Rodwell to Sporting Lisbon


Status
Not open for further replies.
If we sell him I don't think we are liable for those wages so it's irrelevant.
Correct but to get him to move on it might be a difference or a nice check up front. Each deal is different

But the wage is dead money surely? Won't still be in the balance sheet. Or am I still not getting it
It appears under wages, but those wages are guaranteed. So we are trying to lower our liability on the balance sheet.

It's clearly dead the wages after you sell him to another club but he would not go if money was not given to him upfront as difference to current wages new club would offer him due to him not worthy of an increase in wages what we are paying. He a deprecated asset in term of the balance sheet...
 
Last edited:
Correct but to get him to move on it might be a difference or a nice check up front. Each deal is different


It appears under wages, but those wages are guaranteed. So we are trying to lower our liability on the balance sheet.

It's clearly dead the wages after you sell him to another club but he would not go if money was not given to him upfront as difference to current wages new club would offer him due to him not worthy of an increase in wages what we are paying. He a deprecated asset in term of the balance sheet...
I get what you're trying to say but I think you're confusing accounting with the cash consideration of the contract. Wages are not a liability on the balance sheet. The club will have to consider which of the following options they go for (in all cases paying any loyalty bonus unless he asks to leave):
Keep him - pay £6m cash for wages and make a loss in the p&l of £6m in wages and another £4m paper loss for the amortisation of his remaining fee
Give him away - don't receive any cash, don't lose any cash, make a paper loss on disposal of £4m for his remaining fee
Sell him :)lol:) for £5m for arguments sake - receive £5m cash, make a profit on disposal of £1m

Obviously they'd prefer to do the 3rd option. And yes, if he's offered less than the £6m he's getting from us he might want it topped up but there's no obligation from us to do that, it's a new arrangement. His value on the balance sheet solely relates to how much we paid for him, it is an asset not a liability and it will only form part of a profit or loss on disposal calculation.

Depends if he asks for a transfer or not. If he requests a move then in theory he loses out on loyalty payments and the remainder of his contract when he moves. Though if a decent fee was accepted the club may offer a sweetner depending on how desperate we are to remove him for the wage bill, what wages hes been offered elsewhere and him accepting those or not. If we're trying to force him out then we're pretty much liable for everything, apart from what someone will pay him.

Given his form, fitness and wages the reality is he's going absolutely nowhere.
Yeah, I agree with all of that - especially the not going anywhere bit, he's ours for 2 years - I just think the other poster is confusing the accounting rather than the essence of what's going on.
 
Forgot about making anything here, if we could essentially just get his wages off the payroll and nothing else then I’d consider that the deal of the century for us.
 
Correct but to get him to move on it might be a difference or a nice check up front. Each deal is different


It appears under wages, but those wages are guaranteed. So we are trying to lower our liability on the balance sheet.

It's clearly dead the wages after you sell him to another club but he would not go if money was not given to him upfront as difference to current wages new club would offer him due to him not worthy of an increase in wages what we are paying. He a deprecated asset in term of the balance sheet...

Ah potential wages being a liability. Makes sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top