Rafa

Status
Not open for further replies.


nyron4england said:
two ways of looking at it. it might give you a short term advantage, but you dont get the asset to borrow against should you ever need to. it also means you cant rent your ground out for concerts and shit to provide extra revenue (speculating here but i assume you don't get money for concerts held there).

plus, as someone who lives in East London, it gets people into a more decrepit areas of the city and avoids it becoming a white elephant. as long as you exist, theres 2m a year coming in from you alone, and we got the economic boost to offset the cost when the actual Olympics were on.

do you get all the ticket revenue?
Click to expand...
we have a 50m overdraft facility as it is, just borrwed vs the tv dealand seaosn ticket money as needed

We will buy it when athletics leave to the new place being built in Birmingham

we get all ticket money and corporate, but share catering and the namign rights shoul they ever get sold
 
Last edited:
cbwhu said:
we have a 50m overdraft facility as it is, just borrwed vs the tv dealand seaosn ticket money as needed

We will buy it when athletics leave to the new place being built in Birmingham

we get all ticket money and corporate, but share catering and the namign rights shoul they ever get sold
Click to expand...
whats the price being thrown around for you to buy at? is there any clauses in regarding others using it?
 
cbwhu said:
30m profit on players sales in Jan though although how that translates to accounts I never get. also new sleeve sponsor added, no idea how much and new kit deal to be announced this year (moving to Nike from Umbro I believe) as well as hopefully before Xmas finally being allowed to use the 9,000 empty seats taking capacity to it's full (for now) 66,000
Click to expand...

Player trading is the thing that is hardest for me to explain to a non-accountant. I'll do my best.

When you buy a player, the cost is recorded in the club's books as an intangible asset (yes, I know you can touch a player - the asset is the value of his registration). That cost as written off (known as amortisation) in equal instalments over the length of his contract. When you sell a player, you record a profit or loss which is the difference between the selling price and the value of the amount left on his contract.

It's probably easier with an example. Say you buy a player for £50m on a 4 year contract, and at the end of three years, you sell him for £25m (he's older, and only has a year left on his contract.

In year 1, you create an asset for £50m, and then charge £12.5m in amortisation
Year 2, £12.5m amortisation.
Year 3 £12,5m amortisation
Year 4, you record and £12.5m profit on sale (£25m less the £12.5 value of the last year of his contract.

The clubs has still recorded the £25m cash loss, but it's spread over 4 years. This is what makes in difficult for the layman; the numbers in the accounts don't square with what intuition tells you. I actually prefer to look at the cash flows associated wioth transfers - these do get distorted by the timing of instalments, but over a period of time they give a good view of how a club's transfer business is going.
 
nyron4england said:
whats the price being thrown around for you to buy at? is there any clauses in regarding others using it?
Click to expand...
not been mentioned as will be a political hot potato, but we would be the only possible bidder as our current lease guarantees we take priority over everything else at the stadium

But it's currently losing the tax payer 30m a year converting to athletics mode and back for what are increasingly poorly supported events so clearly unstainable as it stands so they will look to sell and we would be the only game in town to buy due to our unbreakable lease guaranteeing our primacy there
 
Last edited:
Grumpy Old Man said:
Player trading is the thing that is hardest for me to explain to a non-accountant. I'll do my best.

When you buy a player, the cost is recorded in the club's books as an intangible asset (yes, I know you can touch a player - the asset is the value of his registration). That cost as written off (known as amortisation) in equal instalments over the length of his contract. When you sell a player, you record a profit or loss which is the difference between the selling price and the value of the amount left on his contract.

It's probably easier with an example. Say you buy a player for £50m on a 4 year contract, and at the end of three years, you sell him for £25m (he's older, and only has a year left on his contract.

In year 1, you create an asset for £50m, and then charge £12.5m in amortisation
Year 2, £12.5m amortisation.
Year 3 £12,5m amortisation
Year 4, you record and £12.5m profit on sale (£25m less the £12.5 value of the last year of his contract.

The clubs has still recorded the £25m cash loss, but it's spread over 4 years. This is what makes in difficult for the layman; the numbers in the accounts don't square with what intuition tells you. I actually prefer to look at the cash flows associated wioth transfers - these do get distorted by the timing of instalments, but over a period of time they give a good view of how a club's transfer business is going.
Click to expand...
here's one for ya then -

We signed Andre Ayew 2 summers ago for 20m

we sold him back to the same club in January for 20m

how would that go throughthe books


also as said our january business -

Sold -
Ayew 20m
Fonte 10m
Sakho 10m

Bought-
Hughill 10m
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Qualification - you don't have to make a profit on all your players. But you do need to break even in the long run.
Click to expand...

The bigger clubs in the division outside the top six can afford to spend about £20m net per season. The bigger clubs being Everton, Leicester and West Ham.
 
cbwhu said:
here's one for ya then -

We signed Andre Ayew 2 summers ago for 20m

we sold him back to the same club in January for 20m

how would that go throughthe books


also as said our january business -

Sold -
Ayew 20m
Fonte 10m
Sakho 10m

Bought-
Hughill 10m
Click to expand...

I'd need to know the contract lengths to work it out. What you normally do is charge a full years amortisation in the year of purchase, and nothing in the year of sale, so which window it happens in has no impact If Ayew was on a 4 year deal (it makes the maths easier :)), you'd have taken amortisation cost of £5m in the first year. If you sold him in the second year of his contract, you'd have reported a £5m profit in the year of sale (£20m less the £15m left on his contract). A similar exercise would happen for Fonte and Sakho.

With Hugill, you'd have booked a £10m asset, and charged 1/x as amortisation (where x is the years on his contract).
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
I'd need to know the contract lengths to work it out. What you normally do is charge a full years amortisation in the year of purchase, and nothing in the year of sale, so which window it happens in has no impact If Ayew was on a 4 year deal (it makes the maths easier :)), you'd have taken amortisation cost of £5m in the first year. If you sold him in the second year of his contract, you'd have reported a £5m profit in the year of sale (£20m less the £15m left on his contract). A similar exercise would happen for Fonte and Sakho.

With Hugill, you'd have booked a £10m asset, and charged 1/x as amortisation (where x is the years on his contract).
Click to expand...
right cheers

ayway bac to what I said earlier, a Premier League club having no cash spare to spend ater thenew tv deal; and ticket money etc cannot be a healthy position surely?
 
Bulwell said:
The bigger clubs in the division outside the top six can afford to spend about £20m net per season. The bigger clubs being Everton, Leicester and West Ham.
Click to expand...
we were spending more that that at the Boleyn before the new tv deals came in, last reported turnover is £183m so 20m is a very low figure
 
Last edited:
"R"afa "T"he "G"reat

meanwhile on wearside safc prepare for their DIVISION THREE kick off :lol::lol::lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top