amortization is just an accounting term, has nothing to do with the selling club
Paulo Dybala
- Thread starter davidmichael
- Start date
- Status
amortization is just an accounting term, has nothing to do with the selling club
Maybe there hasn't been any updates? These negotiations can take time especially when it's complicated by image rights.
Moodkiller alert!I don't like to do big claims and i never did it before. In fact i am always cautious in these things. Some say that i kill the mood, moaner, etc... But if we buy Dybala i think that he can have impact for us like Aguero had for City.
P.s. moaner in me still thinks that we will not buy him.Too good to be true.
Man, if this is true Juve really aren't messing around. They're either 1) desperate to get rid of Dybala, 2) desperate to sign Lukaku, or 3) both.
It's hard to see the logic behind what they're doing - surely if FFP is the issue given all their free transfers' wages, you sell Dybala instead of swapping him for a player with higher wages that will potentially struggle in Sarri's preferred possession system? - but given their transfer success over the past decade, it'll be very interesting to see how this summer affects their fortunes. De Ligt at a price lower than Maguire, and Rabiot and Ramsey on free transfers (albeit with massive wages) is great business on the face of it, after all.
If Sarri really has no say in transfers (as reports suggest), I'd be fascinated to hear his honest thoughts on the matter. Not that he'll ever give them if they're any bit negative with regards to the swap.
The key thing is that if he comes, he is properly motivated to perform. If everything goes well, I believe he can galvanise us as a team too. We haven't had an attacker on the level of someone like him in ages. He's genuine top quality.I don't like to do big claims and i never did it before. I am still reserved towards Maguire and especially James. In fact i am always cautious in these things. Some say that i kill the mood, moaner, etc... But if we buy Dybala i think that he can have impact for us like Aguero had for City.
P.s. moaner in me still thinks that we will not buy him.
Nah, it is just when something is too good to be true. I mean Dybala??? Did you expected that after last season we will be in hunt for that kind of player?
Really?
Amortisation is paying off an amount owed over time by making planned, incremental payments of principal and interest.
Sounds like it's more than just accounting term. In fact I'd say it has a lot to do with the selling club, since that's who the money is owed too.
Yeah, if we assume that big clubs give a shit about FFP, which we all know is a false assumption.
For what purpose though? Please don't say FFP.
They should have provided a concrete update then:
- X fully agreed
- Y fully agreed
- Z still under discussion
- A, B, C stands this or that way
- Next update expected at [time]
He may not have "sent" him there. His agent might be far more keen on the move than the player.
Why wouldn't we agree to this deal? We get someone of Dybalas quality whilst also getting rid of Lukaku. It's a great deal for us. In fact I can't believe our luck really. Best thing Lukaku has done in a Utd shirt.
Last edited:
I watched the VDO a you shared. Thanks for sharing. StatMan Dave is a good soul but he doesn’t say anything in this VDO that many of us don’t already know.
my point still stands: as an attacking front 5, we have one player too many. Either Bruno or Pogba would have to stay back, so not utilising their full skill set.
Rashford
martial Pogba dybala Shaw
Bruno McT
bissaka Lindelof Maguire
DDG
Perhaps Bruno is the medium term replacement for Pogba who we will sell next summer. So get him in now to adjust. That’s the only thing that makes sense to me if we sign him,
It doesn't mean that. You're describing debt repayments
Amortisation is an accounting treatment and has nothing at all to do with the commercial terms of the deal. It's just a way of allocating annual profitability for companies who have long term revenue generating assets that they pay for up front.
If you're a manufacturing company and buy a factory up front financially that cost is spread over the life that it generates income. It's just a way of judging annual profitability.
Same premise for a footballer on a multi year contract.
From what I read, Sarri has a stubborn system he will stick to and Dybala seems a bit excess to their requirements and his value drops if he plays out of position. Lukaku fills a position of need as Sarri wants an out and out center forward.
Structuring the swap deal as such with United paying 80M upfront for Dybala and then Juve reimbursing the Lukaku amount over 5 seasons appears to make more financial sense for them to balance the books.
Its not just the transfer fees this year but Juve's economics is a bit out of whack ever since they paid 100M for Ronaldo and on top of that his wages. They don't have a TV deal as rich as the EPL and or the ones Barca/Real negotiate by themselves so Italian clubs in general will be squeezed out more.
I thought we would make a big splash didn't expect it to be Dybala though.
yeah I am pretty sure
Amortization is not a payment, it’s writing the value of the asset off balance sheet (in this case - over the course of the player contract’s length). This is accounted for as “cost” so influences the P&L statement (it decreases taxable profit so is essentially a tax shield), but doesn’t induce any actual cash outflows
Someone like Modrić did pretty good.
Huh? Makes perfect sense. Doesn't mean it's happening that way, but perfectly logical and feasible.
It has nothing to do with us. It would just be how Juve record their accounts.
Regardless of whether you agree or not, FFP is taken seriously to a degree. It's the reason PSG aren't bidding for every player under the sun or Real Madrid have to raise more cash before paying the kind of money we would want for Pogba. Also the reason why Inter can't afford Lukaku.
Okay for those who responded to my question.
I'm getting that it has nothing to do with the selling club and so forth.
So consider me dumb, which it seems I am when it comes to accounting terms, please explain to me do we get our full money up front or they spreading our payment over time as well?
I'm getting that it has nothing to do with the selling club and so forth.
So consider me dumb, which it seems I am when it comes to accounting terms, please explain to me do we get our full money up front or they spreading our payment over time as well?
Yeah there's probably a lot of nuances like that that go on behind the scenes to comply with FFP that fans would never be aware of, but are vital to the operation of the club. Still a really weird transfer - really interesting to see who gets the better deal out of it imo. Hopefully Dybala is a massive success here if he comes.
As for the TV deals - I can see European power slowly shifting to England over the next decade as English clubs assert their dominance in the transfer market with their TV deals (pending United, Arsenal and Chelsea sorting out their issues; just look at how much mid-table teams are spending, and demanding of players - £80m for Maguire!) - the era of Barca, Real and Bayern dominating the Champions League is over for the near future imo.
Are you sure you're not getting confused between amortisation and depreciation? because what you described is exactly depreciation and not what amortisation is at all.
And the theory also explains the currency exchange that was being talked about. Us paying €80m probably costs more than Juve paying €80m.
Last edited:
Is “Dybala or Bruno” similar to “Lampard or Ronaldinho”? I mean styles of play, not the actual ability? I’d prefer Lampard in terms of style.
Manchester doesn’t have the FFP or cash flow issues that Juventus has right now. Our squad composition would also be considerably improved by replacing Lukaku with Dybala.
In those circumstances, Both sides have to structure a deal that ensures the transfer can take place. Neither side ‘gets a better deal’ as without the compromise, the deal can’t happen.
It's standard practise for the the cost of a player to be spread out over multiple years and paying/receiving the full amount for a transfer up-front is the exception rather than the norm.
I'm a bit too busy to find it now, but hours after reports of a Lukaku/Dybala swap deal came out, further reports came out about how it's not actually a swap deal, and they would instead be two separate deals. Reports didn't suggest outright it was for accounting purposes, but reading between the lines, it's clear it's for accounting purposes and yes... FFP. Dunno why anyone would think or suggest not to mention FFP. Hasn't Chelsea just been sanctioned for FFP violations? It's a big deal.
Yeah I agree with this to be fair.
Amortization works in essentially the same way with writing the book value of intangible assets off balance sheet (depreciation is for tangible ones). Unless, of course, you refer to amortization in the meaning of gradual debt repayment - then it is cash flow related as you actually pay off debt
How is he a luxury player?
Whether or not that’s too late though. Hope we haven’t just dropped Fernandes altogether now there was a glimmer of hope with Dybala.
More like Google, as that's where I got the meaning from but anyway.
End of the day, will be happy to get the deal over the line no matter how it happens.
the payment is Dybala so yeah doubt it will be instalments
No, amortization in that context is simply the act of spreading the cost of an asset over the length of his useful life.
The FFP theory certainly explains a lot, including why Juve are so desperate to push Dybala out.
It's a weird position for Lukaku though because they really want him like Conte does, it's a marriage of convenience, same for Dybala to United in a sense. I'm convinced that Juve will sell Lukaku to Inter next summer.
It's a weird position for Lukaku though because they really want him like Conte does, it's a marriage of convenience, same for Dybala to United in a sense. I'm convinced that Juve will sell Lukaku to Inter next summer.
We don’t have the time to go spend that money. Either we swap for Dybala or keep Lukaku.
So Dybala then. Better and younger player.
It’s got nothing to do with paying by instalments as no cash is changing hands. They will have a notional cost of buying Lukaku of £80m. Over a 5 year contract they can effectively write it off at 1 fifth per year i.e. 16m in their accounts for this year. Normal practice and doesn’t affect us at all.
- Status