 

Although I do find it odd that we've supposedly received nothing so far, I wonder how often a sale is made with 0 cash up front at all.

 

That is accounting and the way you deal with your assets in the books. FFP looks at income and outcome over a three year period. Not how a club writes down the value of an asset in the books. You can do all sorts of payments. Everything up front, break it up in small parts or start of with a big lump sum and then one extra payment etc.

 

FFP looks at the entire club which is why parachute payments are so important and that’s why it’s smart to delay the transfer payments in those years to when you don’t get the parachute money anymore.

 

That’s how I’ve understood the FFP anyway. Maybe we have an accountant on board who can tell us the ins and outs of it all because I’ve probably not used the right accounting terms :)

 

 

BD and brunners almost right with the whole assets, expense/incomes. Incomes/expenses directly effect our assets. If you merged both your points together you'd be spot on.

 

 

I'll use an example. Imagine we sign a player for £10 Million over a 5 year contract. We would split the cost of that £10 million over the 5 years. In regards to FFP in year 1 we would show an expense of £2 Million. Then in our Assets we would show the players value of £8 Million. Year 2 we would show an expense of £2 Million and the players value (Asset) would now be £6 Million. This would continue until we sell the player or the value becomes £0. 

 

 

It is very much like how you treat the purchase of a car or machinery in accounts too.

 

Edit: CT beat me to it! Haha

 

I get how you write down assets in the books like you do with machinery in a manufacturing firm etc. But FFP specifically looks at income and out come. Using Bamford as an example. If we got the 10 million up front it would count towards FFP:

 

Year 1: 10 million

Year 2: 0 million

Year 3: 0 million

 

Over that period we are allowed a deficit of 39 million and the 10 million would weigh agains that. But after the 3rd year that income would be "gone" and not counted in the FFP anymore. This is what teams in bother with FFP would do. Demand up front payment of the fee to instantly comply with FFP.

 

If we delay the payment to later:

 

Year 1: 0 million

Year 2: 5 million

Year 3: 5 million

 

Over that period we are allowed a deficit of 39 million and the 10 million would weigh agains that. Same as the previous example.

 

However, it gets interesting when looking further ahead:

 

Year 2: 5 million

Year 3: 5 million

Year 4: 0 million

 

That way the 10 million is also weighs against FFP as far as year 4. In year 3-5 it would only be 5 million weighing against FFP.

 

The last example would be a good choice for Boro, considering our income will drop in the immediate future due to no parachute payments. We also sold a lot of players over the last two summers, so it would make sense to delay payments.

 

The way I see it FFP looks at the actual money going in and out of the club over a set period of three years, and not how you write down the value of an asset. This is likely also the main reason why there is no set rule about how clubs negotiate a transfer. Some deals pay the fee up front, some spread it evenly out and some have few large chunks. 

 

Someone elese mentioned earlier that Blackburn did the exact same thing when we bought Rhodes, as his fee was better used in the next period of calculating FFP.

 

If a club is over the FFP limit they can sell a player and demand the fee up front in order to get below the FFP limit in the current period, which is what Villa we supposed to do until a new owner popped up and the somehow were allowed to let him plough money into the club or at least get an extended period.

 

I think specifically for FFP purposes the transfer fee is split evenly over the contract period, so a 10m deal over a 4 year contract is 2.5m a year. This was put in place to prevent teams fiddling their books.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@SkySportsNews

 

 

BREAKING: @stokecity have completed the signing of @Wolves defender Danny Batth on a three-and-a-half-year contract #SSN

 

More on Transfer Centre LIVE! http://skysports.tv/E89Zb9

 

I thought he was possibly our best defender - so now we have 92 CM's and the bare bones in CB's - now who did I have that £100 bet with on automatic promotion a few weeks ago?............................

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...