andyj
Spectator
Posts: 27
|
Post by andyj on Jan 16, 2020 15:23:27 GMT
Looks like Woods is being loaned out to Millwall according to Percy, and I’ve seen people slamming the board recently for not getting a cash sale for others so I thought I’d explain why a cash sale makes no sense.
When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts.
There is no way someone would match what we paid for him, given our league position and the fact he’s been sidelined for a while now with several managers. So in order to avoid a loss now, the club is clearly trying to create a profit OR a neutral position in several years time, as oppose to the loss. Also, if Millwalls form does continue, and they do end up getting promoted, they may pay a much higher fee.
Calling the board useless is unwarranted in this situation (others, granted, they are useless). FFP is nothing to do with how much money the club are getting from sales, it’s about timing the transaction for FFP purposes.
Sadly football is about fiddling numbers and VAR now, and nothing to do with the actual game.
|
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jan 16, 2020 15:28:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by shrewspotter on Jan 16, 2020 15:29:05 GMT
Looks like Woods is being loaned out to Millwall according to Percy, and I’ve seen people slamming the board recently for not getting a cash sale for others so I thought I’d explain why a cash sale makes no sense. When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts. There is no way someone would match what we paid for him, given our league position and the fact he’s been sidelined for a while now with several managers. So in order to avoid a loss now, the club is clearly trying to create a profit OR a neutral position in several years time, as oppose to the loss. Also, if Millwalls form does continue, and they do end up getting promoted, they may pay a much higher fee. Calling the board useless is unwarranted in this situation (others, granted, they are useless). FFP is nothing to do with how much money the club are getting from sales, it’s about timing the transaction for FFP purposes. Sadly football is about fiddling numbers and VAR now, and nothing to do with the actual game. good post, in many ways like writing down stock on your balance sheet I guess |
|
andyj
Spectator
Posts: 27
|
Post by andyj on Jan 16, 2020 15:30:18 GMT
Looks like Woods is being loaned out to Millwall according to Percy, and I’ve seen people slamming the board recently for not getting a cash sale for others so I thought I’d explain why a cash sale makes no sense. When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts. There is no way someone would match what we paid for him, given our league position and the fact he’s been sidelined for a while now with several managers. So in order to avoid a loss now, the club is clearly trying to create a profit OR a neutral position in several years time, as oppose to the loss. Also, if Millwalls form does continue, and they do end up getting promoted, they may pay a much higher fee. Calling the board useless is unwarranted in this situation (others, granted, they are useless). FFP is nothing to do with how much money the club are getting from sales, it’s about timing the transaction for FFP purposes. Sadly football is about fiddling numbers and VAR now, and nothing to do with the actual game. good post, in many ways like writing down stock on your balance sheet I guess Exactly what I think it is. Why sell now, when in 2 years they can register a couple million profit on the books? If he’s not being used too, why pay his wages |
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on Jan 16, 2020 15:32:54 GMT
That just sounds like another way of saying "If I don't look in my wallet and see there's no money there, I won't be skint".
|
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jan 16, 2020 15:33:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jan 16, 2020 15:41:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by shrewspotter on Jan 16, 2020 15:55:37 GMT
good post, in many ways like writing down stock on your balance sheet I guess Exactly what I think it is. Why sell now, when in 2 years they can register a couple million profit on the books? If he’s not being used too, why pay his wages and of course if they sell now for 2million and he owes 4.5m on our books then then 2.5m loss will be taken into consideration for FFP actually making the decision worse than to loan Thanks for that, makes good sense |
|
|
|
Post by berahinosgoals on Jan 16, 2020 16:03:23 GMT
I find it hard to believe after spending millions on players that loaning out players and letting them run their contracts down is in anyway beneficial to the accounts of a football club, especially a club in the second division or lower, budgets are planned around sales and clubs can rely on sales to give them a budget.
Why isn't everyone loaning players and not selling them if it was so beneficial to do so?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sven on Jan 16, 2020 16:09:18 GMT
Looks like Woods is being loaned out to Millwall according to Percy, and I’ve seen people slamming the board recently for not getting a cash sale for others so I thought I’d explain why a cash sale makes no sense. When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts. There is no way someone would match what we paid for him, given our league position and the fact he’s been sidelined for a while now with several managers. So in order to avoid a loss now, the club is clearly trying to create a profit OR a neutral position in several years time, as oppose to the loss. Also, if Millwalls form does continue, and they do end up getting promoted, they may pay a much higher fee. Calling the board useless is unwarranted in this situation (others, granted, they are useless). FFP is nothing to do with how much money the club are getting from sales, it’s about timing the transaction for FFP purposes. Sadly football is about fiddling numbers and VAR now, and nothing to do with the actual game. cheers for that, explains it well using your figures would stoke of paid the 6 mill up front or be paying in 4 installments of 1.5m per season??? if in installments we would still have 1.5m to knock off this years balance sheet?? is that correct? |
|
andyj
Spectator
Posts: 27
|
Post by andyj on Jan 16, 2020 16:24:01 GMT
I find it hard to believe after spending millions on players that loaning out players and letting them run their contracts down is in anyway beneficial to the accounts of a football club, especially a club in the second division or lower, budgets are planned around sales and clubs can rely on sales to give them a budget. Why isn't everyone loaning players and not selling them if it was so beneficial to do so? Because we bought a considerable amount of players for quite high prices, our performances were then diabolical, which has ultimately reduced their value too. See it like negative equity on a home, but instead of waiting for a house price to go back up, you’re actually waiting for the player value to go down, so you can shift it on for a profit. |
|
|
|
Post by baystokie on Jan 16, 2020 16:24:45 GMT
I find it hard to believe after spending millions on players that loaning out players and letting them run their contracts down is in anyway beneficial to the accounts of a football club, especially a club in the second division or lower, budgets are planned around sales and clubs can rely on sales to give them a budget. Why isn't everyone loaning players and not selling them if it was so beneficial to do so? Apart from those on the Prem gravy train, when you read the deals list at the end of the window, loan deals seem to be in the majority. |
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jan 16, 2020 16:32:14 GMT
A good, simple explanation. But let's be clear, it doesn't excuse those responsible for creating this mess in the first place.
Football's always been about fiddling numbers. The Preston team of the 1880s were created by William Sudell directing funds and jobs to entice players to come down from Scotland, despite it being against FA rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 16, 2020 16:33:41 GMT
I find it hard to believe after spending millions on players that loaning out players and letting them run their contracts down is in anyway beneficial to the accounts of a football club, especially a club in the second division or lower, budgets are planned around sales and clubs can rely on sales to give them a budget. Why isn't everyone loaning players and not selling them if it was so beneficial to do so? Because hardly anyone in our division spent/overpaid the monster money we did in 2018 |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 16, 2020 16:34:15 GMT
Admin please pin the opening post
|
|
andyj
Spectator
Posts: 27
|
Post by andyj on Jan 16, 2020 16:35:22 GMT
Looks like Woods is being loaned out to Millwall according to Percy, and I’ve seen people slamming the board recently for not getting a cash sale for others so I thought I’d explain why a cash sale makes no sense. When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts. There is no way someone would match what we paid for him, given our league position and the fact he’s been sidelined for a while now with several managers. So in order to avoid a loss now, the club is clearly trying to create a profit OR a neutral position in several years time, as oppose to the loss. Also, if Millwalls form does continue, and they do end up getting promoted, they may pay a much higher fee. Calling the board useless is unwarranted in this situation (others, granted, they are useless). FFP is nothing to do with how much money the club are getting from sales, it’s about timing the transaction for FFP purposes. Sadly football is about fiddling numbers and VAR now, and nothing to do with the actual game. cheers for that, explains it well using your figures would stoke of paid the 6 mill up front or be paying in 4 installments of 1.5m per season??? if in installments we would still have 1.5m to knock off this years balance sheet?? is that correct? In terms of the instalments within which we would be paying Brentford for him, it’s not particularly relevant to this, as that is an expense in the P/L. They could be £1m every year for 6 years for all I know (somewhat unlikely though). Whatever the instalments are, the £1.5m a year would still need to be amortised over the duration of his contract. Unless he signs a new contract, but that’s for a different day! If we were to sell him today, The resulting effect on the accounts would depend on what arrangements we have with Brentford and would create with Millwall. Timing of it all is quite important, hence the use of loans, but to show a profit on the sale of an asset (player contract) is the key sentiment. Also, regardless of whether the player is with us or not on loan, if he still belongs to us, then the asset needs to be amortised. So this year would see another £1.5m off the balance sheet, along with his wages being cut off, and allowing for the potential of a profitable sale in the summer, or the year after. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 16, 2020 16:41:05 GMT
A good, simple explanation. But let's be clear, it doesn't excuse those responsible for creating this mess in the first place. Football's always been about fiddling numbers. The Preston team of the 1880s were created by William Sudell directing funds and jobs to entice players to come down from Scotland, despite it being against FA rules. Creating and then exacerbating the mess by letting Jones spend 15m on fees and then God knows what on wages for frees. |
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 16, 2020 16:41:59 GMT
Looks like Woods is being loaned out to Millwall according to Percy, and I’ve seen people slamming the board recently for not getting a cash sale for others so I thought I’d explain why a cash sale makes no sense. When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts. There is no way someone would match what we paid for him, given our league position and the fact he’s been sidelined for a while now with several managers. So in order to avoid a loss now, the club is clearly trying to create a profit OR a neutral position in several years time, as oppose to the loss. Also, if Millwalls form does continue, and they do end up getting promoted, they may pay a much higher fee. Calling the board useless is unwarranted in this situation (others, granted, they are useless). FFP is nothing to do with how much money the club are getting from sales, it’s about timing the transaction for FFP purposes. Sadly football is about fiddling numbers and VAR now, and nothing to do with the actual game. cheers for that, explains it well using your figures would stoke of paid the 6 mill up front or be paying in 4 installments of 1.5m per season??? if in installments we would still have 1.5m to knock off this years balance sheet?? is that correct? for FFP It doesn't matter how we pay (Either in full or installments) It's just Actual cost (Before add ons) divided by contract length, and that's how much will hit the P & L each year. |
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Jan 16, 2020 16:49:46 GMT
Looks like Woods is being loaned out to Millwall according to Percy, and I’ve seen people slamming the board recently for not getting a cash sale for others so I thought I’d explain why a cash sale makes no sense. When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts. There is no way someone would match what we paid for him, given our league position and the fact he’s been sidelined for a while now with several managers. So in order to avoid a loss now, the club is clearly trying to create a profit OR a neutral position in several years time, as oppose to the loss. Also, if Millwalls form does continue, and they do end up getting promoted, they may pay a much higher fee. Calling the board useless is unwarranted in this situation (others, granted, they are useless). FFP is nothing to do with how much money the club are getting from sales, it’s about timing the transaction for FFP purposes. Sadly football is about fiddling numbers and VAR now, and nothing to do with the actual game. Very good post which I hope puts this argument finally to bed 👍👏🎯 |
|
|
|
Post by tsc1606 on Jan 16, 2020 17:41:06 GMT
Looks like Woods is being loaned out to Millwall according to Percy, and I’ve seen people slamming the board recently for not getting a cash sale for others so I thought I’d explain why a cash sale makes no sense. When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts. There is no way someone would match what we paid for him, given our league position and the fact he’s been sidelined for a while now with several managers. So in order to avoid a loss now, the club is clearly trying to create a profit OR a neutral position in several years time, as oppose to the loss. Also, if Millwalls form does continue, and they do end up getting promoted, they may pay a much higher fee. Calling the board useless is unwarranted in this situation (others, granted, they are useless). FFP is nothing to do with how much money the club are getting from sales, it’s about timing the transaction for FFP purposes. Sadly football is about fiddling numbers and VAR now, and nothing to do with the actual game. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jan 16, 2020 17:49:37 GMT
Looks like Woods is being loaned out to Millwall according to Percy, and I’ve seen people slamming the board recently for not getting a cash sale for others so I thought I’d explain why a cash sale makes no sense. When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts. There is no way someone would match what we paid for him, given our league position and the fact he’s been sidelined for a while now with several managers. So in order to avoid a loss now, the club is clearly trying to create a profit OR a neutral position in several years time, as oppose to the loss. Also, if Millwalls form does continue, and they do end up getting promoted, they may pay a much higher fee. Calling the board useless is unwarranted in this situation (others, granted, they are useless). FFP is nothing to do with how much money the club are getting from sales, it’s about timing the transaction for FFP purposes. Sadly football is about fiddling numbers and VAR now, and nothing to do with the actual game. Thats a good explanation except for Woods as its his second season in reality we are writing down £1.5m on him whatever this year if we are looking to loan him out so we would be looking at transfer fees above £3m to get back the last 2 years of his value. What doesnt make sense is loaning him to a club like Millwall who could never afford to buy him though. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 18:29:22 GMT
It makes our willingness to loan them out more understandable but it's perhaps even more damning when you consider how careful you should be getting players like this in, can't take risks on attitude or injury record.
|
|
|
|
Post by baystokie on Jan 16, 2020 18:36:47 GMT
Looks like Woods is being loaned out to Millwall according to Percy, and I’ve seen people slamming the board recently for not getting a cash sale for others so I thought I’d explain why a cash sale makes no sense. When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts. There is no way someone would match what we paid for him, given our league position and the fact he’s been sidelined for a while now with several managers. So in order to avoid a loss now, the club is clearly trying to create a profit OR a neutral position in several years time, as oppose to the loss. Also, if Millwalls form does continue, and they do end up getting promoted, they may pay a much higher fee. Calling the board useless is unwarranted in this situation (others, granted, they are useless). FFP is nothing to do with how much money the club are getting from sales, it’s about timing the transaction for FFP purposes. Sadly football is about fiddling numbers and VAR now, and nothing to do with the actual game. Thats a good explanation except for Woods as its his second season in reality we are writing down £1.5m on him whatever this year if we are looking to loan him out so we would be looking at transfer fees above £3m to get back the last 2 years of his value. What doesnt make sense is loaning him to a club like Millwall who could never afford to buy him though. Presumably(?), if you want to reduce wages bill, does it matter to whom you loan a player and you arrange a loan with ANYONE willing to pay those wages even if they won't be buying him? |
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 16, 2020 18:59:01 GMT
Looks like Woods is being loaned out to Millwall according to Percy, and I’ve seen people slamming the board recently for not getting a cash sale for others so I thought I’d explain why a cash sale makes no sense. When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts. There is no way someone would match what we paid for him, given our league position and the fact he’s been sidelined for a while now with several managers. So in order to avoid a loss now, the club is clearly trying to create a profit OR a neutral position in several years time, as oppose to the loss. Also, if Millwalls form does continue, and they do end up getting promoted, they may pay a much higher fee. Calling the board useless is unwarranted in this situation (others, granted, they are useless). FFP is nothing to do with how much money the club are getting from sales, it’s about timing the transaction for FFP purposes. Sadly football is about fiddling numbers and VAR now, and nothing to do with the actual game. Thats a good explanation except for Woods as its his second season in reality we are writing down £1.5m on him whatever this year if we are looking to loan him out so we would be looking at transfer fees above £3m to get back the last 2 years of his value. What doesnt make sense is loaning him to a club like Millwall who could never afford to buy him though. Yes thats right. So he currently has a value of £3.75m so selling him for £3 million and saving his wages would be close to zero cost I imagine. Next summer, he would be worth £3m in the accounts but we would have to write off £1.5m over the season and pay him maybe £1m so anything over £500k and we would be in positive territory. Our big problem is we have to bear a cost of £29 million this year, half because of Rowett and Jones's signings and half because of previous excess. Our spending last year and signings this summer have really set us back, before that we would have been in reasonable shape with parachute payments but we messed up royally with the signings and contract extensions |
|
|
|
Post by walrus on Jan 16, 2020 20:36:15 GMT
I think it’s amazing that football clubs don’t have some sort of insurance against a situation whereby they have to cancel a player’s contract. Can you imagine any other type of business having an asset they purchased for £12 million quid without having any sort of insurance against it malfunctioning? |
|
|
|
Post by markby on Jan 16, 2020 21:02:18 GMT
When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts. That makes perfect sense, but only insofar as it goes (imo).
Stoke won't get £4.5m for Woods right now, or anything near it. But what happens if he spends another year not playing as a Stoke player? He'll be worthless (literally). And you can't keep kicking the present debt/FFP problem down the road.
Whereas if a loan to Millwall went well, they might stump up a couple of million for him in the summer.
And in the meantime you've got his wages off the books and made space for a younger/cheaper/motivated player to establish himself in the squad.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 16, 2020 22:13:12 GMT
When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts. That makes perfect sense, but only insofar as it goes (imo). Stoke won't get £4.5m for Woods right now, or anything near it. But what happens if he spends another year not playing as a Stoke player? He'll be worthless (literally). And you can't keep kicking the present debt/FFP problem down the road.
Whereas if a loan to Millwall went well, they might stump up a couple of million for him in the summer.
And in the meantime you've got his wages off the books and made space for a younger/cheaper/motivated player to establish himself in the squad.
A couple of £m would be record deal for them. If he does well then best bet is someone else might pay that, or more, in the summer |
|
|
|
Post by Championship Potter on Jan 16, 2020 22:22:41 GMT
It makes sense from an accounting/FFP perspective but I wish we’d try and make more of an effort to make some of these signings work. These players haven’t turned crap over night and should still be assets to us with the right coaching.
We loaned out Afobe and brought in a worse striker (Hogan) who now can’t even get on the bench. We were ready to loan out BMI and loaned out Wimmer to bring in Lindsay, who has been fairly terrible. We are now loaning out Woods to bring in some lad who is in and out of the Blackpool team. All of these players were in poor form but not convinced we have replaced any of them with better players.
|
|
|
|
Post by skip on Jan 16, 2020 22:44:16 GMT
I'd forgotten about Hogan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Waggy on Jan 16, 2020 22:54:42 GMT
Looks like Woods is being loaned out to Millwall according to Percy, and I’ve seen people slamming the board recently for not getting a cash sale for others so I thought I’d explain why a cash sale makes no sense. When players are signed, the price paid is divided over the length of the contract. Every year, in equal portions the value in the accounts is decreased throughout the contract. I’m not exactly sure of the woods contract but I’ll use numbers to explain. If woods cost £6m on a 4 year contract, it means that the value decreases by £1.5m a year in the accounts. If he has been with us for a year, he is now worth £4.5m. Therefore, we would have to sell him for a value of above £4.5m in order to register a profit in the accounts. If we sold him now for £3m, a loss of £1.5m would immediately be put in the accounts. There is no way someone would match what we paid for him, given our league position and the fact he’s been sidelined for a while now with several managers. So in order to avoid a loss now, the club is clearly trying to create a profit OR a neutral position in several years time, as oppose to the loss. Also, if Millwalls form does continue, and they do end up getting promoted, they may pay a much higher fee. Calling the board useless is unwarranted in this situation (others, granted, they are useless). FFP is nothing to do with how much money the club are getting from sales, it’s about timing the transaction for FFP purposes. Sadly football is about fiddling numbers and VAR now, and nothing to do with the actual game. Thanks, great post. |
|
