Well that's salah and elliott ****ed so.
Maybe we can make 100mil off salah by selling up now.
Transfer Rumours Transfer Rumours thread
- Thread starter Bozz
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Well that's salah and elliott ****ed so.
Maybe we can make 100mil off salah by selling up now.
Liverpool have contacted the agent of Florian
Neuhaus for possible transfer.
Neuhaus for possible transfer.
- May 22, 2011
- 73,762
- 25,700
- 113
Barca brought in 3 freebies in aguero Garcia and delay now. Massive wages and signing on fees you’d imagine.. can see that will go down well with their 1billion debt.
How have they passed ffp?
How have they passed ffp?
Nobody.
Its depends when the financial year ends and when the ffp.is calculated.
Messi is basically off on a free so that covers all the wages.
It's about cash flow first and the balance sheet on one day second.
If they have lines of credit to pay the wages and move.money then they dont give a stuff about ffp.
City and Chelsea clearly dont either.
Is there not some relaxation of ffp rules for Covid? Thought there was?
Even so Barca are just digging their black hole of debit even deeper. Its all a gamble that other will buy the **** they don't want anymore, Coutinho Demebele etc, and that they start winning stuff again.
imo they'll be forced to sell their brightest talents, Fati and Pedri, to balance out the book in a year or so.
Pretty much what I was thinking. They let Suarez go last summer and, as you said, Messi is expected to leave this summer. The latter will free up wages but surely at a cost on the commercial side?
Has to be yeah.
But 500 or 600k per week is a lot for what he continues to bring in in goals and in commercial revenue surely.
Anyway, they'll probably throw 750k per week at him for another year.
- May 22, 2011
- 73,762
- 25,700
- 113
- May 22, 2011
- 73,762
- 25,700
- 113
Was a relaxation in ffp but they’re a billion in debt.
Sounds like trying to offload a few big players like dembele coutinho umtiti but moving them on for a price that’s going to make an effect on that debt is going to be tricky.
Sounds like trying to offload a few big players like dembele coutinho umtiti but moving them on for a price that’s going to make an effect on that debt is going to be tricky.
Spuds are a billion in debt, United are just under half a billion in debt, it doesn't affect the actual running of the clubs.
- May 22, 2011
- 73,762
- 25,700
- 113
What a stupid thing to say. Of course it does. Why are spurs struggling to find a manager? Because they have no money to spend because they’re in huge debt due to stadium and covid etc.
Barca are in huge debt and still owe money for transfers going back years, still owe 30m for coutinho and that was 4 years ago? Owe 112m to clubs in total.
Yes most clubs and business have debt, it’s how they grow, but more in debt, harder it can be to borrow to then invest in club as a whole. In December they failed to pay their players, not exactly a great place to be
Not stupid at all mate, you have given a clue as to why in your answer.
Oh, and spuds are not having manager problems because of wages, they just had Jose ffs
The question is whether the debt is sustainable or not. Bury would be a good example of how it can affect the running of the club. Barcelona not paying wages and scrabbling around for free transfers suggests that it's having an effect on the running of their club too.
They appointed Mourino prior to Covid .Not stupid at all mate, you have given a clue as to why in your answer.
Oh, and spuds are not having manager problems because of wages, they just had Jose ffs
It is patently obvious that "some clubs" are struggling with debt and some dont care as they have adequate cash flow to cover the repayments.
It's really that simple.
Spurs apparently cannot afford to spend money without sales as they are committed to pay the stadium debt out of available cash flow at least until the stadium can be full and generating revenue to pay for itself.
Barca are hawking round for free transfers. They seem to think they can pay the wages and that but dont have transfer cash. The messi think is another matter.
After that other clubs saddled with loads of debt can spend any time they like. Like chelsea having fake debt to Abramovich being converted to thin air, or utd having to pay the glaziers and their debt at the same time yet buy sancho for 75mil.
It's about cash imo.
Lfc can pay whatever this stadium cost is as its down its main stand and paying that back over 10 years to fsg, paid 50 for its training round itself and now can start the anfield road end for 60mil as it's all coming out of revenue over a long period. Imo fsg delayed the anfield road end until the training ground and covid was over (one decision after another) to avoid borrowing to do either.
Lfc do not have 50mil is cash, it's in one hand out the other so we can afford konate and anfield road end but any other buys will be funded through sales.
Simple enough.
This is why spurs simply cant buy players without selling but other clubs on an oil doping model will shovel.out 200mil of whatever
It's really that simple.
Spurs apparently cannot afford to spend money without sales as they are committed to pay the stadium debt out of available cash flow at least until the stadium can be full and generating revenue to pay for itself.
Barca are hawking round for free transfers. They seem to think they can pay the wages and that but dont have transfer cash. The messi think is another matter.
After that other clubs saddled with loads of debt can spend any time they like. Like chelsea having fake debt to Abramovich being converted to thin air, or utd having to pay the glaziers and their debt at the same time yet buy sancho for 75mil.
It's about cash imo.
Lfc can pay whatever this stadium cost is as its down its main stand and paying that back over 10 years to fsg, paid 50 for its training round itself and now can start the anfield road end for 60mil as it's all coming out of revenue over a long period. Imo fsg delayed the anfield road end until the training ground and covid was over (one decision after another) to avoid borrowing to do either.
Lfc do not have 50mil is cash, it's in one hand out the other so we can afford konate and anfield road end but any other buys will be funded through sales.
Simple enough.
This is why spurs simply cant buy players without selling but other clubs on an oil doping model will shovel.out 200mil of whatever
Every club has racked up operating losses during the pandemic. The bigger the club, the bigger the losses. It’s hardly rocket science. As if you’re losing circa £3m in revenue for every home game during the period, plus reduction in TV revenues at the start and sponsors wanting a claw back, then it is what it is, and clubs need to cover these losses, whether that be from cash reserves (rare), increased bank debt (most likely) or owner intervention.
The impact on player acquisition will depend on the club concerned. I keep explaining how this works from a fiscal perspective but it doesn’t seem to land. A club could spend £200m on players this window, on say 4 players, all on 5 year deals. The cost of this spend to their profit and loss account for the current year i.e. what ffp is based on, would be £40m in amortisation plus the wages, signing on fees & agents fees.
These costs would obvs be offset by any sales, both in terms of the wage bill, but also the amortisation. So for example, if the same club sold a player who was either a homegrown or had been at their club for longer than his initial contract length, then his balance sheet value would be £0. So if they sold him for say £20m, that £40m amortisation cost would be halved to £20m
Yet all you’d ever see in a scenario like that on SM and the like, is Club A spent £200m on players yano.
The impact on player acquisition will depend on the club concerned. I keep explaining how this works from a fiscal perspective but it doesn’t seem to land. A club could spend £200m on players this window, on say 4 players, all on 5 year deals. The cost of this spend to their profit and loss account for the current year i.e. what ffp is based on, would be £40m in amortisation plus the wages, signing on fees & agents fees.
These costs would obvs be offset by any sales, both in terms of the wage bill, but also the amortisation. So for example, if the same club sold a player who was either a homegrown or had been at their club for longer than his initial contract length, then his balance sheet value would be £0. So if they sold him for say £20m, that £40m amortisation cost would be halved to £20m
Yet all you’d ever see in a scenario like that on SM and the like, is Club A spent £200m on players yano.
That's fine, you are the man.
But theres a difference between cash flow and p&l right?
No cash flow = cant pay wages etc on the day they are due.
Cash flow can be managed by borrowing against guaranteed future income, which many clubs do during the summer, as the first Sky payment isn’t paid until the end of August iirc.