Non-Juve Transfer news (official or rumors) (42 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Osman

Koul Khara!
Aug 30, 2002
61,499
This kid is hated by his own fans lol, for at least a year now. Guy was promoted with 15/16, lots of hype, plays for Santos, etc. But he has already faded out, really. Transfermarkt didn't catch it though, so Chelsea is paying 15M for him. Funny club.

Chelsea just gonna loan him out for 10 years then. Like that Kaka look alike they had. Lucas Piazon.
 
Apr 12, 2004
77,165
Sure, but if you don't get anything for him, you realize an absolute cost on the P&L. His expense for the entire year will be salary plus 130M Euros.

That is his cost to the club.

That means, if he isn't sold for an amount of money, and he walks for free, they have to automatically overcome a large chunk of expenditure which will be offset by a substantial amount of club profits within the same timeframe.
 

.zero

★ ★ ★
Aug 8, 2006
82,880
and how a player on expiring contract affects this? also, how come the following makes sense (quote from the tweet): "Some of his teammates would have to be sold to make up for the €175M loss." again, what kind of loss is that tweet referring to, and where does that 175m come from?
Good question. Perhaps for tax purposes they classified certain $ payments apart from the contract. Some money paid and filed under SG&A (i.e. Marketing). It was probably done knowing the risk that he may not renew and want out. PSG ended being on the wrong end of their own bet. Just speculating here but that seems like one possible explanation.
 

s4tch

Senior Member
Mar 23, 2015
33,663
Sure, but if you don't get anything for him, you realize an absolute cost on the P&L. His expense for the entire year will be salary plus 130M Euros.

That is his cost to the club.

That means, if he isn't sold for an amount of money, and he walks for free, they have to automatically overcome a large chunk of expenditure which will be offset by a substantial amount of club profits within the same timeframe.
again, i said it's a cost, not a loss. it's already budgeted. it's not a loss, like it wasn't a loss for last season and the season before. and it shouldn't affect ffp as again, it's part of their budget

unless psg predicted a huge loss themselves regardless of the mbappe situation, i don't see how it affects their profit after tax

they also didn't want to sell the player, they wanted to keep him, so they probably planned the next few years with mbappe's costs in their budget

anyway...
 

s4tch

Senior Member
Mar 23, 2015
33,663
Good question. Perhaps for tax purposes they classified certain $ payments apart from the contract. Some money paid and filed under SG&A (i.e. Marketing). It was probably done knowing the risk that he may not renew and want out. PSG ended being on the wrong end of their own bet. Just speculating here but that seems like one possible explanation.
they might have similar costs for mbappe, in fact they surely do, but the majority must be wages and amortization :boh:

betting on the extension which wouldn't happen eventually would only generate a small "loss" (ie. higher amortization) for next season and some cost saving for the following years
 
Apr 12, 2004
77,165
It's exactly like having a loan forgiven, that's how you need to think about it.

- - - Updated - - -

again, i said it's a cost, not a loss. it's already budgeted. it's not a loss, like it wasn't a loss for last season and the season before. and it shouldn't affect ffp as again, it's part of their budget

unless psg predicted a huge loss themselves regardless of the mbappe situation, i don't see how it affects their profit after tax

they also didn't want to sell the player, they wanted to keep him, so they probably planned the next few years with mbappe's costs in their budget

anyway...
It moves the liability off of the Balance Sheet and adds it to Income. It's a 1:1 ratio.
 
Last edited:

ilmetronome

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2020
580
again, i said it's a cost, not a loss. it's already budgeted. it's not a loss, like it wasn't a loss for last season and the season before. and it shouldn't affect ffp as again, it's part of their budget

unless psg predicted a huge loss themselves regardless of the mbappe situation, i don't see how it affects their profit after tax

they also didn't want to sell the player, they wanted to keep him, so they probably planned the next few years with mbappe's costs in their budget

anyway...
I think that PSG don't plan to pay his loyalty fee in near future. Sell him now or extend. Either way they don't have to pay the fee in coming years.
Loss or cost, it's still count as a deduction for revenue in income statement. The fee is recognized immediately in the end of contract, not accounted for the age of the contract.
 

s4tch

Senior Member
Mar 23, 2015
33,663


:lol: Cold blooded

(if true ofc)
this guy is a financial analyst and a portfolio manager. he never worked in football before milan, he never played football. but he's a milan fan. and he sacked maldini then replaced him with himself

now i'm really curious how milan's transfer markets will pan out for the next few seasons :numnum:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 36)