Summer 2023 Transfer Thread

[The Guest]

The transfer fee is separate to his wages.  All clubs have plenty of players they never paid a transfer fee for.  Their wages just go in the period they relate to.  The capitalised transfer fee is spread over the life of the contract unless the contract is longer than 5 years at that point it’s just spread over 5 years instead.

 

I actually don’t see what the fuss was about.  If a club wants to sign players on 7, 8 or whatever year deals then I don’t understand why they aren’t allowed to spread the fee over that term.  They’re taking the risk and committing to pay the players for that whole period.  It’s not the genius move that it was made out to be.

[redinblack]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

There is no chance he will see the contract out.

If he does well.his agent be "suggesting" a move to Barca or Real Madrid in 3 years. Then the middle east shortly after that

[SasaS]

I think 5-year rule is for fees only.

[cloggypop]

17 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

There is no chance he will see the contract out.

 

[Barrington Womble]

33 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

 

UEFA rule does, and as far as I'm aware it doesn't prevent you offering longer contracts it just means the calculation UEFA uses will be based on 5 years.

 

As you say, it's not really a concern for Chelsea at the moment the shit cunts and I'm only taking into consideration P&S which is different.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, they can offer 50 year contracts if they want, but they can only amortise for sustainability over 5. 

[redinblack]

22 minutes ago, The Guest said:

The transfer fee is separate to his wages.  All clubs have plenty of players they never paid a transfer fee for.  Their wages just go in the period they relate to.  The capitalised transfer fee is spread over the life of the contract unless the contract is longer than 5 years at that point it’s just spread over 5 years instead.

 

I actually don’t see what the fuss was about.  If a club wants to sign players on 7, 8 or whatever year deals then I don’t understand why they aren’t allowed to spread the fee over that term.  They’re taking the risk and committing to pay the players for that whole period.  It’s not the genius move that it was made out to be.

Because in terms of financial rules you can't overstate the value of an asset that is wrong in terms of the true value of your business assets. Giving a long contract to a player who couldn't actually play for that long would be like amortising a Ford Ka with 150k on the clock over 10yrs. Or Jordan Henderson over however long he got.

[Barrington Womble]

31 minutes ago, redinblack said:

How do you bury a 7 year contract over 5 years? It means you could theoretically be paying them for 2 years but with the expense going against a fully amortised asset. Don't see how that passes audit. Though I realise in the Premier League anything is possible. I guess it just goes straight to expense and they show him as a Contractor or consultant or something. But it still sounds like Rangers "side letters"

No issue paying a salary to a player with no book value, it happens all the time. Players through your academy system have no value (like Trent and Jones)..Henderson due to the numerous contracts he had had with us over the years had a zero value when he left, so when we sold him we book 12m profit. 

[redinblack]

3 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

No issue paying a salary to a player with no book value, it happens all the time. Players through your academy system have no value (like Trent and Jones)..Henderson due to the numerous contracts he had had with us over the years had a zero value when he left, so when we sold him we book 12m profit. 

Absolutely agree with that, it's all P/L, we book 12m profit on the sale to offset what has been charged previously

[Megadrive Man]

27 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I think 5-year rule is for fees only.

Has it definitely come in? 

[redinblack]

Anyway, enough of this punkass accounting talk. Fuck Chelsea and everything they stand for. Fucking get into them Reds.

[Dundalis]

32 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

He doesn't want to be here..he told us that on Friday and refused to travel for a medical and talks and said he wants to join chelsea. 

 

As for "transformative". He's a good player, but honestly, I don't think he has any body of work to support that. Out of the available defensive central midfielders in this country, he might be the best. But he's not the best in the league, he's not in the top 3 right now, of course that might change down the line. He's a good young footballer, who's stepped to a good level quickly and had a high ceiling..for me that's it..

"He told us that on Friday". That's literally the point. The fact that we had no idea whether he wanted to play for us or not until Friday AFTER we had a bid accepted is absolute amateur work. Clubs make contact with potential transfers targets WAY before making their first official bids, much less have bids accepted, that's pretty widely known, numerous managers have mentioned as much before, Postecoglu literally said it in his press conference just over the weekend.

 

I mean you can talk to Brighton fans about how critical Caicedo was to them. Most of them weren't particularly concerned about MacAllister leaving, a WC winner, they were all far more concerned about losing Caicedo. He probably hasn't had the body of work to be called transformative, but I think his talent level is right there.

[TD_LFC]

28 minutes ago, The Guest said:

If a club wants to sign players on 7, 8 or whatever year deals then I don’t understand why they aren’t allowed to spread the fee over that term. 

 

Because it circumvents the intention (if not the reality) of FFP and P&L.

 

Despite the likes of Everton preaching that it's to protect big clubs the intention behind Profit and Sustainability was to ensure that teams like Portsmouth (or any team managed by Harry Redknapp) couldn't spend beyond their means thanks to shady owners pumping imaginary money into the side, loading debt on the club and then bolting.

 

The amortisation of players over long periods does parts of the same thing because it allows clubs to spend more than it's making and then if an owner bails on a club the club is either left with high earning players they can't sell or if they do sell players they can't improve their financial position because the book value on a player is still so high they don't actually make any money on the deal.

 

It's less of an issue for a Chelsea but imagine the fun Jamie's dad could have had with these types of shenanigans, Rosie's offshore bank account would have looked really healthy.

[Barrington Womble]

10 minutes ago, Megadrive Man said:

Has it definitely come in? 

Yes. 

6 minutes ago, Dundalis said:

"He told us that on Friday". That's literally the point. The fact that we had no idea whether he wanted to play for us or not until Friday AFTER we had a bid accepted is absolute amateur work. Clubs make contact with potential transfers targets WAY before making their first official bids, much less have bids accepted, that's pretty widely known, numerous managers have mentioned as much before, Postecoglu literally said it in his press conference just over the weekend.

 

I mean you can talk to Brighton fans about how critical Caicedo was to them. Most of them weren't particularly concerned about MacAllister leaving, a WC winner, they were all far more concerned about losing Caicedo. He probably hasn't had the body of work to be called transformative, but I think his talent level is right there.

Well if you listen to the robot journos around the club, they claim we sounded him out and he was up for the move before we bid. You never know if to believe them, because the just repeat what the club told them, but that's the narrative they're putting out. 

 

Maybe you and I speak to different Brighton fans. The lads I know just think they're both brilliant players and are gutted to be losing both. 

[Dundalis]

2 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

Well if you listen to the robot journos around the club, they claim we sounded him out and he was up for the move before we bid. You never know if to believe them, because the just repeat what the club told them, but that's the narrative they're putting out. 

 

Maybe you and I speak to different Brighton fans. The lads I know just think they're both brilliant players and are gutted to be losing both. 

There's obviously no way to definitely prove it, but I think Caicedo was far more widely considered Brighton's most influential mid. He also came second in their player of the year polls behind Gross.

[Barrington Womble]

2 hours ago, Dundalis said:

There's obviously no way to definitely prove it, but I think Caicedo was far more widely considered Brighton's most influential mid. He also came second in their player of the year polls behind Gross.

Should we sign gross then? Haha..

[Lee909]

Buy a RB and experienced DM 

 

Trent really isn't bothered about doing his defensive job and needs a kick up the arse. 

[Supremolad]

33 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

Buy a RB and experienced DM 

 

Trent really isn't bothered about doing his defensive job and needs a kick up the arse. 

Sigh. Predictable Trent bashing,  contrary to the evidence of defending which we saw him do regularly in the game.

 

Reece James who is supposedly the better defender, went to sleep when Diaz scored. Nothing Trent did today was as bad as that.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

If we're sticking the boot in on Trent, it's his passing that was ironically poor today. He can hit a worldie across field on the volley, but a four yard pass seems to tax his concentration.

[Barrington Womble]

11 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

If we're sticking the boot in on Trent, it's his passing that was ironically poor today. He can hit a worldie across field on the volley, but a four yard pass seems to tax his concentration.

That can be a little bit of first day rhythm though can't it. That pass for the offside goal was fucking sublime. 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

19 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

That can be a little bit of first day rhythm though can't it. That pass for the offside goal was fucking sublime. 

 

Yeah, he wasn't alone in that respect either, lots of underhit passes, particularly as you saw legs tire. 

[No2]

7 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

That can be a little bit of first day rhythm though can't it. That pass for the offside goal was fucking sublime. 

He can and did play those from his right back position. I've lost faith in this midfield hybrid thing, the negative far outweigh the positive. Its risk for the sake of risk, we don't need the extra threat up front, we score plenty as it is. Keep it tight at the back and we won't need to score 4.

[TheHowieLama]

 

Defensively, the left side though...

[Barrington Womble]

4 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

 

Yeah, he wasn't alone in that respect either, lots of underhit passes, particularly as you saw legs tire. 

 

We looked very tired. I actually thought that's what let them back into the game, shortly after we scored, we just gave up pressing and looked exhausted. We were hanging in at the end of the first half and just never got going again till doak and Elliot came on. 

 

4 minutes ago, No2 said:

He can and did play those from his right back position. I've lost faith in this midfield hybrid thing, the negative far outweigh the positive. Its risk for the sake of risk, we don't need the extra threat up front, we score plenty as it is. Keep it tight at the back and we won't need to score 4.

He didn't play them so much from there, but we did get his crosses. I think we've got to see where we end up by the end of the window..if we're going with this squad, you're dead right. I genuinely expected us to go to a back 4 today with Gomez and play a conventional double 6 with Mac & Trent and for maybe that to be a bit of a thing till the end of the window..

[Colonel Bumcunt]

14 minutes ago, No2 said:

He can and did play those from his right back position. I've lost faith in this midfield hybrid thing, the negative far outweigh the positive. Its risk for the sake of risk, we don't need the extra threat up front, we score plenty as it is. Keep it tight at the back and we won't need to score 4.

We don't score plenty, our overall figures last year were greatly skewed by the freak Bournemouth and United results.  In half our games we can't score more than 1. 

 

But that's not surprising as all our attacks follow the same tired path:  -Wide man cuts in

-Edge of area is packed with 12 players

-Shoot or pass into that melee and hope something happens.

-Repeat

 

 

[Lee909]

1 hour ago, Supremolad said:

Sigh. Predictable Trent bashing,  contrary to the evidence of defending which we saw him do regularly in the game.

 

Reece James who is supposedly the better defender, went to sleep when Diaz scored. Nothing Trent did today was as bad as that.

 

Reece James was asleep as was Trent on their goal. He switched of when the first header was cleared and allowed the Chelsea CB to get the run on him and run inside him. Part of it is the system but large parts are also him not dropping back into  the RB slot anywhere near quick enough