Chelsea situation was a case of them owing the owner hundreds of millions in an interest free loan. He wrote that debt off pre sale as he couldn't receive the funds.
That helped their ffp massively.
United have spent huge sums and have over 300m in outstanding payments for transfers alone. Wage bill is also included with ffp. If united could remove 5-6 big earners that'd be 30-40m saved potentially. I think owners can invest x amount per season to prop up the club. May be 30m or something like that I can't remember.
For united to spend big, on the understanding the sale won't go through in time for the summer, a good sponsorship deal or clear out seems the only viable way united could spend big again. United paying a tax on every target doesn't help them.
I know Liverpool will save 30+ million just losing firminio, ox and Keita and a few others so I'm sure just shipping some out for free will save a big chunk fornunited
Apparently a lot of our new players are on performance related packages that they obviously won't be redeeming for this season so that saves a few quid.
Honestly it's a lot of effort to put into a WUM when there's no nuance to it, far too obvious
That said I haven't read back yet, there's probably a load of bites knowing this place
comment by TCW (U6489)
posted 2 minutes ago
Apparently a lot of our new players are on performance related packages that they obviously won't be redeeming for this season so that saves a few quid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd have a check on their appearance fees given how often some of them disappear in games.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 10 seconds ago
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees
======
Yeah they can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah there is a way they can, depends on how the buy out is done. I think this is some of the reason why Chelsea could spend so big. the way that deal was done wrote off a lot of the debt over existing deals in terms of FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount per season, but not to the lengths of paying off a £300m transfer bill.
For example, OWNERS could can spend on stadium maintenance, non footballing staff wages, travel, Electricity, food, club cars, so that the CLUB can maximise THEIR spend on transfers and even then, that debt came about over almost 2 decades
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah its seperate for that it was to do with new owners coming in and how the deal was structured to then wipe out the debt for the deal to take place.
Wouldnt suprise me if it was some loop hole where they couldn't invest before the complettion of the deal to wipe it and then the last owner would be "punished" and leave the new owners with a clean sweep.
I dont know properly, maybe someone else on here can clear that part up for me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government wouldn't allow Abramovich to benefit from the sale, so he wrote of the money he had personally spent (loaned the club)
Nothing to do with FFP or transfers.
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 10 seconds ago
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees
======
Yeah they can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah there is a way they can, depends on how the buy out is done. I think this is some of the reason why Chelsea could spend so big. the way that deal was done wrote off a lot of the debt over existing deals in terms of FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount per season, but not to the lengths of paying off a £300m transfer bill.
For example, OWNERS could can spend on stadium maintenance, non footballing staff wages, travel, Electricity, food, club cars, so that the CLUB can maximise THEIR spend on transfers and even then, that debt came about over almost 2 decades
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah its seperate for that it was to do with new owners coming in and how the deal was structured to then wipe out the debt for the deal to take place.
Wouldnt suprise me if it was some loop hole where they couldn't invest before the complettion of the deal to wipe it and then the last owner would be "punished" and leave the new owners with a clean sweep.
I dont know properly, maybe someone else on here can clear that part up for me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government wouldn't allow Abramovich to benefit from the sale, so he wrote of the money he had personally spent (loaned the club)
Nothing to do with FFP or transfers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah but I think this then allowed scope for fresh investment and in effect wrote of the previous regimes FFP standing.
In effect gave the new owners a clean slate to work with on FFP.
So owners can invest so much over a set period, and the way this deal was done meant that it wiped out any previous investment giving the new owners more room to do so initially and start a new fresh FFP period.
Its also loop hole they are now looking to clear up as far as im aware
I like the Brighton forecast best Diafol
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 4 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 9 minutes ago
Which is what we’ve been doing for a while hence the huge unpaid transfer costs. But you can’t keep doing this as the repayments go up and up which is why it’s been stated many times that this will effect United’s spending power this summer unless the debts are written off by a new owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees, otherwise what stops billionaire owners buying on credit and then paying it off themselves rather than the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is stopping them, they can absolutely do that, in fact most should do that in an ideal world.
You’re mixing up the balance sheet with the p&l.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 10 seconds ago
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees
======
Yeah they can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah there is a way they can, depends on how the buy out is done. I think this is some of the reason why Chelsea could spend so big. the way that deal was done wrote off a lot of the debt over existing deals in terms of FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount per season, but not to the lengths of paying off a £300m transfer bill.
For example, OWNERS could can spend on stadium maintenance, non footballing staff wages, travel, Electricity, food, club cars, so that the CLUB can maximise THEIR spend on transfers and even then, that debt came about over almost 2 decades
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah its seperate for that it was to do with new owners coming in and how the deal was structured to then wipe out the debt for the deal to take place.
Wouldnt suprise me if it was some loop hole where they couldn't invest before the complettion of the deal to wipe it and then the last owner would be "punished" and leave the new owners with a clean sweep.
I dont know properly, maybe someone else on here can clear that part up for me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government wouldn't allow Abramovich to benefit from the sale, so he wrote of the money he had personally spent (loaned the club)
Nothing to do with FFP or transfers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah but I think this then allowed scope for fresh investment and in effect wrote of the previous regimes FFP standing.
In effect gave the new owners a clean slate to work with on FFP.
So owners can invest so much over a set period, and the way this deal was done meant that it wiped out any previous investment giving the new owners more room to do so initially and start a new fresh FFP period.
Its also loop hole they are now looking to clear up as far as im aware
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah. It didn't impact FFP
The loophole is that they have been signing players on 7-8 year deals to essentially spread the spend over a greater period of time than a standard 5 year deal.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 4 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 9 minutes ago
Which is what we’ve been doing for a while hence the huge unpaid transfer costs. But you can’t keep doing this as the repayments go up and up which is why it’s been stated many times that this will effect United’s spending power this summer unless the debts are written off by a new owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees, otherwise what stops billionaire owners buying on credit and then paying it off themselves rather than the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is stopping them, they can absolutely do that, in fact most should do that in an ideal world.
You’re mixing up the balance sheet with the p&l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not.
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 4 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 9 minutes ago
Which is what we’ve been doing for a while hence the huge unpaid transfer costs. But you can’t keep doing this as the repayments go up and up which is why it’s been stated many times that this will effect United’s spending power this summer unless the debts are written off by a new owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees, otherwise what stops billionaire owners buying on credit and then paying it off themselves rather than the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is stopping them, they can absolutely do that, in fact most should do that in an ideal world.
You’re mixing up the balance sheet with the p&l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you quite clearly are. Outstanding transfer fees are on the balance sheet, all they need to do is an equity investment to get rid of it if they want. Leicester did it for some of theirs this season, Mansour has done it for us several times in the past.
Doesn’t change the amortisation that is going on the p&l though, which is what FFP looks at.
That’s why I said the other day it’s not just about ffp when it comes to what people have to spend.
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 4 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees
======
Yeah they can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they can't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, sorry, but they can and it's not even up for debate.
I don't know you but I'm guessing RDD so I'm out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m sure I’ve said this to one of his previous accounts before!
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 4 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 9 minutes ago
Which is what we’ve been doing for a while hence the huge unpaid transfer costs. But you can’t keep doing this as the repayments go up and up which is why it’s been stated many times that this will effect United’s spending power this summer unless the debts are written off by a new owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees, otherwise what stops billionaire owners buying on credit and then paying it off themselves rather than the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is stopping them, they can absolutely do that, in fact most should do that in an ideal world.
You’re mixing up the balance sheet with the p&l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you quite clearly are. Outstanding transfer fees are on the balance sheet, all they need to do is an equity investment to get rid of it if they want. Leicester did it for some of theirs this season, Mansour has done it for us several times in the past.
Doesn’t change the amortisation that is going on the p&l though, which is what FFP looks at.
That’s why I said the other day it’s not just about ffp when it comes to what people have to spend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They can invest onto the club as equity investment, but they can't use that investment to pay of outstanding transfer fees.
Why if what you claim is true, wouldn't every billionaire owner settle up all transfer fees every season and cruise through FFP?
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 4 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 9 minutes ago
Which is what we’ve been doing for a while hence the huge unpaid transfer costs. But you can’t keep doing this as the repayments go up and up which is why it’s been stated many times that this will effect United’s spending power this summer unless the debts are written off by a new owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees, otherwise what stops billionaire owners buying on credit and then paying it off themselves rather than the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is stopping them, they can absolutely do that, in fact most should do that in an ideal world.
You’re mixing up the balance sheet with the p&l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you quite clearly are. Outstanding transfer fees are on the balance sheet, all they need to do is an equity investment to get rid of it if they want. Leicester did it for some of theirs this season, Mansour has done it for us several times in the past.
Doesn’t change the amortisation that is going on the p&l though, which is what FFP looks at.
That’s why I said the other day it’s not just about ffp when it comes to what people have to spend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They can invest onto the club as equity investment, but they can't use that investment to pay of outstanding transfer fees.
Why if what you claim is true, wouldn't every billionaire owner settle up all transfer fees every season and cruise through FFP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No because FFP looks at the profit and loss not the balance sheet, like I said. Transfers on the p&l are amortised over the length of the contract regardless of when you pay them as it’s depreciation of an asset.
Whether you can afford a transfer for ffp and whether you can afford a transfer because you have available actual funds (or access to it) are completely different things.
So would.this £300m injection into the club then spent on settling up outstanding transfer fees,.be a profit or loss?
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 14 seconds ago
So would.this £300m injection into the club then spent on settling up outstanding transfer fees,.be a profit or loss?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s neither a profit or a loss, it’s an injection into available assets (as in cash - that is then used to pay off debtors) on the balance sheet.
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 15 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 10 seconds ago
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees
======
Yeah they can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah there is a way they can, depends on how the buy out is done. I think this is some of the reason why Chelsea could spend so big. the way that deal was done wrote off a lot of the debt over existing deals in terms of FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount per season, but not to the lengths of paying off a £300m transfer bill.
For example, OWNERS could can spend on stadium maintenance, non footballing staff wages, travel, Electricity, food, club cars, so that the CLUB can maximise THEIR spend on transfers and even then, that debt came about over almost 2 decades
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah its seperate for that it was to do with new owners coming in and how the deal was structured to then wipe out the debt for the deal to take place.
Wouldnt suprise me if it was some loop hole where they couldn't invest before the complettion of the deal to wipe it and then the last owner would be "punished" and leave the new owners with a clean sweep.
I dont know properly, maybe someone else on here can clear that part up for me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government wouldn't allow Abramovich to benefit from the sale, so he wrote of the money he had personally spent (loaned the club)
Nothing to do with FFP or transfers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah but I think this then allowed scope for fresh investment and in effect wrote of the previous regimes FFP standing.
In effect gave the new owners a clean slate to work with on FFP.
So owners can invest so much over a set period, and the way this deal was done meant that it wiped out any previous investment giving the new owners more room to do so initially and start a new fresh FFP period.
Its also loop hole they are now looking to clear up as far as im aware
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah. It didn't impact FFP
The loophole is that they have been signing players on 7-8 year deals to essentially spread the spend over a greater period of time than a standard 5 year deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
U can only spread a fee over 5 yeas now.
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 6 minutes ago
U can only spread a fee over 5 yeas now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuinely thought this was 4za sorry mate
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 15 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 10 seconds ago
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees
======
Yeah they can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah there is a way they can, depends on how the buy out is done. I think this is some of the reason why Chelsea could spend so big. the way that deal was done wrote off a lot of the debt over existing deals in terms of FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount per season, but not to the lengths of paying off a £300m transfer bill.
For example, OWNERS could can spend on stadium maintenance, non footballing staff wages, travel, Electricity, food, club cars, so that the CLUB can maximise THEIR spend on transfers and even then, that debt came about over almost 2 decades
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah its seperate for that it was to do with new owners coming in and how the deal was structured to then wipe out the debt for the deal to take place.
Wouldnt suprise me if it was some loop hole where they couldn't invest before the complettion of the deal to wipe it and then the last owner would be "punished" and leave the new owners with a clean sweep.
I dont know properly, maybe someone else on here can clear that part up for me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government wouldn't allow Abramovich to benefit from the sale, so he wrote of the money he had personally spent (loaned the club)
Nothing to do with FFP or transfers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah but I think this then allowed scope for fresh investment and in effect wrote of the previous regimes FFP standing.
In effect gave the new owners a clean slate to work with on FFP.
So owners can invest so much over a set period, and the way this deal was done meant that it wiped out any previous investment giving the new owners more room to do so initially and start a new fresh FFP period.
Its also loop hole they are now looking to clear up as far as im aware
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah. It didn't impact FFP
The loophole is that they have been signing players on 7-8 year deals to essentially spread the spend over a greater period of time than a standard 5 year deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
there is a lot more than just one loop hole they are fixing !
You can still sign players on 5+ year deals but ffp will only let you spread the fee payments over 5 years.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 hours, 9 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 14 seconds ago
So would.this £300m injection into the club then spent on settling up outstanding transfer fees,.be a profit or loss?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s neither a profit or a loss, it’s an injection into available assets (as in cash - that is then used to pay off debtors) on the balance sheet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Silly to suggest clubs can inject hundreds of millions, and that doesn't impact their profit and losses
Sign in if you want to comment
Title Rivals next season
Page 4 of 5
posted on 19/4/23
Chelsea situation was a case of them owing the owner hundreds of millions in an interest free loan. He wrote that debt off pre sale as he couldn't receive the funds.
That helped their ffp massively.
United have spent huge sums and have over 300m in outstanding payments for transfers alone. Wage bill is also included with ffp. If united could remove 5-6 big earners that'd be 30-40m saved potentially. I think owners can invest x amount per season to prop up the club. May be 30m or something like that I can't remember.
For united to spend big, on the understanding the sale won't go through in time for the summer, a good sponsorship deal or clear out seems the only viable way united could spend big again. United paying a tax on every target doesn't help them.
I know Liverpool will save 30+ million just losing firminio, ox and Keita and a few others so I'm sure just shipping some out for free will save a big chunk fornunited
posted on 19/4/23
Apparently a lot of our new players are on performance related packages that they obviously won't be redeeming for this season so that saves a few quid.
posted on 19/4/23
Honestly it's a lot of effort to put into a WUM when there's no nuance to it, far too obvious
That said I haven't read back yet, there's probably a load of bites knowing this place
posted on 19/4/23
comment by TCW (U6489)
posted 2 minutes ago
Apparently a lot of our new players are on performance related packages that they obviously won't be redeeming for this season so that saves a few quid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd have a check on their appearance fees given how often some of them disappear in games.
posted on 19/4/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 10 seconds ago
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees
======
Yeah they can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah there is a way they can, depends on how the buy out is done. I think this is some of the reason why Chelsea could spend so big. the way that deal was done wrote off a lot of the debt over existing deals in terms of FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount per season, but not to the lengths of paying off a £300m transfer bill.
For example, OWNERS could can spend on stadium maintenance, non footballing staff wages, travel, Electricity, food, club cars, so that the CLUB can maximise THEIR spend on transfers and even then, that debt came about over almost 2 decades
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah its seperate for that it was to do with new owners coming in and how the deal was structured to then wipe out the debt for the deal to take place.
Wouldnt suprise me if it was some loop hole where they couldn't invest before the complettion of the deal to wipe it and then the last owner would be "punished" and leave the new owners with a clean sweep.
I dont know properly, maybe someone else on here can clear that part up for me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government wouldn't allow Abramovich to benefit from the sale, so he wrote of the money he had personally spent (loaned the club)
Nothing to do with FFP or transfers.
posted on 19/4/23
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 10 seconds ago
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees
======
Yeah they can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah there is a way they can, depends on how the buy out is done. I think this is some of the reason why Chelsea could spend so big. the way that deal was done wrote off a lot of the debt over existing deals in terms of FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount per season, but not to the lengths of paying off a £300m transfer bill.
For example, OWNERS could can spend on stadium maintenance, non footballing staff wages, travel, Electricity, food, club cars, so that the CLUB can maximise THEIR spend on transfers and even then, that debt came about over almost 2 decades
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah its seperate for that it was to do with new owners coming in and how the deal was structured to then wipe out the debt for the deal to take place.
Wouldnt suprise me if it was some loop hole where they couldn't invest before the complettion of the deal to wipe it and then the last owner would be "punished" and leave the new owners with a clean sweep.
I dont know properly, maybe someone else on here can clear that part up for me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government wouldn't allow Abramovich to benefit from the sale, so he wrote of the money he had personally spent (loaned the club)
Nothing to do with FFP or transfers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah but I think this then allowed scope for fresh investment and in effect wrote of the previous regimes FFP standing.
In effect gave the new owners a clean slate to work with on FFP.
So owners can invest so much over a set period, and the way this deal was done meant that it wiped out any previous investment giving the new owners more room to do so initially and start a new fresh FFP period.
Its also loop hole they are now looking to clear up as far as im aware
posted on 19/4/23
I like the Brighton forecast best Diafol
posted on 19/4/23
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 4 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 9 minutes ago
Which is what we’ve been doing for a while hence the huge unpaid transfer costs. But you can’t keep doing this as the repayments go up and up which is why it’s been stated many times that this will effect United’s spending power this summer unless the debts are written off by a new owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees, otherwise what stops billionaire owners buying on credit and then paying it off themselves rather than the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is stopping them, they can absolutely do that, in fact most should do that in an ideal world.
You’re mixing up the balance sheet with the p&l.
posted on 19/4/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 10 seconds ago
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees
======
Yeah they can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah there is a way they can, depends on how the buy out is done. I think this is some of the reason why Chelsea could spend so big. the way that deal was done wrote off a lot of the debt over existing deals in terms of FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount per season, but not to the lengths of paying off a £300m transfer bill.
For example, OWNERS could can spend on stadium maintenance, non footballing staff wages, travel, Electricity, food, club cars, so that the CLUB can maximise THEIR spend on transfers and even then, that debt came about over almost 2 decades
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah its seperate for that it was to do with new owners coming in and how the deal was structured to then wipe out the debt for the deal to take place.
Wouldnt suprise me if it was some loop hole where they couldn't invest before the complettion of the deal to wipe it and then the last owner would be "punished" and leave the new owners with a clean sweep.
I dont know properly, maybe someone else on here can clear that part up for me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government wouldn't allow Abramovich to benefit from the sale, so he wrote of the money he had personally spent (loaned the club)
Nothing to do with FFP or transfers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah but I think this then allowed scope for fresh investment and in effect wrote of the previous regimes FFP standing.
In effect gave the new owners a clean slate to work with on FFP.
So owners can invest so much over a set period, and the way this deal was done meant that it wiped out any previous investment giving the new owners more room to do so initially and start a new fresh FFP period.
Its also loop hole they are now looking to clear up as far as im aware
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah. It didn't impact FFP
The loophole is that they have been signing players on 7-8 year deals to essentially spread the spend over a greater period of time than a standard 5 year deal.
posted on 19/4/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 4 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 9 minutes ago
Which is what we’ve been doing for a while hence the huge unpaid transfer costs. But you can’t keep doing this as the repayments go up and up which is why it’s been stated many times that this will effect United’s spending power this summer unless the debts are written off by a new owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees, otherwise what stops billionaire owners buying on credit and then paying it off themselves rather than the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is stopping them, they can absolutely do that, in fact most should do that in an ideal world.
You’re mixing up the balance sheet with the p&l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not.
posted on 19/4/23
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 4 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 9 minutes ago
Which is what we’ve been doing for a while hence the huge unpaid transfer costs. But you can’t keep doing this as the repayments go up and up which is why it’s been stated many times that this will effect United’s spending power this summer unless the debts are written off by a new owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees, otherwise what stops billionaire owners buying on credit and then paying it off themselves rather than the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is stopping them, they can absolutely do that, in fact most should do that in an ideal world.
You’re mixing up the balance sheet with the p&l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you quite clearly are. Outstanding transfer fees are on the balance sheet, all they need to do is an equity investment to get rid of it if they want. Leicester did it for some of theirs this season, Mansour has done it for us several times in the past.
Doesn’t change the amortisation that is going on the p&l though, which is what FFP looks at.
That’s why I said the other day it’s not just about ffp when it comes to what people have to spend.
posted on 19/4/23
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 4 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees
======
Yeah they can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they can't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, sorry, but they can and it's not even up for debate.
I don't know you but I'm guessing RDD so I'm out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 19/4/23
I’m sure I’ve said this to one of his previous accounts before!
posted on 19/4/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 4 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 9 minutes ago
Which is what we’ve been doing for a while hence the huge unpaid transfer costs. But you can’t keep doing this as the repayments go up and up which is why it’s been stated many times that this will effect United’s spending power this summer unless the debts are written off by a new owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees, otherwise what stops billionaire owners buying on credit and then paying it off themselves rather than the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is stopping them, they can absolutely do that, in fact most should do that in an ideal world.
You’re mixing up the balance sheet with the p&l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you quite clearly are. Outstanding transfer fees are on the balance sheet, all they need to do is an equity investment to get rid of it if they want. Leicester did it for some of theirs this season, Mansour has done it for us several times in the past.
Doesn’t change the amortisation that is going on the p&l though, which is what FFP looks at.
That’s why I said the other day it’s not just about ffp when it comes to what people have to spend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They can invest onto the club as equity investment, but they can't use that investment to pay of outstanding transfer fees.
Why if what you claim is true, wouldn't every billionaire owner settle up all transfer fees every season and cruise through FFP?
posted on 19/4/23
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 4 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 9 minutes ago
Which is what we’ve been doing for a while hence the huge unpaid transfer costs. But you can’t keep doing this as the repayments go up and up which is why it’s been stated many times that this will effect United’s spending power this summer unless the debts are written off by a new owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees, otherwise what stops billionaire owners buying on credit and then paying it off themselves rather than the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is stopping them, they can absolutely do that, in fact most should do that in an ideal world.
You’re mixing up the balance sheet with the p&l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you quite clearly are. Outstanding transfer fees are on the balance sheet, all they need to do is an equity investment to get rid of it if they want. Leicester did it for some of theirs this season, Mansour has done it for us several times in the past.
Doesn’t change the amortisation that is going on the p&l though, which is what FFP looks at.
That’s why I said the other day it’s not just about ffp when it comes to what people have to spend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They can invest onto the club as equity investment, but they can't use that investment to pay of outstanding transfer fees.
Why if what you claim is true, wouldn't every billionaire owner settle up all transfer fees every season and cruise through FFP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No because FFP looks at the profit and loss not the balance sheet, like I said. Transfers on the p&l are amortised over the length of the contract regardless of when you pay them as it’s depreciation of an asset.
Whether you can afford a transfer for ffp and whether you can afford a transfer because you have available actual funds (or access to it) are completely different things.
posted on 20/4/23
So would.this £300m injection into the club then spent on settling up outstanding transfer fees,.be a profit or loss?
posted on 20/4/23
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 14 seconds ago
So would.this £300m injection into the club then spent on settling up outstanding transfer fees,.be a profit or loss?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s neither a profit or a loss, it’s an injection into available assets (as in cash - that is then used to pay off debtors) on the balance sheet.
posted on 20/4/23
This guy!
posted on 20/4/23
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 15 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 10 seconds ago
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees
======
Yeah they can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah there is a way they can, depends on how the buy out is done. I think this is some of the reason why Chelsea could spend so big. the way that deal was done wrote off a lot of the debt over existing deals in terms of FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount per season, but not to the lengths of paying off a £300m transfer bill.
For example, OWNERS could can spend on stadium maintenance, non footballing staff wages, travel, Electricity, food, club cars, so that the CLUB can maximise THEIR spend on transfers and even then, that debt came about over almost 2 decades
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah its seperate for that it was to do with new owners coming in and how the deal was structured to then wipe out the debt for the deal to take place.
Wouldnt suprise me if it was some loop hole where they couldn't invest before the complettion of the deal to wipe it and then the last owner would be "punished" and leave the new owners with a clean sweep.
I dont know properly, maybe someone else on here can clear that part up for me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government wouldn't allow Abramovich to benefit from the sale, so he wrote of the money he had personally spent (loaned the club)
Nothing to do with FFP or transfers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah but I think this then allowed scope for fresh investment and in effect wrote of the previous regimes FFP standing.
In effect gave the new owners a clean slate to work with on FFP.
So owners can invest so much over a set period, and the way this deal was done meant that it wiped out any previous investment giving the new owners more room to do so initially and start a new fresh FFP period.
Its also loop hole they are now looking to clear up as far as im aware
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah. It didn't impact FFP
The loophole is that they have been signing players on 7-8 year deals to essentially spread the spend over a greater period of time than a standard 5 year deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
U can only spread a fee over 5 yeas now.
posted on 20/4/23
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 6 minutes ago
U can only spread a fee over 5 yeas now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuinely thought this was 4za sorry mate
posted on 20/4/23
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 15 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 10 seconds ago
New owners can't just come in and pay off outstanding transfer fees
======
Yeah they can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah there is a way they can, depends on how the buy out is done. I think this is some of the reason why Chelsea could spend so big. the way that deal was done wrote off a lot of the debt over existing deals in terms of FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount per season, but not to the lengths of paying off a £300m transfer bill.
For example, OWNERS could can spend on stadium maintenance, non footballing staff wages, travel, Electricity, food, club cars, so that the CLUB can maximise THEIR spend on transfers and even then, that debt came about over almost 2 decades
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah its seperate for that it was to do with new owners coming in and how the deal was structured to then wipe out the debt for the deal to take place.
Wouldnt suprise me if it was some loop hole where they couldn't invest before the complettion of the deal to wipe it and then the last owner would be "punished" and leave the new owners with a clean sweep.
I dont know properly, maybe someone else on here can clear that part up for me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government wouldn't allow Abramovich to benefit from the sale, so he wrote of the money he had personally spent (loaned the club)
Nothing to do with FFP or transfers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah but I think this then allowed scope for fresh investment and in effect wrote of the previous regimes FFP standing.
In effect gave the new owners a clean slate to work with on FFP.
So owners can invest so much over a set period, and the way this deal was done meant that it wiped out any previous investment giving the new owners more room to do so initially and start a new fresh FFP period.
Its also loop hole they are now looking to clear up as far as im aware
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah. It didn't impact FFP
The loophole is that they have been signing players on 7-8 year deals to essentially spread the spend over a greater period of time than a standard 5 year deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
there is a lot more than just one loop hole they are fixing !
posted on 20/4/23
You can still sign players on 5+ year deals but ffp will only let you spread the fee payments over 5 years.
posted on 20/4/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 hours, 9 minutes ago
comment by Dave the Save (U22987)
posted 14 seconds ago
So would.this £300m injection into the club then spent on settling up outstanding transfer fees,.be a profit or loss?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s neither a profit or a loss, it’s an injection into available assets (as in cash - that is then used to pay off debtors) on the balance sheet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Silly to suggest clubs can inject hundreds of millions, and that doesn't impact their profit and losses
posted on 20/4/23
posted on 20/4/23
100
Page 4 of 5