 | Forum
Reply | ITFC ...112 million shares
at 19:43 19 Jul 2024
Show me you do not know what you are talking about without saying you do not know what you are talking about.
If this persona was amusing, it may be worth persevering.
Perhaps best to read the room. [Post edited 19 Jul 19:44]
|
| Forum
Reply | Transfer Fees Expenditure Question
at 18:47 9 Jul 2024
Wrong.
Net profit on Burgess would be banked at the point of sale.
The accounts treat all player sales the same. [Post edited 9 Jul 18:49]
|
| Forum
Reply | Transfer Fees Expenditure Question
at 18:47 9 Jul 2024
That is not right. TV money is circa £100m. Prize money starts at £3m for 20th and increases by around £3m per position. City got around £60m prize money.
You get circa 45% of the TV money in first season after relegation and 35% the following season. so around £180m guaranteed.
There are strict accounting rules regarding player purchases (cost spread across contract) and sales (net profit booked at the point of sale). |
| Forum
Reply | Leeds United signing
at 18:42 9 Jul 2024
Sold Gray. Summerville, Rutter and Gnoto likely to be sold this summer too. |
| Forum
Reply | Ioannidis
at 12:24 8 Jul 2024
I understand that the offer remains on the table, and remains the largest offer made. I can see us making an improved best and final offer this week, with Town walking away if the offer is not accepted.
Not dead, yet. |
| Forum
Reply | My main source tells me
at 20:21 7 Jul 2024
No offence taken, it is a fair comment.
I am a little surprised we are spending so much on players with limited/no PL experience, that said the players linked and signed to date look like significant upgrades, which is what we need.
Agree, another 9 (I suspect Delap can cover both 9 and RW), CM and one or more keepers are next priorities. |
| Forum
Reply | My main source tells me
at 20:14 7 Jul 2024
Amortisation is not new, it is an accounting practice that pre-dates the Bobby Robson era.
It does not matter how deep our owners pockets are, we still need to remain within PSR rules.
Incidentally, our main co-owners are ORG (who invest money on behalf of Arizona pension fund) and Bright Path sports. We have no idea how much either have to invest, you cannot assume the APF are prepared to invest significantly more than they have already. |
| Forum
Reply | My main source tells me
at 20:07 7 Jul 2024
Think I am running out of fingers....certainly seem to be spending more than I anticipated.
The point I made at the time was that not all of our signings would be in the £10-20m category, and we would also be spending sub £1-2m on sone. I suspect that Ben Johnson will not be our only low fee/free acquisition. [Post edited 7 Jul 20:08]
|
| Forum
Reply | Fringe players
at 14:12 7 Jul 2024
Is he sad to be leaving?
He will grow out of it, I am sure. |
| Forum
Reply | Philogene deal
at 22:32 6 Jul 2024
Yep.
Folk are interpreting a joint bid too literally.
They would be two separate deals. |
| Forum
Reply | PSR Theory - ORG portfolio
at 19:11 3 Jul 2024
It isn't.
All sales are recorded at the point of sale. In the case of players who have been purchased and for whom some of the transfer fee has not been fully amortised, then you recognise the net profit (sale amount - outstanding amortisation payments).
Incidentally, signing OH on 30 June does not mean we amortise £4m in the 23/24 acounts. The date of purchase is taken into account so we would amortise 1/365 of the £4m in 23/4, £4m in the next four seasons, and 364/365 of the £4m in year five. |
| Forum
Reply | 20 mill to stand still
at 17:42 1 Jul 2024
No. Not the sense I get. Most are realistic that this season will be one of transition.
They do have some tasty valuations for the players they will likely need to sell - £20m+ each for Rowe and Sara and £10-15m for Sargent. They may be disappointed.
The loss of £40m in parachute payments also seems to be largely ignored. [Post edited 1 Jul 17:45]
|
| Forum
Reply | Refusing to comment, owing to the election
at 20:56 30 Jun 2024
The allegations are serious and relate to the provision of prison services, for which the current government are accountable, so I can understand why they fall under the purdah. [Post edited 30 Jun 21:38]
|
| Forum
Reply | Refusing to comment, owing to the election
at 20:48 30 Jun 2024
I stand corrected, it is not an absolute ban, but from experience, most comms, including a lot of what you call day to day, gets put on hold. The provision of public services is inextricably linked to the current government, so organisations needs to be mindful. |
| Forum
Reply | Refusing to comment, owing to the election
at 14:24 29 Jun 2024
It is standard practice for public sector organisations. Once parliament breaks up for election campaigning, public sector organisations are effectively subject to a communications ban. They are no longer able to make public announcements, including on topics that would be considered to be their day job, nor respond to questions from journalists. All external communications goes on hold until after the election.
It is intended to ensure that the public sector does not get drawn into the politics of the election, including accusations from political parties about their motives for any communication. [Post edited 29 Jun 14:25]
|
| Forum
Reply | Ipswich have €22m bid turned down - Fotis Ioannidis
at 11:06 18 Jun 2024
I am not suggesting we will, quite the opposite, closer to £60m.
Was using a big transfer fee number to highlight the problems it can create in future seasons. Amortisation effectively is a form of credit, so needs to used sensibly. [Post edited 18 Jun 11:07]
|
| Forum
Reply | Ipswich have €22m bid turned down - Fotis Ioannidis
at 21:44 17 Jun 2024
I am aware that it is not a cash flow issue per se.
It does though directly impact our PSR calculation. £200m transfer fees spread across four seasons means we would have a £50m amortisation charge in the accounts in this and the next three seasons. Our TV money would cover this expenditure this season, but it would not if we spend any time in the next three seasons in the Championship.
My point remains the same, amortisation rules means that you can spend beyond your immediate means this season, but will need to balance the books in the years to come. And that becomes a lot harder if you get relegated with the consequent loss of income.
[Post edited 17 Jun 21:51]
|
| Forum
Reply | Ipswich have €22m bid turned down - Fotis Ioannidis
at 20:37 17 Jun 2024
I am aware of amortisation. It is double edged sword. Yes, you can spread payments over a longer time frame, but you still have to make the payments. If we spent £200m this window, that would be £50m a year for four years (assuming they are all four year deals). Even if we retained our PL status for those four year, £50m of our annual transfer budget will have already been spent. And if we were relegated, then our parachute payments would not cover those sums.
What we also need to remember is that our salary bill is also going to increase substantially. Players signed for £20m will expect wages to match.
The extra £100m we get this season from TV deal only goes so far. |
| | xrayspecs
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 1079 | | Comment Votes: | 117 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 1196 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.