Jump to content

NUFC Transfer Rumours


Guest

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Shame we're strapped until that date, might have picked up MGW.

As you say, we aren’t able to spend before that date. That’s why I don’t believe the rumours about the Valencia keeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SUPERTOON said:

As you say, we aren’t able to spend before that date. That’s why I don’t believe the rumours about the Valencia keeper.

We can agree everything and announce the deal 1 July with Valencia.

 

Not so much with Forrest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about it the only way I see DCL coming in is if it’s cheap as chips (relatively speaking) and someone like Bowen comes in who can play as striker and guarantees goals. It’s still a risk though replacing one crock with another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

As you say, we aren’t able to spend before that date. That’s why I don’t believe the rumours about the Valencia keeper.

 

You don't believe we've got around 100k to add to the books between now and the next PSR period?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, frankpingel said:

DCL cannot be a serious consideration. Goes against our buying policy now surely. Perhaps an option when we got Wood but we've moved on.


Agreed but I suppose it might relate to how much we have to spend just playing devils advocate. “If” say we did go for someone like Bowen who would cost an arm and leg then maybe that’s why there’s the link. Agree with you though 

 

 

Edited by ExiledGeordie

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SUPERTOON said:

I wonder if the Paqueta ban will give us more of a chance at Bowen. Apparently West Ham’s summer plans where based on the money they would get for Paqueta.


On the other hand, Ham will be relegation candidates if they lose both. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

As you say, we aren’t able to spend before that date. That’s why I don’t believe the rumours about the Valencia keeper.

 

We could sign an agreement for 1st July, but that wouldn't be taking advantage of the Forest situation 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is everyone not thinking we can’t spend before 1 July!?

 

Any transfer fee and wages are amortised over the length of the contract. If you sign a player the last day of June on a 5 year contract there is minimal expense for the year ended 30 June 2024.

 

It doesn’t affect the buying side. The only reason you’d set up a contract to complete on 1 July is if the selling club wanted the profit in the latter period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Toon1892 said:

Why is everyone not thinking we can’t spend before 1 July!?

 

Any transfer fee and wages are amortised over the length of the contract. If you sign a player the last day of June on a 5 year contract there is minimal expense for the year ended 30 June 2024.

 

It doesn’t affect the buying side. The only reason you’d set up a contract to complete on 1 July is if the selling club wanted the profit in the latter period.

I didn’t realise the amortisation was calculated daily - assumed it was divided by the contract length in years and allocated that way. That’s the way I’ve always seen it reported. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, BoSelecta said:

I didn’t realise the amortisation was calculated daily - assumed it was divided by the contract length in years and allocated that way. That’s the way I’ve always seen it reported. 

No it’s calculated daily

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

You don't believe we've got around 100k to add to the books between now and the next PSR period?

I don’t have a clue, I’m just going off what most of the journalists seem to be saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExiledGeordie said:

Thinking about it the only way I see DCL coming in is if it’s cheap as chips (relatively speaking) and someone like Bowen comes in who can play as striker and guarantees goals. It’s still a risk though replacing one crock with another.

 

It's risky but it does all depend on the price as you say. If Wilson's sale covers the cost (amortized) of DCL then I can see the sense in it. But obviously the likelihood of him immediately then getting injured once he joins is pretty high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, BoSelecta said:

I didn’t realise the amortisation was calculated daily - assumed it was divided by the contract length in years and allocated that way. That’s the way I’ve always seen it reported. 

 

I think clubs used to be able to do it how they wanted - might have been Derby who back-loaded the amortisation costs on the basis that a players value doesn't actually drop linearly, it drops more dramatically in the last year of their contract. Obviously that caused major problems for them down the line and I think clubs have to account for it on a linear basis now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Toon1892 said:

No it’s calculated daily

 

It would be monthly in reality, daily would be far too much of a faff.

 

The accounting policy says the full value is capitalised on the date of the transaction and then amortised straight line (i.e. the same amount every month) over the length of the contract.

 

So it is true that we'd only have 1 months cost this year for a June signing, that would be £583,333.33 in the year for a £35m player with a 5 year contract.

 

Forest would get the full benefit of the sale this year

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

It would be monthly in reality, daily would be far too much of a faff.

 

The accounting policy says the full value is capitalised on the date of the transaction and then amortised straight line (i.e. the same amount every month) over the length of the contract.

 

So it is true that we'd only have 1 months cost this year for a June signing, that would be £583,333.33 in the year for a £35m player with a 5 year contract.

 

Forest would get the full benefit of the sale this year

Thank you for posting this, saved me @ you. Haha

 

Eye opening anarl. Same would apply for anyone wanting to buy say Bruno as well so it’s a double edged sword. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

It would be monthly in reality, daily would be far too much of a faff.

 

The accounting policy says the full value is capitalised on the date of the transaction and then amortised straight line (i.e. the same amount every month) over the length of the contract.

 

So it is true that we'd only have 1 months cost this year for a June signing, that would be £583,333.33 in the year for a £35m player with a 5 year contract.

 

Forest would get the full benefit of the sale this year

No, I’m telling you as a chartered accountant. The standard dictates it needs to be calculated daily. It’s not a faff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure we could just drop an accrual or change an accounting policy if we absolutely had to like. 
 

IIRC we’ve got a provision in for onerous contracts so if we shifted an unwanted player or two early then we might get some payback from that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toon1892 said:

No, I’m telling you as a chartered accountant. The standard dictates it needs to be calculated daily. It’s not a faff.


And the reality is that there are always management discretions on applying the  standards. Where someone is paid weekly or monthly then you would be well within your rights to base calculations on that basis.

 

And I can tell you 100% that football clubs amortise transfer fees monthly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:


And the reality is that there are always management discretions on applying the  standards. Where someone is paid weekly or monthly then you would be well within your rights to base calculations on that basis.

 

And I can tell you 100% that football clubs amortise transfer fees monthly.

Football clubs do not amortise transfer fees monthly. It is daily. Sorry.

 

Sorry but you’re just wrong here. Even if you were correct and it was monthly you round to the nearest month. Therefore if a player was signed on 30 June 2024, the months charge would be recognised in July 2024 given the majority of the first contractual month falls in July 2024. But in practice this isn’t how it works. It is done daily.

 

 

Edited by Toon1892

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NSG said:

Sure we could just drop an accrual or change an accounting policy if we absolutely had to like. 
 

IIRC we’ve got a provision in for onerous contracts so if we shifted an unwanted player or two early then we might get some payback from that.


Yes if we had written off future wages and then sold the player so didn’t have to pay those wages you would release the residual.

 

we are pretty much down to Hayden with that now though.

 

we don’t have much in our accounts that would make a difference to faff about with 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should set up a thread for us chartered accountants to discuss this?
 

Would be the least viewed thread on the forum but would keep us three happy :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jarrod Bowen is tailor-made for the Eddie-press. Would love him. It'd be like kitting Miggy out with a brain and a right leg. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Monkey Alan

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...