£10m FFP Bill

[Spanish]

32 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

7.9m loss in 16/17 and 14.7m in 15/16. Can’t see how we’d be so far out as to achieve a 10m fine now after the cost cutting - we’d have to make around a 16.4m loss for it to be true ?‍♂️ (Could be wrong)

got to shift or renew Blackman, Johnson and Butterfield next year

[StaffsRam]

4 minutes ago, Spanish said:

got to shift or renew Blackman, Johnson and Butterfield next year

Blackman and Butters can go. Bradders, prob keep.

[RadioactiveWaste]

Could the FFP end values affect decisions to renew contracts?

We don't want/need player X, but to manage FFP we claimed he would be worth £6m at the end of his contract. During his last year he's very poor and injured. The contract lapses, we write down a FFP loss of a £6m asset but in reality we've shifted a liability off the books? To avoid that end, we renew the contract for a year?

 

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

Blackman and Butters can go. Bradders, prob keep.

to whom and for how much, losses against book value will impact FRR?

[Spanish]

5 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Could the FFP end values affect decisions to renew contracts?

We don't want/need player X, but to manage FFP we claimed he would be worth £6m at the end of his contract. During his last year he's very poor and injured. The contract lapses, we write down a FFP loss of a £6m asset but in reality we've shifted a liability off the books? To avoid that end, we renew the contract for a year?

 

kicking the can down the road is risky.  

[StaffsRam]

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

to whom and for how much, losses against book value will impact FRR?

For some reason I read that as their contracts were up.

Granted it’ll be difficult to offload them when they’re in-contract. Frankly, I’d take whatever we can for either of them if it means:

a) getting rid

b) bringing in ANY cash

c) gets them off the wagebill

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, StaffsRam said:

For some reason I read that as their contracts were up.

Granted it’ll be difficult to offload them when they’re in-contract. Frankly, I’d take whatever we can for either of them if it means:

a) getting rid

b) bringing in ANY cash

c) gets them off the wagebill

but i keep saying this if we sell an asset for less than its book valuation then it hits P&L and therefore FRR.  Letting Butters go for nothing may mean a £6m loss!  We've got to sell them this summer or extend

I do wish someone would either correct me on this rule or support my view, feels very lonely

[Ghost of Clough]

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

but i keep saying this if we sell an asset for less than its book valuation then it hits P&L and therefore FRR.  Letting Butters go for nothing may mean a £6m loss!  We've got to sell them this summer or extend

I do wish someone would either correct me on this rule or support my view, feels very lonely

Doubt it when he was signed for up to 4m.

[Spanish]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

Doubt it when he was signed for up to 4m.

ok that's a partial relief so who's going to buy him for say £2m?

[StaffsRam]

2 minutes ago, Spanish said:

but i keep saying this if we sell an asset for less than its book valuation then it hits P&L and therefore FRR.  Letting Butters go for nothing may mean a £6m loss!  We've got to sell them this summer or extend

I do wish someone would either correct me on this rule or support my view, feels very lonely

I’m not sure on that point, but if we’re able to sell them, ie move them on without paying them off, then saved future wages will at least partially offset a reduction in asset values.

Plus, I doubt that the asset value remains constant over time. Surely it reduces. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

4 minutes ago, Spanish said:

ok that's a partial relief so who's going to buy him for say £2m?

Sheff Wednesday.

They have a bounce specially for him where they sit down and look board.

Be prepared for years of Wednesday fans saying they invited the sitting looking board bounce that everyone copied.

[Spanish]

7 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

I’m not sure on that point, but if we’re able to sell them, ie move them on without paying them off, then saved future wages will at least partially offset a reduction in asset values.

Plus, I doubt that the asset value remains constant over time. Surely it reduces. 

the club's choice to reduce the value of an asset, maybe they have maybe not.  loss on sale is an instant hit but salaries are future costs.  But like you say it would help a little

[StaffsRam]

6 minutes ago, Spanish said:

the club's choice to reduce the value of an asset, maybe they have maybe not.  loss on sale is an instant hit but salaries are future costs.  But like you say it would help a little

Assets depreciating is just a general accounting principle isn’t it? At this point in Butterfield’s contract for example I doubt that he’s valued at either £6m or £4m on the balance sheet.

[Spanish]

if a company buys a house it doesn't depreciate it because its value is unlikely to fall.  Players are intangible assets that can suffer impairment but not necessarily so

[Ghost of Clough]

12 minutes ago, Spanish said:

if a company buys a house it doesn't depreciate it because its value is unlikely to fall.  Players are intangible assets that can suffer impairment but not necessarily so

You seem to have some sort of agenda here but cant figure out why.

Players like Butterfield and Johnson (fairly old and/or with low resale value) will have residual values to closely reflect their true value - meaning we expect them to stay until their contract runs out with the residual values closely resembling the old 'depreciating' values. Players like Vydra and Lawrence will be completely different, meaning the book value will be close to what we paid for them

[BathRam72]

2 hours ago, Spanish said:

surely you as an intelligent individual do not believe everything you read in a newspaper.  if a manager is interested in this role the mail wont put them off.  Just go to the interview and ask them for the truth, simples

No I don't believe everything I hear in an article.  But there are rumours flying all over from different sources about lack of funds, ffp etc etc. Put them all together and prospective managers might think twice. No smoke and all that

[BathRam72]

2 hours ago, RiddingsRam said:

Yeah maybe , media blow things up and also there was a comment at one of the fans forums from Mel saying the price doubles when Derby come knocking for a player. ?

Very true. I just think with all the other rumours about lack of funds . This is just another distraction for a potential manager 

[StaffsRam]

10 minutes ago, Spanish said:

if a company buys a house it doesn't depreciate it because its value is unlikely to fall.  Players are intangible assets that can suffer impairment but not necessarily so

From memory I thought that player purchases were amortised across the duration of their contracts. Hence, if Butterfield for example were 3/4 of the way through a 4 year contract then 3/4 if that acquisition cost has already been amortised.

[Spanish]

47 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

From memory I thought that player purchases were amortised across the duration of their contracts. Hence, if Butterfield for example were 3/4 of the way through a 4 year contract then 3/4 if that acquisition cost has already been amortised.

old rules now changed

[Spanish]

56 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

You seem to have some sort of agenda here but cant figure out why.

Players like Butterfield and Johnson (fairly old and/or with low resale value) will have residual values to closely reflect their true value - meaning we expect them to stay until their contract runs out with the residual values closely resembling the old 'depreciating' values. Players like Vydra and Lawrence will be completely different, meaning the book value will be close to what we paid for them

no agenda at all

I would be interested to know the source of the information that the carrying value for those 2 has been steadily falling, it would be a relief.  I honestly don't know but I'm worried that there has been little or none