Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
A mathemagician?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Panic Ye Not on the finances.
- Thread starter El Presidente
- Start date
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 16,007
It's *almost* like they know what they are doing and are better placed to deal with/worry about the accounts than, I don't know, 'JeffTheSeegul1965' from Pulbrough...
- Apr 5, 2014
- 25,848
Jeff is an authority on the political state of affairs in this country as well as the menace of cyclists and 20mph speed limits though. You can't deny that.
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 7,351
Am I right to be hearing that in Frank Sidebottom's voice?
Are you not out of date already?
ChickenBaltiPie
Well-known member
- Jan 3, 2014
- 937
Can someone please explain the ‘book value’ bit? Thank you
EDIT: Oh, I get it, sale price minus original purchase price?
Last edited:
Baldseagull
Well-known member
I would guess that it is the correct way to do the accounting, it's similar to having a depreciating asset. We hope to have bought appreciating assets, but every player could stay till their contract runs out if they wanted to.
If you buy a player for £20m and give them a 4-year contract, then that £20m is amortised over the course of those four years in a straight-line fashion, ie £5m per year.Can someone please explain the ‘book value’ bit? Thank you
EDIT: Oh, I get it, sale price minus original purchase price?
So, after the player has been at the club for one year, then his book value will be £15m - £20m-£5m.
When you sell a player, the impact on PSR/FFP will take account any remaining book value.
So if that theoretical £20m player has had a blinding year and Chelsea buy him for £50m, then the PSR impact would be £50m-£15m=£35m.
Players that have come through the youth system, as opposed to being bought, have no book value, hence 100% of the sale proceeds count for PSR purposes. That is why Chelsea were keen to ship out Conor Gallagher as the entire sale proceeds - supposedly £34m - get put in the PSR plus column.
Even though Joao Felix, moving in the other direction, supposedly cost more. the deal will only have a minimal impact on this year's PSR as the transfer fee will be spread over the maximum permissible five years.
No. Sale price less unamortised costCan someone please explain the ‘book value’ bit? Thank you
EDIT: Oh, I get it, sale price minus original purchase price?
Baldseagull
Well-known member
I think it's sale price minus what value they had left after amortisation.Can someone please explain the ‘book value’ bit? Thank you
EDIT: Oh, I get it, sale price minus original purchase price?
ChickenBaltiPie
Well-known member
- Jan 3, 2014
- 937
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,086
How does the new PSR rules affect us?
I think Revenue last season was around £200m which under the new rules, would have given us £170m to spend on wages/fees/amortisation.
Last season we spent £128m on wages and £32m on amortisation.
On the face of things an extra £32m on Amortisation would push us pretty close to the limit, wouldn't it?
warmleyseagull
Well-known member
No, for 2 reasons: 1) clubs can make losses of up to £105m over a 3 year period; 2) we sold Caicedo and Sanchez for £135m in August 2023 so were not included in the £120m profit for last year ending 30 June 2023. The profit on them is virtually the same amount as there would be little unamortised cost from Caicedo (cost little and 2/3 through his contract) and nothing for Sanchez.
The £145m quoted by OP would therefore be almost covered by these two transactions even if the costs of the incoming players were immediate written off.
One factor that receives less attention in these discussions is cost of agents. The club pays players agents’ fees, typically I believe 10-20%. I guess that these are also amortised over the contract period as a cost of acquisition. Interested whether EP or anyone can confirm
Gabbiano
Well-known member
What's the amortisation cost this year from previous seasons' signings? Surely that needs to be considered for the PSR numbers?
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,086
Not next season they don't.
My question is about what this season's increase in amortisation will have against next season's rules (85% of annual revenue).
- Thread starter
- #37
The chances are that we
For reasons best known to itself, the assessment is on a calendar year basis too.
Not quite, as player sale profits are subtracted from amortisation and wages are those of players and coaches only.
For reasons best known to itself, the assessment is on a calendar year basis too.
redoubtable seagull
Well-known member
- Oct 27, 2004
- 2,610
We’ll sell Mitoma and one other exciting top talent next season. That will bring in £100m and help with balancing the books.
It’s all part of the plan.
It’s all part of the plan.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,086
Weird.
How will that work?
Will the first review be on the period Jan-Dec 2024? or 2025?
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,086
So in effect our spending allowance os 85% of Revenue + Player profit in the past 12 months.
But you have to use that profit in the next window.