People aren't getting this though. They're just looking at the 10 Million up front and knee jerking.
Lukaku - transfer speculation | Gone
- Thread starter bond19821982
- Start date
- Status
Deal sounds acceptable enough, just sell. We've got to destroy this village to save it.
Would anyone take a straight swap for icardi?
I would but Icardi does not want to leave Italy and we don't seem keen, so it's a no-goer.
No. We’ve got enough baggage already.
We will not be recouping a chunk of it for years though, buying a replacement will not be cheap and we cannot play with Rashford and Martial upfront next season. Selling Lukaku under those terms is just not beneficial for us at all.
. We pay heavy interest on our 450 m debt while the owners take their dividends as well. Rest of it funds the operating costs and thus our limited transfer budgets. If we could find money we would have spent a lot more on transfers than we have while having an unbalanced squad for all these years. Take into consideration the revenue loss from lack of champions league and giving fat contracts to de gea and pogba probably.We don't have the money to buy in that position without getting money up front from sales. There is no way this deal makes sense for us.
Spreading a fee over a few years is very common. It's a 70 Million euro deal + getting his wages off the books (180k a week) I would argue that it is beneficial to us considering we don't want him anymore.
We don't have the money to buy in that position without getting money up front from sales. There is no way this deal makes sense for us.
Dont worry, Im sure Benfica will take a 4m loan deal with obligation to buy in 2 years for Felix.
Atletico already bought him.
Let me put it in a way that is easy to understand: if man utd need cash, The Glazers can just walk into 20 different banks, whip out their genitals and say "united want a loan for X money, plus we want you to lick our balls". Then take the loan from whoever is most eager to lick their balls
We don't have the money to buy in that position without getting money up front from sales. There is no way this deal makes sense for us.
Another thing: majority of the time, transfer fees are paid through surety bonds.
Lastly, since this appears to escape you: you would be effectively selling him for €70m. That money is going to be accounted for right away if you need to
No they offered 112m euros.
Dont get salty because someone flips your point round and points out how ridiculous it is
If we loan him for two years we will surely still be paying him his wages right?
Nope, it'd effectively a proper transfer, just structured in such a way for Inter to circumvent/satisfy FFP.
then it sounds alright. get him off the wage bill at least.
What are you talking about
Joao Felix, who you just claimed has been bought by Atletico, and your stupid point about the Lukaku transfer being acceptable in the loan for peanuts pay later format, as if anyone would let us do that.
Its not out job to cashflow or keep other teams in FFP
We don't have the money to buy in that position without getting money up front from sales. There is no way this deal makes sense for us.
The debt costs us £24m a year or so. If we buy a player for £120m, payable over a five year contract on staged payments, which is the norm, that player will cost us the exact same £24m a year. Doubt we’ve got much of the Fellaini money so far. That’s the way it works. We don’t necessarily need cash up front, and are most unlikely to get it. We are probably still paying instalments on some of our latest acquisitions, such as Fred. At least we won’t be paying two managers every month from here on in. Moyes will be fully paid off in 4 days time.
It's not that bad for the first offer. I guess we will agree on something like €20m + €65m.
Suppose we are indeed dealing with sevilla for ben yedder. A top 6 team in Spain our fellow Europa league team.Spanish teams working style is release clauses. You pay those clause then only you get the player. And his release clause stands at 40 m euros to be paid in full for him to leave so that they can find a replacement, and yes being a europa league team they would want to buy immediate replacement as strikers are the most important players which gives goals and thus have a direct impact on the season. So without the release clause triggered up front they are not letting go of their player for a staged payment offer for having to buy a striker themselves so late in the window.
Should be a 35m fee now then a further 35m next summer, if they can’t afford that then they really shouldn’t be in the market for a 70m rated striker.
If we pay transfers off over the duration of a contract, why did we just pay 95% of AWB’s transfer free upfront? Also if we dont have the cash to pay upfront we presumably borrow it, I'm confused as to who lends, i dont know, 120million pounds out, without wanting any interest return on what they've lent you? So how does buying a player you dont have cash for, borrowing the money with interest and paying it like that still add up to 24million a year? The interest makes it more than that. I get fees are sometimes made up of part payment up front and then add ons, like in the case of AWB 5% add ons, but surely no club lets you pay nothing up front and 20% a year
Yes it is common, but we would receive more of right away instead of letting them have our best striker for a paltry 10 million right now and we wouldn't see much value from this for a long time. His wages are not an issue and he is still an proven goalscorer and there is no reason not to extract full value from the deal. Inter are being cheap, if they want him so badly they need to make it more worthwhile for us.
GTB explains the upfront desires of CPFC above. Now is not a great time to borrow as interest rates are up. Big clubs are fine with structured payments because of balance sheets and accounting rules. We don't necessarily need the liquidity conferred by cash up front but it helps planning and a number of other areas if you can project future income accurately.
Accounting wise it's a non-issue. We would not be hampered in any way by the structure of the deal.
Good riddance if this deal goes through.
I don't know why but the ball-licking analogy really helped me to visualise it. I suppose another way of putting it would be inter take Lukaku now and we get our balls licked later. Yeah this accountancy stuffs a doddle once you know how it works!
If Inter want Lukaku badly enough they can swap him for Milan Škriniar, or sod off
I’ve just been reading into it. The amortisation schedule allows you to spread the cost over the players contract to help with FFP. However the money for most transfers is paid up front or in regular instalments over 1-2 years. The way the cost is accounted is not the way the cash is paid. Sorry
Yes but you keep missing the point. It's not about the accounting, we will not see the 70m or any meaningful portion of that fee for 3 YEARS. We need to rebuild now, not in 3 years. We have already spent close 70m this window, and without CL revenue we likely don't have 200m to throw around this year so money from big sales will more helpful to us than whatever this is.
Well, that is a strategic decision of the board and the glazer family to load more debt on the club or not or float more shares on NYSE to dilute the ownership shares to have some cash flow in. And i don't think they are doing that. In fact their position will be sell to buy pretty much the stand we have seen for last few windows. Last year we could not buy a cb for the manager when we failed to sell Rojo, Sanchez mkh sawp is an example too. We have already lost an 30 m asset Herrera for free and having to invest in his replacement too. The board ain't loading any more debt on the club.
I am not missing 70m euros which will be accounted for right away, your missing the point that in order to buy we need to sell our assets to get a replacement in that position which is a strategic decision by the board and the owners which ain't changing for lukaku and inter to have a smooth transfer on their offer and terms while leaving us with money to spend on replacement from our own budget.
Romelu Lukaku, the grown ass man who definitely is dealing with "it" right now (how ironic), has seriously pissed me off, without even mentioning his style of play.
Even then, I would demand at least £80 million from Inter from a regular transfer, let alone from some dodgy initial loan deal and all that stuff. Inter basically took the piss out of us that summer when we wanted Perisic, when the whole time they refused to lower the price and even demanded Martial in exchange, who alone costed much more than the Croat.
I'd consider a swap deal involving Skriniar and/or Brozovic, but getting only just above £60 million would be insulting to the club and would further suggest that the competition can fleece us in any sort of business in the future.
Even then, I would demand at least £80 million from Inter from a regular transfer, let alone from some dodgy initial loan deal and all that stuff. Inter basically took the piss out of us that summer when we wanted Perisic, when the whole time they refused to lower the price and even demanded Martial in exchange, who alone costed much more than the Croat.
I'd consider a swap deal involving Skriniar and/or Brozovic, but getting only just above £60 million would be insulting to the club and would further suggest that the competition can fleece us in any sort of business in the future.
I wasn't specifically speaking to how playing assets are valued and their cost is accounted for. What you have there is pretty well it, sure.
Those instalments, though, they are important because a lot of things depend on income that an organization can confidently say they will receive in a coming fiscal year. Season tickets, expected payments from other clubs, TV deals, etc. allow a club to plan their operations, costs and other factors outside of FFP.
The amortisation that the clubs use is accounting and tax strategy vs the amortisation that people on here bang on about is essentially making a payment in planned instalments. No one used to bother before FFP.
The reason the clubs use it for accounting is to spread the cost of a players package (wages and transfer fees and agents fees). That way the assets (players) total cost can be written off across its life (initial contract signed when transferred) as an operational (games of football) expense.
This is of course different to an amortisation schedule as a buyer (an instalment plan) which for transfers is usually one to two years maximum and frequently cash up front. For example, we might offer 100 million to Dortmund for Sancho. Say they accept, we may agree on 90 million ‘upfront’ paid as 9 million a month for ten months, and then 10 million in add ons, maybe 5 when he starts his 30th game and 5 when he gets his 10th assist.
How Dortmund account that is entirely up to them, probably spend it straight away and amortisize the money else they pay tax on that 100m profit from the player sale.
The idea that we would pay them 20m a year, for 5 years, is s***e.
So you are in fact right. As a selling club, we want the cash up front if we want to spend it now. if not there is no need to take the money until the two years is up, however this is a piss take because most transfers would be paid up by the end of two years and it is likely that the fee Inter pay at the end of the two years could be paid in instalments. So could in fact be 3 or 4 years until we see that cash.
Another total myth is shirt sales. Adidas paid that 750 million for the rights and licensing fees to make and sell our kits for 5 years. Any dough they make from sales is their dough. We get nothing more than what they buy the rights for even if they magically sell ten trillion quids worth.
Last edited:
People will freak out at this because he's only 26, but 70M for a guy who's played 495 games, even at striker (in which players age better than anywhere but keeper and centerback), seems like a solid price considering the level of player he is. That really is a lot of games.
It wouldn't be insane for him to start to decline a bit by the year after next, aged 28. Van Persie's 2nd year here, he was a couple years older than Lukaku but had played basically an identical number of games and that was his last season before he declined.
If he goes to Inter, my guess is it will be sort of like Immobile going to Lazio after failing at Dortmund. Scoring at a high rate, 67 in 105 for them in the league, certainly been a great signing (9M, but would have been well worth it at double the price), but you never hear him linked anywhere, he's below average in terms of non-goal scoring qualities you want from a striker, has scored 6 in 24 for Italy over his time at Lazio and was prominently involved in them failing to qualify for the World Cup.
I do believe in Rashford as our 9 and would rather have him going forward. 10 goals in 28 starts up top for a 21 year old and Ole had him focusing on runs in behind late in the season, which I think is encouraging. I think if developed right he could be an Aubameyang type where having a winger's pace but using it to make runs in against slower CBs means a lot of goals. He can crack a ball too which will help.
I'd sell Lukaku, and basically keep the longterm faith in Greenwood as a 9 by going after some backup 9 on a 1 year deal like Llorente or a loan. Newcastle got a good Rondon season from loaning Dwight Gayle back. Maybe we could do that with Alexis Sanchez or Darmian to Italy or an excess CB like Rojo or Jones to Italy/Spain or England respectively? Or pay a bit extra on the loan fee from some team with an extra 9 like Madrid have.
Spend the 70M on talent at central mid and right wing and we'll be better off than if we kept him.
It wouldn't be insane for him to start to decline a bit by the year after next, aged 28. Van Persie's 2nd year here, he was a couple years older than Lukaku but had played basically an identical number of games and that was his last season before he declined.
If he goes to Inter, my guess is it will be sort of like Immobile going to Lazio after failing at Dortmund. Scoring at a high rate, 67 in 105 for them in the league, certainly been a great signing (9M, but would have been well worth it at double the price), but you never hear him linked anywhere, he's below average in terms of non-goal scoring qualities you want from a striker, has scored 6 in 24 for Italy over his time at Lazio and was prominently involved in them failing to qualify for the World Cup.
I do believe in Rashford as our 9 and would rather have him going forward. 10 goals in 28 starts up top for a 21 year old and Ole had him focusing on runs in behind late in the season, which I think is encouraging. I think if developed right he could be an Aubameyang type where having a winger's pace but using it to make runs in against slower CBs means a lot of goals. He can crack a ball too which will help.
I'd sell Lukaku, and basically keep the longterm faith in Greenwood as a 9 by going after some backup 9 on a 1 year deal like Llorente or a loan. Newcastle got a good Rondon season from loaning Dwight Gayle back. Maybe we could do that with Alexis Sanchez or Darmian to Italy or an excess CB like Rojo or Jones to Italy/Spain or England respectively? Or pay a bit extra on the loan fee from some team with an extra 9 like Madrid have.
Spend the 70M on talent at central mid and right wing and we'll be better off than if we kept him.
Seems sensible to take the money. Realistically we're looking to get rid of him sooner or later and he wants to start every week, always has. It'd feel small and petty to deny him a move to a team were not really competing against for a good fee. 70m will pay most of the fee for an attacking player the manager is keen on.
Fair point and even 35m is way too low. People are too eager to just get rid
Yeah we shouldn't allow ourselves to get shafted when we are in positions of strength.
You don’t really understand football economics. Very few transfers are paid up front. Most are paid in instalments over 3 years or so. As a club we usually pay in instalments ourselves. It’s really not a problem to get 10 now and 60 in two years. Much more important is the total value of the transfer.
If their opening offer is 70m, regardless of the payment structure, that’s a good starting point. That’s 62m in pounds. I believe we can get that up to around 75m pounds. Maybe with 12-15 as a loan fee and 60m as an obligation to buy. We’ve already amortised about 30m of his fee on the books from an accounting perspective too. So from an accounting perspective we’ll actually make a profit at those prices. And before you start talking about it being an accounting trick etc., the moment you started bringing up cash flow, you took it into the realm of accounting.
From both a sporting and financial perspective to recoup our money for a player that we don’t want, and wants to leave, is a good deal no matter which way we shake it. The time value of money loss is negligible.
Last edited:
- Status