Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 228 comments are related to the topic:
Daglish has made a NET spend= 0 - Made a profit since he joined the club,the guy is working miracles
Daglish has made a NET spend= 0 - Made a profit since he joined the club,the guy is working miracles
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 228
|
By:
OK Viva here is the simple explanation.
Liverpool sign a player in January for £35m rather than in the summer for £35m means that the £35m expenditure is not seen on the accounts for 2011-2012 when the FFP comes into play. They have a player valued at £35m which as you said will amortise down over the contract, but the £35m spent on the player is not an expenditure as it would have been if the transfer was done in the summer. |
|
By:
Despite Chelsea FC's intermediate holding company "Chelsea FC plc" making an sight improvement in its accounts to the net loss of £67.7 million in 2010–11 season, the effect of increase in intangible asset may led to higher cost in the future. As the transfer fee was considered as a purchase of a capital, the real effect of the transfer fee was the amortization of the transfer fee, which is proportionate to the contract length. For example, Torres's £50 million transfer fee had to be amortized to about £9 million a season, which in 2010–11 season represented only £4.5 million (due to half season). The club may lower the expense on amortization by selling players and extending the player contract.
|
|
By:
Di Matteo is also running in theoretical profit.
Players bought - Nobody £0 Players sold - Nobody £0 Record - Helped Chelsea to the semi-finals of the FA Cup (far more valuable than the CC) Helped Chelsea to the quarter-finals of the Champions League currently winning 0-1. Team currently sitting in 5th (still in sight of 3rd) Won 6, Drawn 1 (Tottenham), Lost 1 (City) since taking over. Thanks for listening. |
|
By:
Dodd the crux of your argument is that Carroll was a bad buy, I think you may have cracked the case, well done.
|
|
By:
cob - if that's all you have taken from the debate, then you'd probably be better off on the CBeebies web site.
|
|
By:
er no, it shows as a loss over the duration of his contract, regardless of when he was bought.
|
|
By:
I have a strong feeling that Jam Dav is now desperately using Google to try and find something, anything to help him maintain this ridiculous stance. Quite why he chose to go from 'I might be wrong' to 'I'm definitely right' is a mystery...
... the pleasures of the Betfair forum.  |
|
By:
No Jason, just watching the end of the Anderlecht game. The joy of betfair indeed.
As long as you and Viva think that the new FFP has no impact on the spending of teams thats fine, go with it. |
|
By:
JamDav
Of course, it's not surprising that you won't admit that you're wrong - people on here rarely do. But spare yourself the embarrassment of trying to get yourself out of this, and run away like a coward - it would actually be better for you in the long run. There has just been categoric evidence to blow your opinion out of the game - unlucky. |
|
By:
oh, it will have, no one's denying that.
just not in the way you're saying |
|
By:
Jason Dodd - I want to hazard a guess at your favourite film of all time as................. A Few Good Men
AM I RI? |
|
By:
JamDav1982 Joined: 03 Jul 04
Replies: 3468 01 Apr 12 14:23 I may be wrong but was there not something at the time that Liverpool were willing to pay well over the odds rather than pay less in the summer due to the financial fair play rules starting that summer? Also seem to remember some folk saying that Liverpool would have posted a profit on their accounts (in April?) with the £50m sale of Torres. Spending the £35m in January meant they were not losing out on the tax paid on that profit. That could all be b0llocks but I do remember reasons like that being given at the time for the large fee.  |
|
By:
well done jason, infallible again
 |
|
By:
Jason - telling folk to run away like a coward, is that your way of trying to come across as some internet hard man?
You need to take betfair a touch less seriously and get a better grip on reality. |
|
By:
JamDav
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm calling you a coward because you cannot acknowledge a point that clearly proves you wrong, and you cannot admit that you don't know anything about the subject that you're now being bullish about. Of course, this will all now be my fault... I'm taking it seriously etc. Read back how you changed your stance so quickly, and consider why that might have driven this down a route that was perhaps unnecessary. |
|
By:
Oh please dont call me a coward Jason....
Calm down and ghe |
|
By:
Oh please dont call me a coward Jason.
Calm down and get a grip on reality son. I dont know anything about the subject? Right you think that the way clubs were spending was not influenced by the new FFP rules and they could have spent in the same manner that summer? Is that correct? |
|
By:
Calm down and what...?
As predicted, you'll now move this thread onto an argument, ignoring that at the top of this page, the point that you debated with such vigour has indeed been proven incorrect. And this will, no doubt, be someone else's fault. A bad day for jam dav. |
|
By:
Care to answer my last question Jason?
Could those same clubs spent in the summer the same way they did last January? Which is the basis of the argument really. I say they couldnt you say they could. |
|
By:
JD you take a lot of pleasure in (what you believe is) proving people wrong, maybe people just type their thoughts on a forum without carefully thinking about every word and aren't bothered if someone disagrees. Unless you have conclusive proof and inside knowledge about the dealings of every club then you can't be 100% certain of anything.
|
|
By:
Oh I'd forgotten that option.
Ask a different question and try in vain to change the debate. Epic fail. |
|
By:
Avoiding the question? Strange since you defended it so strongly Jason.
Could teams have spent in the summer the way they did last January? |
|
By:
loadedgimp
I take pleasure in proving people wrong if they have been rude or bullish to me. In this case, jam dav went as far as saying something that I had said was 'b0llocks', despite then being backed up by a Chelsea fan on the matter (it was about a Chelsea transfer motive). Therefore, I make no apologies for being cocky when proving jam dav wrong. |
|
By:
Jam Dav
You're asking a question that's unrelated to the debate we were having. You're doing this in a vain attempt to make yourself feel like you have a point. You've also avoided answering my question of why you have changed your stance so dramatically since your first post. Therefore, no, I won't answer your question. |
|
By:
You have proved me wrong on precisely nothing Jason.
The basis of this argument is that I said that spending by the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool last January was influenced by the impending FFP rules. You disagreed. Is this the argument in a nut shell? |
|
By:
No, the basis of the argument was that Chelsea and Liverpool overpaid because of the FFP rules.
You were effectively saying that Chelsea decided they wanted to spend £50 million before the rules came in, so they spent it on a player not worth that much - which you have been told is wrong, not just by me, but by every other person on the thread. You have not given a single shred of evidence for your opinion, and you admitted at the start that what you're saying 'might be b0llocks'. Tell me, how is it possible that you can feel you have made a credible contribution to this thread? From where I'm sitting, you've made a fool of yourself. |
|
By:
OK Jason since you wont answer my question I will move on as I know the answer.
It is clear you think the spending that January was not influenced by the new FFP rules, and the Torres transfer could have just as easily happened in the summer. With no impact on FFP rules. I think you are wrong and so it seems did Uefa who were worried by the nature of the Torres transfer and sent out a warning to clubs on the back of that and spending by EPL clubs that January. Cheslea should have really got Jason Dodd in to fight their corner, and tell Uefa what their rules really mean. |
|
By:
and the Torres transfer could have just as easily happened in the summer.
It is cringeworthy that you think this was my point. Not as cringeworthy as you being bullish after saying 'I might be wrong' though. |
|
By:
Jason write to Ueaf and explain they were wrong to warn the likes of Chelsea about the Torres transfer going forward.
Far more productive than using your vast knowledge on here. |
|
By:
JamDav ignores point and makes flippant remark.
Shock horror |
|
By:
Cant use smileys in your letter to Uefa Jason, so would drop that habbit.
Terribly unprofessional. |
|
By:
And another... jam dav moving back into 'ignore the topic' area, hoping it will all go away.
Oh dear  |
|
By:
Ignoring topic?
Uefa agreed that the signing of Torres was not sustainable within the new FFP rules beginning that summer. Which was my point all along. I have merely said that you have not convinced me of anything and you should teach those at Uefa how their rules work. Simple instructions, now set to it. |
|
By:
Trying to change the subject again. I will post the summary; feel free to actually stay on topic.
No, the basis of the argument was that Chelsea and Liverpool overpaid because of the FFP rules. You were effectively saying that Chelsea decided they wanted to spend £50 million before the rules came in, so they spent it on a player not worth that much - which you have been told is wrong, not just by me, but by every other person on the thread. You have not given a single shred of evidence for your opinion, and you admitted at the start that what you're saying 'might be b0llocks'. Tell me, how is it possible that you can feel you have made a credible contribution to this thread? From where I'm sitting, you've made a fool of yourself. Tell me, are you not a little embarrassed by your attempts to be bullish, after starting the whole debate with the words 'I might be wrong'? I think you should be. |
|
By:
My point is simple Liverpool and Chelsea over paid for players in January rather than waiting until the summer when the new FFP rules kick in.
Simple as that. Uefa back up my opinion by the warnings they gave to English clubs that the type of spending would not be accepted going forward. But then again they had never listened to the Jason Dodd. School boy error from Uefa. |
|
By:
There you go again...
'I might be wrong'... to trying to be cocky? It's laughable! I notice you're ignoring each reference to your first post, so I will continue to remind you. Here's a one line explanation of where you're wrong, something that was mentioned a while ago. Just because the FPP rules will prevent transfers like the Torres one in the future, does not mean that the transfer was made because of the FPP rules due to come in. Do you understand that? |
|
By:
JamDav1982 Joined: 03 Jul 04
Replies: 3468 01 Apr 12 14:23 I may be wrong but was there not something at the time that Liverpool were willing to pay well over the odds rather than pay less in the summer due to the financial fair play rules starting that summer? Also seem to remember some folk saying that Liverpool would have posted a profit on their accounts (in April?) with the £50m sale of Torres. Spending the £35m in January meant they were not losing out on the tax paid on that profit. That could all be b0llocks but I do remember reasons like that being given at the time for the large fee. Fastforward half hour, and jam dav is 100% sure of his ground. Amusing |
|
By:
Well Jason you are right those transfers may or may not have happened if the FFP rules were not in existence from that next summer.
Clearly we disagree on that. But I think the fact Liverpool, Aston Villa and Chelsea smashed their transfer records and that Spurs were trying to shows that it was having an impact. |
|
By:
Yip, Jason I made that opening post and then read up more about it quite quickly and decided it was an opinion that I agreed with.
Oh the shame. |
|
By:
JamDav
Yes, I'm aware that it's your opinion, but you have been given several reasons from various people why that might not be the case, and not given any evidence to back up your point. A little tip - when you admit to not being at all sure about the subject, and are then given reasoned points as to why your opinion might be wrong, it is best not to become bullish and argumentative about the subject. Surely you can see that? |