Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
davieG

Ademola Lookman

Recommended Posts

 

People need to remember that a players transfer fee is account for over the length of a player contract

 

For example when Harry Maguire signed for Manchester United in summer 2019 for £80 million on a six year deal this works out as an annual amortisation cost of £13.3 million (£80m/6) in their accounts. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Chocolate Teapot
25 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

If you ask me this is us trying to get a reduction on that fee 

I think there's a lot of this going on currently.

 

Haaland and Countingo going relatively cheap means there's less money flowing about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

 

People need to remember that a players transfer fee is account for over the length of a player contract

 

For example when Harry Maguire signed for Manchester United in summer 2019 for £80 million on a six year deal this works out as an annual amortisation cost of £13.3 million (£80m/6) in their accounts. 

 

Yes that is how most transfers work however the 80m Maguire fee was unusual in that we demanded the full fee upfront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Will1981 said:

Yes that is how most transfers work however the 80m Maguire fee was unusual in that we demanded the full fee upfront.

True, but how Man U paid us and how the accounted for in their accounts are two different things 

 

Even thou they paid us in a one off lump sum, for accounting purposes, the cost would have been spread over 6 years of his contract in Man Utd financial accounts 

 

When a player is purchased, his cost is capitalised on the balance sheet and is written-down (amortised) over the length of his contract.

 

Likewise if Man U decide to give Maguire a new contact after 3 years, there will be 40m of the original transfer on their balance sheet. If they give him a new 4 year contact they can amortise the remaining 40m over the length of his new contract at 10m a year rather then 13.33m per year of the old contact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by coolhandfox
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

Lack of European TV money and everything that comes with that. 

We can't surely be budgeting for European football every year though, that is financial suicide.

 

That makes it sounds like with have to sell Youri, Cags etc, just to break even. 

 

I'm sure our business savey owners wouldn't be allow us to operate in such a fashion that is completely unsustainable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

 

People need to remember that a players transfer fee is account for over the length of a player contract

 

For example when Harry Maguire signed for Manchester United in summer 2019 for £80 million on a six year deal this works out as an annual amortisation cost of £13.3 million (£80m/6) in their accounts. 

 

...much the same as depreciation!!!

So does that mean the stated £90m is partly accruals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we can afford it without having to cut corners on other transfer targets its a no brainer tbh. I'd imagine after his performances this season there would be other prem clubs who'd happily snap him up for £14m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...much the same as depreciation!!!

So does that mean the stated £90m is partly accruals?

Not sure about it being an accrual, I'm no football financial expert, just what I've pick up from reading Swish Rambles blogs/twitter 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although Lookman is a decent player I'd be looking to spend the money elsewhere. We need players that will be in the starting line up and not back up. Lookman isn't good enough to be a regular starter if we are aiming top 6.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Walshy5 said:

Although Lookman is a decent player I'd be looking to spend the money elsewhere. We need players that will be in the starting line up and not back up. Lookman isn't good enough to be a regular starter if we are aiming top 6.

We'd have to buy two, his comments about challenging Barnes on the left seem to suggest he knows that. We aren't going to be able to afford to starting wingers, so one on the right and a backup who is fairly decent is alright. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like him, for a first season with us, he's done well on the goals and assists point of view. But he offers something a bit different and has been great as an impact sub at times too

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...