Sven Botman: targeting January return (Howe)

[healthyaddiction]

18 minutes ago, jonny1403 said:

Completely wrong. Any instalments not paid this year will only count towards FFP in the season they are ultimately paid, so it obviously makes sense to push back as much of the transfer fee as possible so that we only have to worry about that in future windows. 

But the price you pay is spread over the length of the contract for ffp regardless as to when you pay it. 

[Ben]

Paying the transfer fee over the duration of the contract makes so much sense, love @Milanistaposts btw

[TheBrownBottle]

24 minutes ago, jonny1403 said:

Completely wrong. Any instalments not paid this year will only count towards FFP in the season they are ultimately paid, so it obviously makes sense to push back as much of the transfer fee as possible so that we only have to worry about that in future windows. 

It's amortised, so it doesn't matter if you have a 100m transfer with the player on a five year contract and you've agreed to pay 10m upfront and 90m the year after - it is 20m each year over the five years which counts towards FFP

[Colos Short and Curlies]

8 minutes ago, jonny1403 said:

Completely wrong. Any instalments not paid this year will only count towards FFP in the season they are ultimately paid, so it obviously makes sense to push back as much of the transfer fee as possible so that we only have to worry about that in future windows. 

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

[simonsays]

If it makes no difference why is it being reported that the club are trying to structure deals in such a way to assist with FFP?  Is it just poor reporting?  Im not having a go at anyone, im just trying to get my head round it.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

10 minutes ago, simonsays said:

If it makes no difference why is it being reported that the club are trying to structure deals in such a way to assist with FFP?  Is it just poor reporting?  Im not having a go at anyone, im just trying to get my head round it.

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. 

[simonsays]

Also, how do the clauses contribute to ffp?  If we have a clause that Riems get an extra 10m if we qualify for Europe does that amount only get taken into accounting terms once that condition is met?  Im sure there are lots of clever accounting tricks that can be used in order to circumvent the ffp rules - the fact that all our proposed deals are widely reported to be very complicated structurally suggests that we are attempting to use all of these methods

[Hanshithispantz]

Yous are all wrong. FFP works in a finantially sequential way that amortises the net gains over a 3 year injunction only if it satisfies the regulations in the OFR handbook, which states that all costs must equate to note 7 of the FET regulations, "any sum paid is divided by the total cost over 476 days of a rebundand integer". In layman's terms, whatever we pay now gets rounded up to the nearest permutational number, and is squared by the total length of the contract, then amortised by 3 years. We could use the leap year loophole to essentially half our FFP impact per transaction though, Liverpool did it last year when the signed Diaz.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Hanshithispantz

[simonsays]

1 minute ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

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. 

That males more sense, ta!

[Colos Short and Curlies]

5 minutes ago, simonsays said:

Also, how do the clauses contribute to ffp?  If we have a clause that Riems get an extra 10m if we qualify for Europe does that amount only get taken into accounting terms once that condition is met?  Im sure there are lots of clever accounting tricks that can be used in order to circumvent the ffp rules - the fact that all our proposed deals are widely reported to be very complicated structurally suggests that we are attempting to use all of these methods

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

[Happinesstan]

2 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It's amortised, so it doesn't matter if you have a 100m transfer with the player on a five year contract and you've agreed to pay 10m upfront and 90m the year after - it is 20m each year over the five years which counts towards FFP

FFP is 3 years, isn't it?

[Colos Short and Curlies]

19 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

FFP is 3 years, isn't it?

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

[Abacus]

Well, the benefit of adding clauses is that it can match your spend to your success. To take that example, if a fee goes up by £10m because you finish in Europe, you'll also have the money coming in from Europe to help offset that £10m.

 

Likewise, if you're higher profile because of it, you might start to get more lucrative commercial deals at that point, to offset these clauses kicking in.

 

So it sort of does work from a genuine financial management point of view as well.

 

The loan deals are interesting. I totally follow them with an option to buy - you haven't triggered the purchase (or incurred the cost) until you exercise that option, so until you do, the only cost should be the loan deal.

 

Loan with an obligation to buy sounds a bit odder - but maybe that's just how they're described. I'm guessing the obligation can only be triggered if certain conditions are met, like X number of starts. Otherwise, if there are no conditions, it's really just a purchase on day 1 in all but name.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Abacus

[Keegans Export]

6 minutes ago, Abacus said:

 

The loan deals are interesting. I totally follow them with an option to buy - you haven't triggered the purchase (or incurred the cost) until you exercise that option, so until you do, the only cost should be the loan deal.

 

Loan with an obligation to buy sounds a bit odder - but maybe that's just how they're described. I'm guessing the obligation can only be triggered if certain conditions are met, like X number of starts. Otherwise, if there are no conditions, it's really just a purchase on day 1 in all but name.

 

That's exactly what it is, but from a FFP perspective it ties in with your first point. 

 

If we bring in a player on a loan + obligation to buy deal this summer who we think will help propel us up to 7th/8th, you would be pushing the fee one year down the line where you would expect your commercial income (and prize money) to be higher as a result of performing better in the league. So the transfer fee is still the same amount, but you're pushing it into a year where you expect your income to go up too and therefore the impact on FFP is reduced because your income has gone up by the time you start adding the transfer fee to the FFP calculation.

 

I think I've done a terrible job of explaining that.

[The Prophet]

When we finally agree a fee for Botman...

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by The Prophet

[Colos Short and Curlies]

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!

[Nun tumblers]

16 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

When we finally agree a fee for Botman...

 

 

 

 

 

[Happinesstan]

54 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

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

Yeah. So if we sign somebody on a 3 year contract the full value will impact on FFP, within the three years, but a 5 year contract gives us a bit more wiggle room. Would that be right?

[Nun tumblers]

 

Sooner he fucks off to AC the better I'm sick to death of it now.

[Happinesstan]

It sounds to me that we're most likely trying to minimise our initial fees. It seems small change but does support the idea that we are doing things within the rules. Might make getting our targets a little more convoluted, but we appear to have started early so there is no stress.

I'd like to think we're playing it tight with Botman and Ekitike because we need to in order to secure our bigger target.

[Broadsword]

4 hours ago, jonny1403 said:

Completely wrong. Any instalments not paid this year will only count towards FFP in the season they are ultimately paid, so it obviously makes sense to push back as much of the transfer fee as possible so that we only have to worry about that in future windows. 

You are incorrect on this, the total fee inc and probable extras gets split over the contract term.  Adding a loan period upfront would delay the start of  the contract term however.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

15 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

Yeah. So if we sign somebody on a 3 year contract the full value will impact on FFP, within the three years, but a 5 year contract gives us a bit more wiggle room. Would that be right?

correct

[TheBrownBottle]

38 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

That's exactly what it is, but from a FFP perspective it ties in with your first point. 

 

If we bring in a player on a loan + obligation to buy deal this summer who we think will help propel us up to 7th/8th, you would be pushing the fee one year down the line where you would expect your commercial income (and prize money) to be higher as a result of performing better in the league. So the transfer fee is still the same amount, but you're pushing it into a year where you expect your income to go up too and therefore the impact on FFP is reduced because your income has gone up by the time you start adding the transfer fee to the FFP calculation.

 

I think I've done a terrible job of explaining that.

I reckon that’s pretty well explained tbf

[hakka]

13 minutes ago, Nun tumblers said:

 

Sooner he fucks off to AC the better I'm sick to death of it now.

 

Over a decade of neglect and pain from during Ashley era, yet you're sick to death of this transfer taking longer than you'd like?

[Rich]

It's not just us with this shite, thankfully, and it's actually better here than the other places I've scoped out this week.

 

Plenty of West Ham fans are going fucking mental over Aguerd, because it's taken "six weeks" from when it was first mooted (I don't think our supposed attempt at a hijack helped things, mind), and a load of Man Utd fans are the same about anybody that goes anywhere else that they think they should've been in for.

 

It's a people thing, not a NUFC thing, though I appreciate it still makes for difficult reading.

 

I reckon he'll be here for his medical within the next 10 days, it has to come to a head sooner or later and there's no way Milan will pay what Lille want.