Joe Rodon

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

1 minute ago, FoxinNotts said:

I didn’t say that 😂 

 

We should get as much as we can

 

thats a very different statement 

 

And you seemed content with £3 million? Come on now.

[The Doctor]

Just now, FoxinNotts said:

No it wouldn’t 😂

signed on a five year contract for 15m, £3m a season amortization. two seasons down, £6m off the books, £9m still on it. 18-9=9

[FoxinNotts]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

yes it is! we paid around 16-17m for Soumare on a 5 year deal, his contract is up in 2026 and is amortized at then 3-3.5m a season. two seasons left, his book value is somewhere between 6-7m, anything above that is profit on the books

Oh no. Someone help me out 

[The Doctor]

Just now, FoxinNotts said:

Oh no. Someone help me out 

sure, open your calculator phone app and check the calculations 

 

16m/5 years = 3.2m/year

3.2m/year x 3 years = 9.6m

16m-9.6m= 6.4m book value

 

 

[FoxinNotts]

1 minute ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

And you seemed content with £3 million? Come on now.

How much is he worth, bearing in mind he is deemed ‘pure profit’ at a time when we desperately need ‘pure profit’, to prevent us tumbling down the leagues due to FFP sanctions?

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

Just now, FoxinNotts said:

How much is he worth, bearing in mind he is deemed ‘pure profit’ at a time when we desperately need ‘pure profit’, to prevent us tumbling down the leagues due to FFP sanctions?

 

More than 3 million quid man, bloody hell. 

[FoxinNotts]

7 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

signed on a five year contract for 15m, £3m a season amortization. two seasons down, £6m off the books, £9m still on it. 18-9=9

and wages and due wages, and bonuses paid and unpaid?

[The Doctor]

Just now, FoxinNotts said:

and wages and due wages, and bonuses paid and unpaid?

wages aren't factored in the player trading values

[FoxinNotts]

18 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

wages aren't factored in the player trading values

PSR and therefore FFP factors in the wage bill and contracted wage bill over each three year period, therefore impacts the (ridiculous) necessity to encourage clubs to sell their academy products.

 

If PSR was only based on the players trading values it would be a piece of piss, but it's not

Edited 21 June 2024 by FoxinNotts

[The Doctor]

Just now, FoxinNotts said:

PSR and therefore FFP factors in the wage bill and contracted wage bill over each three year period, therefore impacts the (ridiculous) necessity to be encouraged to sell a clubs academy products.

dude, just admit you don't understand the whole thing with player trading and profit.

 

the reason academy players are valuable to sell is nothing to do with relative wages, it's because they have zero book value. a players book value is simply the headline cost they were to buy in, minus the amortised value so far. Academy products have a zero book value because they didn't cost anything to bring in in terms of player trading.

 

profit is then sale value minus book value, since the book value is paid up in full in that years accounts (can't amortise an asset you don't have). this is why you see a lot of clubs just loaning players out repeatedly, to get the book value more favourable against market value. let's take praet as an example. we signed him for £18m on a five year deal, that's £3.6m a year amortised value. we decided after two years we didn't want him, his remaining book value was 10.8m. noone wanted to pay that, so we sent him out on loan for a year, book value reduced to 7.2m. While they didn't pay it, by loaning praet to Torino for a year before the £12.5m optional fee came in, his potential profit increased from 1.7m to 5.3m without any change in the incoming sale value.

 

selling a player with 9m remaining book value (Faes) for 18m then nets 9m profit in this year's books.

[FoxinNotts]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

dude, just admit you don't understand the whole thing with player trading and profit.

 

the reason academy players are valuable to sell is nothing to do with relative wages, it's because they have zero book value. a players book value is simply the headline cost they were to buy in, minus the amortised value so far. Academy products have a zero book value because they didn't cost anything to bring in in terms of player trading.

 

profit is then sale value minus book value, since the book value is paid up in full in that years accounts (can't amortise an asset you don't have). this is why you see a lot of clubs just loaning players out repeatedly, to get the book value more favourable against market value. let's take praet as an example. we signed him for £18m on a five year deal, that's £3.6m a year amortised value. we decided after two years we didn't want him, his remaining book value was 10.8m. noone wanted to pay that, so we sent him out on loan for a year, book value reduced to 7.2m. While they didn't pay it, by loaning praet to Torino for a year before the £12.5m optional fee came in, his potential profit increased from 1.7m to 5.3m without any change in the incoming sale value.

 

selling a player with 9m remaining book value (Faes) for 18m then nets 9m profit in this year's books.

With respect, i don';t think you are understanding the full PSR situation. It is not just player trading values.

[The Doctor]

Just now, FoxinNotts said:

With respect, i don';t think you are understanding the full PSR situation. It is not just player trading values.

with all due respect, when it comes to marking down profit from player sales, it is.

[FoxinNotts]

Just now, The Doctor said:

with all due respect, when it comes to marking down profit from player sales, it is.

One of the reasons the current rules are 'unfair' is because the wage bill of the club is a massive part of PSR compliance.

Selling your purchased assets, has to take into account the contracted wages of the players, in terms of the profit on that asset.

The trading value of the academy products goes onto the books as pure profit.

[The Doctor]

Just now, FoxinNotts said:

One of the reasons the current rules are 'unfair' is because the wage bill of the club is a massive part of PSR compliance.

Selling your purchased assets, has to take into account the contracted wages of the players, in terms of the profit on that asset.

The trading value of the academy products goes onto the books as pure profit.

because wages arent accounted for in player profits!!!! the only way academy players wouldn't have any issues with contracted wages is if they were slave labour. in actual fact, academy products do get paid a wage.

[FoxinNotts]

Just now, The Doctor said:

because wages arent accounted for in player profits!!!! the only way academy players wouldn't have any issues with contracted wages is if they were slave labour. in actual fact, academy products do get paid a wage.

I know this. 

You do know I don't agree with the rules, right? They are mental IMO

[st albans fox]

Meanwhile, back in the Joe Rodon transfer thread …….

[The Doctor]

6 minutes ago, FoxinNotts said:

I know this. 

You do know I don't agree with the rules, right? They are mental IMO

evidently not or you'd not be trying to argue that selling a player with 9m book value for 18m isn't 9m profit!

[FoxinNotts]

9 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

evidently not or you'd not be trying to argue that selling a player with 9m book value for 18m isn't 9m profit!

It isn't in terms of the Profit Sustainability Rules, which take into account the contracted wages of the player. 

 

You're only looking at Player Trading Values, where as 'profit' under PSR, isn't apportioned to just PTV, it's heavy on the wage bill in general and contracted wages of the purchased players.

 

I love you.

Edited 21 June 2024 by FoxinNotts

[The Doctor]

10 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Meanwhile, back in the Joe Rodon transfer thread …….

right. as he's not an academy player, we need to check if he'll be willing to play for a curly wurly and half a bag of wotsits a week, no way of turning a profit on him otherwise 

[FoxinNotts]

Just now, The Doctor said:

right. as he's not an academy player, we need to check if he'll be willing to play for a curly wurly and half a bag of wotsits a week, no way of turning a profit on him otherwise 

You've cracked it!

[Long Eaton Fox]

But is he any good?

[foxoffderby]

I'd rather have Joe Rogan

[FoxinNotts]

22 minutes ago, Long Eaton Fox said:

But is he any good?

I think he'd be better for us than, Vestergaard so gerrrimmin

[TrickyTrevLeftPeg]

Solid defender. Better than what we have. Just go on the Leeds forum and see how highly they rated him. 

 

If we can get him at a reasonable price then I'm all for it.

[Happy Fox]

Leicester City recruitment team 'really like' Tottenham player - Alasdair Gold - The Spurs Web - Tottenham Hotspur Football News (spurs-web.com)