• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Totally Unofficial 2023/24 Premier League Thread

deacvision7 said:
How else is Chelsea supposed to work around FFP other than amortization?

I like Robert Sanchez as a keeper btw. Interested to see who Brighton go for next. If Forest switch their attention to Turner then maybe Henderson for them?
Click to expand...
Player contracts and transfer fees are different things
 
Garnacho with a driving run. Rashford's run off the ball completely opens up space for Antony...

Which he takes. Garnacho flawlessly finds him and Antony makes it 2-1.

I don't know what EtH said at halftime but United this first 10 minutes out of the break has been outstanding!
 
deacvision7 said:
You think Rashford is a striker for United? lol wut
Click to expand...
You literally just said that he’s likely to be starting up top to begin the season. Which would require Hojlund to replace him as the starting striker unless I’m missing something.
 
TownieDeac said:
Player contracts and transfer fees are different things
Click to expand...
Not for FFP. Clubs can use the length of the contract to ammoritize the transfer fee across the length of the contract. So let's say a player is signed for 35 million and signs a 5 year deal. On the books that is 7 million each season instead of 35 million the first year, even if all paid up front.
 
Gooner said:
You literally just said that he’s likely to be starting up top to begin the season. Which would require Hojlund to replace him as the starting striker unless I’m missing something.
Click to expand...
Just because Martial can't stay fit and Hojlund was just signed. Rashford just isn't a first choice option as the 9 for Man United. I think we all saw that he's at his best at LW/LF last season.
 
3-1. Casemiro! Great deal ball delivery by Shaw and Cas heads home.
 
deacvision7 said:
Just because Martial can't stay fit and Hojlund was just signed. Rashford just isn't a first choice option as the 9 for Man United. I think we all saw that he's at his best at LW/LF last season.
Click to expand...
I agree that’s his best position, but he is also the best choice at striker right now for you IMO and if Garnacho is going to play well on the LW, then you have to get him on the field somehow.

I guess in a sense it’s a decision EtH has to make about if getting Hojlund on the field at all costs because of the price tag is more important. I don’t think EtH is that kind of manager though.
 
Either way, 20+ G+A is a hell of a season for the best players in the league, let alone a 19-20 year old who is coming to England for the first time.
 
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Sancho was the false 9 in two Mondays.

Love Garnacho but Rashford is a better player right now and he is at his best at LW, so that is where he should play, IMO.
 
A shot deflected off of LIcha and Onana resets his feet and saves it from going into the top corner
That is fantastic goalkeeping!
 
Bob Niedbala said:
Didn’t he have less than 10 goals in Serie A last year? He’s not topping that this year.

Plus, he’s coming in hurt.
Click to expand...
9 last year in Serie A

Maybe you're right. Maybe you're not.

But I don't respect you opinion in either case because you've proven to know little about the game.
 
deacvision7 said:
Preseason still and all that but this United side just looks disjointed 9 days from the first competitive match of the new season.

Nearly a complete lack of combination play. And when it does come it is just in short bursts and the defense can recover after a couple of extra, needless passes.

Really discouraged. And Onana getting chipped from 40+ yards doesn't help! Haha
Click to expand...
Nevermind all that. Brilliant 2nd half

WE'RE GONNA WIN EVERYTHING!!11!!1!
 
deacvision7 said:
Not for FFP. Clubs can use the length of the contract to ammoritize the transfer fee across the length of the contract. So let's say a player is signed for 35 million and signs a 5 year deal. On the books that is 7 million each season instead of 35 million the first year, even if all paid up front.
Click to expand...
Right, basically let’s take the Mount deal, call it £60m and say it’s six years. Chelsea immediately got a £60m fee, and Manchester United (however they agreed with Chelsea for payment structure) get a £60m asset on their books. Every year that asset depreciates based on the length of the contract, so start of year 2 he is worth £50m on the books, and so on unless he signs an extension or is sold. And his wages (which are the player contract side) don’t have any impact on the amortization value but do count against the P&L as operating costs. The accounting practices are a bit weird, but by no means does a club have to pay another club the transfer fee annually in equal parts, that’s just how it looks on a balance sheet.
 
TownieDeac said:
Right, basically let’s take the Mount deal, call it £60m and say it’s six years. Chelsea immediately got a £60m fee, and Manchester United (however they agreed with Chelsea for payment structure) get a £60m asset on their books. Every year that asset depreciates based on the length of the contract, so start of year 2 he is worth £50m on the books, and so on unless he signs an extension or is sold. And his wages (which are the player contract side) don’t have any impact on the amortization value but do count against the P&L as operating costs. The accounting practices are a bit weird, but by no means does a club have to pay another club the transfer fee annually in equal parts, that’s just how it looks on a balance sheet.
Click to expand...

I thought I read somewhere that the rule had changed so there was a maximum number of years you could use for amortization? Specifically since Chelsea was signing 7 and 8 year deals. Or was that a fever dream?
 
TownieDeac said:
Right, basically let’s take the Mount deal, call it £60m and say it’s six years. Chelsea immediately got a £60m fee, and Manchester United (however they agreed with Chelsea for payment structure) get a £60m asset on their books. Every year that asset depreciates based on the length of the contract, so start of year 2 he is worth £50m on the books, and so on unless he signs an extension or is sold. And his wages (which are the player contract side) don’t have any impact on the amortization value but do count against the P&L as operating costs. The accounting practices are a bit weird, but by no means does a club have to pay another club the transfer fee annually in equal parts, that’s just how it looks on a balance sheet.
Click to expand...
Yes. We are saying the same thing but you just explained it better.
 
WindyCityDeac said:
I thought I read somewhere that the rule had changed so there was a maximum number of years you could use for amortization? Specifically since Chelsea was signing 7 and 8 year deals. Or was that a fever dream?
Click to expand...
Not sure, it’s hard to keep up.
 
Good showing today for Everton in the last preseason game against Sporting, 1-0 from a DCL penalty. We’re such a different team when he plays.
 
TownieDeac said:
Good showing today for Everton in the last preseason game against Sporting, 1-0 from a DCL penalty. We’re such a different team when he plays.
Click to expand...
If he stays fit throw my 20th Ev prediction into the garbage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top