Can't say I'm too fussed about whether the money is up front or not. With FFP, getting it up front means we have to pay out upfront too. Getting it installments means we pay in installments. Not fussed which way it goes so long as they pay. PS...hows it work with FFP if debtors don't pay? Does the club still get punished despite it not being their fault?
Either we keep a world class player or we get a world class fee #winwin I actually like Everton to do well, it's only when confronted with the relentless boring hatred of #bitters like you than I entertain thoughts of you failing
**** that, we're not DFS getting rid of a discontinued line of sofas and having to offer interest-free credit. £75m up front, or £90m if paying by instalments, with humungous great penalties for missing/late payments. What's all this drivel about appearances and so forth? Do people know something about the otherwise injury-free Suarez aggravating the simple knee condition he had by trying to play too early in the WC? If so, why aren't the lawyers putting a ****ing great legal shotgun to the head of the Uruguayan FA and/or the player himself? As previously stated, we don't need to sell, and, as with last season, we need to set a standard and put out a message that we'll only do business on our terms. Don't ****ing back down now, or every club in Europe will see us as pussycats.
It would be good to. But it is obvious that Suarez wants to leave and that we want to sell him. I think getting £70m cash is a very good deal. We could do a lot with this amount and we wouldn't have a key player missing for so many matches. I doubt we will get much more than that. It is better to settle the deal quickly and get moving to get the players we want.
I think you'll find that not paying your footballing debts (such as staged payments) provokes and even more stringent penalty that an over-spen in terms of FFP. Buy you'd need to check that out.
Deals of this size are very rarely done in 'cash' mate. Payments being spread over the contract length is standard across Europe and when you're re-investing the cash you'll be paying in a similar manner. Players contracts are amortised over their length anyway, so in terms of the internal 'cost' that hits the annual accounts it makes no difference to anything other than cashflow, which you negate by agreeing deals that pay out in the same or similar timeframe.
true, i see absolutely no issue to get uptight about here. its all a question of the accounts and while its not cash its s going to fall under fixed assets on the balance sheet . for example intangible fixed assets Cost of player registrations = up front paid in period Amortisation of player registrations = what you will get in the period for past transfers. and the for barca the would amorise the player registration over the period of contract in thier operating expenses on cash flow and mark us as ceditor on balance shhet.
That's fine if everyone agrees to play by the same rules but there's already been possible problems It was reported that Lovren was not even informed about our £20m offer to meet his release clause just because it would not be all cash If other clubs are going to be bitches and make this kind of distinction then we need all or almost all of the Suarez money right now This especially applies to clubs being invesigated for financial irregularities
