If a number of clubs have concerns, then it could just be that we see avoiding them as a potential advantage over others if points deductions are being bandied about?
I'm sorry if I've come across as smug with this, I've actually tried to be helpful and educational, even posting a link to a relevant podcast that can inform others, but what he's claiming is simply wrong. The two scenarios listed in his link detail the treatment of the purchase price (which doesn't apply to KLP regardless as he was an Academy product). In one example a player is purchased on a five year contract of 100m (I'm making the figures up because round figures are easier to use) and in the third year the player is sold for 90m. In the first two years the club records an expense of 20m in each year (100m/5), in the third year the club records a profit of 70m (90m - 20m). In the second example the same player is purchased but the entire fee is expensed in the first year (100m) and in the third year a profit of 90m is recognised as there is no expense remaining. There is no suggestion of 'amortising the income' over the length of a contract that no longer exists.
There are plenty of resources which explain the nuts and bolts of it, but I haven't found a single source which includes every caveat or the local implementation guidance, which is why its so confusing. Some workarounds appear to be permissible, others, such as selling the stadium to yourself at a massively inflated value aren't.
Yes they've closed a lot of loopholes. Plenty still exist. That Price of Football podcast is a fun listen when people write in questions posing scenarios that could get around FFP that are apparently permissable. What would happen for instance if a club paid a player in fan tokens or crypto then used external influences to inflate that crypto price so the player actually got paid a lot more? Our owners seem to like crypto so who knows!
I still think it's possible for the owner to buy the stadium from the club, but tighter valuation guidelines now have to followed. Interesting point about crypto, being an emerging currency but surely there would need to be a conversion standard applied?
Theres still potential FFP benefit, but they can only book the actual/realistic value as opposed to a conveniently inflated one after the fact, as Derby attempted. They were amortising differently to all the rest of clubs also.
I think we're reading the same guidance. Neither example applies to selling an acedemy product we effectively got for free. In cases like this and other free transfers is the book value the value of his remaining contract or zero? There's nothing to ammortise once he's not under contract here I accept that, which is why I assume he's talking about the period of the payments as opposed to contract length. There will be a contract detailing how much of the fee is paid and when.
The idea that I didn't read it properly is ridiculous and insulting. And true. I should have become an accountant instead of a lion tamer.
It's about time we had a lion tamer on here. I wonder if you can help me, we recently bought a company lion and I'm wondering if I can claim the VAT back on the gazelles we're feeding him?
It has crossed my mind, that if income tax is less in Turkey, maybe it's possible to pay part of a player's salary there, say by his media company, for media work, which if it was done quietly, would help with FFP and the player play less tax?
Sadly not. However if you source the gazelles from the Eternal Springs region of Wakanda then you can amortise the cost and immortalise the lion. Hope that helps.
Either way it sounds like dead money. Problem is, the currency is made of vibranium. Its a lot harder to ammortise than other currencies
Not sure but it's like the fact City Group pay a lot of wages for senior staff not Manchester City directly, there must be things like that that are allowed and help for FFP purposes.
