New Contracts

[CornwallRam]

23 minutes ago, RamLad1884 said:

Academy player does not hold FFP value other than the cost of their contract from everything around. So his wage is the only FFP consideration. 'assets' i.e. Players of any value to us won't help us with FFP if/when they are sold. Player could be worth £20 million but won't be worth a penny under ffp until he is sold. 

Not quite right that one. Their residual value will be their signing on cost, so eg signing on fee of £50k and agent's fee of £50k gives them an initial value of £100k. When they're sold the books gain the transfer fee received, less any costs involved minus their current residual value, so if a player was sold for £20m and the transfer costs were £2m (maybe agents) and their residual was £50k, we'd get £17.95m. Selling academy players for big fees is the very best thing you can do to improve an FFP situation.

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

Releasing them makes no difference to FFP as their values will have already been written down each year and will be zero by the end of their contracts. If we retain them and pay out any fees in doing so, it makes FFP proportionately worse. If we sold any of them during this window, the price we get helps FFP.

No longer true I'm afraid.

Players residual values are re-assessed every year, not written down over the term of their contract.

 

[TuffLuff]

2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Bryso and Johnno on cheap deals would be good, need a bit more bite in midfield! ?

Ahh I see what you did there! 

To be honest I’d personally keep Johnno too...but again depends on what he wants for the rest of his career and whether we can offer him the gametime he wants 

[CornwallRam]

14 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

No longer true I'm afraid.

Players residual values are re-assessed every year, not written down over the term of their contract.

 

Indeed, but they still have to match contracts, so will be zero at the end of the contract.

[Ghost of Clough]

Just now, CornwallRam said:

Indeed, but they still have to match contracts, so will be zero at the end of the contract.

It won't be zero at the end of the original contract if they sign an extension though.

[G STAR RAM]

8 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Indeed, but they still have to match contracts, so will be zero at the end of the contract.

But people are suggesting extending the contracts and retaining the residual values if I am reading correctly 

[Rev]

I'd love to know how they arrive at the values they give to each player.

It's not like you can pick up a Glasses guide like a car, or Rightmove for a house.

Obviously a player with 3 years left will have a higher value than if he had 1 year to go, and I assume younger players will have more value than those entering the twilight of their careers, depending on ability as well.

It's just such a subjective thing I don't see how you can value players accurately.

Do clubs game the system, by valuing assets to fit the FFP rules, for instance giving a higher value than realistic in years when the overall spend nears the limit, and reducing the value more than necessary when spending less?

FFP isn't fit for purpose imo, it's a cap on ambition and a way of keeping clubs in their place in the pecking order.

A much fairer system would be to let owners spend what they want, as long as the money was forwarded in advance to the league, and transfer fees, wages, and associated costs were met from this pot, with no way the club itself could be held liable for repayment of such money.

In conjunction with FFP rules for clubs not having an owner willing to piss money away, this would be fairer and easier to understand.

[Sexydadbod]

I’d extend Huddlestone’s, Pearce’s and Roos’. Huddlestone you will probably understand but Roos and Pearce are happy to sit on the bench and won’t cause disruption in the squad as a result and won’t be on “too” high wages. Don’t underestimate this. It will be difficult to find another centre back and goaly happy to sit on the bench, who knows what condition Davies will be in after his injury

[RamNut]

5 hours ago, Roboram said:

I say let them all go.

We've been bemoaning the size of the squad & wanting a big clear out for a couple of years now.

No better opportunity to do this than in the summer.

 

At the moment i'm with you on that, although i will be sorry to see bryson go, and huddz to a lesser extent.

 

[cannable]

5 hours ago, Roboram said:

I take your point. But surely letting them all go will free up funds to strengthen, especially with the amount of wages the likes of Johnson & Butterfield are on (allegedly).

Only around half the list (maximum) make the match day squad anyway. 

I don’t really understand it myself, but what was explained at the time was that the value of players helps us with FFP and the value is the fee we paid for them.

So in FFP terms, BJ is worth £7,000,000 to us.

[nogbad van 50]

Seeing as how they cost us peanuts,we shouldn’t be too badly affected by letting Bryson,Ledley,Nugent,Pearce,Olsson and Roos go for nothing and I reckon we’ll be saving approximately £100k per week or £5m per annum.Sounds a good deal to me!?

[RamNut]

Roos might be worth keeping. Played well enough at hull in the carabao cup.

 

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, cannable said:

I don’t really understand it myself, but what was explained at the time was that the value of players helps us with FFP and the value is the fee we paid for them.

So in FFP terms, BJ is worth £7,000,000 to us.

 We don’t know and publicising a players value would be bad for business.  Prudently, you would reduce BJ value over the period to reflect his likely value if sold.  It’s like any asset in a company’s books it should reflect the expected current value subject to audit approval.  But each depreciation has an  effect on FRR.  Not sure whether it is possible to up value a player.

might get £3m for BJ but I really doubt we have taken that hit in previous years.  Buy over priced players and it will bite you.  Anya, butterfield and a few others could cost us a lot.  Like I say we don’t know whether the club has been prudent over the years though

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, reveldevil said:

I'd love to know how they arrive at the values they give to each player.

It's not like you can pick up a Glasses guide like a car, or Rightmove for a house.

Obviously a player with 3 years left will have a higher value than if he had 1 year to go, and I assume younger players will have more value than those entering the twilight of their careers, depending on ability as well.

It's just such a subjective thing I don't see how you can value players accurately.

Do clubs game the system, by valuing assets to fit the FFP rules, for instance giving a higher value than realistic in years when the overall spend nears the limit, and reducing the value more than necessary when spending less?

FFP isn't fit for purpose imo, it's a cap on ambition and a way of keeping clubs in their place in the pecking order.

A much fairer system would be to let owners spend what they want, as long as the money was forwarded in advance to the league, and transfer fees, wages, and associated costs were met from this pot, with no way the club itself could be held liable for repayment of such money.

In conjunction with FFP rules for clubs not having an owner willing to piss money away, this would be fairer and easier to understand.

Well starting point will always what you have paid for a player.

Where you go from there I have no idea. 

Donot forget though that the accounts are audited and come along with the auditors comment that they give a true and fair view ? so there must be formulas or comparables for them to be able to make that assertion.

[Carl Sagan]

Haven't delved into the minutiae but it makes no sense whatsoever if a player's transfer fee isn't amortized over the length of his contract in FFP. Anything else sounds mad.

I'd be fine with releasing them all, freeing up vast wages for Frank's rebuilding in whatever division we find ourselves. Possible short-term extensions for Bryson, Hudds and Roos.

I reckon we'd have something like:

GK Carson, Mitchell, myriad juniors coming through

DF Bogle, Lowe, Keogh, Wisdom, Malone, Gordon [Davies, Forsyth recovering from injuries]

MF Holmes, Evans, Bird, Sibley, Elsnik, Babos, Thorne

CF Marriott, Waghorn, Bennett, Martin

Wingers Lawrence, Josefzoon, Thomas, Blackman

with myriad other decent-looking youngsters coming through. It's a great foundation with money freed up from wages for Frank to shape the squad and bring in key players where he sees fit.

 

[EnigmaRam]

No issues with releasing them all.

 

[Mafiabob]

The lot 

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

Haven't delved into the minutiae but it makes no sense whatsoever if a player's transfer fee isn't amortized over the length of his contract in FFP. Anything else sounds mad.

I'd be fine with releasing them all, freeing up vast wages for Frank's rebuilding in whatever division we find ourselves. Possible short-term extensions for Bryson, Hudds and Roos.

I reckon we'd have something like:

GK Carson, Mitchell, myriad juniors coming through

DF Bogle, Lowe, Keogh, Wisdom, Malone, Gordon [Davies, Forsyth recovering from injuries]

MF Holmes, Evans, Bird, Sibley, Elsnik, Babos, Thorne

CF Marriott, Waghorn, Bennett, Martin

Wingers Lawrence, Josefzoon, Thomas, Blackman

with myriad other decent-looking youngsters coming through. It's a great foundation with money freed up from wages for Frank to shape the squad and bring in key players where he sees fit.

 

Needs to reflect fair value.  Amortizing on a straight line would mean carrying say keo at 0 when even his worst detractors would expect a reasonable fee. As I have previously mentioned the auditors will need to be convinced as to what a fair value is

[CornwallRam]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

Needs to reflect fair value.  Amortizing on a straight line would mean carrying say keo at 0 when even his worst detractors would expect a reasonable fee. As I have previously mentioned the auditors will need to be convinced as to what a fair value is

Players are not valued, it's their registration that has a book value. After the Bosman ruling, over 23's can leave for free at the end of their contract, so that is always the value of their registration at the end of the contract.

If a contract is extended, the player's registration regains some value, but their book value cannot go above the actual cost of that registration, thus extending in the final few months of a contract only ever produces a low book value.

[CornwallRam]

7 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

But people are suggesting extending the contracts and retaining the residual values if I am reading correctly 

People on here suggest lots of things.

Player values can never increase in the accounts, unless some cost has been incurred,eg the costs of a new contract. Thus, if a player's value has been written down already, that value doesn't come back, but the existing residual value can be added to the newly incurred costs.

 

eg, if we signed a player for £7m on a 4 year contract and wrote his value down by £1m in year one and another £2m in year two, his rv would be £4m. If we then gave him a new contract and gave him a £1m signing fee and paid his bloodsucking agent another £1m, his rv would then be £6m. The thing is though, we don't gain in FFP terms by doing that as the £2m rise in his rv has come at the cost of £2m...and that's without a salary increase.