Colos Short and Curlies

Deffo one for the milf thread

Big Joe wearing kids shorts?

rather have him on the pitch than in a factory

Lies, it was delayed by an hour

You're forgetting about a certain team in black and white (or Saudi green and white)

or it just forces more money into the game through ensuring that stadia are sponsored.

He's an artist now

Not really, You only start depreciating (i.e. allocating a cost into the accounts) once the building is complete. So unless UEFAs FFP relate to timing of cash payments rather than established and recognised accounting rules it would be tricky to work it that way. As Unbelievable points out any stadium or training facility spend would be spread over a long period of time so you could look at other ways of bringing costs forward to create the same impact - writing down contract values would put a lot of cost in the current year should we wish to as even modest £20k a week gives you £1m of cost per year of contract write down. Its a nil sum game though, over a 3 year period it would even out so only of benefit if we are very confident of significant increased revenue. Edit - another option is of course to get the training ground sponsored. Nobody is going to be able to argue that £4m a year is not market rate for sponsorship, put a 20 year deal in place and you cover the cost and get around FFP I'd personally be lumping as much into this years accounts that relate to Ashley's time here, write down contracts, accrue for early termination fees etc and do a mega friendly in Saudi just after the World Cup that magically has the same value as these write downs. I'd also be looking at how much of the training ground could be classed as land as this is not depreciated so theoretically no cost ever in the accounts for it.

I do like how footballers are on the Australian key skills list for visas.

always thought Maximo Park were from Smoggieville

Darlow on loan / low fee to Burnely wouldn't be the worst move for all involved now

I have a funny feeling that West Ham will regress this year. The aim has to be 4th. Realistically its 6/7 but we need to be able to take advantage of any slip from Arsenal/Spurs/Chelsea/Man Utd and history suggests that there will always be 1 or 2 from the expected top 6 that have below par seasons

My favourite little quirk with Ben Arfa was the way he would absolutely thunderbastard it from close range, literally hit it as hard as you can after a dainty little run. Would still take him for next season as a squad option ahead of Fraser or Murphy

It is language, there is no ‘loan with an obligation to buy’, there is (a) a loan and then (b) a second transaction which is the purchase. They are not linked contractually. there are non financial reasons for doing this as well as FFP - insurance, recovery costs from injuries etc. for this discussion the upshot is that the purchase only shows on the accounts when it’s made, not when the loan starts

it’s not, they are 2 different transactions. the loan is an operating expense in the year. The obligation to buy at most would be a provision with an equal asset on the book, but overall probably ignored on grounds of materiality as there is no profit impact. im surprised (or maybe not) that FFP hasn’t added a clause to deal with them but accounting wise it’s pretty clean to deal with edit actually it would probably be a future obligation disclosure rather than a provision, so just a note to say it will happen rather than recognising it

I don’t see what you can do with extending contracts, amortisation rules are on the initial contract length

correct

You get into technicalities a bit bit a transfer fee is for the purchase of a registration, not the actual player. The loan is simply a payment to allow you to use the registration for a period of time, so in substance the obligation makes it feel like a purchase, technically (and that’s what counts) it’s not. if we really wanted to screw with FFP for this year we’d look to structure a deal at £10m upfront and £50m (or whatever) payable only when we sell the player / renew the contract. there is no obligation until that point so it would only be the £10m that counts. and who says accountants are boring!

there’s a 3 year period for losses, but to get to the loss in any one year the value of the transfer is spread over the initial contract length - could be 1, 3, 5 years whatever. one point on this is that as everyone is doing it for seemingly every transfer it’s soon going to be a redundant thing to do anyway in managing costs. Adding loads of clauses in lots of ways is just smoke and mirrors to maintain an image that fees are continuing to go up, most of them will never be paid

yes, the £10m becomes relevant when we qualify for Europe and is spread over the remaining contract length. if it’s after the initial contract period then you take the hit in one year

It’s the structure on incentives (£xm after winning the champions league etc) and initial loan that assists with FFP, not over what period you physically hand over cash for the fee.

completely wrong. It’s how much you are obliged to pay spread over the initial contract period that counts. When cash changes hands makes no difference. incentives make a difference as they only become relevant if the targets are met. a loan with obligation makes a difference as you are adding a year to the calculation and only the loan fee counts in year 1

Wouldn't worry, it will fuck up his marketing algorithms

A competitive pre-season such as getting to the final of the inter-toto would help as well.

He knows the teams, knows medicals have been booked but is light on transfer specifics. Ando works in the medical/fitness team at the club. also think he is called Andrew or surname is Anderson hes no golfmag mind