If we finish in the top 4.....

[Happy Face 29]

You so funny

 

I see you failed to answer the question. I have the greatest respect for you, Baggio, but Lord, you are no nearer catching Leazes now than four years ago when you started.

[Baggio 0]

If you sell a player, you realise a profit equivalent to the transfer fee less what their current book value is. And you realise that profit at the point of sale. Whilst a player is at the club, you amortise his transfer price over the course of his contract. Is that what you mean?

 

As a basic example, you buy a player for 10m, and give him a 5 year contract. When you buy him he goes on your books at the full 10m, and you write that value down over the length of the contract (so 2m a year). So say 4 years into his contract, you sell him for 5m, your profit is 3m (5m fee less the 2m residual value that he currently sits on your books at).

 

Sorry if I'm telling you something you already know, but it just rounds out your Arsenal example.

 

That's how I understood it, so I'm right in thinking that even though we've paid out already for the 3 it will show up though amortization over the next few years?

[Park Life 70]

In the annuls of the internets it must have been noted somewhere deep withing the matrix the names; Baggio and Ne5. Corrections will be made. Be sure of that. Prepare to be erased.

[Gemmill 35322]

 

That's how I understood it, so I'm right in thinking that even though we've paid out already for the 3 it will show up though amortization over the next few years?

 

Yeah exactly. The transfer fee gets spread over the length of their contract.

[Baggio 0]

In the annuls of the internets it must have been noted somewhere deep withing the matrix the names; Baggio and Ne5. Corrections will be made. Be sure of that. Prepare to be erased.

 

I was thinking more like Lost "Two players, two sides. One is light, one is dark"

 

I'll say I'm the dark one before someone else does

[BigWalrus 0]

Yeah exactly. The transfer fee gets spread over the length of their contract.

 

That's right. Also clubs often write off players who have onerous contracts. So the likes of Alan Smith and Xisco will have had their contract value impaired to nil, as they're not worth anything.

 

The simplistic view of "net transfer spend" is an almost useless statistic.

 

Sale of Carroll = £35m fee received plus £2m per year saved in wages (over 5 years left on contract) = £45m benefit

 

Purchase of Ba (£4m fees + £9m on wages over 3 years), Cisse (£9m + £12m on wages over 5 years) + Ben Arfa (£2m + £8m on wages over 4 years) = £44m

 

Replacing one player with three is all very well, but the funding for the additional wages don't just magic out of thin air.

 

Anyone with a basic business acumen would be able to grasp this, but the popular football media seems focused entirely on "net spend" and transfer fees. Unfortunately, fans of all clubs around England, on the whole, buy into this theory completely. The truth is that football is a very very simple business, just a risky one.

[Happy Face 29]

Is Ba on 60k a week?

[ChezGiven 0]

Well sort of, accountancy and the use of amortisation is one thing but all business works on cashflow so net transfer spend is helpful. If new players' wages are built into a business plan and the business operates at break even then in this case, net transfer fees in over a given financial period give a good estimate of disposable income in the next period.

 

Basically the wage level can be allowed to rise if revenues are predicted to rise or other costs are being cut. In a dynamic business with growing revenues, decisions around wages can be separated from transfer fees. Football is simple but risky as you say though, easier said than done.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The wage level is going to drop anyway when Alan Smith finally fucks off.

[Lake Bells tits 1]

Is Ba on 60k a week?

 

Last I heard he was on 40-45k, but there is also a release clause in there.

 

Read somewhere that we are trying to offer him a new contract of 50k + some sign on bonuses which would equal 60-70k..

 

I hope he starts scoring a few soon because thats top money.

[OTF 6310]

The simplistic view of "net transfer spend" is an almost useless statistic.

 

Sale of Carroll = £35m fee received plus £2m per year saved in wages (over 5 years left on contract) = £45m benefit

 

Purchase of Ba (£4m fees + £9m on wages over 3 years), Cisse (£9m + £12m on wages over 5 years) + Ben Arfa (£2m + £8m on wages over 4 years) = £44m

 

Replacing one player with three is all very well, but the funding for the additional wages don't just magic out of thin air.

 

Anyone with a basic business acumen would be able to grasp this, but the popular football media seems focused entirely on "net spend" and transfer fees. Unfortunately, fans of all clubs around England, on the whole, buy into this theory completely. The truth is that football is a very very simple business, just a risky one.

 

One player wasn't replaced with 3.

[BigWalrus 0]

I know one player wasn't replaced with three, I was trying to combine two points (that the Carroll money has been spent and that wages need to be considered).

 

Ba, I believe, is on about £25k, but with a substantial appearance bonus. So when that's taken into account, he has probably hit almost £60k a week so far this season.

 

Net transfer spend isn't massively useful for measuring cash flow. We are quite unique in paying for transfers up front and receiving cash up front. Most clubs still pay and receive over a few years, spreading the cash flow. The mackems sold Darren Bent for £24m, but half of this is still outstanding, hence them being liked with a load of Villa players as they're the only club who will accept a credit note in exchange for a player...

[ewerk 26751]

Ba, I believe, is on about £25k, but with a substantial appearance bonus. So when that's taken into account, he has probably hit almost £60k a week so far this season.

 

According to what?

[LeazesMag 0]

Fair point...and one I've made to Leazes on here before too. But he wasn't bound by those rules for when he was getting himself in bother, first throwing his money about like it was Paul Wellers hair, and then tightening his belt excessively.

 

But again, to be fair, Leazes doesn't even ask for the owners money these days, he just asks "where is the Carroll money?", which is what will be interesting about the £32m profit most recently posted and what gets spent in the Summer.

 

exactly, which is beyond the wit of Gemmill, mancmag and other assorted idiots, who are supposed to have me on ignore, especially those who said "anybody would do better than this" in terms of results on the pitch too. Laughable.

Edited April 27, 2012 by LeazesMag

[Gemmill 35322]

 

exactly, which is beyond the wit of Gemmill, mancmag and other assorted idiots.

 

Read on fuckwit, you might learn a thing or two. Actually what am I on about, of course you won't.

 

I used "beyond the wit" btw. That was my line.

[manc-mag 1]

Instructive stuff this. A million miles away from some old lunatic barking: "WHERES THE CARROLL MONEY?" with every other post.

[Gemmill 35322]

That was a worthwhile edit.

 

Anything else to add?

 

EDIT (worthwhile): Directed at the idiot obv.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Gemmill

[LeazesMag 0]

Aye, well put.

 

I'm satisfied with the full and frank apology I've received from him though on a personal level. Once again I'd like to take this opportunity to commend him for admitting where he was utterly wrong this season and we all move forward together, with an eye on European adventures to come.

 

you've got no apology from me shitforbrains. You're a hypocrite, with no balls to tell us exactly what it is that you have rubbished for years when I put it in an easy summary for you.

 

You can't even ignore me when you say you are.

[Gemmill 35322]

Haha he's edited it again. "Aw man, I should have said it like this"

 

Keep going, you'll get it perfect soon.

[OTF 6310]

I know one player wasn't replaced with three, I was trying to combine two points (that the Carroll money has been spent and that wages need to be considered).

 

Ba, I believe, is on about £25k, but with a substantial appearance bonus. So when that's taken into account, he has probably hit almost £60k a week so far this season.

 

Net transfer spend isn't massively useful for measuring cash flow. We are quite unique in paying for transfers up front and receiving cash up front. Most clubs still pay and receive over a few years, spreading the cash flow. The mackems sold Darren Bent for £24m, but half of this is still outstanding, hence them being liked with a load of Villa players as they're the only club who will accept a credit note in exchange for a player...

 

Wages certainly do need to be considered, but you also need to take into account our current position in terms of wages. Obviously we shouldn't be spending simply to match other teams, but if we are to progress it is natural that our wages must take a similar path. To facilitate this the revenue will need to increase at least in line with the wage increases. Over the past season given the success on the pitch my complete lay-person guestimation is that our revenue will have increased markedly over last season. Ticket sales have been up, and our prize money for our league position will be 4 or 5 million more than last season at the least. Our shirt sponsorship deal has been vastly improved and hopefully has some tasty incentives built in for finishing higher on the table. So whilst these alternate revenuee streams continue to increase we can afford to increase wages to both keep players and to attract players of a higher standard.

 

I don't feel that the funds from transfers in and out should be used for wages as they are not a reliable or steady stream. We cannot rely on having players that appeal to other teams, but we can put in place frameworks that make it more likely by bringing in younger players who have not reached the peak of their ability or value. The flipside of this is that if you successful nurture a talent to make them more appealing to other teams you neeed to start the process again yourself. On this front I think it should be a self-funded inititative in that any funds garnered through the sale of players is used to reinvest in new players. Wages should alwasy be constrained by revenue but money from transfers should be excluded.

 

I'd welcome further discussion on this because (quite clearly ) I'm not particularly knowledgeable on this front. I'd welcome people to show me why the above is not feasible.

[LeazesMag 0]

I agree. He's a cunt with a heart of gold, and he's shown that this week in his repentance both on the board and in the form of numerous private messages.

 

liar. I've sent you no private messages.

[Gemmill 35322]

Don't make me have to post them, because I will.

[manc-mag 1]

Just to say that, having been the beneficiary of a full and frank apology, it would be churlish of me to print any pm's, so I won't.

 

I respectfully ask Gemmill to join me in this.

[Gemmill 35322]

You're right. I respectfully agree. Those communications will remain in my private domain.

[manc-mag 1]

Let me take this opportunity to commend Gemmill, in the face of serious provocation. We all move forward together in a spirit of maturity.