Rangers on UEFA's FFP watchlist

[SIRB_72 4,085]

1 hour ago, qwerty said:

What does amortilisation mean 

Pretty sure in terms of football amortisation works as a value left of a players fee to pay in regards to how long his original contract is.

For example we could spread out Davies' fee over 4 years as amortisation as 750k a year. 

It's still money you have to pay but it just condenses the player value by year.

Pretty sure I have that right but happy to be proven wrong

[sasap 204]

5 minutes ago, SIRB_72 said:

Pretty sure in terms of football amortisation works as a value left of a players fee to pay in regards to how long his original contract is.

For example we could spread out Davies' fee over 4 years as amortisation as 750k a year. 

It's still money you have to pay but it just condenses the player value by year.

Pretty sure I have that right but happy to be proven wrong

That'll do for me 

[Bakbear 3,586]

Today I have discovered that my least favourite thing to read about on a football forum is basic financial management. 

I am amazed at how little the average punter grasps about income and expenditure and the need to balance it  
 

How do people manage their own households. 

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

1 hour ago, Bakbear said:

 

I am amazed at how little the average punter grasps about income and expenditure and the need to balance it  
 

How do people manage their own households. 

They don't mate.  They moan about cost of living in food at supermarket then go out to buy an Indian carry out or fish supper.  Or the heating bill whilst sitting in the house in a t-shirt with the windows open.  The last bit I actually saw on tv, kid you not.

[Brubear 2,953]

1 hour ago, SIRB_72 said:

Pretty sure in terms of football amortisation works as a value left of a players fee to pay in regards to how long his original contract is.

For example we could spread out Davies' fee over 4 years as amortisation as 750k a year. 

It's still money you have to pay but it just condenses the player value by year.

Pretty sure I have that right but happy to be proven wrong

The amortisation of the contract and the payment profile are not connected .

The payment profile effects your cashflow the amortisation effects your P&L.

In the example you quote a £3m contract would be recorded as an asset on day 1 in full, regardless of payment profile. Any difference between the total purcahse cost anf the amount paid up front would be recorded as a creditor ie a liability on the balance sheet. The cash flow would obviously be the cash paid up front. As each payment comes payable the creditor is reduced and offset by a reduction in cash on the balance sheet as the cash is paid over. 

The P&L is not effected by any of these transactions only the amortisation which would be charged each year as the total purchase price divided by the length of contract. 

[Ross-Gazza genius 1,930]

When you look at Chelsea who in the last 4 seasons have spent £615 million sold £331 million, which is a deficit of £284 million. Now this is off the back of a transfer embargo, yet our finances need looked at?!?! We will be the type of club they will ban as they don't want to damage the image by banning a Chelsea, Man city or Barcelona. 

Fucking joke

[totobull 17]

I believe it is all relative, you earn more you spend more, you earn less you spend less. We have to live within our means to safeguard the future. Sustainable buisness maybe. As we don’t earn the mega millions as others do we still have to act on the same premise.  Say they make £100 they can spend £70 we make £10 we can spend £7. Absolute nonsense but maybe 🤔 

[TamCoopz 19,605]

19 minutes ago, totobull said:

I believe it is all relative, you earn more you spend more, you earn less you spend less. We have to live within our means to safeguard the future. Sustainable buisness maybe. As we don’t earn the mega millions as others do we still have to act on the same premise.  Say they make £100 they can spend £70 we make £10 we can spend £7. Absolute nonsense but maybe 🤔 

Only making a tenner is quite underwhelming 

[graeme_4 35,220]

1 hour ago, TamCoopz said:

Only making a tenner is quite underwhelming 

Nae bonus for Bisgrove.

[Orangeclement 578]

5 hours ago, Ross-Gazza genius said:

When you look at Chelsea who in the last 4 seasons have spent £615 million sold £331 million, which is a deficit of £284 million. Now this is off the back of a transfer embargo, yet our finances need looked at?!?! We will be the type of club they will ban as they don't want to damage the image by banning a Chelsea, Man city or Barcelona. 

Fucking joke

Likely the fact that they get hundreds of millions in TV revenue while we get £5 million if we are lucky .....

[Kaydubya11 580]

Basically the rich looking after the rich. Scum

[Brubear 2,953]

16 hours ago, .Williamson. said:

There is a big bad man called UEFA and he tells you how you can spend your pocket money. He gets very angry if you spend too much of your pocket money on sweets and over the next 2 years he is letting you have less sweets. He gets even more angry if you get sweets or anything else from money you got from your Aunty and Uncle and not from your own pocket money, especially if Aunty and Uncle will want that money back at some time in the future. 

[Essandoh 21,350]

11 hours ago, JCDBigBear said:

They don't mate.  They moan about cost of living in food at supermarket then go out to buy an Indian carry out or fish supper.  Or the heating bill whilst sitting in the house in a t-shirt with the windows open.  The last bit I actually saw on tv, kid you not.

The “average punter” does that aye?

[RFC55 110,200]

@rangers4eva ffs what a blast fae the past that is

[shirebear11 56]

I bought one of those Rangers Till I Die badges in 2012 precisely so this kind of thing wouldn't happen again

[Ross-Gazza genius 1,930]

6 hours ago, Orangeclement said:

Likely the fact that they get hundreds of millions in TV revenue while we get £5 million if we are lucky .....

Doubt it, that money would barely cover their wage bill. 

[Orangeclement 578]

6 minutes ago, Ross-Gazza genius said:

Doubt it, that money would barely cover their wage bill. 

Chelsea incoming revenue is 500m euros a year .....

So taking your spending off 4 years worth of income would leave them 1300m euros to spend on wages and anything else .

It's a different world in the money leagues .

[Orangeclement 578]

PSG on the other hand ....

[The Archer 1,211]

Released to take the heat off the board ! Pathetic

[DrLaudrup 4,839]

To be honest, after the dark place our club has been I’m onboard with the concept of FFP. I don’t won’t see that again ever in my lifetime. I want us to be here for ever. The problem I have is the total lack of parity that means some clubs can do what they like while everyone else has to toe the line. We also clearly need to attract new investment.