coolhandfox

So seems this is done subject to us chopping some dead wood.

True my wording isn’t clear and I should have said for amortisation proposes.

Cheers, long day at work so only had a quick look, only got to page 117.

.

Like I said they may not have update the handbook. Why don't you bang one out, you'll be more chilled....

The PL aligned to UEFA rules, which states all new or extended player contracts can be a maximum of 5 years. So you can only sign a player on a five year contract at a time, stopping the 8 year contract stunt Chelsea were exploiting. However with regards to amortisation the UFEA rules state: In case of contract extension, the amortisation can be spread over the extended contract period but up to a maximum of five years from the date of the extension. Which suggest to me you can still re-amortise when extending a contract.

I was going by the official handbook. https://www.premierleague.com/about/publications which in rule E.3 still says the 31 of March. Could be they haven't update it, or I've not read it properly but I prefer to go to the original source.

You are reducing your expenses in your P & L.

If a player sign a new deal the remaining amortization is split across the years of the new deal. So for example we signed James for £20m on a five-year contract in 2018, his amortization was 20m divided by 5 = 4m 2 years later in 2020, he signed a new four-year contract, at that point he had 3 years left on his current contract, so the remaining amortization is 3 x 4 = 12m So the remaining amortization of 12m is then divided over the length of the new contract 12m divided by 4, so the new amortization per year becomes 3m rather than 4m.

I don't think they have changed the accounting periods. They are just trying to be quicker in turning around punishments. Ensure the punishment is in the same season as the charge was made, bearing in mind the charge will always be after the account period. So this week's charge for Everton was for the reporting period of 20/21-21/22 - 22/23.

No, what would the advantage be? It's aligned to financial accounting periods. Clubs just need to follow the rules.

Without knowing what they were offering its hard to judge. You also have to factor we would need a replacement, which is a fee and wages.

I think the Iversen one was crazy as he had no transfer fee amortisation against him so 4m would have been pure profit. Praet unless we got an offer which was more then his remaining transfer amortisation we were never selling. People generally just see transfer fees a cash flow, its the effect of P&L which become more important with FFP issues.

Well Barnes wouldn't be FFP as the period he was sold in we come under Championship Clubs Profitability and Sustainability rules which are a lot stricter then the PL FFP.

Richard Master chief executive of the Premier League has said it was brought in because of Portsmouth.

I'm not questioning anyone integrity or honesty. Be as you just said the word presume, we don't have the context of the situation around what he said and knowledge of what gone on.

No. With 19 games to go, in the unlikely event we lose form, would would still win 10 easily, that's 30 points on top of our 65 points, giving us 95. For Southampton to get 95 they need 45 points from 19 games, in their unbeaten run which is funnily enough 19 games they have taken 45 points. So they would have to carry their great run for another 19 games which is as unlikely. I think we will hit 100 points, I don't think anyone else will..

Enzo repeatedly said in the summer we need to move players on to buy. Not sure why he thinks that would change for the winter window.

I am pretty sure we sold Maddison for a smaller fee to get the income in the 22/23 FFP window; he was sold in June, in a similar way Forest should have sold Johnson early but held out for a larger fee. As for Barnes, he was sold in July so I assume we had to bring in money to be able to kick-start our own business, so let him go cheaper to get it done early. Like you, I can't see Top making a change.

Amount of Everton and Forest fans who don't seem to understand it has nothing to do with transfer net spend, it simple about overall profit and loss.

Interestingly we sold Maddison in June for what we all thought was cheap. Got a feeling we did it early and took a smaller fee to get it in the 22/23 accounts for FFP reasons.

That's just a silly thing to say If you spend the 20m and stay with the cap, you have 20m less to spend on sporting activities. If you spend 20m over the cap you still have the whole of the cap to spend on sporting activities.

Zach starting to get a decent minutes 415 minutes over 12 starts after a slow start in Eredivisie. First taste of senior football outside of 1 EFL trophy game. Interesting to see how he develops.

Yes it's lots worse.

Not really, he thought the lads gave it their all, so probably proud of their effort and commitment.