Jump to content

Sven Botman


The Prophet
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, TRon said:

 

 

I think Howe himself would be worried if we started next season with the same squad.

True.

 

It’s only 17th June. If Botman doesn’t sign I am sure we will move onto our second choice. For once, I trust the manager and club to be competent 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gavin400 said:

True.

 

It’s only 17th June. If Botman doesn’t sign I am sure we will move onto our second choice. For once, I trust the manager and club to be competent 👍

 

 

Well that depends if the second choice signs for someone else while we are hanging about waiting for the go ahead from Botman. But the club will obviously try to get their first choice as long as we believe it's doable. I still think we'll sign Botman FWIW, I think if Milan were realistic buyers he'd have told us no thanks by now. Seems like the only way he goes there is if his club accept a worse deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how similar our fanbases are reacting to the Botman transfer, although there is much more certainty among Milan fans that Botman wants to come to Milan.

 

There is a panic starting among Milan fans as Maldini's contract ends June 30th, and he gave this big interview where he said that it was disrespectful that he wasn't in talks over a renewal (this was during Milan being sold, and the takeover negotiations) and how Milan were at a cross-roads, where either they push to be truly elite by bringing in 2-3 players or they stay as they are and hover as a domestic force and that's it.

 

The new owner, the day he acquired Milan, talked about how Maldini is central to his plans, he had a meeting, picture with him and Maldini smiling was sent out, but no contract extension. So now Milan fans are getting nervous and some are truly anxious, because none of our transfer targets, even our free ones (Origi) have been made official yet.

 

Maldini signing up for the new ownership would be an endorsement of the new owner's vision, which is a domineering Milan. I personally think Maldini is at work and chances are he's signed a new contract, but the fact that deals haven't been closed, and journalists (not the reputable ones) have thrown out wild theories, it is causing tremendous doubt among fans.

 

Many Milan fans are of the opinion that we don't have as much money as we thought we did, and that the reason the deals aren't closing is because we are destitute. This narrative goes against all facts and financial realities of our hedge fund owners, but it seems like the scars of Ashley have impacted Newcastle fans, the scars of our previous years of folly have left traumatized people unable to grasp that things are getting better lol. So we are very similar.

 

I'm not sure what the issue is, but it's funny how Newcastle, who most certainly have money, aren't closing deals yourselves, to me, it just shows that there are lots of things going on, and I bet that 99/100 the things that are reported are not the issues. It's probably far more mundane and less sexy issues like negotiating strategy, taxes, accountants, lawyers, and other mundane office stuff that holds things up--anyway, just thought I'd update you on Milan's side of the Botman saga.

 

I mean, outside of Darwin and Haaland, it's still early, and too early to freak out over deals. I guess I'm just reassured that you guys are as antsy as we are. Hope you all are well!

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Milanista said:

It's funny how similar our fanbases are reacting to the Botman transfer, although there is much more certainty among Milan fans that Botman wants to come to Milan.

 

There is a panic starting among Milan fans as Maldini's contract ends June 30th, and he gave this big interview where he said that it was disrespectful that he wasn't in talks over a renewal (this was during Milan being sold, and the takeover negotiations) and how Milan were at a cross-roads, where either they push to be truly elite by bringing in 2-3 players or they stay as they are and hover as a domestic force and that's it.

 

The new owner, the day he acquired Milan, talked about how Maldini is central to his plans, he had a meeting, picture with him and Maldini smiling was sent out, but no contract extension. So now Milan fans are getting nervous and some are truly anxious, because none of our transfer targets, even our free ones (Origi) have been made official yet.

 

Maldini signing up for the new ownership would be an endorsement of the new owner's vision, which is a domineering Milan. I personally think Maldini is at work and chances are he's signed a new contract, but the fact that deals haven't been closed, and journalists (not the reputable ones) have thrown out wild theories, it is causing tremendous doubt among fans.

 

Many Milan fans are of the opinion that we don't have as much money as we thought we did, and that the reason the deals aren't closing is because we are destitute. This narrative goes against all facts and financial realities of our hedge fund owners, but it seems like the scars of Ashley have impacted Newcastle fans, the scars of our previous years of folly have left traumatized people unable to grasp that things are getting better lol. So we are very similar.

 

I'm not sure what the issue is, but it's funny how Newcastle, who most certainly have money, aren't closing deals yourselves, to me, it just shows that there are lots of things going on, and I bet that 99/100 the things that are reported are not the issues. It's probably far more mundane and less sexy issues like negotiating strategy, taxes, accountants, lawyers, and other mundane office stuff that holds things up--anyway, just thought I'd update you on Milan's side of the Botman saga.

 

I mean, outside of Darwin and Haaland, it's still early, and too early to freak out over deals. I guess I'm just reassured that you guys are as antsy as we are. Hope you all are well!


With us I think the way that we are looking to structure deals is what’s delaying things. We have the money to spend, but don’t want to spunk a huge amount in one window so are looking to structure deals over a number of years to comply with FFP. Clubs aren’t going to want to sell their best players if they’re getting £10m now and therefore unable to use any fee received on their side immediately. 
 

I am confident we will get some top players in. Ashworth is clearly no mug and you’ve got think, a lot of players, agent and coaches etc will be on holiday at the minute.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also we have to convince players to come here, it won’t be an instant yes like Madrid or Milan. Many of them will need to choose us ahead of a (currently) more traditionally attractive options.

 

 

Edited by AyeDubbleYoo

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Danh1 said:


With us I think the way that we are looking to structure deals is what’s delaying things. We have the money to spend, but don’t want to spunk a huge amount in one window so are looking to structure deals over a number of years to comply with FFP. Clubs aren’t going to want to sell their best players if they’re getting £10m now and therefore unable to use any fee received on their side immediately. 
 

I am confident we will get some top players in. Ashworth is clearly no mug and you’ve got think, a lot of players, agent and coaches etc will be on holiday at the minute.

 

 

I thought how you pay is irrelevant to FFP? So spreading payments over 5 years or one lump sum is considered one and the same when calculating profit/loss?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah whether you pay all up front or in instalments over time makes no difference to FFP.

 

 

Edited by Teasy

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

 

I thought how you pay is irrelevant to FFP? So spreading payments over 5 years or one lump sum is considered one and the same when calculating profit/loss?

 

Amortisation. 25m lump sum paid in one calendar year is different from 5m per year for 5 years. FFP "by right" takes into consideration P&L over a 36-month period so we can spread it out. We all know how it works though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Teasy said:

Yeah whether you pay all up front or in instalments over time makes no difference to FFP.

 

 

 


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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Hanshithispantz

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Abacus

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...