Douglas Luiz (51 Viewers)

Jul 15, 2002
3,465
So if this deal is correct, then the economic impact on the P&L is +2m in FY26 and +19.5m in FY27

This is because we get 2.5m for the loan fee + save 9.5m in gross wages but we are still going to expense 10m in amortization on his contract until the obligation is triggered. His book value at the time of the obligation will also be 30m - meaning no capital loss/gain.

If his replacement is O'Riley? I think his market value is ~22m but his wages is low in comparison (5m gross versus 9.5m gross for Luiz). So if they structure it similar - say 2m loan +20m option or obligation. O'Riley would cost us -7m in FY26, and -10m in FY27. So net of the 2 the operation costs us -5m in FY26 but then +9.5m in FY27 and beyond.
 
Jul 15, 2002
3,465
It's still a capital loss.

51M-30M is a 21M loss.

But since Cumolli says all deals are on the clubs terms, we can safely say we wanted this capital loss.

Great job by the club.
No it isn't. We signed hom on a 5 year contract - 10m amortization a year. Its been 1 year, so his book value is 40m. In a year, when we sell him on obligation for 30m, his book value will be 30m.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
117,381
No it isn't. We signed hom on a 5 year contract - 10m amortization a year. Its been 1 year, so his book value is 40m. In a year, when we sell him on obligation for 30m, his book value will be 30m.
The deal with Villa was 51M, with Barranchea and Illing Jr. as separate transactions.

We can do fraudulent accounting tricks all we want, but in my book it's a 21M loss. But it's OK because that's what the club wanted.
 
Jul 15, 2002
3,465
The deal with Villa was 51M, with Barranchea and Illing Jr. as separate transactions.

We can do fraudulent accounting tricks all we want, but in my book it's a 21M loss. But it's OK because that's what the club wanted.
It is just accounting man. Its following EU statutory rules.

The deal worked for both parties and we ensured high plusvulenza on Iling Junior and Barrenechea which were one off big gains and Villa got more gain on Luiz.

The P&L matters because FFP works on P&L and accounting. Too many people focus on the transfer fees without understanding the P&L impact which is what drives everything. Clubs like Juventus and other big clubs, don't have issues necessarily with "cash" - they are restricted by FFP rules mostly.
 

Tak!

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2011
4,217
  • Tak!

    Tak!

If Luiz is inter-fan, you have to give it to him. He came in like a sloth that couldn't play most of the year. Rest of the year whenever he was handed any minutes he trolled us hard. Either gave away PKs or just simple giveaways to opponents. Never really mustering anything but trying to destroy the team. He is obviously someone who prefers another italian club. The first months whenever he was coming on, everyone was eating up their nails. 'cause we didn't know what kind of idiocy he would accomplish and how detrimental the effects would be. He has to be trolling. Anything else looks just weird from a professional sense.
 

TheLaz

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
5,676
So if this deal is correct, then the economic impact on the P&L is +2m in FY26 and +19.5m in FY27

This is because we get 2.5m for the loan fee + save 9.5m in gross wages but we are still going to expense 10m in amortization on his contract until the obligation is triggered. His book value at the time of the obligation will also be 30m - meaning no capital loss/gain.

If his replacement is O'Riley? I think his market value is ~22m but his wages is low in comparison (5m gross versus 9.5m gross for Luiz). So if they structure it similar - say 2m loan +20m option or obligation. O'Riley would cost us -7m in FY26, and -10m in FY27. So net of the 2 the operation costs us -5m in FY26 but then +9.5m in FY27 and beyond.
Good luck signing O'Riley for €22m. In fact, good luck singning any quality midfielders this late in the window. This has overpaid january panic spending written all over it..
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 3, Guests: 44)