If it's an obligation to buy then it doesn't matter if they're crap, you still have to buy them at the end of the loan.You can see if they're crap or not e.g Sidibe.
If there is an obligation to buy, what difference would it make?You can see if they're crap or not e.g Sidibe.
Ah woops, early morning and I read it as option.If it's an obligation to buy then it doesn't matter if they're crap, you still have to buy them at the end of the loan.
I misread it as option!If there is an obligation to buy, what difference would it make?
Booooo shame, shame, shame.I misread it as option!
Option to buy, maybe not even that.Do we have an obligation or option to buy Ighalo?
I like him, but i think by the end of January we will have got as much out of him as we can.
You've always got an option to buy! Offer £200 million and he's yours.Option to buy, maybe not even that.
If it was Woodward he'd counter offer £210 million and not a penny less.You've always got an option to buy! Offer £200 million and he's yours.
FFP just goes by accounting standards. Deferring payment doesn’t change the date the expense was incurred.Its definitely an FFP dodge but what the difference between that and a sale with deferred payment I have no idea. Must be something in the FFP regulations that makes a purchase still count even if payment is deferred or something
Yep. It gives the buying club an option to better structuralize the deal in order to fit into the FFP regulations, since transfer fees actually look a bit different from an accounting perspective (read up on the use of amortization in football if you're interested).This is just a FFP dodge, right?
What's the difference between a loan with an obligation to buy and a sale with a delayed payment?
No, it's not for dodging FFP.This is just a FFP dodge, right?
What's the difference between a loan with an obligation to buy and a sale with a delayed payment?
I'm not talking about deals where the players has to meet certain criteria which triggers the sale.
If you use Mbappe as the example, then 100% yes.This is just a FFP dodge, right?
What's the difference between a loan with an obligation to buy and a sale with a delayed payment?
I'm not talking about deals where the players has to meet certain criteria which triggers the sale.
Yep. It gives the buying club an option to better structuralize the deal in order to fit into the FFP regulations, since transfer fees actually look a bit different from an accounting perspective (read up on the use of amortization in football if you're interested).
Uefa has since clarified FFP rules to state that loan deals with “conditional obligation to buy [that is] virtually certain . . . must be recognised by both clubs as a permanent transfer from the inception of the loan agreement”.This is just a FFP dodge, right?
If that's the case (that they cant afford to pay and this gives them time), why is it not just a sale with a deferred payment?No, it's not for dodging FFP.
Obligation to buy is considered same as permanent transfer if i'm not wrong. Read it long time back. Maybe it's because clubs dont have money to pay at that time, so it gives them some time to pay.
Well, will be ≠ is, isn't it? It doesn't surprise me one bit that they are planning to put a stop to it, it was way too obvious. I don't have a FT subscription, so the article is behind a paywall for me.Uefa has since clarified FFP rules to state that loan deals with “conditional obligation to buy [that is] virtually certain . . . must be recognised by both clubs as a permanent transfer from the inception of the loan agreement”.
https://www.ft.com/content/9bd82b30-caf2-11e9-a1f4-3669401ba76f
Obligation to buy will be considered as permanent transfer.
From UEFA site.If that's the case (that they cant afford to pay and this gives them time), why is it not just a sale with a deferred payment?
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/56/20/15/2562015_DOWNLOAD.pdfLoan of a player from the lender club to the new club with an unconditional obligation to buy
a) The loan must be reflected by the lender club as a permanent transfer and the player’s registration rights must be derecognised from its intangible assets. The proceeds from the loan and from the future permanent transfer must be recognised from the inception of the loan agreement.
b) The direct costs of the loan and the future permanent transfer for the new club must be recognised by the new club in accordance with the accounting requirements for permanent acquisition of a player’s registration
Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with a conditional obligation to buy
a) If a condition is considered to be virtually certain, then the player’s registration must be recognised by both clubs as a permanent transfer from the inception of the loan agreement.
b) If the fulfilment of a condition cannot be assessed with sufficient certainty to trigger the permanent transfer from the inception of the loan, then the player’s registration must be recognised first a
I didn't word it correctly maybe. As per UEFA rules, it is considered as permanent transfer.Well, will be ≠ is, isn't it? It doesn't surprise me one bit that they are planning to put a stop to it, it was way too obvious. I don't have a FT subscription, so the article is behind a paywall for me.
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/56/20/15/2562015_DOWNLOAD.pdfLoan of a player from the lender club to the new club with an unconditional obligation to buy
a) The loan must be reflected by the lender club as a permanent transfer and the player’s registration rights must be derecognised from its intangible assets. The proceeds from the loan and from the future permanent transfer must be recognised from the inception of the loan agreement.
b) The direct costs of the loan and the future permanent transfer for the new club must be recognised by the new club in accordance with the accounting requirements for permanent acquisition of a player’s registration
Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with a conditional obligation to buy
a) If a condition is considered to be virtually certain, then the player’s registration must be recognised by both clubs as a permanent transfer from the inception of the loan agreement.
b) If the fulfilment of a condition cannot be assessed with sufficient certainty to trigger the permanent transfer from the inception of the loan, then the player’s registration must be recognised first a
Its a strange one. Chelsea have done it a few times (about to be another with Bakayoko) when getting rid of a player but never when signing one.From UEFA site.
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/56/20/15/2562015_DOWNLOAD.pdf
I don't know why it's not a sale with deferred payment, but loan with obligation to buy is as good as permanent transfer for FFP accounting.
An uneducated guess, ingoring salary:This is just a FFP dodge, right?
What's the difference between a loan with an obligation to buy and a sale with a delayed payment?
I'm not talking about deals where the players has to meet certain criteria which triggers the sale.
