It was something about that,I'm sure... I'll try to find it somewhere and post it 
Buy on AliExpress.com
Andrea Barzagli (64 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dostoevsky
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
http://www.juventus.com/site/filesi...cesensitive/comunicato_27082010_diego_eng.pdf
Seems like media bs, didn't that story come from g***.com anyway?
Seems like media bs, didn't that story come from g***.com anyway?
It was something about that,I'm sure... I'll try to find it somewhere and post it
I wondered why did we sell him. Someone here made a logical argument that we sold him simply because Marotta had to bring some money and the 15.5m eur from Diego were the only choice. But if we sold him in three installments and got 5m for the first one (which were immediately spent on Quag's and Rinaudo "loans") then I don't see any logic at all in this transfer.
OP
It does mean that. It's a contract that stands only when one party pays the entire fee (if we're talking about straight transfer). They do not consider it as a transfer until money gets in our bank.
It actually doesn't have to do anything with accounting but law, and business that involves contracts.
It actually doesn't have to do anything with accounting but law, and business that involves contracts.
I know that it makes no sense, but it is just one more thing Marotta did...
''Andrea Barzagli is expected to meet with Wolfsburg today to ask that an agreement be reached with Juventus.
The 29-year-old has been linked with a move to Turin for weeks and reports in Italy claim he has already agreed personal terms.
However, Wolfsburg are said to be unhappy with the fact Juventus think they can get the player for free when he has six months left on his contract.
Juventus had apparently proposed to reduce one of Wolfsburg's installments for Diego in accordance with the Barzagli deal, but the Bundesliga outfit want cash.''
''Andrea Barzagli is expected to meet with Wolfsburg today to ask that an agreement be reached with Juventus.
The 29-year-old has been linked with a move to Turin for weeks and reports in Italy claim he has already agreed personal terms.
However, Wolfsburg are said to be unhappy with the fact Juventus think they can get the player for free when he has six months left on his contract.
Juventus had apparently proposed to reduce one of Wolfsburg's installments for Diego in accordance with the Barzagli deal, but the Bundesliga outfit want cash.''
You're wrong this time, Dule.
Trust me, I've seen enough (work- related) cases when it comes to this. And it has everything to do with (creative) accounting.
"Law", be it economic or sporting, could get involved in a later stadium though, in case of some dispute.
@ Red
Wolfsburg agreed to pay the entire fee at once. Meaning we sent them 1 invoice (for lack of a better word). When the invoice is made out, most (all afaik) big companies consider the sale to be finalized: you no longer have his contract on your books. On one side the entry is made (negative if you will) of one less player, on the other side (a positive) entry is made for the agreed amount. This does not mean you have received the cash.
The actual credit collection has very little to do with it. It's obviously very important, but has little to do with strict accounting.
Furthermore: we know absolutely nothing about the agreed payment terms (has nothing to do with installments). It could be up front, it could be within 30 days, it could be within 120 days, it could be anything. Regardless, you'll still book it as one entry, in the current fiscal year.
Unlike when you agree to pay in three installments: you'll book a part in this fiscal year, a part in the next, and so on.
Simple example: my company sells & invoices a certain amount each month. Let's say it's 1 million€ in January 2011. This entire million will be booked as sales / revenue in January 2011. But this does not mean that we received 1 million€ on our bank account. Realistically speaking, it would mean about 400.000 - 500.000€.
The rest of those January sales will probably end up on our account in Feb, March, April, ..., but they will have been booked (the sales) in January.
Hope this makes some sense, it's difficult to give a better explanation, especially in a foreign language.
Clearly, if Wolfsburg does not honor their side of the agreement, that's when the law could come into this, but we don't know that.
Trust me, I've seen enough (work- related) cases when it comes to this. And it has everything to do with (creative) accounting.
"Law", be it economic or sporting, could get involved in a later stadium though, in case of some dispute.
@ Red
Wolfsburg agreed to pay the entire fee at once. Meaning we sent them 1 invoice (for lack of a better word). When the invoice is made out, most (all afaik) big companies consider the sale to be finalized: you no longer have his contract on your books. On one side the entry is made (negative if you will) of one less player, on the other side (a positive) entry is made for the agreed amount. This does not mean you have received the cash.
The actual credit collection has very little to do with it. It's obviously very important, but has little to do with strict accounting.
Furthermore: we know absolutely nothing about the agreed payment terms (has nothing to do with installments). It could be up front, it could be within 30 days, it could be within 120 days, it could be anything. Regardless, you'll still book it as one entry, in the current fiscal year.
Unlike when you agree to pay in three installments: you'll book a part in this fiscal year, a part in the next, and so on.
Simple example: my company sells & invoices a certain amount each month. Let's say it's 1 million€ in January 2011. This entire million will be booked as sales / revenue in January 2011. But this does not mean that we received 1 million€ on our bank account. Realistically speaking, it would mean about 400.000 - 500.000€.
The rest of those January sales will probably end up on our account in Feb, March, April, ..., but they will have been booked (the sales) in January.
Hope this makes some sense, it's difficult to give a better explanation, especially in a foreign language.
Clearly, if Wolfsburg does not honor their side of the agreement, that's when the law could come into this, but we don't know that.
OP
Maybe.
I think it's contract related because if the price is accepted then the contract is valid and other party expects the payment. Whole payment in this case. If it doesn't happen that way, you can get on court and there are contract is not considered valid no more. I think you’re mixing some things up as that doesn’t count in football. In companies when you buy some goods and agree on some price you pay it in 2-3 months, but then again, it’s a different contract signed.
I think it's contract related because if the price is accepted then the contract is valid and other party expects the payment. Whole payment in this case. If it doesn't happen that way, you can get on court and there are contract is not considered valid no more. I think you’re mixing some things up as that doesn’t count in football. In companies when you buy some goods and agree on some price you pay it in 2-3 months, but then again, it’s a different contract signed.
The only issue I'd have with that is if you compare it with the Poulsen sale they clearly state there are two installments, so why the change in wording?
http://www.juventus.com/site/filesi...sensitive/comunicato_12082010_poulsen_eng.pdf
http://www.juventus.com/site/filesi...sensitive/comunicato_12082010_poulsen_eng.pdf
Oh I know what you mean, I have done some credit control and know how it works in terms of the payment procedure. That payment is yours, no matter what the payment terms are, how it is structured.
What I don't get is why the Diego deal is classed as payment immediately on execution of the contract (assuming that is indeed spread over installments), yet the Poulsen deal says half is upon execution of the contract and the other half is 2011 'to be paid in two installments'. It's possible that the wording is simply contradictory, but assuming the terminology used is uniform then it suggests that we aren't guaranteed the second sum for Poulsen?
What I don't get is why the Diego deal is classed as payment immediately on execution of the contract (assuming that is indeed spread over installments), yet the Poulsen deal says half is upon execution of the contract and the other half is 2011 'to be paid in two installments'. It's possible that the wording is simply contradictory, but assuming the terminology used is uniform then it suggests that we aren't guaranteed the second sum for Poulsen?
