PIF and RB Sports & Media

[TheBrownBottle]

24 minutes ago, huss9 said:

i seemed to just have oversimplified it in my head and i bet a load of the media have too.

its a lot worse than people think.

There’s no rational reason for supporters to know this stuff - the media really should, and it shows how poorly served the sport is by the press (of which it has lots of people living off the back of it).  They continue to link us to players and never explain properly to supporters what the position is.  I wonder if they should start mentioning this stuff whenever a player signs a new deal, which might help.  For example, when Joelinton signed a new deal last season, it would have reduced his PSR amortised transfer fee book value from c.£8m to £2m per season - which is a canny reduction in the burden.  Those supporters who wanted to know would quickly get the hang of it. 

[80]

30 minutes ago, huss9 said:

i seemed to just have oversimplified it in my head and i bet a load of the media have too.

its a lot worse than people think.

Yeah, tons of people don't get it, which they can't really be blamed for (or pretend not to get it, in the media, which they can be blamed for...).

 

Which wouldn't necessarily be a problem, but it adds a lot of pressure to people at every level of a club e.g. Staveley, Howe, Mitchell. All the traditional options (i.e. transfer warchests) don't work the same way anymore, but people don't know.

[The College Dropout]

6 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Just to add to 80’s excellent summation and to point out how crackers it gets, if you’ve bought a player for a fee they will always have an amortised book value.  So if you take Lascelles who was signed 11 years ago for about £3.5m (from memory we paid £7m for him and Darlow), his fee will have been further divided or amortised with each new contract.  So Lascelles’ transfer from more than a decade ago will still have a PSR burden (though at this point it will be negligible - and amortisation across a new contract is still capped at five years, minus the ‘book value’ already deducted in the previous contract period).  This is why academy products are so valuable from a selling perspective, and why buying at high fees is so risky - the player will always have a book value as long as they’re at the club.  

 

Yep this is an example for KDB.

 

Extending contracts reduces the amortisation but that is often offset by increased wages. Most of our big signings are on their first NUFC contract or have likely doubled their wages like Bruno and Gordon.

 

Joelinton likely to have a smaller wage bump and had already amortised most of his fee iirc. Which is why if we had a £40m buyer for Big Joe, I would've taken it. A lot of profit in that. Similar amount maybe to selling Anderson (who tbh I never rated but looks a proper player now). Big Joe is still obviously the better player but he is at his maximum transfer value, his sell-on value is only going to decrease and his bigger wages are a hurdle to a sale. Economically it's better to move on the likes of Big Joe and keep your Anderson's. BUT big Joe is playing a big role in our CL push and is currently a better player so... yeh we're fucked one way or the other however you look at these things.

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by The College Dropout

[The College Dropout]

8 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

There’s no rational reason for supporters to know this stuff - the media really should, and it shows how poorly served the sport is by the press (of which it has lots of people living off the back of it).  They continue to link us to players and never explain properly to supporters what the position is.  I wonder if they should start mentioning this stuff whenever a player signs a new deal, which might help.  For example, when Joelinton signed a new deal last season, it would have reduced his PSR amortised transfer fee book value from c.£8m to £2m per season - which is a canny reduction in the burden.  Those supporters who wanted to know would quickly get the hang of it. 

There's also not a lot of transparency in football about wages and transfer fees which doesn't help.

[Paully]

57 minutes ago, 80 said:

That's why a number of us keep banging on about it - we're not just trying to be dickheads, it's the system 

 

In 21/22 we were paying for:

Trippier, Burn and Bruno

 

22/23

Trippier, Burn, Bruno, Isak, Botman, Pope and Targett

 

23/24

Trippier, Burn, Bruno, Isak, Botman, Pope, Targett, Livramento, Gordon, Tonali and Barnes

 

24/25

Trippier, Burn, Bruno, Isak, Botman, Pope, Targett, Livramento, Gordon, Tonali, Barnes, Hall, Vlachodimos, Osula and Kelly (wages/signing on fee) 

 

And that's not counting any other bits I've missed out, or anything from the Ashley years like Lascelles and ASM, as @TheBrownBottle said. So every time we talk about buying someone, that list gets longer.

 

It is crazy when you look at it like this!

[Nucasol]

2 minutes ago, Paully said:

 

It is crazy when you look at it like this!

It’s why turning breaking even on the Targetts of this world or getting lumpy profits on youth team products or the occasional purple is so key to refreshing the squad.

[huss9]

so when players we dont rate get their contracts renewed - its not neccessarily a bad thing.

[Jackie Broon]

47 minutes ago, 80 said:

That's why a number of us keep banging on about it - we're not just trying to be dickheads, it's the system 

 

In 21/22 we were paying for:

Trippier, Burn and Bruno

 

22/23

Trippier, Burn, Bruno, Isak, Botman, Pope and Targett

 

23/24

Trippier, Burn, Bruno, Isak, Botman, Pope, Targett, Livramento, Gordon, Tonali and Barnes

 

24/25

Trippier, Burn, Bruno, Isak, Botman, Pope, Targett, Livramento, Gordon, Tonali, Barnes, Hall, Vlachodimos, Osula and Kelly (wages/signing on fee) 

 

And that's not counting any other bits I've missed out, or anything from the Ashley years like Lascelles and ASM, as @TheBrownBottle said. So every time we talk about buying someone, that list gets longer.

 

That leaves out a few important factors, that other players included in our amortisation have become fully amortised in that time (Almiron, Joelinton in particular), that when new contracts are signed the amortisation is spread over the length of the new contract (up to 5 years) so, when contracts are extended it will usually significantly reduce amortisation cost for that player, and that when players are sold or released any profit/loss on their remaining amortisation goes straight into the accounts in full.

 

So in 21/22 our main amortisation costs were actually Trippier, Burn, Bruno, Joelinton, ASM, Wilson, Lewis, Willock, Gayle, Ritchie, Murphy and Dubravka all of which bar Trippier, Burn, Bruno are now effectively off the books and Bruno's yearly amortisation cost would have been roughly halved when he signed his new contract (although obviously his increased wags, signing on fees etc. will probably make up for that).

 

 

[huss9]

its a good job some of you nerds dont have lives, otherwise i would have been none the wiser.  

[MagCA]

18 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

It’s why turning breaking even on the Targetts of this world or getting lumpy profits on youth team products or the occasional purple is so key to refreshing the squad.

And why everybody, rightfully, has a price. 
 

Remember Eales getting slated for it last January but he was right. Have to become better sellers. 

[80]

41 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

That leaves out a few important factors, that other players included in our amortisation have become fully amortised in that time (Almiron, Joelinton in particular), that when new contracts are signed the amortisation is spread over the length of the new contract (up to 5 years) so, when contracts are extended it will usually significantly reduce amortisation cost for that player, and that when players are sold or released any profit/loss on their remaining amortisation goes straight into the accounts in full.

 

So in 21/22 our main amortisation costs were actually Trippier, Burn, Bruno, Joelinton, ASM, Wilson, Lewis, Willock, Gayle, Ritchie, Murphy and Dubravka all of which bar Trippier, Burn, Bruno are now effectively off the books and Bruno's yearly amortisation cost would have been roughly halved when he signed his new contract (although obviously his increased wags, signing on fees etc. will probably make up for that).

 

 

Yes, although this falls under the nitpicker clause I added to my first post  All this extra (totally accurate) stuff makes it harder for beginners to get the main idea of what's going on, that's part of why people hate the subject and switch off.

 

The average man in the street doesn't really care if a contract extension means the annual transfer PSR drops from £10m to £5m while the wages rise from £5m to £10m, meaning the player still costs £15m a year in PSR. It's true and important for some purposes, but largely irrelevant and confusing if it's not your cup of tea.

[80]

1 hour ago, huss9 said:

so when players we dont rate get their contracts renewed - its not neccessarily a bad thing.

It all depends on the individual circumstances, but potentially, yes. A stinker is still a stinker, though.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, huss9 said:

so when players we dont rate get their contracts renewed - its not neccessarily a bad thing.

Yeh it is - wages are still a cost.

 

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

That leaves out a few important factors, that other players included in our amortisation have become fully amortised in that time (Almiron, Joelinton in particular), that when new contracts are signed the amortisation is spread over the length of the new contract (up to 5 years) so, when contracts are extended it will usually significantly reduce amortisation cost for that player, and that when players are sold or released any profit/loss on their remaining amortisation goes straight into the accounts in full.

 

So in 21/22 our main amortisation costs were actually Trippier, Burn, Bruno, Joelinton, ASM, Wilson, Lewis, Willock, Gayle, Ritchie, Murphy and Dubravka all of which bar Trippier, Burn, Bruno are now effectively off the books and Bruno's yearly amortisation cost would have been roughly halved when he signed his new contract (although obviously his increased wags, signing on fees etc. will probably make up for that).

 

 

This doesn't happen. Joelinton and Miggy still have a amortisation cost. As does Bruno and the rest - it's just much less. For Bruno it's likely his cost now is similar to the season he signed because his wages have increased 75-100%.

 

The likes of Trippier, Bruno and Joelinton - while their amortisation has decreased, they are significant wage contributors. Likely 3 of our highest earners along with Gordon, Isak, Tonali..... and Kelly. Each of these will earn a minimum of £5m per year.

1 hour ago, huss9 said:

its a good job some of you nerds dont have lives, otherwise i would have been none the wiser.  

Aint nothing more important than the mula.

[Jackie Broon]

13 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Yeh it is - wages are still a cost.

 

This doesn't happen. Joelinton and Miggy still have a amortisation cost. As does Bruno and the rest - it's just much less. For Bruno it's likely his cost now is similar to the season he signed because his wages have increased 75-100%.

 

The likes of Trippier, Bruno and Joelinton - while their amortisation has decreased, they are significant wage contributors. Likely 3 of our highest earners along with Gordon, Isak, Tonali..... and Kelly. Each of these will earn a minimum of £5m per year.

Aint nothing more important than the mula.

 

What was it 80 said about nicpickers. 

 

Yes, I understand that there is always a continuing amortisation cost when a player signs a new contract before the end of their current contract, but for Joelinton and Miggy it will be so negligible it is not worth mentioning.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Jackie Broon

[80]

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

 

What was it 80 said about nicpickers. 

 

Yes, I understand that there is always a continuing amortisation cost when a player signs a new contract before the end of their current contract, but for Joelinton and Miggy it will negligible.

It's pretty easy to rip eachother to pieces on the details, which just makes the subject more off-putting

[The College Dropout]

6 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

What was it 80 said about nicpickers. 

 

Yes, I understand that there is always a continuing amortisation cost when a player signs a new contract before the end of their current contract, but for Joelinton and Miggy it will negligible.

You started the nitpicking with a statement that isn't true. Leading to more nitpicking.

 

80's summary and the KDB illustration covers it well enough.

[Jackie Broon]

[madras]

Someone mention a picnic ?

[Jackie Broon]

10 minutes ago, madras said:

Someone mention a picnic ?

 

A nitpicnic?

[madras]

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

 

A nitpicnic?

Plenty of nuts in there.

[gjohnson]

8 hours ago, macphisto said:

Is that the same Barclays who was involved in the libor scandal? So fair criticism of Staveley is her dealings with Barclays? Bizarre thing to bring up, only fair criticism is PSR but we have no idea if she was responsible and if she was who should she have not bought or sold? 

Once again, wasn't referencing her dealings with us which appear to be beyond reproach.

 

Just saying that people who are totally genuine don't get sucked in to law disputes with banks. Show me a clean billionaire, and I'll show you a liar. Christ we had the best example going with Ashley....no one gets that rich without screwing someone down the line

[MagCA]

Are my eyes deceiving me or is that PIF signage on the ad boards?

 

Hope we’re getting paid for that. 

[Hudson]

46 minutes ago, MagCA said:

Are my eyes deceiving me or is that PIF signage on the ad boards?

 

Hope we’re getting paid for that. 

Yeah It will have to be FMV approved as well.