• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Transfers Summer Transfer Thread 2023! - Closed (Maybe)

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Rate this window out of 10

  • 1

  • 2

  • 3

  • 4

  • 5

  • 6

  • 7

  • 8

  • 9

  • 10

Results are only viewable after voting.
Raumdeuterz said:
If we rated Orban nearly as highly as some people on here do, we'd have paid the 30m already. And if the elite clubs and their scouts rated him that highly too, they'd have paid the 30m already. 30m to top PL clubs is nothing, teams like Chelsea pay 25m for some player who just got in to the squad for a Ligue 1 team.

Clearly lots of teams have doubts, if the 30m price-tag is even close to true.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There were similar doubts from everyone about a certain one season wonder :kanehand:
 
Herclueless said:
Look, I appreciate you took the time to write this all down, but I am beyond fucking sick of the amateur accountants repeating this time after time...

It's a fucking bookkeeping quirk that allows them to skirt by the supposed FFP rules.

It's a technicality.

They are committed to ~£1b of transfer spend, in the same time they have received ~£200m in sales. BOTH lots of sums are being paid/received over a period of years. That is the bottom line!

Just because there is a stupid loophole in the FFP rules or whatever it is that allows this, does not mean anyone beyond the most brainwashed Chav muppet should be claiming them as in fucking profit. That is like me getting a loan over the next 8 years that I am due to pay back £200 a month on, and with no other source of income claiming myself to be financially sound because I had a car boot sale this month and raked in £250... In fact, it's not even like that, because in this scenario my £250 incoming from the boot sale should be spread over 5 years too!

Not once have I ever seen anyone put forward a rational explanation for why transfers in should be considered over the duration of the contract yet transfers out, where you are receiving the money in instalments also, should be counted immediately.

I'd very much like something on that, not yet another "Well you see the transfer fee is ackshually amortised blah blah blah..." I'm pretty sure we're all well versed in that spiel by now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
FFP was based on company accounts. When you buy an asset it's normally a big outlay and instead of fucking your accounts every 10 years (lifetime of a machine) and doesn't really express the health of a company. They say spread the cost over that period, they know you are on the hook for it for that time. If you sell the machine you get the money now minus the money minus the depreciation (which is basically the left over amortised value). In football the players the asset.

This is standard accounting practice, move away from it and you're creating your own rules and grey areas that a club will find loop holes left right and center.

It's not a perfect solution but it's probably the best we have.
 
r-u-s-x said:
FFP was based on company accounts. When you buy an asset it's normally a big outlay and instead of fucking your accounts every 10 years (lifetime of a machine) and doesn't really express the health of a company. They say spread the cost over that period, they know you are on the hook for it for that time. If you sell the machine you get the money now minus the money minus the depreciation (which is basically the left over amortised value). In football the players the asset.

This is standard accounting practice, move away from it and you're creating your own rules and grey areas that a club will find loop holes left right and center.

It's not a perfect solution but it's probably the best we have.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That makes sense, until you consider the probability that Chelsea under TB have done this 2 windows out of 2, and the likelihood is they will do it again, even if not to the quite same extent, in future windows.

They can't keep spending billions and putting a plaster over it (and a pretend one at that!) by flogging a few millions worth each window. Eventually these amortised payments are going to be absolutely crippling, an accountant might be able to flimflam a way of claiming them to be in profit right now, but as fans we shouldn't be parroting that, we should be calling it out for the absolute farce that it is.

If it were even a remotely sound tactic then more clubs would be doing it. Why are City and Newcastle, with vast actual funds available to the owners, going to the extent of trying to play the system by creating ludicrous sponsorship deals via sister companies, if they could just do what Chelsea are doing?

For taking this approach I think you either have to consider TB to be either by far the smartest of the 20 PL owners, or by far the dumbest. I know which I think is more likely.
 
Herclueless said:
That makes sense, until you consider the probability that Chelsea under TB have done this 2 windows out of 2, and the likelihood is they will do it again, even if not to the quite same extent, in future windows.

They can't keep spending billions and putting a plaster over it (and a pretend one at that!) by flogging a few millions worth each window. Eventually these amortised payments are going to be absolutely crippling, an accountant might be able to flimflam a way of claiming them to be in profit right now, but as fans we shouldn't be parroting that, we should be calling it out for the absolute farce that it is.

If it were even a remotely sound tactic then more clubs would be doing it. Why are City and Newcastle, with vast actual funds available to the owners, going to the extent of trying to play the system by creating ludicrous sponsorship deals via sister companies, if they could just do what Chelsea are doing?

For taking this approach I think you either have to consider TB to be either by far the smartest of the 20 PL owners, or by far the dumbest. I know which I think is more likely.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ueffa have somewhat stopped this by putting a max amortisation to 5 YEARS, when Chelsea are back in europe this may cause them a challenge.

EPL ffp is backward looking, they use company accounts over 3 years and if you break it now it won't show up until the next set of accounts. Spanish ffp (and I think French) is more real-time, this may be an option (also a reason not to laugh as much at barca as if we had the same system a few of our teams would be in trouble).

Chelsea are on the hook for the cost but are kicking down the road. Imo city /newcastle are trying to play the system while Chelsea are betting ffp won't be a thing by the time it catches up with them
 

View: https://twitter.com/HotspurRelated/status/1692078159955431481

fetchimage
 
Matt1882 said:
If Son and Kulu can't go outside on their weaker foot, I can't see why we wouldn't switch them occasionally. Seems daft to stick rigidly to one sided players on one side.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Personally think Ange knows his system pretty well and what can or can’t work.

We are basing it off one game and what some hipsters said about Celtic but it’s already the life and death of the whole system and if we don’t change it NOW we are doomed.

Now you can’t move for comments on fucking twitter about the front 3. It’s mental really. I think most of our fans are unwell.
 
Herclueless said:
Look, I appreciate you took the time to write this all down, but I am beyond fucking sick of the amateur accountants repeating this time after time...

It's a fucking bookkeeping quirk that allows them to skirt by the supposed FFP rules.

It's a technicality.

They are committed to ~£1b of transfer spend, in the same time they have received ~£200m in sales. BOTH lots of sums are being paid/received over a period of years. That is the bottom line!

Just because there is a stupid loophole in the FFP rules or whatever it is that allows this, does not mean anyone beyond the most brainwashed Chav muppet should be claiming them as in fucking profit. That is like me getting a loan over the next 8 years that I am due to pay back £200 a month on, and with no other source of income claiming myself to be financially sound because I had a car boot sale this month and raked in £250... In fact, it's not even like that, because in this scenario my £250 incoming from the boot sale should be spread over 5 years too!

Not once have I ever seen anyone put forward a rational explanation for why transfers in should be considered over the duration of the contract yet transfers out, where you are receiving the money in instalments also, should be counted immediately.

I'd very much like something on that, not yet another "Well you see the transfer fee is ackshually amortised blah blah blah..." I'm pretty sure we're all well versed in that spiel by now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The world according to GAAP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top