Swiss Toni Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 21 minutes ago, BenitoCarbone said: Glendevon reported there were 16 clubs there watching him in the Europa league qualifier. He plays for Petter Rudi’s old club, btw. The full list was shown on Norwegian television. Wednesday were on it. Strange name for a club. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southie_Owl Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 32 minutes ago, BenitoCarbone said: Glendevon reported there were 16 clubs there watching him in the Europa league qualifier. He plays for Petter Rudi’s old club, btw. The full list was shown on Norwegian television. Wednesday were on it. Wednesday was the day of the week not the football club 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazowl55 Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 1 hour ago, frastheowl said: I'm pretty sure you can renew contracts during an embargo. And where have bumper contracts been mentioned? So when under an embargo, you protect your assets. Why sell them for pittance, when you can't replace them? We won't sell any top stars if under an embargo as you say because we won't be able to replace them. But you can only come out of an embargo when you have caught up with things financially and offering ever good player we got a new contact is going to cost money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Best we can hope for is selling him next year after he’s got fit, gone on loan in January and scored lots of goals. Proper gutted about his injury. Getting £3-5m for him now would be a ginormous help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
room0035 Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 11 hours ago, Morepork said: Mate, respectfully you need to cut your losses. What you are suggesting here is one if the fundamental reasons FFP was established. If it was as simple as owners injecting capital as directors loan there would be no issues. You missing the point, all of the money he has put in to the club shows in the filed accounts as director loan so eventually these loans will be repaid, so if he sold the club to someone else before that happened the club or the new owner would have to repay those loans. I was reply to someone who said I though he was just throwing money at it he isn't, he is accounting for everything so it get repaid at some point in the future.Below is an extract from our last accounts it shows loans to the club of £37,658,000 if he was throwing money to get promoted he would be expecting that money to be eventually repaid. If the upload does not work it is page 30 of the last accounts and it cost £1 to get a copy from companies house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
room0035 Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 13 hours ago, prowl said: You really don't understand business do you? An owner can ask whatever price he wants but if he can't find someone to pay that amount he can only sell if he reduces the price. If that means he has to take less than he has invested then it doesn't matter how the investment is shown in the accounts. Directors loans can be written off and very often are Mate get yourself a copy of the last filed account it will set up back £1 and read them, focus on the area where it says creditors and equity. As for the price issue simple supply and demand you supply something that your customer wants, if you over price it they don't buy it that is currently what is happening with us, but you have to get a price that maximises your income and currently fans are buying the season ticket so that prices though high is extremely smart. As for writing off the loans this normally does not happen in normal trade only when ownership changes but you might have more knowledge than me on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xxxxxxxxcxcc Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 38 minutes ago, room0035 said: You missing the point, all of the money he has put in to the club shows in the filed accounts as director loan so eventually these loans will be repaid, so if he sold the club to someone else before that happened the club or the new owner would have to repay those loans. I was reply to someone who said I though he was just throwing money at it he isn't, he is accounting for everything so it get repaid at some point in the future.Below is an extract from our last accounts it shows loans to the club of £37,658,000 if he was throwing money to get promoted he would be expecting that money to be eventually repaid. If the upload does not work it is page 30 of the last accounts and it cost £1 to get a copy from companies house. I don't think he's disputing the veracity of the accounting in respect of the loans, more that there needs to be sufficient capital to repay them. Promotion would take care of it. Sale of players of sufficient value is another way. Third option is selling the club but if DC for example paid £40m for the club in the first place then he'd need a buyer to pay £77m just for him to break even. This is where spiralling loans however accounted for is challenging.. Edited July 12, 2018 by Xxxxxxxxcxcc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akbuk Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) Chansiri has often said don't worry he has friends maybe he can get the Tuna company to invest by buying some of his shares Edited July 12, 2018 by akbuk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frastheowl Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, pazowl55 said: We won't sell any top stars if under an embargo as you say because we won't be able to replace them. But you can only come out of an embargo when you have caught up with things financially and offering ever good player we got a new contact is going to cost money. As a understand it (and I could be wrong, and happy to be corrected), doesn't signing players on new contracts actually help with amortisation payments. Example, Joao signs for £2.5 on a 3 year deal. That is spread over the course of his contract. £833,333/year. So in this years account, Joao is worth £833,333 to us. If he signs a new three year deal, that figure then is spread across the length of the new deal. So instead of costing us £833,333 for this years accounts, it'll actually be amortised to be £275,000. Reach. £5m over 3 year. £1.7/year. Currently "worth" £1.7m. Sign a new 3 year deal. Cost this financial year (excluding wages) £555k. I'm not sure any of the players would be given much of a pay rise, and so, with the opportunity to get rid of much of the deadwood in 12 months time, there's little risk extending contracts to our assets who we want to build our team around in the future. Of which Reach, Bannan, Joao, Forestieri all fall into that category. This isn't a situation where the club can't afford to pay these players...we're not allowed to. Wages are an issue...but the wages of these players aren't. If you want to compete, you have to pay top players, top wages. No issue with that. It's paying squad fillers top dollar which is our issue. In a years time, when Abdi, Jones, Boyd, Hutchinson and Westwood (by which time Wildsmith/Dawson will be regular)...our FFP issues will be eased immensely overnight. Invest in your assets, and protect them. That needs to be our priority right now. Edited July 12, 2018 by frastheowl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 49 minutes ago, akbuk said: Chansiri has often said don't worry he has friends maybe he can get the Tuna company to invest by buying some of his shares Why would the "tuna company" want to buy shares in a foreign football club making substantial annual losses and provides absolutely no guarantee of return on investment? (especially when the Chansiri family are only minority shareholders of the said tuna company and have no mandate to use company funds in this manner)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quist Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 38 minutes ago, frastheowl said: As a understand it (and I could be wrong, and happy to be corrected), doesn't signing players on new contracts actually help with amortisation payments. Example, Joao signs for £2.5 on a 3 year deal. That is spread over the course of his contract. £833,333/year. So in this years account, Joao is worth £833,333 to us. If he signs a new three year deal, that figure then is spread across the length of the new deal. So instead of costing us £833,333 for this years accounts, it'll actually be amortised to be £275,000. Reach. £5m over 3 year. £1.7/year. Currently "worth" £1.7m. Sign a new 3 year deal. Cost this financial year (excluding wages) £555k. I'm not sure any of the players would be given much of a pay rise, and so, with the opportunity to get rid of much of the deadwood in 12 months time, there's little risk extending contracts to our assets who we want to build our team around in the future. Of which Reach, Bannan, Joao, Forestieri all fall into that category. This isn't a situation where the club can't afford to pay these players...we're not allowed to. Wages are an issue...but the wages of these players aren't. If you want to compete, you have to pay top players, top wages. No issue with that. It's paying squad fillers top dollar which is our issue. In a years time, when Abdi, Jones, Boyd, Hutchinson and Westwood (by which time Wildsmith/Dawson will be regular)...our FFP issues will be eased immensely overnight. Invest in your assets, and protect them. That needs to be our priority right now. I think short answer is no. If we bought a player from a club for 8 million and agreed to pay money over 4 years we still have to pay money out over 4 years if he signs new deal over 5. Also new contract often implies improvement on old one so the cost would rise. It is doubtful if many of our players would accept reduced terms. To offer a player terms which are inferior to previous contract automatically entitles them to free transfer. Think you are correct situation will ease considerably when Abdi, Matias, Boyd Jones Westwood contracts expire. Think Hutchinson has longer to go. I think the poor advice Chairman received re operations in transfer market is now evident for all to see and presumably our Chairman will be wiser for experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frastheowl Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Quist said: I think short answer is no. If we bought a player from a club for 8 million and agreed to pay money over 4 years we still have to pay money out over 4 years if he signs new deal over 5. Also new contract often implies improvement on old one so the cost would rise. It is doubtful if many of our players would accept reduced terms. To offer a player terms which are inferior to previous contract automatically entitles them to free transfer. Think you are correct situation will ease considerably when Abdi, Matias, Boyd Jones Westwood contracts expire. Think Hutchinson has longer to go. I think the poor advice Chairman received re operations in transfer market is now evident for all to see and presumably our Chairman will be wiser for experience "Where a club extends a players' contract, the book value at the time the contract was re-negotiated would need to be amortised over the duration of the new contract." http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php And regarding the comment about offering an inferior contract...that only applies to youth players when compensation would be due. A senior player at the end of the contract would leave for free regardless of what contract has been offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BARMYARMY2010 Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 hour ago, frastheowl said: As a understand it (and I could be wrong, and happy to be corrected), doesn't signing players on new contracts actually help with amortisation payments. Example, Joao signs for £2.5 on a 3 year deal. That is spread over the course of his contract. £833,333/year. So in this years account, Joao is worth £833,333 to us. If he signs a new three year deal, that figure then is spread across the length of the new deal. So instead of costing us £833,333 for this years accounts, it'll actually be amortised to be £275,000. Reach. £5m over 3 year. £1.7/year. Currently "worth" £1.7m. Sign a new 3 year deal. Cost this financial year (excluding wages) £555k. I'm not sure any of the players would be given much of a pay rise, and so, with the opportunity to get rid of much of the deadwood in 12 months time, there's little risk extending contracts to our assets who we want to build our team around in the future. Of which Reach, Bannan, Joao, Forestieri all fall into that category. This isn't a situation where the club can't afford to pay these players...we're not allowed to. Wages are an issue...but the wages of these players aren't. If you want to compete, you have to pay top players, top wages. No issue with that. It's paying squad fillers top dollar which is our issue. In a years time, when Abdi, Jones, Boyd, Hutchinson and Westwood (by which time Wildsmith/Dawson will be regular)...our FFP issues will be eased immensely overnight. Invest in your assets, and protect them. That needs to be our priority right now. Pretty good explanation of how it works, but a point of pedantry m'lud, reach's fee would be over 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazowl55 Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, frastheowl said: "Where a club extends a players' contract, the book value at the time the contract was re-negotiated would need to be amortised over the duration of the new contract." http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php And regarding the comment about offering an inferior contract...that only applies to youth players when compensation would be due. A senior player at the end of the contract would leave for free regardless of what contract has been offered. I think in principle you are right about it. however this just aplies for FFP purposes not the overall finances of the club. Other poster correct about money owed to other clubs being the same. But surely there must be more to it and it's not as straight forward as that otherwise we would just offer all our big money signings in the last 3 years extended contracts and use that to get us out of our FFP situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowl Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 18 hours ago, room0035 said: the money DC is putting in, is current shown as a director's loan in the account if, or when he sells that gets repaid, so to reply yes he does get the losses back. If he accounts for everything he spends in the form of loans or equity to the club he will get everything back when he sells. 2 hours ago, room0035 said: You missing the point, all of the money he has put in to the club shows in the filed accounts as director loan so eventually these loans will be repaid, so if he sold the club to someone else before that happened the club or the new owner would have to repay those loans. 2 hours ago, room0035 said: As for writing off the loans this normally does not happen in normal trade only when ownership changes but you might have more knowledge than me on that. I rest my case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quist Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 34 minutes ago, frastheowl said: "Where a club extends a players' contract, the book value at the time the contract was re-negotiated would need to be amortised over the duration of the new contract." http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php And regarding the comment about offering an inferior contract...that only applies to youth players when compensation would be due. A senior player at the end of the contract would leave for free regardless of what contract has been offered. Thanks for that but that means if taken literally our book value will look better than situation actually is. I am sure middlesboro would be happy to accept payments over a longer term. The financial reality of situation is far more important than having notional write downs on players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wilyfox Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 What dafook are people doing to this thread?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quist Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 I have noticed that George Hirst is still shown as our player on SWFC web site. Jack Hunt has already been removed. Does this mean clearance has not yet been given for the move? Quite a few articles were written about feeder club buying player and just wonder if being looked at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owls-Fan Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 12 hours ago, BenitoCarbone said: Kinda fancy our hopes though, against those other clubs Seems unlikely that we’d be watching a player who Man Utd and Juventus want to sign. Otherwise our scouts have the best job in the world. Err yeah I’m just going over to Russia for the weekend to watch that Mbappe kid. My guess is we were watching other players in that match, maybe Forren who’s a centre back and failed to impress in England on two separate occasions for saints and Brighton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owlse Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 hour ago, ChinaOwl said: Why would the "tuna company" want to buy shares in a foreign football club making substantial annual losses and provides absolutely no guarantee of return on investment? (especially when the Chansiri family are only minority shareholders of the said tuna company and have no mandate to use company funds in this manner)? I do believe that this is the plan, but not until we reach the PL,i also suspect should we not get promoted this season, i think Mr Chansiri will be tempted to twist and just go for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now