(That long since we've had any, couldn't find the thread)

Alan Nixon: "Top Liverpool starlet Cameron Branagan will Ben allowed out on loan in Jan.

Bolton lead the race for the 20 year old midfielder"

Edited December 11, 20169 yr by Ratwhite

3 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

(not to mention how difficult they would make life difficult for themselves in the future not owning the whole of the stadium if they ever wanted to sell the club)

You know MJ (well, his company) basically owns the North Stand, right?

Edited June 4Jun 4 by jmjhb

11 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

My mate Wanderlust likes to talk the talk but unfortunately he doesn't understand much of what he says, for instance we certainly won't be selling off the hotel anytime soon, certainly not whilst PBP holds a charge over the asset. It's a bit like someone buying say a car on Hire Purchase (do people still do that?) anyway you don't OWN the car until the last payment is made - you can't sell it before then because you don't own the title to it. Meaning FV would have to first pay off the loan secured against the hotel by PBP if they ever wanted to sell the hotel (not to mention how difficult they would make life difficult for themselves in the future not owning the whole of the stadium if they ever wanted to sell the club).

Similar Amortisation is simply a booking keeping accounting requirement than any reality to a football club,

Amortisation in simple words is the depreciation of an asset over the period of its life for example say we bought a player for £12m on a 3 year contract his value as an asset to the club would be written down by £4m each year and thus he would be an asset of zero worth as his contract ends,. If we bought the same player for the same money on a 4 year contract his value as an asset would be written down by £3m each year instead - same player but in bookkeeping terms valued at different amounts simply depending on the length of his contract (Chelsea deliberately amortises the players it buys on silly year contract lengths simply to help avoid PL rules on the limit of debt owners can put into the club).

The real worth of any player is what someone else will pay to own his contract, I doubt very much that we will be handing out any contracts over 4 years in length to any player, anytime soon.

But we are not buying these players to depreciate....We are getting them at a young age, right price already with experience....Doubt we will be looking for many players around age 30 giving them a long contract. Players like Watson and Stephenson are now the market we are shopping in and rightly so. Low risk, high reward.

I read Cissoko’s purchase option clause that was attached to the loan is reported to be around a million. As entertaining as he is, I hope we’re only considering that as a last resort.

2 hours ago, Burndens Bogs said:

Just trying out the add photo feature in the app.

It seems the scousers aren't happy with this possible 'giveaway'

can't find anything but was suggested in a WhatsApp group that Iles currently reckons theres nothing in this rumour

1 minute ago, Wanderlust said:

I read Cissoko’s purchase option clause that was attached to the loan is reported to be around a million. As entertaining as he is, I hope we’re only considering that as a last resort.

Neither use or ornament in the Championship. Players like Trippier will put him in row z first ten mins and he would not touch the ball the rest of the game.

Why did ACD struggle at Blackburn??? Obvious answer the full backs are a class above league one .Blackett Taylor the same at Derby. Doubt we see wingers much this season

1 minute ago, jmjhb said:

You know MJ (well, his company) basically owns the North Stand, right?

Wrong.

FV owns the whole stadium.

PBP has a secured charge over the hotel, it does not own the hotel.

It gave a loan (originally to Burnden Leisure), then taken on by FV.

In order to secure this loan, FV agreed for the loan to be secured against one of its assets namely the hotel.

It is a bit like a mortgage (which is basically a big bank loan) being secured against your house. if you will - if you default on your mortgage the bank can take your house to get its money back.

The bank takes the house simply to recover the money owed to it and no more meaning that anything over and above from the sale of the house (once the bank has recovered the money) is returned to you.

Same with FV and PBP.

FV owns the hotel, PBP has simply loaned money to FV secured on the hotel. If FV does not settle the loan when it falls due, PBP can seize the asset it has secured against (the hotel) sell it off to anyone who will buy it from them, recoup its loan from the sale and anything left over and above will be returned to FV.

The net result would be FV not owning the whole of the stadium, as whoever bought the hotel would now own part of it.

Fortunately PBP has not been in any rush for Eddie and now FV to settle this long outstanding debt (although according to the accounts agreed terms to do so have already started.

11 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

But we are not buying these players to depreciate....We are getting them at a young age, right price already with experience....Doubt we will be looking for many players around age 30 giving them a long contract. Players like Watson and Stephenson are now the market we are shopping in and rightly so. Low risk, high reward.

Amortisation is simply an accountancy requirement to deprecate the cost of an intangible asset over its lifetime - it has little to no relevance in respect to day to day football.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by Sluffy

6 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Amortisation is simply an accountancy requirement to deprecate the cost of an intangible asset over its lifetime - it has little to no relevance over to day to day football.

intangible being the operative word........Watson and Stephenson would almost certainly not be in this bracket. We are not looking at players whose value would decrease. Saying we are signing players for 12m is not a option so all what you are saying on this matter is irrelevant is it not????

4 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

intangible being the operative word........Watson and Stephenson would almost certainly not be in this bracket. We are not looking at players whose value would decrease. Saying we are signing players for 12m is not a option so all what you are saying on this matter is irrelevant is it not????

Every players value decreases until someone comes in to buy them, but you can't capture that. If we sign a player for £3million, on a 3 year deal, they decrease by £1 million per year to zero. If they run their contract down a leave, their value is zero. It is only IF a player is sold that their value to us may increase.

Yes who we are buying we will hope will increase in value, but you can't capture a potential future value.

9 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

intangible being the operative word........Watson and Stephenson would almost certainly not be in this bracket. We are not looking at players whose value would decrease. Saying we are signing players for 12m is not a option so all what you are saying on this matter is irrelevant is it not????

I'm pretty sure sure you are trying to string me along again but depreciation in accountancy terms in respect of a football player value over the length of his contact is NOT the same as you are talking about in buying players to appreciate in value.

One is a required book provision, the other is a purchasers personal 'aspiration'

It pisses people off all this trolling of me.

8 minutes ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

Every players value decreases until someone comes in to buy them, but you can't capture that. If we sign a player for £3million, on a 3 year deal, they decrease by £1 million per year to zero. If they run their contract down a leave, their value is zero. It is only IF a player is sold that their value to us may increase.

Yes who we are buying we will hope will increase in value, but you can't capture a potential future value.

Wrong....A players value increases without them being sold or they would not be offered contract extensions on increased terms.

I think you are both being a little pedantic and look at most on here as simpletons.

2 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

Wrong....A players value increases without them being sold or they would not be offered contract extensions on increased terms.

I think you are both being a little pedantic and look at most on here as simpletons.

Ha, from the person who deals in absolutes and often ridicules other positions on performances, players and tactics. Get in the bin.

I don't view anyone as a simpleton, except the few people I know of here personally, but I am also fairly basic.

Just stating that for accounting purposes the value of a player will always decrease, until either they are sold, or as you do point out the club offers a new contract, but I think that is more complicated as it only salary costs, not purchase costs associated.

I really don't care that much so will just read the back and forth from now on.

7 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I'm pretty sure sure you are trying to string me along again but depreciation in accountancy terms in respect of a football player value over the length of his contact is NOT the same as you are talking about in buying players to appreciate in value.

One is a required book provision, the other is a purchasers personal 'aspiration'

It pisses people off all this trolling of me.

This is a football forum and not Mathematics weekly. Everything you say you then add your Accountancy term. Nobody is trolling you.

You have been back roughly a week and i am not sure if you are a wind up merchant or not,

I have met many people in life who academically are astute, but cannot change a tyre or plug. Perhaps you are in that bracket.

9 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

This is a football forum and not Mathematics weekly. Everything you say you then add your Accountancy term. Nobody is trolling you.

You have been back roughly a week and i am not sure if you are a wind up merchant or not,

I have met many people in life who academically are astute, but cannot change a tyre or plug. Perhaps you are in that bracket.

J if you still have issues with me from Nuts, then let us sort them out there.

This has nothing to do with this forum or the people who post on here.

Just now, Sluffy said:

J if you still have issues with me from Nuts, then let us sort them out there.

This has nothing to do with this forum or the people who post on here.

Never knew you from there as i have never frequented the place....No issues with you here

You just seem a little insecure.

First time i ever seen a post from you was about 10 days ago when you lectured me about the Swiss and FV being all and one

So you need to relax a little the whole site is not against you

Probably more on here who slag and have a go at me, but i really just brush it off. I am from the era that a few words on a football forum does not bother me in the least. Just because i have a opposite opinion with you does not mean the next time you post something i will be against it

Just chill a little

13 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

J if you still have issues with me from Nuts, then let us sort them out there.

This has nothing to do with this forum or the people who post on here.

Nah, sort it in front of the club dhop then we can all watch! 🤣

37 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

Wrong....A players value increases without them being sold or they would not be offered contract extensions on increased terms.

I think you are both being a little pedantic and look at most on here as simpletons.

Isn't that what Derby tried and didn't get away with it?

10 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Isn't that what Derby tried and didn't get away with it?

don't recall the finer details but sounds familiar to what Risdale did at Leeds as well

13 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

Never knew you from there as i have never frequented the place....No issues with you here

You just seem a little insecure.

First time i ever seen a post from you was about 10 days ago when you lectured me about the Swiss and FV being all and one

So you need to relax a little the whole site is not against you

Probably more on here who slag and have a go at me, but i really just brush it off. I am from the era that a few words on a football forum does not bother me in the least. Just because i have a opposite opinion with you does not mean the next time you post something i will be against it

Just chill a little

I know who you are J.

I know the games you play.

You asked a question and I answered it.

Not my problem if you didn't realise that the Swiss were part of FV and not rivals to them.

I'll not be playing your games anymore.

2 hours ago, Wanderlust said:

Yup and for further clarification in this case, the rules say we can only spend so much compared to our football income so in crude terms if we sign a player for 4 million and give him a contract for 4 years it can be accounted as a million each year.

The problem with overuse of this approach, is that you have immediately used £1 million of the transfer budget for the next three years.

1 hour ago, masi 51 said:

intangible being the operative word........Watson and Stephenson would almost certainly not be in this bracket. We are not looking at players whose value would decrease. Saying we are signing players for 12m is not a option so all what you are saying on this matter is irrelevant is it not????

You are conflating two issues here. The transfer costs can be amortised over the period of the contract.

At the same time, you can also value assets on a balance sheet, at the end of the financial period. A player’s transfer value can be an example of this. However, a player’s value is both subjective and dependent on the price the market is prepared to pay, at any given time. For this reason, they are intangible assets.

I’m now going to get lost in football accounting rules and regulations. I’m sure clubs were overestimating player values, in order to present balanced accounts. Because of this, I’m sure restrictions were introduced to prevent this, but I’m not familiar with the details.

4 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I know who you are J.

I know the games you play.

You asked a question and I answered it.

Not my problem if you didn't realise that the Swiss were part of FV and not rivals to them.

I'll not be playing your games anymore.

You have no clue who i am, not that it would bother me in the slightest no part of my name has a j in it

No games you have me mixed with another

What question did i ask???

The Swiss are not part of the original FV even though one has a brother that was part of the original FV group and i agree they all sing from the same sheet.

Whoever this j is go and address it with him, he is not me.

8 minutes ago, Rival Son said:

The problem with overuse of this approach, is that you have immediately used £1 million of the transfer budget for the next three years.

You are conflating two issues here. The transfer costs can be amortised over the period of the contract.

At the same time, you can also value assets on a balance sheet, at the end of the financial period. A player’s transfer value can be an example of this. However, a player’s value is both subjective and dependent on the price the market is prepared to pay, at any given time. For this reason, they are intangible assets.

I’m now going to get lost in football accounting rules and regulations. I’m sure clubs were overestimating player values, in order to present balanced accounts. Because of this, I’m sure restrictions were introduced to prevent this, but I’m not familiar with the details.

Fair assessment this new 85% rule will only stretch teams further with overvaluing players worth. Which in turn will increase a players salary.

Dog eat dog

3 minutes ago, Rival Son said:

The problem with overuse of this approach, is that you have immediately used £1 million of the transfer budget for the next three years.

No, the transfer fee could be paid in full up front but the books will still amortise the fee over the life of the players contact.

Alternatively if the transfer fee is paid in instalments over a period of time, the amount remaining will be shown as a creditor in the accounts and paid from revenue.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the owners will provide the next yearly transfer budget minus the £1m still owing on the outstanding transfer fee, it is more likely they would work to how much more capital they want to put into the club as equity to afford to sign the players they want in that particular window but the end result would be much the same in that the £1m instalment due is paid by the club from the accounts which up to now has traded at a loss and funded from the previous equity the owners have put into the club - ie the owners pick up the tab from what they had previously put in (and not what they might have put in now, less £1m).

Amortisation is an accountancy rule and I would doubt very much indeed that any auditor would sign off any accounts not adhering to them.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by Sluffy

3 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Maybe SS is planning a look at Warren as one of them.

I doubt he'll be featuring much next season

Apparently Rovers are in for Stephenson as well