It's just amortization. Common practice. United have still spent 120 million on those two. Which is fine.
its not amortisation, that is an accounting term for how the assets are accounted for
this is how the payments are structured
It's just amortization. Common practice. United have still spent 120 million on those two. Which is fine.
Our teams do not play for a little while, but we would appreciate you starting Phil against us!
Which payments? For Sancho? I do not have access to the full article. I just assumed they were talking about how it shows on the books for the purposes of financial fair play.its not amortisation, that is an accounting term for how the assets are accounted for
this is how the payments are structured
If you start Timo why not? The only thing Jones will rebuild is the confidence of opposing strikers.
Which payments? For Sancho? I do not have access to the full article. I just assumed they were talking about how it shows on the books for the purposes of financial fair play.
Our teams do not play for a little while, but we would appreciate you starting Phil against us!
Ah ok. So what's the benefit of doing that? If as you say in this example United paid Leicester the full 80 million upfront, why list it in the accounts as installments?
Our teams do not play for a little while, but we would appreciate you starting Phil against us!
Our teams do not play for a little while, but we would appreciate you starting Phil against us!
It's how accounting is done, it's not a football thing. If you buy a player for £100m that's not a loss, it's the exchange of £100m in cash for an asset with a £100m market value.
It's a bit weird in this business because we're talking about human beings. If a company spends £100m on machinery, then once again that's not a loss. You have less money but more stuff that's worth money. If that machinery has an economic life of 10 years, then accounting wise it loses £10m of value each year (after 5 years it's worth £50m, after 10 year it's worth nothing). With footballers the duration of the contract is used, because naturally when the contract is up the player has no economic value to the club as they can go for free to wherever they like.
Or, maybe this is a better way to explain it: If you go crazy at the bookies then that money is gone. You've spent a lot of money and got nothing back, you're poorer. If you spend that money on a house instead, then you've still got a lot less money and probably a sizable loan, but you're not poorer. You've got a house!
Our teams do not play for a little while, but we would appreciate you starting Phil against us!
Ain’t nobody spending good money on Phil so he can warm their bench.Sounds like Phil could finally be getting back to fitness and this is the classic ploy of releasing some positive statements to drum up potential interest for a sale / release.
Yeah in my business we store a lot of old battered goods in our facility for long term customers, the goods are ancient and do nothing but help serve to prop up the balance sheets for the owners because they are classed as assets.It's how accounting is done, it's not a football thing. If you buy a player for £100m that's not a loss, it's the exchange of £100m in cash for an asset with a £100m market value.
It's a bit weird in this business because we're talking about human beings. If a company spends £100m on machinery, then once again that's not a loss. You have less money but more stuff that's worth money. If that machinery has an economic life of 10 years, then accounting wise it loses £10m of value each year (after 5 years it's worth £50m, after 10 year it's worth nothing). With footballers the duration of the contract is used, because naturally when the contract is up the player has no economic value to the club as they can go for free to wherever they like.
Or, maybe this is a better way to explain it: If you go crazy at the bookies then that money is gone. You've spent a lot of money and got nothing back, you're poorer. If you spend that money on a house instead, then you've still got a lot less money and probably a sizable loan, but you're not poorer. You've got a house!
Its because we have a partnership agreement with Unicef so thats why we believe in charity and thats why we are willing to keep those ancient players .Yeah in my business we store a lot of old battered goods in our facility for long term customers, the goods are ancient and do nothing but help serve to prop up the balance sheets for the owners because they are classed as assets.
For the purposes of player signings, it means taking the transfer fee, adding the total salary the player will receive according to the contract then dividing it by the number of years on the contract, basically spreading the total cost over multiple years. So as an example, you buy a player for 20m then give him a 5 year 2m per year contract which add together is 30m. Divide it by 5 you get 6m per year.Does amortization mean paying something back in instalments? I've googled it but my simple mind struggles to comprehend what exactly amortization is
Our teams do not play for a little while, but we would appreciate you starting Phil against us!
Cherki was the one Nicky Butt tried to get for the academy.
It will before he signed his first professional contract with Lyon. We weren't the only ones to try either if I remember right.I find it hard to believe they will be willing to sell Cherki. He is their crown jewel no?
Cherki was the one Nicky Butt tried to get for the academy.
Our teams do not play for a little while, but we would appreciate you starting Phil against us!
Signs a new contract
I find it hard to believe they will be willing to sell Cherki. He is their crown jewel no?
Thought he retired 2 years ago!I think Jones knows his career is over. He's here to squeeze as much money out of United as he can until his contract expires then I honestly think he'll consider early retirement.