OutByEaster?

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

If we’d been shown this “final” first off everyone would hate it. 

We haven't been shown it yet - and if we've just copyrighted it, there's a chance it won't be on the kits.

2 hours ago, blandy said:

No. I believe they’ve put a max time limit of 5 years on amortisation because of Chelsea’s gaming the system.

Ah, I thought  they'd limited it at six for that reason.

11 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Man U now need to be worrying about Chelsea catching them and knocking then out of Euro competetion altogether lol

They'll be above them tomorrow if they beat West Ham.

I think both of those badges will be used going forward, depending on the setting.

Is 7th Conference this year?

Utd currently sitting in that spot and might be down to 8th by the time they kick off on Monday.

Lovely.

3 hours ago, PaulC said:

He's not happy in the role he's asked to play. Has bags more freedom when Kamara was in the side.  Shouid not be the deepest of our midfield players. Need to correct thst against Brighton 

I'm pretty sure Kamara won't be available.

Doug (and McGinn) are struggling as a result of us going into the season one man light in the middle of the park - I seem to remember us trying to get Elneny in the summer and again in January - Kamara's injury, Dendonckers failure and Iroegbunam's youth have all counted against us.

You're absolutely spot on about the balance, but there's nothing we can do about it this season.

2 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Correcto, you're welcome.

I think then that the fault in my logic was looking at the (second) selling price potentially being set as a proportion of the single year (real) cost to the buying club - ie that Sheffield Utd, having only spent a 'real' £2.25m would sell him back for something like £2m rather than as a proportion of the whole of the remaining amortisation amount.

Thank you for your help! 

4 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Lol,

The downside of this for the selling club is that now when you buy the player back you end up with £4m to amortise.

If you simply loaned the player for a year your don't have that £4m problem.

So in this case, the downside for the selling club (Villa) when we buy the player back is that we have a value based on the price we paid which we need to amortise (and I guess we could reduce that by buying him back and putting him on a six year deal) but the benefit is that as well as the amortisation problem you also have the asset to sell. So you're looking at one year of amortisation cost against the value of the player if you're planning a quick sale?

It seems a much better option for both clubs than a loan.

1 minute ago, Czarnikjak said:

Correct. You getting there finally

So in this case - we sold Archer for £9m - and we bank all of that on our PSR.

Sheff Utd put in a quarter of that (4yr deal) on their PSR so £2.25m.

We agree to buy him back for, say, £6.75m which covers the remaining amount they have on their books for him or less if they'd agreed to that when they took him on.

We sell him this summer for £12m.

We can bank £9m for last seasons PSR when we sold him and £5.25m this summer when we sell him, for a total PSR profit of £14.25m?

Just now, Czarnikjak said:

Correct. You getting there finally

Wait, what?

That's what you've been telling me is wrong - I'm trying to figure out which bit I'm not getting - don't tell me I'm right! 

Next season might well now come with some additional challenges then.

For WM police if for no-one else.

2 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Because when you buy someone for £50m fee (book value, regardless of cash installments), on 1 year contract PSR cost is £50m for that year. On 5 years contract, PSR cost is only £10m for that year (50m/5).

Yes different between selling and buying.

So from a PSR perspective, as a seller, a one year loan with a £1m fee banks you a million, but selling a player for £5m and buying him back for £4m a year later banks you £5m and you still have the player.

And as a buyer, buying a player for £5m over five years means you amortise him at £1m a year and take that PSR hit, then selling him a year later for £4m means you come out even on PSR (four years of one million) and have paid a million pounds for one year of that player?

1 minute ago, blandy said:

We booked 9 mill profit for PSR last summer.

We buy him back for (say) 7 mill. As we discussed, if we sell him straight away, then any difference in what we sell him for and what we paid (7 mill) goes into this (or next) years PSR calcs (depending on the sale date). If we keep him and he's on a new n year contract, then PSR uses the amortisation calcs for those years (say 3 years at 2.33 mill per year). PSR takes no account of the 4.5 mill and 2.5 mill figures in the way the payments between us and Sheff U are structured. But the actual accounts do.

And then the rules around PSR change anyway next year, just to add to the confusion and complexity.

So the £7m has no effect on the £9m we booked as pure profit last season?

The profit we make on any sale over £7m can be booked as profit this season?

If we keep him ,we begin to amortise him at 3 years of 2.33m (not at £7m as a fee)?

The actual accounts reflect that we've written off a future credit of £4.5m  and bought him for £2.5m (or just reflect that we bought him at £7m), but don't have the same effect on the PSR?

And ultimately if we were to sell him for £12m we'd make make a PSR 'profit' of £9m in his first year and a PSR profit of £5m in the second year for a total profit from a PSR perspective of £14m - albeit with an actual accounting profit of £9.5m (the £4.5m we received, minus the £7m we paid, plus the £12m we received)?

Just now, Czarnikjak said:

I'd they bought him from us for £200m on 200 year contract, they would need to sell him this summer for £199m, anything less than that would count as loss on their PSR calculation.

Regardless if any cash out of this £200m actually changed any hands!

So why put players on long contracts?

Are there different rules when selling a player (book the whole lot immediately) to when buying a player (where the PSR value is taken a year at a time)?

(I should point out that I don't doubt for a minute that you're right, I just can't get my head around it)

9 minutes ago, StewieGriffin said:

No thanks.

Firstly, our U21s have struggled a bit in that and the inbreds would treat that as a win over Aston Villa, regardless of the lineup.

Secondly, I dont want our youngsters subjected to that atmosphere.

It'll be awful - there will be a big crowd and there will need to be a massive police presence - all pretty tough to deal with when you're 16.

Just now, Czarnikjak said:

Player value "write offs" also count towards your PSR calculation. You can't just magically erase that £200m from your accounts without psr consequences.

If Sheffield Utd were to sell him on to someone else - would that £200m still be with them, or with the team that bought the player?

The £200m doesn't really exist surely if we're saying that the PSR figure and the real figure don't need to be the same?

1 minute ago, blandy said:

They owed us 9 mill transfer fee for him (afawk). They paid (in this example) 4.5 mill up front, so still owed us 4.5 mill, as yet unpaid.

But we then buy him from them for 7 mill. We owe them 7 mill, they owe us 4.5 mill - so the 2.5 mill is the money we send them, and the debt they owed us is cancelled.

So if they paid £4.5m of the £9m - we can use the £9m for PSR - then having only paid off £4.5m they might agree a £3m fee for the buy back to cover over the equivalent of a £1.5m loan fee. They still owe us £4.5m but from a PSR (and accounting) point of view, can't we write that off? 

5 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Just remember there are 2 parties to it. If Sheffield bought him for £200m (book) they would need to sell him back to us for close to that £200m (book). Otherwise their are making massive PSR loss! 

So we end up having £200m to amortise if we don't sell him on again for £200m or more

But don't teams tend to book purchases on a basis of spreading that cost over a number of years - in the same way that Chelsea do? In essence meaning they're buying him for £1m a year over the course of the time they're buying him?

So Sheffield would book £1m of that £200m then write the rest off when they no longer have the obligation to pay it?

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

By that I mean, if we sold him for a reported 9 million (with 9 mill, potentially additional add ons, if various factors are met such as Sheff U staying up) then we booked the 9 mill as profit for PSR purposes. But if Sheff U structured the payments, with our agreement, to be (say) 4.5 mill up front, last summer, and then another 4.5 mill (or whatever figure(s) in due course), then that's irrelevant for PSR purposes, but for the financial accounts it would be detailed as money received and then the further payments are shown as money owed to us by external debtors (Sheffield u).

I was fine until here.  The difference between wooden dollars for PSR and real money for audited accounts I get.

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

IBack to FFP, if we buy him back for the agreed fee and then sell him for more or less than that received fee, we make a profit or loss (for PSR purposes) on that difference. So if the agreed buy back fee was (say) 7 million and we sell hm for 10 million, we make 3 mill for PSR purposes.

This bit too makes perfect sense to me. Buy something for £7m, sell it for £10m, make £3m profit - treat it as completely separate to the previous summer.

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

But if Sheff U have actually only paid us the 4.5 mill up front, the other 2.5 mill they owed us is taken from the 7 mill buy back and we transfer 4.5 mill in cash to their bank as the actual transaction to buy him back...

This bit gets away from me - I'm not sure where the £2,5m comes from and I can't figure out the maths - are we saying that whilst we might buy him back for figure A. w'ed book figure A plus whatever they owe us in terms of what would appear in the accounts (but not the PSR) or both, or something else?

7 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Lol, you again bringing in cash payments and installments to the calculation. They don't matter to the PSR calculation.

Yes, exactly. The book value counts on the sale - but the real value counts when actually trading the player.

if it wasn't for the new rules on contract length, we could sell him to Leicester on a £200m, 200 year deal for a million a year, then buy him back one season later after they'd paid us a million for next to nothing and bank £199m+ for our PSR calculation. As it is, we can sell him for a massive fee over six years, then buy him back for a sixth or less and make a big profit on him twice - yes please!

That seems a pretty big loophole in the PSR calculation!

So we're going to have a couple of derby games next season in the Papa Johns Trophy?

Our U21's vs small heath?

6 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

You need to forget when and how much actual cash changes hands, from Profit and Loss standpoint (and current PSR rules) it doesn't matter.

When you sell, you book whole sell value immediately (excluding conditional addons).

When you buy, you start amortising the fee over the course of whole contract.

To calculate Profit on player sale you takeaway any remaining non-amortised book value of the player from the agreed selling fee (booked, irrelevant of cash installments).

So if  the buy back clause is £7m and we want to sell him again next day, he's non-amortised value on our books is still going to be £7m. So to make any profit on player sale again, we need to sell him for more than £7m

 

So in this case we sold for a book £9m - but we're buying back on a proportion of the actual payments we've received (a lot less than £9m)?

So in principle can we sell Archer to Leicester this summer for £30m (spread over his 6 year contract with them) receive £5m from them as the first instalment, then buy him back for £4m of the £5m they paid the following summer?

So instead of booking a £1m loan fee, we book a £26m profit and still keep the player?

Six subs for Norwich - that's one for each finger out that way.