Page 8 of 9
Posted:
Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:40 pmby NANNY RED
LFC2007 wrote:bavlondon wrote:If we did end up mid table how would we get back into the top 4? The owners will not put in any money now so what makes people think they will once the CL money dries up. That is if that's what you were assuming anyway...
I think we would be sold (or on the verge of) by that stage mate, to a buyer well aware of our potential, and willing to invest in personnel. I don't see why they'd hang on under the current circumstances. In fact, I don't they'd be able to hang on - the fans would have something to say before it got to that stage. I'd defo join a boycott under those circumstances.
is correct
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:47 amby Owzat
They might well ask Rafa to sell players at a premium, buy players at bargain prices and go that way first. Rafa has a tight budget, everyone likes to point it out, but then don't bat an eyelid when he spends near £40m on two players - a crocked CM and a full-back. Don't underestimate the impact Rafa's lavish spending might have in the long term, maybe the transfer market has gone mad but Rafa seems too willing to go mad with it and buys his targets at whatever price. If the price isn't right, don't come on down. I think a few shrewd deals are still about and have gone through, when was the last time we bought a quality player like Alonso, Reina, Torres at a price that very few considered OTT? If I was owner I wouldn't keep funding the signings like Keane £20.3m, Babel £11.5m, Johnson £17.5m, Dossena £7m, Cavalieri £3m, Aquilani £20m, Riera £8m. Seven players at £87.3m, one went within six months, most of the fans seem to want two others gone, one isn't set to play for weeks/months and another is a ritual benchwarming GK. There are counterexamples of successes, but the point is you might expect better returns for players costing an AVERAGE of £12.5m. The spending has gone up, has the (average) quality?
So do feel free to HOPE the owners will leave, but I would FEAR the owners opt to force the manager to sell to buy, or get rid of the manager.
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:29 amby DrPepe
Owzatt, leaving aside the list of expensive dross for a second, I think you know as well as I do that Johnson and aqua did not cost us 40m this summer, and its likely that is a major factor in rafa picking those particular players.
Ie they cost the club ~15m rather than 40m
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:45 amby GYBS
3mil for a back up keeper is peanuts these days . 8 mil for reira is money well spent , we didnt outlay 40 mil in one go for Johnson (money well spent so far) and Aqualini (who i see is being labelled before even playing a game for us )
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:46 amby tubby
GYBS wrote:3mil for a back up keeper is peanuts these days . 8 mil for reira is money well spent , we didnt outlay 40 mil in one go for Johnson (money well spent so far) and Aqualini (who i see is being labelled before even playing a game for us )
We didnt outlay that much in 1 go for them mate. Aquilani's fee wasn't all paid up front a lot of it is dependant on our own performace in Europe each year and Portsmouth already owed us money so that was just written off.
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:52 amby GYBS
I know mate - so as Pepe said we didnt outlay 40 mil this summer
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:40 pmby DAV
we didn't outlay 40million in payments this summer, which is correct. But 40million has still been spent, which needs to be acounted for. Saying a certain amount is written off because crouch hasn't been fully paid for is ridiculous. How do you people pay your mortgages and bills?
If we had not purchased either of those players, then our accounts would show 40million more than it does now.
(i'm not saying we should not of signed one or both, just don't agree with all the rubbish about accounting for it)
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:01 pmby DrPepe
DAV wrote:we didn't outlay 40million in payments this summer, which is correct. But 40million has still been spent , which needs to be acounted for. Saying a certain amount is written off because crouch hasn't been fully paid for is ridiculous. How do you people pay your mortgages and bills?
If we had not purchased either of those players, then our accounts would show 40million more than it does now.
(i'm not saying we should not of signed one or both, just don't agree with all the rubbish about accounting for it)
based on what i have read, this is not true
first of all , the aquilani deal is structured so they'll receive about 18m if we win a "big one", CL/PL. Hopefully we do, but until the nthe maximum they'll get is 15m, of which we've paid about a third of that...
As for the GJ deal , the offset 7m does have a big practical effect because if we'd bought a RB elsewhere , we'd still not have received the money from pompey.
The way our dealingshave been done this summer is to massively increase liquidity , thus freeing more money for........ ? 
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:11 pmby DAV
when a deal is struck involving payment clauses. In life business/football. The money accounted is always the maximum that will or maybe outlayed. Until such time as the clauses are no longer applicable. And this is what the books would show. unless you plan to go bankrupt and gamble on an outcome.
As for the playing one off against another with crouch situation. That makes no sense. The reason being, if i sell something for lets say a million pounds. Then one way or another i'm owed a million pounds. If i then go and buy something from the same place for 500 thousand. Then that is what i have paid according to the books. 2 seperate transactions.
Now if the deal had included crouch as part of the deal then thats a different situation altogether. BUT IT WASN'T. And that is what the books will say.
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:20 pmby DAV
infact just to end this.
what financial year did we sell crouch and what financial year is it now. If they don't match then quite simply i'm right.
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:42 pmby DrPepe
DAV wrote:infact just to end this.
what financial year did we sell crouch and what financial year is it now. If they don't match then quite simply i'm right.
good for you on being right 
call me old-fashioned, but still being owed 7m by pompey and then shelling out ~17m for A N Other player, certainly sounds like we'd be in more sh ite than handing 10m to portsmouth, and getting a player that is "worth" much more than that... 
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:53 pmby heimdall
DAV wrote:when a deal is struck involving payment clauses. In life business/football. The money accounted is always the maximum that will or maybe outlayed. Until such time as the clauses are no longer applicable. And this is what the books would show. unless you plan to go bankrupt and gamble on an outcome.
As for the playing one off against another with crouch situation. That makes no sense. The reason being, if i sell something for lets say a million pounds. Then one way or another i'm owed a million pounds. If i then go and buy something from the same place for 500 thousand. Then that is what i have paid according to the books. 2 seperate transactions.
Now if the deal had included crouch as part of the deal then thats a different situation altogether. BUT IT WASN'T. And that is what the books will say.
Finally some common sense on this forum. 
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:33 pmby Lando_Griffin
DAV wrote:infact just to end this.
what financial year did we sell crouch and what financial year is it now. If they don't match then quite simply i'm right.
The point is this:
Pompey owed us £7m - £7m they were never going to pay us due to their precarious financial position.
We bought Johnson for £17.5m (Quite where £20m has come from baffles me - evidently £2.5m is a nice, negligible figure people like to add to our transfers to make Rafa look bad...)
So - £17.5m - £7m = £10.5m outlay this season.
We could sit here an argue the toss all we want, but the fact is we would not have received that £7m in cash, so this was the best solution. The actual transfer values over the course fo the past 3 seasons are the same, but the reality is that we would have been owed £7m until the end of time had we not done it this way.
And that means this summer we have actually "spent" £15.5m.
We owe a potential £15m, which will be broken up over the coming years.
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:20 pmby account deleted by request
Lando_Griffin wrote:DAV wrote:infact just to end this.
what financial year did we sell crouch and what financial year is it now. If they don't match then quite simply i'm right.
The point is this:
Pompey owed us £7m - £7m they were never going to pay us due to their precarious financial position.
We bought Johnson for £17.5m (Quite where £20m has come from baffles me - evidently £2.5m is a nice, negligible figure people like to add to our transfers to make Rafa look bad...)
So - £17.5m - £7m = £10.5m outlay this season.
We could sit here an argue the toss all we want, but the fact is we would not have received that £7m in cash, so this was the best solution. The actual transfer values over the course fo the past 3 seasons are the same, but the reality is that we would have been owed £7m until the end of time had we not done it this way.
And that means this summer we have actually "spent" £15.5m.
We owe a potential £15m, which will be broken up over the coming years.
So all we have to do is just not bother paying our debts. We are also in a precarious financial position and everyone will just accept they arn't going to get their money. 
As Dav says the money would have been included in the accounts for the previous year, and will no doubt have been "used" to offset our liabilities in the previous accounting period.
The Total money for Aquilani will also be included in this years accounts with the possible additional payments being included as Contingent Liabilities.
e.g for the financial year ended 2008 :-
Contingent Assets/Liabilities
If certain conditions are met the club has potential income of £11.6m (of which £2.6m has since been realised) and potential expenditure of £19.8m (of which £1.6m has since been realised) on transfer fees.
Posted:
Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:06 pmby heimdall
s@int wrote:Lando_Griffin wrote:DAV wrote:infact just to end this.
what financial year did we sell crouch and what financial year is it now. If they don't match then quite simply i'm right.
The point is this:
Pompey owed us £7m - £7m they were never going to pay us due to their precarious financial position.
We bought Johnson for £17.5m (Quite where £20m has come from baffles me - evidently £2.5m is a nice, negligible figure people like to add to our transfers to make Rafa look bad...)
So - £17.5m - £7m = £10.5m outlay this season.
We could sit here an argue the toss all we want, but the fact is we would not have received that £7m in cash, so this was the best solution. The actual transfer values over the course fo the past 3 seasons are the same, but the reality is that we would have been owed £7m until the end of time had we not done it this way.
And that means this summer we have actually "spent" £15.5m.
We owe a potential £15m, which will be broken up over the coming years.
So all we have to do is just not bother paying our debts. We are also in a precarious financial position and everyone will just accept they arn't going to get their money.
As Dav says the money would have been included in the accounts for the previous year, and will no doubt have been "used" to offset our liabilities in the previous accounting period.
The Total money for Aquilani will also be included in this years accounts with the possible additional payments being included as Contingent Liabilities.
e.g for the financial year ended 2008 :-
Contingent Assets/Liabilities
If certain conditions are met the club has potential income of £11.6m (of which £2.6m has since been realised) and potential expenditure of £19.8m (of which £1.6m has since been realised) on transfer fees.
Why am I getting the uneasy feeling that you're an accountant. 