its not amortisation, that is an accounting term for how the assets are accounted forIt's just amortization. Common practice. United have still spent 120 million on those two. Which is fine.
this is how the payments are structured
its not amortisation, that is an accounting term for how the assets are accounted forIt's just amortization. Common practice. United have still spent 120 million on those two. Which is fine.
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
I see Timo starting most of our games.If you start Timo why not? The only thing Jones will rebuild is the confidence of opposing strikers.
Sancho and Varane yeahWhich 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.
Barring a massive injury crisis to our CBs and to even makeshift CBs like Mctominay, Shaw, Bruno*.. I don't see Jones starting a match of any importance for us. Maybe if we have already topped our CL group and have an away game?Our teams do not play for a little while, but we would appreciate you starting Phil against us!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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.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?
Thank you that's helpful!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!
We have some deluded clingers in this squad.Our teams do not play for a little while, but we would appreciate you starting Phil against us!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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!
And what could realistically be the role of a 5th CB? Our captain always plays, Varane will likely play a lot too… Even Lindelof may only hope for limited game time - so Jones is en route to getting on the bench in easier League cup games perhaps?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Cherki was the one Nicky Butt tried to get for the academy.
Happy Danjumat got a big move, he’s always impressed me whenever I’ve seen him.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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.
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?
By all accounts he was/is highly rated, but considering that he has barely made it and already has attitude problems, is worrying.Cherki was the one Nicky Butt tried to get for the academy.
Great video. Love it.
That's a good signing at a reasonable price. Certainly a much better deal than £70m for Maddison!Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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.Our teams do not play for a little while, but we would appreciate you starting Phil against us!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Signs a new contract
That’s Chelsea’s way. Threaten banishment if extensions not signed so that whenever the time comes to sell, they will always get value.Signs a new contract
So that's around £70m or so raised between Odegaard and Varane, plus whatever Ramos was on off the wage packet. Decent enough outgoings in the current market, but I'm sure they were hoping to chuck more away.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sounds like the sporting director is spitting his dummy out after a bad loss.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.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date