Sorry if this article in Forbes from a week or so ago has already been posted:
Is that it? Firstly the value of players is a projection and is always a bit of a gamble. It's not Juve's fault that a guy like Artur, if you believe he will turn good, might have a price tag of 72m. That's the impact of all this money on modern football: it has ruined it. And if the amount being scrutinised was 30k instead of 30m nobody would care.
Also this 'creative accounting' is nothing new. The classic 'loan with obligation' is a way to spread payments out as long as possible to make the balance sheets look better. I fucking hate modern football and would love something big be done to stop all the runaway spending and somehow for it to return to being primarily a sport and not a business, but it's just typical that we'd be the ones to be held up as some kind of scapegoat again, eh.
Edit: ohh nice little logo emojis when links are posted. Nice touch, Tuz
Of the Juve deals, the Danilo-Joao Cancelo swap with Manchester City and the Arthur-Miralem Pjanic exchange with Barcelona. The latter of those saw Barca sign Pjanic for €60 million ($67.84m) and Juve get Arthur for €72m ($81.4m), which effectively means the only money that changed hands was the €12m difference.
Except it wasn’t. That’s because, for accounting purposes, an incoming player has their transfer fee spread out over the length of their new contract (known as amortisation), while the fee for a player being sold is immediate income.
So if a club buys a player for $80 million and signs him to a four-year contract, the outgoing fee becomes an $80 million asset on the books. That value then decreases by $20 million per season, so if they then sell that player for $50 million after three years, they generate a $30 million profit.
That means that despite just a €12 million ($13.54m) difference in the values of Pjanic and Arthur, the deal with Barca generated a plusvalenza of €41.8 million ($47.26m). With Pjanic failing to register a single goal or assist before being loaned to Turkish side Besiktas and Arthur notching one goal and no assists, ESPN’s Sid Lowe assessed the deal absolutely perfectly when he wrote that “the accountancy is more creative than the midfielders are.”
Except it wasn’t. That’s because, for accounting purposes, an incoming player has their transfer fee spread out over the length of their new contract (known as amortisation), while the fee for a player being sold is immediate income.
So if a club buys a player for $80 million and signs him to a four-year contract, the outgoing fee becomes an $80 million asset on the books. That value then decreases by $20 million per season, so if they then sell that player for $50 million after three years, they generate a $30 million profit.
That means that despite just a €12 million ($13.54m) difference in the values of Pjanic and Arthur, the deal with Barca generated a plusvalenza of €41.8 million ($47.26m). With Pjanic failing to register a single goal or assist before being loaned to Turkish side Besiktas and Arthur notching one goal and no assists, ESPN’s Sid Lowe assessed the deal absolutely perfectly when he wrote that “the accountancy is more creative than the midfielders are.”
Also this 'creative accounting' is nothing new. The classic 'loan with obligation' is a way to spread payments out as long as possible to make the balance sheets look better. I fucking hate modern football and would love something big be done to stop all the runaway spending and somehow for it to return to being primarily a sport and not a business, but it's just typical that we'd be the ones to be held up as some kind of scapegoat again, eh.
Edit: ohh nice little logo emojis when links are posted. Nice touch, Tuz
