|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 1, 2011 21:55:43 GMT
is anybody else concerned with the impact of the UEFA financial rulings coming in after next season and the impact this will have on this summers spending?
With Arsenal, Man utd, Man city, liverpool, chelsea and spurs all set for one last spending spree before the new regulations come into place, this will impact accross the entire market and push prices up and up.
This will impact not just the players they are competing for, but on the prices of players the less rich clubs are competing for.
I dont think we will get value for money in this transfer market.
Its just a warning for all those presuming we are going to be pulling in some big names for big money, when the reality may be quite different and we could be priced out of the market or else risk over exerting ourselves financially.
improving the squad is essential, but only at the right price.
|
|
|
|
Post by StokieBoy31 on Jun 2, 2011 2:18:44 GMT
I haven't heard of this new rule ??? Have I missed somthing ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by PenkhullStokie on Jun 2, 2011 2:55:57 GMT
I haven't heard of this new rule ??? Have I missed somthing ;D The question marks should be on the other sentence. Yes, you have missed something. |
|
|
|
Post by jen on Jun 2, 2011 7:56:32 GMT
I'm not an accountant but I thought the cost of the player was spread over the length of the contract in the accounts. So if you buy a player on a 5 year contract now at £5 million then that will show as £1 million per year for the next 5 years in the accounts. So clubs won't be able to get round the rules by having a spending spree this summer.
Anyone know if this is correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bick on Jun 2, 2011 8:03:10 GMT
Technically correct Jen. Although there is nothing to say that clubs are paid over a length of a contract, certain transfers are made on the condition that funds are exchanged immediately... I would expect that this summer will see a majority of immediate payments...
WHICH supports Daveview's comment that PC has already given TP a 'warchest' to buy with, rather than a simple indication of available money.
|
|
|
|
Post by jen on Jun 2, 2011 8:08:57 GMT
Technically correct Jen. Although there is nothing to say that clubs are paid over a length of a contract, certain transfers are made on the condition that funds are exchanged immediately... I would expect that this summer will see a majority of immediate payments... WHICH supports Daveview's comment that PC has already given TP a 'warchest' to buy with, rather than a simple indication of available money. I thought it didn't really matter how the contract is actually paid - just that the cost of the player is spread along the whole contract in the accounts - isn't it called amortization or something. It's like a kind of depreciation for a player. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 2, 2011 8:35:38 GMT
the point is that clubs have an incentive to pay huge sums now rather than later. They will avoid spreading the payment because of the new regulations, but only certain clubs can afford to do this.
for example, if i were man city or one of the rich clubs, i would offer the player a huge lump sum payment to join along with a smaller contract than they would normally demand. The contract would obviously impact on the regulations, the lump sum would come before.
the agents will have a field day!
|
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jun 2, 2011 9:01:20 GMT
I'm not an accountant but I thought the cost of the player was spread over the length of the contract in the accounts. So if you buy a player on a 5 year contract now at £5 million then that will show as £1 million per year for the next 5 years in the accounts. So clubs won't be able to get round the rules by having a spending spree this summer. Anyone know if this is correct? More or less that is right but this new rule isn't aimed at controlling transfer fees, it's aimed at controlling clubs wage bills, Amortization is a seperate type of expense, as any given player could be sold at a profit a few years later and the Amortization accumulated makes the profit on the player look even bigger in the financial year of the sale. Isn't the rule about Wage bills only allowed to be a % of Turnover similar to Super League ? |
|
|
|
Post by toddyssilkyskills on Jun 2, 2011 9:03:47 GMT
There should be loads of good loan deals available, afterall these clubs have to rid players to make room.
|
|
|
|
Post by jen on Jun 2, 2011 9:22:58 GMT
I'm not an accountant but I thought the cost of the player was spread over the length of the contract in the accounts. So if you buy a player on a 5 year contract now at £5 million then that will show as £1 million per year for the next 5 years in the accounts. So clubs won't be able to get round the rules by having a spending spree this summer. Anyone know if this is correct? More or less that is right but this new rule isn't aimed at controlling transfer fees, it's aimed at controlling clubs wage bills, Amortization is a seperate type of expense, as any given player could be sold at a profit a few years later and the Amortization accumulated makes the profit on the player look even bigger in the financial year of the sale. Isn't the rule about Wage bills only allowed to be a % of Turnover similar to Super League ? Presumably the clubs can get around this by offering a huge signing on fee and lower wages. |
|
|
|
Post by toddyssilkyskills on Jun 2, 2011 9:25:44 GMT
More or less that is right but this new rule isn't aimed at controlling transfer fees, it's aimed at controlling clubs wage bills, Amortization is a seperate type of expense, as any given player could be sold at a profit a few years later and the Amortization accumulated makes the profit on the player look even bigger in the financial year of the sale. Isn't the rule about Wage bills only allowed to be a % of Turnover similar to Super League ? Presumably the clubs can get around this by offering a huge signing on fee and lower wages. Yes, Stan Collymore was saying exactly that on Talksport. Clubs will always find a way. |
|
|
|
Post by Binndy on Jun 2, 2011 9:33:45 GMT
loan players and looking abroad for some more "jermaine pennents." Those players who are sitting on benches and need a new team to put a spark back into their careers. Therefore will be cheaper to buy and reasonable wages can be offeredThere are plenty of players out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jun 2, 2011 9:52:00 GMT
More or less that is right but this new rule isn't aimed at controlling transfer fees, it's aimed at controlling clubs wage bills, Amortization is a seperate type of expense, as any given player could be sold at a profit a few years later and the Amortization accumulated makes the profit on the player look even bigger in the financial year of the sale. Isn't the rule about Wage bills only allowed to be a % of Turnover similar to Super League ? Presumably the clubs can get around this by offering a huge signing on fee and lower wages. Without a doubt clubs will find ways around it, but It won't be straight forward, I imagine signing on fees are just extra wages anyway from a tax point, but they could always employ the players wife as a form of consultant on a handsome salary to win the player over  |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 2, 2011 11:36:53 GMT
i think its an excellent initial strategy by UEFA in the long run, but it will certainly make this transfer window a hectic one as it could be the last opportunity to really spend big!
I am sure there will be financial experts on both sides, looking for loopholes and ocvering them up, as there is for all financial matters in business.
The long term issue is that all clubs will be seeking greater income allowing them to spend more on wages, this will lead to more support for 39th game in the middle east and other such football-destroying ideas. It will alienate the top 6 more and more from their local communities - it will be an interesting crossroad for coates to overcome, if he is seeking to move us on to 'the next level' then surely he will be looking to generate greater foreign support which is where the vast majority of income is generated, but keep us a local community club at the same time will be a real struggle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Royal Donut on Jun 2, 2011 21:37:06 GMT
theres already loop holes, ive heard for example the owner can buy a box a man city for 100million a year to cover these costs, which is ok in a way because it wouldnt be money lent to the club. so the club wouldnt be in debt, but soon has he left the club wouldnt last, how true this is i dont know
|
|
|
|
Post by ProudPotter17 on Jun 2, 2011 21:39:22 GMT
loan players and looking abroad for some more "jermaine pennents." Those players who are sitting on benches and need a new team to put a spark back into their careers. Therefore will be cheaper to buy and reasonable wages can be offeredThere are plenty of players out there. You don't work with computers, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 3, 2011 7:26:33 GMT
loan players and looking abroad for some more "jermaine pennents." Those players who are sitting on benches and need a new team to put a spark back into their careers. Therefore will be cheaper to buy and reasonable wages can be offeredThere are plenty of players out there. the thing is jermaine pennant either decided himself or had good advice to know that going to a lower club would be good for his career. for every jermaine pennant there is a wayne bridge or SWP prepared to sit and rot on a bench for massive money |
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 3, 2011 7:57:55 GMT
Thought these rulings only apply to wages, not transfer fees.
Also, only to clubs playing in Europe.
If anything, i'd expect prices to drop as clubs are forced to spend within their means and not go crazy with the spending as has happened over recent years.
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 3, 2011 8:26:02 GMT
Thought these rulings only apply to wages, not transfer fees. Also, only to clubs playing in Europe. If anything, i'd expect prices to drop as clubs are forced to spend within their means and not go crazy with the spending as has happened over recent years. wages should drop long term, but transfer fees and signing on fees may well rise, and this window could be the start of it. if fabregas wants 150k a week, a club will pay him an extra 10 mill one off fee and only pay him 100k a week to save on wages. Plus you have the transfer fee itself. you can only enter europe if you abide by it, but if we dont abide by it then if we get a chance to play in europe we wont be able to. |
|
|
|
Post by lancer on Jun 5, 2011 15:45:37 GMT
Any luck, and the 'big' spenders will throw their money about, get a few duds, and go bump. As said elsewhere, there will be plenty of decent players about when the divas are brought in, and TP can take his pick.
|
|
