Well at least we know the process. Time on recce is seldom wasted.
BoE gives a figure of around £141 million.
So looking at the figures it suggests Mangala’s sale isn’t included, 47.5m Johnson, 5m Surridge, 3m for Ojeda, 4m for Scarpa, then other smaller sales and loan fees.
a tangible asset is something like a machine or other real thing with a physical embodiment, like inventory/stock and so on.
My issue with FFP is that clubs should not be losing money. The model should allow a 'modest' loss. £105M is not modest by anyone standards, nor is it sustainable. By reducing this to #30M over 3 seasons would help to reduce player costs and wages in the UK.
So, if Mangala’s 10m loan fee and subsequent sale (if receives this year )isn’t included, then we don’t need to sell.
Surely that would just make the gap even bigger and give zero chance to newly promoted sides?
How can wages be 147m?! Even if we had 50 players that means the average is 60k a week?Seeing a lot of this sort of commentary from other fans. We can talk about Derbys dire financial situation elsewhere but they made a massive loss without being able to buy players for any transfer fee, when they can spend again then they will look even worse.
I don't think anyone from our club thinks that the spending on transfer fees we did last year was (a) Repeatable and so (b) Is supposed to be sustainable, other fans reacting like all of a sudden we are a "basket case" club when the losses we post are lower than their clubs is odd. Some of them have had literally billions of pounds more than we have over the sky EPL years and still make losses in excess of ours.
I think its absolutely clear though that staying in the Premier league long term is essential for this to work but its getting a bit boring when snipers are having a pop.
A paragon of virtue are Brighton. If you look at their accounts for the year before they became a feeder club for the top six (i.e Pre Ben White sale) they made an operating loss of £48m, had a wage bill of £108m, signed £60m worth of players versus £139m turnover and owed the parent group £360m. Not sustainable, but equally not described as a basket case though because in the longer term they have sold players for silly money and reinvested wisely (Caceido bought for £25m sold for £100m for example).
I'm still annoyed at the narrative and external criticism in truth but I do accept that we haven't acted efficiently at the same time, I guess it just shows that you can't be as well thought of as Brighton without taking similar risks that they have but they get plaudits, we get slaughtered.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
That’s the sort of numbers these pretty average players are earning now
Its a big jump and its probably indicative of the craziness of Football.
Well the base value is 130m, 147m includes social security etc (which still needs to be paid obv).
.
A good way of people understanding it is for them to think of Diakhaby and his control as an example. You imagine that you would able to see a professional control the ball but that was conceptual, his first touch never actually existed. He was real but there was nothing by way of an asset that we found see or that he could touch.
You are clearly omitting Harry Arter from your calculations!
We don’t pay those if you believe the Daily Mail
It will include all of the none playing staff as well (and presumably the acadamy staff).