Not that you'll ever been in a position to put that into a perspective that is tangible. I can assure you that taking a £20m hit on an intangible asset after 24 months of poor returns.......would definitely feel like a "bullet in the face" if it was YOUR money.
Does he count as an intangible asset? I'm fairly certain he's not a ghost, although in several games it was like he wasn't there...
All players are classed as intangible assets mate, albeit, as you say, some appear to suit the tag better than others. He was a donkey buy, and he's gone on to be another donkey buy for the Spammers, lol.
Fair enough. I would have thought they counted as tangible assets, being tangible and all, but I've never looked into it. A big waste of money he was, but he did have at least one good moment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl5jTQRk4bg
OK so Bilyaletdinov was a "bullet in the face" for Everton suffering the same relative devaluation rate I guess Kroldrup would be a "grenade in the mouth"
just on players.. as human beings and something you can't line up and count and then sell at the end of their contract or for example if a club goes bust they are intangible. they have a value that is depreciated though, only if you spent money to get in. so a joe cole free transfer is not on the intangible assets (i think) unless the signing on fee goes there. he was the donk to me and always will be. seems to be a lovable rogue like the big dumb lump in crocodile dundee movies... useless lump but everyone says hes a nice lad... sorry lads but i'm on tobes side.. terrible buy
For a start off, we've got **** all to do with the discussion, but seeing as you brought it up, we lost £4m on Billy and £1.5m on Kroldrup.... You spunked over 5x that on the mule in question and Downing
He'd still be an intangible asset but just one with no attributed book value. As he could be sold for a profit.
Not sure what you mean? If you sign a player on a 4yr deal for £10m, you amortize his value @ £2.5m per annum over the 4 years. If he signs a new deal and stays beyond the 4 years, his asset value is £0 on the balance sheet, but he's still an intangible asset as he could be sold for a fee.
yes i guess what i mean is all registered players would be on a list of in tangible assets. including say a 17 year old whos just signed a contract. then what you say about the book value would be true i just wanted to be clear on it'd be all registered players
Yes. Homegrowns are still intangible assets, but have a book value of zero. So Barkley is on our balance sheet at £0, despite having a real world value of £10's of £m's. All it means in reality is football club balance sheets aren't worth a toss in the main.
£1.5m for 1 appearance and ~50% loss on Bilyaletdinov are comparable failures considering the relative sizes of the clubs We make £20m losses but we make £20m profits also
and here it is folks.... the CORE OF THE ISSUE.... jealously... for the amount matters naught to LFC but it burns tobes right up to think of the 35million loss LFC made on downing and carroll (despite a league cup trophy and fa cup final) as 35mil would buy everton 4/5 players as they have to laon in good players to keep going. right now LFC are gleefully pissing another 35mil up against a wall not really caring on the likes of lallana and lovern and even origi and remy as frankly all of them could bench warm unless they win respective battles with Henderson,sterling and markovic. I don't know why you lads bother cos i just have a quiet smile reading this stuff..... but i can still admit LFC were nuts to ever buy carroll as I was angry when we did 30mil lets alone go back in with an extra 5 mil on the day... comolli got and deserved the sack over it and i for one believe its not incompetence but this lesson that stops LFC meeting every asking price out there... if we met remy and can's buy out clauses yet then seemingly spunk at least 5mil over value on lallana and lovern the question must be according to who?
