We've spent circa £60m and with the addition of Lazar and Lovren will take it to £100m. Suarez departure will recoup £75m. So what is our net transfer fund?
Transfer Fund
- Thread starter redhorizon2
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
How?
I think we've spent about 40m, not 60m.
I imagine our net spend will be at most 20m, but I hope to be surprised. In a good way.
I imagine our net spend will be at most 20m, but I hope to be surprised. In a good way.
I reckon you're deliberately taking the lowest values and leaving out add ons, but not including add ons we must have to pay from previous signings. It's at least 5m more than that going out this summer.
Not that I think we'll actually know until the accounts come out sometime next year.
Emre Can £10m
Divock £10m
Lallan £25
Lambert £4m
Sorry you are right £50m
Divock £10m
Lallan £25
Lambert £4m
Sorry you are right £50m
I think the money will be there to get whatever deals done the club deems necessary. Whether it adds up to £30m net or £70m net remains to be seen, but I think the players who are available will have more to do with it than strict budget constraints.
We have not spent any add ons yet.
We have not signed him yet
Not at all. They don't count though.
All the talk at the end of the season was of a £65M kitty and that ties in I think with chatter from the club that none of the Suarez money has been spent on covering the transfers so far. Therefore we could have ca. £80-90M left .... not that I think for one moment we will spend it all but maybe with Lovren £20M, Origi £10M and a Striker £30M there will be ca. £20-30M left over + sales, and all that will go over to the January kitty if we need someone in particular.
Who was the Liverpool ex-player who said the other day that 3 to come and maybe 2-3 'surprises' ?
Who was the Liverpool ex-player who said the other day that 3 to come and maybe 2-3 'surprises' ?
Can - 10
The Llama - 16 at present
Lambert - 4
So that's 30 spent at the moment, obviously they could rise in years to come if we win something etc.
Was rumoured that we had 40mill to spent NET, plus any player sales. The only player sale at the moment is bitey for 75, so that means 115 minus the 30 we've spent, we 'should' have 85mill left.
Out of that might come a 20mill lovren, 20mill markovic, a 10mill origi etc.
The Llama - 16 at present
Lambert - 4
So that's 30 spent at the moment, obviously they could rise in years to come if we win something etc.
Was rumoured that we had 40mill to spent NET, plus any player sales. The only player sale at the moment is bitey for 75, so that means 115 minus the 30 we've spent, we 'should' have 85mill left.
Out of that might come a 20mill lovren, 20mill markovic, a 10mill origi etc.
From the earlier discussion on FFP I think wages are probably a bigger issue for you than transfer fees.
Will the wage bill be able to take that many additional players and still pass FFP next season?
Will the wage bill be able to take that many additional players and still pass FFP next season?
We have to take them out of our current budget now, though, for the balance sheet/budget/etc
With the expansion of revenue for champions league, plus losing the big contracts of Suarez and hopefully Lucas and Agger, we should be able to take on a fair amount, more so than Spurs could in their position but you're right, its a concern.
Do we?
Yes
I dont know ask one of the accountants or @Rosco
We definitely have to include either what we pay this year, or the ones we've signed up to pay in future years. I suspect its the latter one.
No thanks.
It depends what you're talking about. The basic answer though is when a club says it has £20m net to spend or whatever it means that they're willing to take in the region of £20m more in IOUs payable either now or in the next few years.
So the amount of the Lallana fee to be deducted from the budget is the amount most likely to be payable in total. Which is a bit of a problem cos none of us know what that is, so it's probably best to take the £23m figure most widely reported. At a guess, though, the real amount is probably about £20m.
So the amount of the Lallana fee to be deducted from the budget is the amount most likely to be payable in total. Which is a bit of a problem cos none of us know what that is, so it's probably best to take the £23m figure most widely reported. At a guess, though, the real amount is probably about £20m.
Why? What if it isn't activated for another 5-10yrs?
What about if it's never activated, why would we take it off now?
Think it'll be similar to your club's situation. Some high-earning outgoing players will offset things, be it in this season or the next. Of the biggest earners:
- I think certainly Suarez's wages could pay the wages of 2, if not 3, younger, less-established new guys (e.g. maybe Markovic + Divock + Can)
- Johnson's contract hasn't been renewed yet and there's a year to go on that, so he could go after this season; that's a rumoured 100K / week there but probably only in the following season
- Reina is most likely off; he's got 2 years to run on his contract but we may end up giving him away for free in exchange for getting rid of the wages; that's another rumoured 100K / week
And then we might also be moving out a few guys and the wages saved could pay for the other incoming players' wages directly, e.g. Agger vs Lovren, Toure vs Lambert, or in combination, e.g. Borini? + Lucas? + Aspas vs Lallana, etc.
Some risks would include wage inflation due to contract renewals and also not being able to get rid of the players we do not want to keep in the squad without having to pay them off.
Technically transfer fees paid are recorded on the balance sheet as intangible assets. They are depreciated over the length of the players contract.
You wouldn't include future bonus payments until they are payable and then write off over the remaining contract.
You could exclude bonus payments on players signed this season but to be consistent you should include bonus payments paid on previous transfers.
For FFP transfer costs are spread over the contract duration, regardless of structured or lump sum payment, I think. From http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
Transfer Fees An important part of the rules relates to the way that player transfers have to be accounted for. Although a club will often pay a transfer fee to another club immediately, from a Break Even perspective the financial cost of acquiring a player has to be written-off over the duration of the contract. We need an example: let's assume Torres was signed for £50m on a 5 year contract and that Chelsea paid Liverpool £50m via an immediate bank transfer. As far as the Profit & Loss section of accounts is concerned (and the Break Even test), Torres' purchase price would be depreciated (or amortised) evenly over the 5 years of the contract. So, during the first 12 months, only £10m would be incurred as a cost in the accounts and Torres would end the year with a 'book value' of £40m. After 5 years, Torres' contract would have ended and he would be free to leave the club (he would also have a book value of zero). If the club sells Torres part way-through the contract, the club the difference between the amount they receive for the player and the book value at the date of the sale is accounted for immediately in the accounts (and the Break Even test) as a 'loss/profit on player trading'. This is important as it explains how a club can sell a player for below the original purchase price and still record a profit in the accounts during the year of sale. If Liverpool sell Andy Carroll for anything above £18m in the summer, they will record the difference as a profit on player sales during 2013/14. If we assume that Falcao comes to Chelsea for £50m on a 5 year deal in the summer, the club's P&L account for the year will only include £10m as an expense (under the heading 'amortisation'). The club will also, of course, have to include the player wages as an expense in the Profit & Loss account.
- Status
