Rudkin

[Foxmeister]

2 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Rejected a bid £2m short for one player and then let Barnes and Maddison go for god knows how much less than market value. That's on Rudkin, but no doubt you'll defend it anyway because "we don't know for sure". 

Would you rather we kept him until the end of the window (see Fofana) and get £50m, maybe less because we'd be desperate to sell at that point with a year remaining on his contract, and miss out on Hermansen, Winks, Mavididi.....

[filbertway]

Okay, I've just read up on how clubs use transfer amortization for their accounts. Interesting, I can imagine clubs try all sorts to game that.

 

So if we signed someone for  £15 million and he's on a 3 year contract worth 80k (4.16 million a year). His value goes down £5 million each year.

 

So he's worth 9.16 million a year.

 

21/22 - 5 million + 4.16 miliion

22/23 - 5 million + 4.16 million

23/24 - Hypothetically sold for £5 million

 

At this point we only had £5 million left to pay, as £10 million was paid in the previous 2 years. So that cancels out the £5 million from the fee. Then we are relieved of the wages, so we can enter it in a 4.16 million profit from last season

Quite an interesting video, my only query is wondering how it works if a player signs a new deal and their wage goes up or down. Would the value be based on the previous financial year or their projected cost.

 

 

 

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

Quite an interesting video, my only query is wondering how it works if a player signs a new deal and their wage goes up or down. Would the value be based on the previous financial year or their projected cost.

 

 

If a player sign a new deal the remaining amortization is split across the years of the new deal.

 

So for example we signed James for £20m on a five-year contract in 2018, his amortization was 20m divided by 5 = 4m 

 

2 years later in 2020, he signed a new four-year contract, at that point he had 3 years left on his current contract, so the remaining amortization is 3 x 4 = 12m 

 

So the remaining amortization of 12m is then divided over the length of the new contract 12m divided by 4, so the new amortization per year becomes 3m rather than 4m.

 

 

 

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

At this point we only had £5 million left to pay, as £10 million was paid in the previous 2 years. So that cancels out the £5 million from the fee. Then we are relieved of the wages, so we can enter it in a 4.16 million profit from last season

You are reducing your expenses in your P & L.

 

Edited 17 January by coolhandfox

[Dan LCFC]

A frequent theme in here is the amount of times I see "we couldn't do X because of Y", correctly by the way, but Y was another previous Rudkin / Top error.

 

Like I said earlier I can only conclude he's still here because these are instructions. There's no other logic. He isn't doing well.

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, Dan LCFC said:

A frequent theme in here is the amount of times I see "we couldn't do X because of Y", correctly by the way, but Y was another previous Rudkin / Top error.

 

Like I said earlier I can only conclude he's still here because these are instructions. There's no other logic. He isn't doing well.

In a similar vein, if it’s not his job to do wages for example or have an input into  transfers, then he isn’t a strong enough character to carry through what should be an agreed ethos throughout the club.  

[SafewayFox]

How many top clubs have had the same DoF for as long as Rudkin has been in-situ?

 

The whole set up is stale. Surely even his defenders on here would like to see a change of some sorts?

[Ric Flair]

4 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

If a player sign a new deal the remaining amortization is split across the years of the new deal.

 

So for example we signed James for £20m on a five-year contract in 2018, his amortization was 20m divided by 5 = 4m 

 

2 years later in 2020, he signed a new four-year contract, at that point he had 3 years left on his current contract, so the remaining amortization is 3 x 4 = 12m 

 

So the remaining amortization of 12m is then divided over the length of the new contract 12m divided by 4, so the new amortization per year becomes 3m rather than 4m.

 

 

 

Is that correct? I always thought it was on the original length of the contract and cannot be amortised over more than 5 years now anyway.

[coolhandfox]

36 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Is that correct? I always thought it was on the original length of the contract and cannot be amortised over more than 5 years now anyway.

The PL aligned to UEFA rules, which states all new or extended player contracts can be a maximum of 5 years.

 

So you can only sign a player on a five year contract at a time, stopping the 8 year contract stunt Chelsea were exploiting.

 

However with regards to amortisation the UFEA rules state:

 

In case of contract extension, the amortisation can be spread over the extended contract period but up to a maximum of five years from the date of the extension.

 

Which suggest to me you can still re-amortise when extending a contract.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 17 January by coolhandfox

[coolhandfox]

.

Edited 17 January by coolhandfox

[filbertway]

Do clubs have the option to have their accounts be done on how much they e actually spent. It feels like you're going to be constantly playing catch up doing your books this way. 

[Jimmy]

1 hour ago, coolhandfox said:

The PL aligned to UEFA rules, which states all new or extended player contracts can be a maximum of 5 years.

 

So you can only sign a player on a five year contract at a time, stopping the 8 year contract stunt Chelsea were exploiting.

 

However with regards to amortisation the UFEA rules state:

 

In case of contract extension, the amortisation can be spread over the extended contract period but up to a maximum of five years from the date of the extension.

 

Which suggest to me you can still re-amortise when extending a contract.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not true you can still give them an 8 year deal if you like but the amortization is limited to 5 years maximum 

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, Jimmy said:

Not true you can still give them an 8 year deal if you like but the amortization is limited to 5 years maximum 

True my wording isn’t clear and I should have said for amortisation proposes.

[fuchsntf]

16 hours ago, Lako42 said:

He's made of glass and wouldn't last a season in this country. 

 

We clearly have little room for manoeuvre at the minute so spending it on a player with significant injury concerns makes little sense to me. 

I can see Rudkin rightly….saying on Sensi to Enzo,“with ffp, we ain’t again going to invest in another player,with an history of injury  “

Not forgetting we had taken on a younger Cannon with concerns .

 

If Enzo was not aware of our reinvestment woes,and didn’t ask,more stupid him

for not recognising the climate,across Europe…

 

Get use to this trane of thought…

We get promoted,Enzo is told from club.there is a minimal reinvestment scope & manouverability..Enzo being young,will most likely still want to stay,to see how he can develope his ideas and system with this squad with same or different loans 

& offers him the PL experience + challenge

We buy Fatawu..must be the priority if we can close a deal

Akgun & Castadei, LCFC future ( if possible)  will depend on Ndidi future,and progress of Baybrooke & Alves,plus either again loan or >>buy if possible<<
Doyle..Ditto..Though with Nelson,Justin,Choudhury, Souttar,no such panic.

 

Or Enzo simply does not want the aggro to-take this club further,without decent access to funds..

 

Another thing I won’t Lambast Rudkin without knowing the full story,of how much

his hands are tied behind his back due to

FFP constraints…Clubs financial (KP) recovery,since COVID and those constraints.

We have Rudkin,and Glover that have to work within those realities,

not just the Coach/ manager,whoever that maybe..

 

Now despite our horror of relegation, we /club have shook ourselves down,

took and gave a great chance on the manager/Coach.

Gobsmacked ourselves,fans and the decent Pundits,into not just challenging for

top 2,but presently put us in a at present incredible record untouchable position,

to an immediate return to the PL…

All the roles in %ages are at present,not yet been defined…

 

 

[JimmyC74]

8 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Is that correct? I always thought it was on the original length of the contract and cannot be amortised over more than 5 years now anyway.

Pretty sure the amortisation period gets extended when the contract is.

[SemperEadem]

 

[urban fox]

With the amortisation in the case of extended contracts, if the club decide to spread the remaining value over the length of the new contract, then the depreciation of original cost slows down so the players book value remains higher for longer no?

if so, then this can help to show a smaller expense year on year and hence help in terms of ffp profitability, but on the other hand, it means that the player, if suddenly surplus, has to be sold for a higher fee to prevent a bigger loss in any given year. Obviously, the longer the remaining contract term the higher the fee the selling club can demand, compared to say a fire sale where the players contract is running down, providing anyone is prepared to pay it.

it really is a massive headache for those whose job it is to get the balance right, especially when you consider how many players a club will have on the books at any given time, and it only takes one or two poor investments to throw the whole thing out of kilter

[Ric Flair]

9 minutes ago, urban fox said:

With the amortisation in the case of extended contracts, if the club decide to spread the remaining value over the length of the new contract, then the depreciation of original cost slows down so the players book value remains higher for longer no?

if so, then this can help to show a smaller expense year on year and hence help in terms of ffp profitability, but on the other hand, it means that the player, if suddenly surplus, has to be sold for a higher fee to prevent a bigger loss in any given year. Obviously, the longer the remaining contract term the higher the fee the selling club can demand, compared to say a fire sale where the players contract is running down, providing anyone is prepared to pay it.

it really is a massive headache for those whose job it is to get the balance right, especially when you consider how many players a club will have on the books at any given time, and it only takes one or two poor investments to throw the whole thing out of kilter

It's only really material on players purchased north of £30m. Even then at £6m a season for 5 years, a contract renewal after 2 years then spreads £18m over 5 years at £3.75m a year rather than £6m a year, only saving £2.25m a year for FFP.

[HarryDee8]

Only 13 days till the transfer window closes

[CosbehFox]

Apparently Rudkin stood in white dog Bob today outside Seagrave and he’s spent the entire day in the world class laundry room trying to get out of the grooves in his ASICS running trainers he wears for the gym. 
 

 

[Wymsey]

Surely the guy does some good, considering the club hasn't binned off yet plus his extensive club knowledge?..

[LFox99]

17 hours ago, fuchsntf said:

I can see Rudkin rightly….saying on Sensi to Enzo,“with ffp, we ain’t again going to invest in another player,with an history of injury  “

Not forgetting we had taken on a younger Cannon with concerns .

 

If Enzo was not aware of our reinvestment woes,and didn’t ask,more stupid him

for not recognising the climate,across Europe…

 

Get use to this trane of thought…

We get promoted,Enzo is told from club.there is a minimal reinvestment scope & manouverability..Enzo being young,will most likely still want to stay,to see how he can develope his ideas and system with this squad with same or different loans 

& offers him the PL experience + challenge

We buy Fatawu..must be the priority if we can close a deal

Akgun & Castadei, LCFC future ( if possible)  will depend on Ndidi future,and progress of Baybrooke & Alves,plus either again loan or >>buy if possible<<
Doyle..Ditto..Though with Nelson,Justin,Choudhury, Souttar,no such panic.

 

Or Enzo simply does not want the aggro to-take this club further,without decent access to funds..

 

Another thing I won’t Lambast Rudkin without knowing the full story,of how much

his hands are tied behind his back due to

FFP constraints…Clubs financial (KP) recovery,since COVID and those constraints.

We have Rudkin,and Glover that have to work within those realities,

not just the Coach/ manager,whoever that maybe..

 

Now despite our horror of relegation, we /club have shook ourselves down,

took and gave a great chance on the manager/Coach.

Gobsmacked ourselves,fans and the decent Pundits,into not just challenging for

top 2,but presently put us in a at present incredible record untouchable position,

to an immediate return to the PL…

All the roles in %ages are at present,not yet been defined…

 

 

mate I'm not reading all that

[Dames]

15 hours ago, SemperEadem said:

 

Ah so were here again are we…. 

[foxinsocks]

Rudkin the great survivor

 

[Dan LCFC]

3 hours ago, Dames said:

Ah so were here again are we…. 

No idea how anyone expected any different. Same inept people. Same inept outcomes.

 

Whatever reasons about FFP and amortisation are given on here, I just cannot believe it can be this much harder for us to make sales than Everton, than Wolves, than Southampton.