EPT2017 - 2018 Football Thread - Page 10
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
| ||
|
Bacillus
Finland2085 Posts
On August 05 2017 18:36 haitike wrote: In Spanish sport law, the player must pay the release clause, because he is "paying for his freedom" (That was the reason for the release clause existence decades ago), so the club can't pay it directly. But nowadays, the club (PSG) gives the money to the player, and he pays. So in some moment, Neymar had all that money in his hands xDDD Haha, would've been quite a move to just take the money and run :> | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On August 05 2017 13:24 WillyWanker wrote: It can't be PSG, they'd have to show it somewhere in their accounts. If it was PSG they'd be out of the FFP. There's a picture of a check on Mundo Deportivo, not sure if it's legit, with Qatar National Bank on it :p Another funny thing. Santos is asking money for his transfer to Paris. But I'm not sure this is considered a transfer. Neymar bought his clause then signed as a free agent, no? So apparently, Barça is trying to sign Coutinho + Dembelé. I like the idea of getting Dembelé, but him + Coutinho means that Coutinho will have to play in Iniesta's position and I don't liiiiike that. André Gomes + Turan + Rafinha + Coutinho + Rakitic, they have to kick at least 2... knowing that a few more youngsters are coming like Aleña. I would get rid of Turan and Gomes, and try to get a substitute for Busquets instead. Unless the idea is to play Sergi Roberto there? Since they have 2 right backs now, he won't play there anymore. They're also trying to sign Inigo Martinez from Real Sociedad for 30+M€. Not sure how I feel about that. The team doesn't need him for this season, and next season they can get Yerry Mina and/or Davinson Sanchez from Ajax, who are 5 years younger and probably better and much cheaper. The owner of PSG said yesterday they are fine with FFP with this transfer. They are going to sell like 3 players and make 100million back easy. Then will announce new sponsorship deal and they fine. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6313 Posts
| ||
|
warding
Portugal2397 Posts
| ||
|
KobraKay
Portugal4372 Posts
On August 06 2017 07:47 warding wrote: FFP looks at P&L, so the transfer fee is diluted among the five contact years. At least that's my understanding of it. It shouldnt. It gets diluted under the observation period and that is not related to contract lenght, otherwise that would be another way to circumvent it, just give 100 year contracts and then renew when best suited. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6313 Posts
A good tip if you want to analyse a company: look at cash flows. It's pretty hard to window dress cash flows except through fraud. It's much easier for profit. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
brinepumps
Indonesia753 Posts
Don't get me wrong, I love seeing mega transfer like Neymar or Pogba, but, if this "loopholes" don't get resolved soon, I'm afraid football/soccer will be dead. Daed gaem | ||
|
warding
Portugal2397 Posts
FFP regulations put a limit on how much loss you can have - if I recall correctly you couldn't have more than 30€m accumulated loss over a 3 year period. IMO the law has two effects: some sort of small protection of clubs against owners who might crazily indebt the clubs against their own interest, and; protect the mega clubs against competition from clubs bought by billionaires. Maybe the first reason has some merit but I don't necessarily like the second reason. | ||
|
KobraKay
Portugal4372 Posts
On August 06 2017 08:07 RvB wrote: He's probably right. That's how every business does it. Capital investment gets written off over multiple years. Liquidity =/= profitability. A good tip if you want to analyse a company: look at cash flows. It's pretty hard to window dress cash flows except through fraud. It's much easier for profit. Edit: nvm, completely forgot Neymar paid is own clause. Thanks Warding  . On the rest, to me it made sense to have the release clause fully recognized in year one, however, I think I understand Warding now and he probably is correct. If the players are booked as intangible assets I can see the reason to have the cost recognized only through amortization and not in full in the first year. | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4179 Posts
On August 04 2017 20:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So he goes to Ligue 1... Honestly he would have said the same thing no matter he went. He left for the money and to get out of Messi's shadow. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2397 Posts
Wasn't there also talk that Neymar paid the release clauses himself and Qatar paid him to be a spokesperson for the world cup? Those kinds of shenanigans could theoretically take the monster off of psgs books but I'd assume that kind of shit is illegal? | ||
|
KobraKay
Portugal4372 Posts
On August 06 2017 19:27 warding wrote: KobraKay are you sure that payments of release clauses are accounted differently from transfer fees? On the 100 contract hypothesis, there's a five year limit to contracts so that wouldn't be possible. Wasn't there also talk that Neymar paid the release clauses himself and Qatar paid him to be a spokesperson for the world cup? Those kinds of shenanigans could theoretically take the monster off of psgs books but I'd assume that kind of shit is illegal? You are right. That is a very good point about Neymar paying the clause himself. In that case the FFP problem would only be related to signing fees, performance prizes and wage costs, right? That would ease of (a lot) the pressure since the 222 are not considered in PSG's books. Completely forgot about that part (as it is not that common). Then the situation is a lot different....I'm not sure if that is illegal but still the spirit of the rule is kind of screwed if it is not. That should not be easilly pulled of if the sponsor and club are not owned by the same shareholder, but still....if it is indeed possible it might be looked into by other teams (although in a common situation the club would have to waive/lose out its sponsorship money to have the brand pay the player to pay the release clause, and that would lead to less income, so that could be a moot point, idk). Regarding the release clause, I see what you mean now. You're saying that the player is booked as an intangible asset, therefore you only recognize the acquisition cost through the asset's yearly amortization? Is that it? Since the amortization is tied to the contract length they only have cost vs FFP for the duration of the contract and not right away? Interesting. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2397 Posts
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there some legal thing called stimulation of a business deal (simulacao de negocio)? Not sure whether that can amount to fraud or not but it's clear that the sponsorship deals are clear simulations made to circumvent regulations. | ||
|
LennX
4571 Posts
Edit: ohh and Arsenal equalises 1-1 lol | ||
|
Faruko
Chile34173 Posts
| ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
Studs up from behind, still feels harsh somehow | ||
|
nojok
France15846 Posts
On August 06 2017 23:49 sneirac wrote: https://my.mixtape.moe/zlqjry.mp4 Studs up from behind, still feels harsh somehow It's a friendly, of course the referee will be harsher. | ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
| ||
| ||
