Transfer discussion thread

Remove this Banner Ad

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
59,832
20,595
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
You can't register a player if there's no intent for them to play football. Annex 3 states this.


In your proposal there is no intention for the player to play football either at the club or on loan. Just sell the player immediately for a profit. Because any game played by the player for the club means he can't play anywhere else for the rest of the season.
You quoted it yourself

As an exception to this rule, a player may have to be registered with a club for mere technical reasons to secure transparency in consecutive individual transactions (cf. Annexe 3)

You may as well be honest, you don't like the idea because it's us that would benefit from it.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
59,832
20,595
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
Nah, no buts. Pretty funny you accuse Liverpool of trying to spread amortisation out over a 5.5 year contract signed mid season as opposed to a 5 year contract. You've said many irrational things about Liverpool (and it was you that brought up Liverpool in this discussion even though it wasn't about the club) but this one has reached a new level of delusion by yourself.

PMSL. I didn't accuse Liverpool of trying to spread out amortisation, just they have some players signed on longer than 5 years.

If amortisation was the reason for the longer term contracts, who cares? Totally within the laws of the game and has been for years.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sphynx

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 10, 2011
5,861
17,968
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Amortization is an absolutely rubbish loophole anyway.

It should simply be costs lodged of the installment amounts for players in those financial years.

I doubt Shakhtar is accepting 8.5 years of installments to see the full transfer fee.

So why should you be able to spread the transfer costs on your reporting?

It may be part of the rules, but looks like not for much longer.
 
Last edited:

Zidane98

TheBrownDog
Dec 22, 2009
54,276
28,893
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
Amortization is an absolutely rubbish loophole anyway.

It should simply lodged as the costs of the player in those financial years, base on the installment amounts paid.

I doubt Shakhtar is accepting 8.5 years of installments to see the full transfer fee.

So why should you be able to spread the transfer costs on your reporting?

It may be part of the rules, but looks like not for much longer.

Yes, it should be shut down immediately. Like tomorrow.


Player transfer fees should only be amortised over 5 years. That's the FIFA standard so it should apply considering they govern all professional transfers / player contracts.


And before anyone tries contract extensions should not affect amoritsation either. To prevent smart arse clubs signing a 5 year deal and then pushing it out to a 7/8 year deal 2 years down the track. UEFA are onto it, not sure how much PL FFP differs from UEFA's rules.


Let's see how many clubs are then prepared to give out 7/8 year deals.
 

Sphynx

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 10, 2011
5,861
17,968
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Yes, it should be shut down immediately. Like tomorrow.


Player transfer fees should only be amortised over 5 years. That's the FIFA standard so it should apply considering they govern all professional transfers / player contracts.


And before anyone tries contract extensions should not affect amoritsation either. To prevent smart arse clubs signing a 5 year deal and then pushing it out to a 7/8 year deal 2 years down the track. UEFA are onto it, not sure how much PL FFP differs from UEFA's rules.


Let's see how many clubs are then prepared to give out 7/8 year deals.

You shouldn't even be able to amortise over 5 years.

If they have a 5 year contract, sure their wages are reported over 5 years.

If their transfer fee is paid in 3 installments contained in 3 financial years, it should simply be that.
 

Zidane98

TheBrownDog
Dec 22, 2009
54,276
28,893
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
You shouldn't even be able to amortise over 5 years.

If they have a 5 year contract, sure their wages are reported over 5 years.

If their transfer fee is paid in 3 installments contained in 3 financial years, it should simply be that.

For a depreciating asset amortisation is fair enough. What you are suggesting would pretty much end buyout clause activation transfers though which would be unfair on those who have a buyout clause. No club is going to want the whole amount on their books in that season (buyout clauses are generally paid one in lump sum).
 

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
121,288
81,938
North Shore
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, WCW
Amortization is an absolutely rubbish loophole anyway.

It should simply be costs lodged of the installment amounts for players in those financial years.

I doubt Shakhtar is accepting 8.5 years of installments to see the full transfer fee.

So why should you be able to spread the transfer costs on your reporting?

It may be part of the rules, but looks like not for much longer.

I'm not sure you understand how accounting works haha if you think this is unique to football.

Why should it be done on a cash basis not an accounting basis? Much more open to manipulation.
 

Sphynx

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 10, 2011
5,861
17,968
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I'm not sure you understand how accounting works haha if you think this is unique to football.

Why should it be done on a cash basis not an accounting basis? Much more open to manipulation.

I know amortization is not unique to football, did I say it was? FFP rules and essentially rebranded salary caps are fairly unique to sports.

Spreading the purchase cost over the length of their employment contract is stupid in the context of trying to enforce spending and salary caps.
 

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
121,288
81,938
North Shore
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, WCW
I know amortization is not unique to football, did I say it was? FFP rules and essentially rebranded salary caps are fairly unique to sports.

Spreading the purchase cost over the length of their employment contract is stupid in the context of trying to enforce spending and salary caps.

They are but they are also based on a club's profit and loss which is based on accounting rules which includes the concept of amortisation over the life of a player's contract. As Moomba said, if you pay a fee over three years, but the player is so good you end up extending his contract by 4-5 years, why should you not be able to expense his contract over that time?

Why is it any more stupid than being able to offset your FFP in a single year with the entire profit on the sale and not similarly having to recognise that in line with when you receive receipts?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sphynx

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 10, 2011
5,861
17,968
AFL Club
North Melbourne
They are but they are also based on a club's profit and loss which is based on accounting rules which includes the concept of amortisation over the life of a player's contract. As Moomba said, if you pay a fee over three years, but the player is so good you end up extending his contract by 4-5 years, why should you not be able to expense his contract over that time?

You should be able to expense his contract over that time. But his wages only, the problem isn't in amortizing his wage, it's amortizing his purchase costs which aren't reflective of your actual real year to year costs.

Why is it any more stupid than being able to offset your FFP in a single year with the entire profit on the sale and not similarly having to recognise that in line with when you receive receipts?

It isn't, you shouldn't be able to do that either.

It should be based entirely on the commercial terms of the sale agreement.

If you receive 4 installments over 4 years, you should only be able declare the % of income in those 4 years.



The fact clubs can spend 100% of their annual turnover in a few weeks on transfer fees, then spend 75% of their annual £400m turnover on wages, then still have the running costs of a global sporting club to factor in and be considered under FFP and spending regulations is the problem....

PL clubs should naturally be able to spend more than other leagues, as their income is far higher, however the current system is completely broken.
 
Last edited:

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
121,288
81,938
North Shore
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, WCW
You should be able to expense his contract over that time. But his wages only, the problem isn't in amortizing his wage, it's amortizing his purchase costs which aren't reflective of your actual real costs.



It isn't, you shouldn't be able to do that either.

It should be based entirely on the commercial terms of the sale agreement.

If you receive 4 installments over 4 years, you should only be able declare income in those 4 years.

You don't amortize wages, they're a P&L item. Amortization is the process of writing off the asset value, which is purely the transfer fee. Which is a real cost, not quite sure what you mean about his purchase costs not being reflective of 'real' costs. If you're genuinely curious about how FFP works and the process of amortiziing contracts, Price of Football is a great podcast that goes into it.

Income isn't recognised on the receipt of cash. It's recognised on the sale/disposal of the asset. Cash receipts have no bearing on when income is recognised.
 

jd2010

#ENICOut #LevyOut
Feb 1, 2010
37,073
18,786
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur, Brentford FC
Annex 3 on player transfer says:

2. A player may only be registered with a club for the purpose of playing organised football. As an exception to this rule, a player may have to be registered with a club for mere technical reasons to secure transparency in consecutive individual transactions (cf. Annexe 3)

There's one problem with the transfer as clearly there is no intent for the club to play him at all if they want to sell him immediately without going on loan or playing for the club. He can't play for City and then Spurs as per below

Annex 4 says

Players may be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season. During this period, the player is only eligible to play official matches for two clubs


I believe a loan is possible (as long as Porro does not play a single game for City) but a transfer is not.



Also, the player must agree the City buy back. Much easier for Spurs to convince the player to join them directly and ignore attempts to buy him back.
It's in his agents and possibly his best financial interests to go to us via city. Gets an agent fee on 2 deals. Could probably negotiate the player a sign on fee for City too which would still be profitable for them to pay out
 

Art Vandelay_

TheBrownDog
Oct 28, 2012
97,249
131,918
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Bushrangers - Tottenham
What is going on with Richarlison though? You've literally signed our best player last window and now signed our loanee replacement, for said best player! :laughing:
Was alright off the bench pre-world cup. Scored a couple good goals in the champions lesgue. Got injured in Qatar and hasn’t played since.
 

Remove this Banner Ad