Board/Owners Related Stuff

[Finn balor]

A little bit of sex wee came out then 

[pete0]

3 hours ago, Makis said:

“They are going to build a new stadium. Why not the USM Arena?

Well guess we now know the name of the new stadium. Hopefully they drop arena for stadium or football ground. Don't know why but arena just doesn't sound right to me for a football stadium 

[Finn balor]

I’d love us to put a big fuck you to the rest of the ball bag clubs and name it the people’s stadium or something related to Everton. Surely buying shares and building the stadium is separate to buying players? Ussie is going to make his money back on the retail and regeneration of the area with his steel 

[Shukes]

1 hour ago, pete0 said:

Well guess we now know the name of the new stadium. Hopefully they drop arena for stadium or football ground. Don't know why but arena just doesn't sound right to me for a football stadium 

The USM theatre of science?

[Shukes]

2 minutes ago, Finn balor said:

I’d love us to put a big fuck you to the rest of the ball bag clubs and name it the people’s stadium or something related to Everton. Surely buying shares and building the stadium is separate to buying players? Ussie is going to make his money back on the retail and regeneration of the area with his steel 

School of Science it is then!

[Finn balor]

I’ll take that 

[Matt]

2 hours ago, pete0 said:

Well guess we now know the name of the new stadium. Hopefully they drop arena for stadium or football ground. Don't know why but arena just doesn't sound right to me for a football stadium 

I’d rather it be called Bramley Moore Dock and have the advertising inside, or on the external infrastructure. Why go to all the effort of blending into the riverscape, redeveloping Goodison, invest in the local community and preserve history to have a shitty corporate name which might cover 1 solid annual salary? Would undermine the whole project  

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-48336453

just remember, you only get those top 6 figures when you’ve won stuff. 

[pete0]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

I’d rather it be called Bramley Moore Dock and have the advertising inside, or on the external infrastructure. Why go to all the effort of blending into the riverscape, redeveloping Goodison, invest in the local community and preserve history to have a shitty corporate name which might cover 1 solid annual salary? Would undermine the whole project  

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-48336453

just remember, you only get those top 6 figures when you’ve won stuff. 

City use it as away to get round financial fair play rules. Prefer something less corporate myself but if a bloke is putting half a billion quid about the city I think it's only fair he gets to put his name on it. 

[Matt]

2 minutes ago, pete0 said:

City use it as away to get round financial fair play rules. Prefer something less corporate myself but if a bloke is putting half a billion quid about the city I think it's only fair he gets to put his name on it. 

City did that and got “punished”, plus had /have to comply with UEFA. Their naming rights are also a pittance of their income; £20m of £550m. You want the corporate part? Get USM on the shirt, win things and sign a £65m a year Puma deal. 

[Romey 1878]

Be good to get him officially involved so he can really start pumping in the money in a big way. Moshiri has probably just been face of Usmanov from the get go.

[Chach]

On 04/01/2020 at 03:43, Shukes said:

The USM theatre of science?

 Lets just call it The Laboratory 

[Palfy]

I’ve read the accounts that were published and they make scary reading, to think we are owned by an accountant is not far short of an April’s fool joke, we owe as a club to Moshiri to date £350 million in personal loans, we are being kept a float by two men in Moshiri and Usmanov, what concerns me is if they throw another few hundred million more at Ancelotti and the team and that fails, is one or both going to throw the towel in and with draw there money, and look to their next project. 
Let’s not forget these are business men not born and bred Evertonian’s, the amount of debt they have got the club into is now that great that the club wouldn’t be able to survive if they called the loans in, it’s peanuts to them and their wealth, but they could walk if they constantly keep failing to buy success. 
I am for one very concerned at how we have become so financially miss managed and what the future holds, I know people will say there billionaires don’t worry but that could turn out to be fool’s gold, if they can’t create the success there money and the new stadium requires, I don’t trust them to stay around if Brands and Ancelotti don’t work out, because why do they need to. 

[Makis]

Chelsea did the same with Abrahimovic. They own way more than that to him. Giving money directly to a club is not exactly simple so that's why they do it like this.

It also wouldn't make much sense if they called the loans in. They wouldn't get more than scrapes. A player firesale would bring only a fraction of their real value and apart from that there isn't that many saleable assets. If they wanted to recoup their money they would rather sell the club to someone else because the rest of the value is in intangible assets, i.e. Premier League status and sponsorship deals.

[Shukes]

Player value depreciates as any business asset does. Sponsorships are your main source of income, as its pure profit.

Player sales are always going to be subsidised with squad budget.

[Matt]

1 hour ago, Shukes said:

Player value depreciates as any business asset does. Sponsorships are your main source of income, as its pure profit.

Player sales are always going to be subsidised with squad budget.

Player value depends on 3 main things; age, form and the market. You just have to identify possible depreciation based on these things and the market is constantly getting more ridiculous 

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Player value depends on 3 main things; age, form and the market. You just have to identify possible depreciation based on these things and the market is constantly getting more ridiculous 

They don’t depreciate players values like the do vehicles by a percentage every year over a three or four year deal, the adjustment is made to the business when a player leaves not whilst they are still here. 

[Sibdane]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

Player value depends on 3 main things; age, form and the market. You just have to identify possible depreciation based on these things and the market is constantly getting more ridiculous 

 

46 minutes ago, Palfy said:

They don’t depreciate players values like the do vehicles by a percentage every year over a three or four year deal, the adjustment is made to the business when a player leaves not whilst they are still here. 

Depreciation on a person is a strange concept to me, but it makes sense in the world of sports. Question is: how do you determine the amount of depreciation on a player like Ronaldo, Messi, etc.? They seem to get better each year. History tells us that more often than players peak a certain age depending on position; I would love to see the books and understand how that is calculated on financial statements. Someone have a spreadsheet for me?

[Shukes]

2 hours ago, Palfy said:

They don’t depreciate players values like the do vehicles by a percentage every year over a three or four year deal, the adjustment is made to the business when a player leaves not whilst they are still here. 

Depreciation still operates for the investment. Once a player enters a new contract, his value is the wage. Anything he is sold for is profit. Asset management.

[Shukes]

1 hour ago, Sibdane said:

 

Depreciation on a person is a strange concept to me, but it makes sense in the world of sports. Question is: how do you determine the amount of depreciation on a player like Ronaldo, Messi, etc.? They seem to get better each year. History tells us that more often than players peak a certain age depending on position; I would love to see the books and understand how that is calculated on financial statements. Someone have a spreadsheet for me?

A player like that is a gold mine for a club as their asset price would depreciate, where the player may grow in value.

I suspose  it’s like you selling yourself as a self employed person to your own limited company.

[Sibdane]

Just now, Shukes said:

A player like that is a gold mine for a club as their asset price would depreciate, where the player may grow in value.

I suspose  it’s like you selling yourself as a self employed person to your own limited company.

Well i think that's appreciation, my friend. 

[Palfy]

6 minutes ago, Shukes said:

Depreciation still operates for the investment. Once a player enters a new contract, his value is the wage. Anything he is sold for is profit. Asset management.

I think you might find it works different to that, we paid say £25 million for Schneiderlin in the years he’s been here has his value as a club asset decreased or increased as entered in last years accounts, a players wage has nothing to do with his value, all wages go down as over head cost to the business. 

[Shukes]

3 minutes ago, Palfy said:

I think you might find it works different to that, we paid say £25 million for Schneiderlin in the years he’s been here has his value as a club asset decreased or increased as entered in last years accounts, a players wage has nothing to do with his value, all wages go down as over head cost to the business. 

We are owed money for having him.

[Shukes]

Did anyone ever read the asset list a few years ago? Can’t remember if it was linked somewhere here or if it was a tabloid article. 
It listed players values due to their contract lengths.

The clubs usually pay transfers in instalments, rarely do clubs pay all the money in a lump. This is where asset management comes in. 

[Palfy]

2 minutes ago, Shukes said:

We are owed money for having him.

But what is his value as an asset as entered in the clubs accounts. 

[Makis]

Player's value is very simply the price bought versus how long he has in his contract left. So for a 30 million pound player on a five year contract value drops by six million each year. And players who go beyond that original contract (sign a new one) are AFAIK considered to have no value. They don't really try to guess what players are worth in the accounts.

[pete0]

14 minutes ago, Makis said:

Player's value is very simply the price bought versus how long he has in his contract left. So for a 30 million pound player on a five year contract value drops by six million each year. And players who go beyond that original contract (sign a new one) are AFAIK considered to have no value. They don't really try to guess what players are worth in the accounts.

Close, most use the wages. £100k a week player on 5 year contract is worth £25m in the books and depreciates as each year lapses. New longer contract or higher wages then increases the assets worth. 

[Palfy]

4 minutes ago, Makis said:

Player's value is very simply the price bought versus how long he has in his contract left. So for a 30 million pound player on a five year contract value drops by six million each year. And players who go beyond that original contract (sign a new one) are AFAIK considered to have no value. They don't really try to guess what players are worth in the accounts.

So are you saying that each year he has a write down in the clubs accounts as a proportion of his cost divided over the term of his contract 

So we buy someone for 50 million on a 4 year contract and offset our profits by 12.5 million a year on based on the depreciation value of that player as a loss and profit right down, then if we sell at any time and if we make more money or don’t lose as much as we had on our write down  we adjust our loss and profit figures accordingly. 

[Palfy]

14 minutes ago, pete0 said:

Close, most use the wages. £100k a week player on 5 year contract is worth £25m in the books and depreciates as each year lapses. New longer contract or higher wages then increases the assets worth. 

So the cost of the player doesn’t form the valuation of the asset to the business. 

[pete0]

5 minutes ago, Palfy said:

So the cost of the player doesn’t form the valuation of the asset to the business. 

The contract is the asset. I don't know enough about corporation tax or accounting but apparently this was in part the reason Rooney got the bumper contract whilst at United. By paying him the silly money it boosted their assets to help balance the books. 

[Shukes]

9 hours ago, Palfy said:

But what is his value as an asset as entered in the clubs accounts. 

Zero. His cost has already devalued on our books. He is paid for and only costs us a wage now.