Jump to content

Sven Botman: targeting January return (Howe)


The Prophet

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:


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

 

 

 

My whole point was, if there is a genuine obligation to buy, they're not treated as 2 separate transactions. You'd add the loan fee to the permanent fee, treat the whole thing as a sale, and write the whole lot off equally over the same period. I.e. it does nothing for FFP.

 

To treat it as you suggest, you would need to demonstrate that the loan part is genuinely that, different from the permanent part, and that there is a realistic prospect you can and might back out of the purchase part. 

 

In which case, the substance of that is that it's actually a loan with an option to buy. Meaning, I don't see what this term being used "loan with obligation to buy" really means.

 

Anyway. Might be wrong, could just be loose journalistic language, but happy to leave it there.

 

After all, I'm no football manager, so I'm all for sensible soccer chat instead.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Abacus said:

My whole point was, if there is a genuine obligation to buy, they're not treated as 2 separate transactions. You'd add the loan fee to the permanent fee, treat the whole thing as a sale, and write the whole lot off equally over the same period. I.e. it does nothing for FFP.

 

To treat it as you suggest, you would need to demonstrate that the loan part is genuinely that, different from the permanent part, and that there is a realistic prospect you can and might back out of the purchase part. 

 

In which case, the substance of that is that it's actually a loan with an option to buy. Meaning, I don't see what this term being used "loan with obligation to buy" really means.

 

Anyway. Might be wrong, could just be loose journalistic language, but happy to leave it there.

 

After all, I'm no football manager, so I'm all for sensible soccer chat instead.

 

 


:scared:

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Abacus said:

My whole point was, if there is a genuine obligation to buy, they're not treated as 2 separate transactions. You'd add the loan fee to the permanent fee, treat the whole thing as a sale, and write the whole lot off equally over the same period. I.e. it does nothing for FFP.

 

To treat it as you suggest, you would need to demonstrate that the loan part is genuinely that, different from the permanent part, and that there is a realistic prospect you can and might back out of the purchase part. 

 

In which case, the substance of that is that it's actually a loan with an option to buy. Meaning, I don't see what this term being used "loan with obligation to buy" really means.

 

Anyway. Might be wrong, could just be loose journalistic language, but happy to leave it there.

 

After all, I'm no football manager, so I'm all for sensible soccer chat instead.

 

 


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

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:


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

Right, so it's a meaningless term as I was trying to say. 

 

Honestly, it's hard to think how I could have had a better Saturday afternoon not only entertaining myself but everyone else, no doubt including the whole Botman family.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Geordie_once_removed said:

Just how left sided is he? Personally I'd prefer someone to replace Schar over replacing Burn. Burn and Targett struck up a really good understanding and Schar is quite injury prone. So I'd rather we spent big on a right sided centerback this window and a left sided next window.

 

Not sure but I heard he was a massive Jeremy Corbyn fan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

Keep coming back to this thread hoping there’ll be a twitter link posted that isn’t complete bullshit ?

At this point 100 pages and no real info in it - we’re just scraping the Botman of the barrel now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Milan fans are in complete meltdown, they are convinced Maldini will not renew, that our new owners are preventing us from completing the moves that were agreed 6 months ago, and that we are the verge of collapse.

 

Enjoy the schadenfreude.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Milanista said:

Milan fans are in complete meltdown, they are convinced Maldini will not renew, that our new owners are preventing us from completing the moves that were agreed 6 months ago, and that we are the verge of collapse.

 

Enjoy the schadenfreude.

It’s a time for patience. As you tell from your visits here too, not a quality that sits easily with true passion for a team. 
Spero che funzioni bene per te ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Milanista said:

Milan fans are in complete meltdown, they are convinced Maldini will not renew, that our new owners are preventing us from completing the moves that were agreed 6 months ago, and that we are the verge of collapse.

 

Enjoy the schadenfreude.

?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...