bobloblaw

Wasn't sure where to put this, but guess it fits in here.

5 minutes ago, thomas said:

The bed ... it's so wet already

1 minute ago, POOT 2.0 said:

 

Sky

Keith 

Fab

To name a few more reliable. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd imagine "including" means the add ons are part of the 50m

Thought this was pretty cool.

30 minutes ago, gazza ladra said:

At what point — if at all — does that FFP kick in and it bites Chelsea / Man United in the ass? How can they afford to pay 200- 300 K a week to bit players? They’ve got the five subs now, which I suppose helps.

 

Answering my own question: they’ve create the rules (ffp, 5 subs) to consolidate their position. If the league starts to inconvenience them in the least, they’ll blow the whole thing up and f*ck off to the esl. Barcelona has already committed themselves. 15% of their future La Liga television rights is 15% of nothing. 

25% 

Thought this would fit best here...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1548917012021145606.html 

and

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/barcelona-sell-further-15-laliga-tv-rights-sixth-street-2022-07-22/

About barcelona spending.

EDIT: That values their la liga tv rights at $80m per year, which seems low?

32 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

Great post. So it's based on the length of contract rather than the payment schedule then? Interesting.

Yes, I was just wondering if there was something special that makes accounting for transfers under FFP different from general accounting rules.  It appears that there isn't, so the depreciation for the whole of the sale price would start from the beginning over the length of the contract.

1 minute ago, STM said:

 

Busy day transfer rumour wise eh.

You'd have been better off making this post in one word installments.

Just now, Abacus said:

It makes no real difference.

 

If you're committed to pay £10m, then it doesn't matter too much as to when you actually hand over the money.

 

So, it would be £10m over 5 years no matter how you structure the payments.

 

There are other benefits to paying later - like if you had to borrow the cash to pay upfront and got charged interest on that borrowing. That interest would affect FFP.

 

But assuming you don't need to borrow, no.

 

The other thing with paying up front is that you might get them cheaper to start with if the selling club needs cash. I.e. if you're paying up front, a club might be happier to sell for £9m rather than £10m in the first place.

That's what I figured, same as a business buying a new vehicle.  Pay up front or take out a loan, depreciation still starts right away.

5 minutes ago, Abacus said:

Yep. There are complications, of course, but basically that's right.

So the example is for a fully upfront payment.  If you pay in installments, does that change things?  Buy a player for 10million over five years, pay 5 the first year then 5 the second.  Is it 10m depreciated over 5 years, or 5m depreciated over 5, and 5m depreciated over the remaining 4 years?

This bit accurate?

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php 

3. Transfer Fees

An important part of the rules relates to the way that player transfers have to be accounted for. Although a club will often pay a transfer fee to another club immediately, from a Break Even perspective the financial cost of acquiring a player has to be written-off over the duration of the contract. We need an example: let's assume Torres was signed for £50m on a 5 year contract and that Chelsea paid Liverpool £50m via an immediate bank transfer. As far as the Profit & Loss section of accounts is concerned (and the Break Even test), Torres' purchase price would be depreciated (or amortised) evenly over the 5 years of the contract. So, during the first 12 months, only £10m would be incurred as a cost in the accounts and Torres would end the year with a 'book value' of £40m. After 5 years, Torres' contract would have ended and he would be free to leave the club (he would also have a book value of zero). If the club sells Torres part way-through the contract, the club the difference between the amount they receive for the player and the book value at the date of the sale is accounted for immediately in the accounts (and the Break Even test) as a 'loss/profit on player trading'. This is important as it explains how a club can sell a player for below the original purchase price and still record a profit in the accounts during the year of sale. If Liverpool sell Andy Carroll for anything above £18m in the summer, they will record the difference as a profit on player sales during 2013/14. If we assume that Falcao comes to Chelsea for £50m on a 5 year deal in the summer, the club's P&L account for the year will only include £10m as an expense (under the heading 'amortisation'). The club will also, of course, have to include the player wages as an expense in the Profit & Loss account. If  you want to know more about 'amortisation', see the video at the foot of this page.

14 minutes ago, RodneyCisse said:

I think Schar and Botman spraying balls about sounds like a dream.

1 minute ago, Groundhog63 said:

Tbf it's the Albanians do that around here not the Saudis ?

 Mostly meth dealers around here 

21 minutes ago, Ed210 said:

I see the PIF are buying a £200m stake in Aston Martin. Would be a canny shirt sponsor. 

Car washing too, when will they stop?!

30 minutes ago, Gawalls said:

I agree with every word you said - was just checking that the people that are saying trust in howe so Hugo must be good aren’t the same people who were slagging wood off.

There is probably some degree of wiggle room between trusting someone, and thinking they are infallible. 

On 12/05/2022 at 07:37, gjohnson said:

Can open.....worms everywhere

Nah, it's the best. First video is context for the 3rd part of the second video (the Iowa wave) that's for the team I support and where I went to school.  

On 05/05/2022 at 12:26, Optimistic Nut said:

Might sound bad but I’m guessing any Russian players bought would pay tax to the Russian government? It’s a massive hornet’s nest.

Doubt that.  The US is one very few countries that collect taxes on foreign earnings of citizens living abroad.

12 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

 

 

The existence of those ‘fans’ are why local sporting institutions like football clubs now sell for stupid money.  To most supporters who actually attend, ‘fan experiences’, shiny merchandise, etc are utterly meaningless because the pleasure comes from a tribal sense of togetherness, not because the club shop has shiny trinkets.  Some of the best fan ‘experiences’ I’ve had have been in crumbling shitholes.  Some of the worst in shiny superdomes.  You’re in the place for a couple of hours, the vast majority of which is spent staring at a green rectangle.  I’ve rarely been arsed about the fact that the half time bar is decked out to the standards normally reserved for upmarket restaurants. 

The tribal thing is why clubs in English football’s fourth tier can pull five-figure attendances.  That’s how several clubs who have literally won nowt - ever - and don’t even have large supporter bases (Watford, Palace, Brentford etc) can be in the ‘majors’ whilst huge clubs with great histories and sizeable catchment areas can languish outside of it.  The US is so culturally different, yet because it is anglophone many assume it is somehow more alike.  I’d no sooner want to adopt the US sports model in the UK than I’d expect to tell the average American how they should change their sporting institutions.  I fundamentally don’t understand it, and it isn’t really any of my business. 

 

 

This is why college football is the best US sport.

2 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

 

It was dull because nobody in the audience seemed particularly interested. People spent most of the game wandering back and forth for food and drink. If somebody does that at SJP other than half time they are rightly viewed as a dickhead. I've never once been to a football match where people did that en masse.

 

Sport lives and dies as an entertainment, both live and on TV, by the stakes at play and the atmosphere in the crowd. Otherwise it is just athletic people with very good motor skills. Which is dull in my opinion. You may disagree.

 

For what it's worth the NBA playoffs can be extremely entertaining and I think basketball at its core is a good game - particularly when the teams are closely matched.

So the NBA as a live experience is poor because some people wanted to get their kids a hot dog.  Nothing to do with the product on the court.

1 minute ago, Kanji said:

I’m just wondering why you have such strong opinions about live sport fan experience in the US but have this opinion based on what you’ve seen on TV and I don’t exactly know what is irking you Sewelly. Its just a genuine question.

My favorite is the one who went to a live NBA game and was just meh.  Live NBA is the peak of "holy shit these guys are athletic freaks'."

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

1. I've seen enough on T.V and experienced enough live football matches lurching towards that to know I don't like it. 2. Why do you all get so defensive about it? We're allowed to not like things.

 

 

 

1. Oh my.

2. Probably hubris.

1 minute ago, ponsaelius said:

 

Football is definitely not dying. Quite the opposite.

 

But most of the things bad about it, which would justify such a point, are a direct result of it becoming more like US sports.

What does that even mean?

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

This is exactly it though, a lot of the things you do well many people don't like or want, and consider them as things that would worsen the game and what it means to them to be a football fan. 

Great.  I've seen a lot of posts from people here talking about how football is dying, and issues with the game.  I've never seen posts like that on NFL, MLB, or NBA forums i frequent.