Makis Posted June 17, 2022 Report Share Posted June 17, 2022 Selling someone this financial year could help. This is what Burnley & Leeds were moaning about as we have put down a lot of deductions based on not able to sell players thanks to Covid. So selling someone like Richarlison would be a "see, we told you!". Plus it would make the losses from the last three years look a lot better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Btay Posted June 17, 2022 Report Share Posted June 17, 2022 Be a good deal if we send Gomes the other way & go a loan with obligation to buy, which I assume wouldn’t affect our FFP parameters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shukes Posted June 17, 2022 Report Share Posted June 17, 2022 April to April over here, so we have entered a new year. So FFP will be calculated on the last two seasons and this coming season. So we do have some money to spend, due to us holding back last season. Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted June 17, 2022 Report Share Posted June 17, 2022 2 hours ago, Btay said: Shame we didn’t pay him the 2mil a week as the papers were reporting. Would have saved a fortune when we let him go. I was regretting letting him go when we were uncertain of safety as I think he would have won us enough points. however, if someone said “get rid and you will still survive “. I would do it. the only difference between James and the toxic element that still need ejecting from the club is that he was a class player. Having a £200k a week player picking and choosing when he plays? No fuckin chance. And yes it did happen, we seen him sub himself. He’s been abysmal in Qatar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 17, 2022 Report Share Posted June 17, 2022 33 minutes ago, Shukes said: April to April over here, so we have entered a new year. So FFP will be calculated on the last two seasons and this coming season. So we do have some money to spend, due to us holding back last season. I thought that was the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 17, 2022 Report Share Posted June 17, 2022 3 hours ago, Hafnia said: Are we not into the next financial year now? So effectively if we manage to get money in as part of the sake that appears as profit/income…. With us being very transparent with the EPL we can say “if we spend £100m this summer this will be offset by x on our books do we will be fine?” We are but the period isn't closed. I don't believe it counts month end to month end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makis Posted June 17, 2022 Report Share Posted June 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Shukes said: So we do have some money to spend, due to us holding back last season. You only basically calculate deprecation into loss, not the transfer value of player. This is how things work in bookkeeping everywhere. If a company invests in, say, a machine, cost of that machine is not loss. Instead they add the value of that machine to assets. But the machine loses value and this can cause a loss if it is not offset by increased revenue. In football, usually player's value is deprecated during his contract. And many of our expensive players are still on their first contracts so their values need to be deprecated. On the other hand we will see quite a drop in deprecations because both Sigurdsson (~9m/a) and Tosun (6m/a) are removed plus their wages (and that of Delph as well, his value deprecation was only 2m/a). But as has been said, FFP is calculated over three seasons and we made a big loss in the previous two. Last season should already have been much better since Walcott (5m/a deprecation + 5m/pa wages), (Bolasie, 6m/a + 4m/a) and we saved a lot of money on wages on James and Bernard (around 15m/a in total). Selling Digne also looks good in the books as his book value wasn't much anymore having signed in 2018 (book value has to obviously be deducted when a player is sold so transfer fee is not directly just profit). But I suspect we will still be far from profitable considering how big the losses have been. Goodison Glory, Matt and Shukes 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodison Glory Posted June 17, 2022 Report Share Posted June 17, 2022 6 minutes ago, Makis said: You only basically calculate deprecation into loss, not the transfer value of player. This is how things work in bookkeeping everywhere. If a company invests in, say, a machine, cost of that machine is not loss. Instead they add the value of that machine to assets. But the machine loses value and this can cause a loss if it is not offset by increased revenue. In football, usually player's value is deprecated during his contract. And many of our expensive players are still on their first contracts so their values need to be deprecated. On the other hand we will see quite a drop in deprecations because both Sigurdsson (~9m/a) and Tosun (6m/a) are removed plus their wages (and that of Delph as well, his value deprecation was only 2m/a). But as has been said, FFP is calculated over three seasons and we made a big loss in the previous two. Last season should already have been much better since Walcott (5m/a deprecation + 5m/pa wages), (Bolasie, 6m/a + 4m/a) and we saved a lot of money on wages on James and Bernard (around 15m/a in total). Selling Digne also looks good in the books as his book value wasn't much anymore having signed in 2018 (book value has to obviously be deducted when a player is sold so transfer fee is not directly just profit). But I suspect we will still be far from profitable considering how big the losses have been. Great post Makis. A good example of your depreciation statement is that Richie is valued at $14M on the books..so if we sell him for say 60M we make our situation better because whoever we replace him with would not have (for arguments sake) £60M hitting the books in year 1. I posted an article from the Esk earlier this month where he highlighted the problem caused by the rolling 3 years (actually 4 as two years are combined due to COVID). The year that is rolling off is only a £13M loss but it is being replaced in the calculation by a projected £78M loss (projected as books not closed/final). So we are in an even bigger hole before the wages of Tosun/Gylfi et al are removed. Shukes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shukes Posted June 17, 2022 Report Share Posted June 17, 2022 I agree with all of that Makis totally. But FFP is worked out over a three year period. So the third year has to be calculated by the clubs P@L predictions. This will then get divided into the previous two years with considerations taken for Covid implications. The club, working with those figures then will have a good idea of what they have to spend for the coming season. They will already have a figure that can be spent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shukes Posted June 17, 2022 Report Share Posted June 17, 2022 We also have to consider that the high profile players that have a low value due to depreciation, can be sold for a lot more than their book worth. Giving us extra spending power from the offset. Example Richie. Book worth 16m. Sell for 60m. That gives us money to spend. Now we can’t go out and. Buy a 60m player with that, but we don’t need to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodison Glory Posted June 17, 2022 Report Share Posted June 17, 2022 7 hours ago, Shukes said: We also have to consider that the high profile players that have a low value due to depreciation, can be sold for a lot more than their book worth. Giving us extra spending power from the offset. Example Richie. Book worth 16m. Sell for 60m. That gives us money to spend. Now we can’t go out and. Buy a 60m player with that, but we don’t need to. Is that not what I already said A good example of your depreciation statement is that Richie is valued at $14M on the books..so if we sell him for say 60M we make our situation better because whoever we replace him with would not have (for arguments sake) £60M hitting the books in year Shukes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shukes Posted June 17, 2022 Report Share Posted June 17, 2022 Sorry mate. I’m responding to posts as I read them, then scrolling down and reading yours haha. Goodison Glory 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 18, 2022 Report Share Posted June 18, 2022 9 hours ago, Goodison Glory said: Is that not what I already said A good example of your depreciation statement is that Richie is valued at $14M on the books..so if we sell him for say 60M we make our situation better because whoever we replace him with would not have (for arguments sake) £60M hitting the books in year Except the books aren't considered in FFP until end of the financial year, next April. So we can't just go out and spend, there's a loooot of ground to make up even if we do make a massive profit on Richie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodison Glory Posted June 18, 2022 Report Share Posted June 18, 2022 3 hours ago, Matt said: Except the books aren't considered in FFP until end of the financial year, next April. So we can't just go out and spend, there's a loooot of ground to make up even if we do make a massive profit on Richie Exactly. Like I said the year that is rolling off had a massively lower loss than the year that is going to get added. Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted June 18, 2022 Report Share Posted June 18, 2022 On 17/06/2022 at 15:32, Shukes said: We also have to consider that the high profile players that have a low value due to depreciation, can be sold for a lot more than their book worth. Giving us extra spending power from the offset. Example Richie. Book worth 16m. Sell for 60m. That gives us money to spend. Now we can’t go out and. Buy a 60m player with that, but we don’t need to. 21 hours ago, Goodison Glory said: Is that not what I already said A good example of your depreciation statement is that Richie is valued at $14M on the books..so if we sell him for say 60M we make our situation better because whoever we replace him with would not have (for arguments sake) £60M hitting the books in year Will it work like that though? Its unlikely whoever buys Richarlison will pay in a single lump sum. They are normally paid for in installments, say £20mil across 3 years for arguments sake. Would the impact really be £60mil straight on the first relevent set of accounts or would it be £20mil across each of the next 3 years' worth of accounts? Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shukes Posted June 18, 2022 Report Share Posted June 18, 2022 Just now, Bailey said: Will it work like that though? Its unlikely whoever buys Richarlison will pay in a single lump sum. They are normally paid for in installments, say £20mil across 3 years for arguments sake. Would the impact really be £60mil straight on the first relevent set of accounts or would it be £20mil across each of the next 3 years' worth of accounts? Your right, depends on structure. The same would be for any player coming in as well though. Bailey and StevO 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted June 19, 2022 Report Share Posted June 19, 2022 21 hours ago, Goodison Glory said: Exactly. Like I said the year that is rolling off had a massively lower loss than the year that is going to get added. Are we not losing the 111m and replacing it with the covid adjusted one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodison Glory Posted June 19, 2022 Report Share Posted June 19, 2022 13 minutes ago, Hafnia said: Are we not losing the 111m and replacing it with the covid adjusted one? The way I understand it is that until ALL covid affected years are completely passed through FPP then you continue to combine 4yrs not 3yrs of accounts. So we need to be thinking about Year Ending 19, 20, 21 and 22 YE2018 (13M losses) will roll off and be replaced by 22 (projected at this stage so who knows how accurate that is. Hafnia 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted June 25, 2022 Report Share Posted June 25, 2022 https://www.goodisonnews.com/2022/06/25/everton-submit-formal-bid-to-tempt-sporting-into-negotiation-for-matheus-nunes/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted June 25, 2022 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2022 25 minutes ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: https://www.goodisonnews.com/2022/06/25/everton-submit-formal-bid-to-tempt-sporting-into-negotiation-for-matheus-nunes/ These people honestly get paid for this. Crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted August 16, 2022 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2022 Wolves have agreed a fee for him - £42.2m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted August 16, 2022 Report Share Posted August 16, 2022 Just signed him official £ 45m fee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted August 16, 2022 Report Share Posted August 16, 2022 1 hour ago, Bill said: Just signed him official £ 45m fee. Daft money, if you ask me. Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuffRob Posted August 16, 2022 Report Share Posted August 16, 2022 Makes the Onana deal for around the £33M mark look decent business to me then. StevO, chicagoblue and London Blue 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicagoblue Posted August 16, 2022 Report Share Posted August 16, 2022 Sporting don't half know how to bargain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.