These guys arent smart as Paul assesing transfers budgets

[Sir X]

Here, we focussed on the Premier League rich list, and which half are the lucky ones with healthy transfer budgets. This takes everything into account from wage bill, wage budget and how much of the fee has been made available by the chairman


http://www.sportingintelligence.com/...sition-090901/



But not as much profit as Everton, who had a profitable window to the tune of £11.15m, even after bringing in James McCarthy for £13m, Aroune Kone from Wigan for £6m and Joel Robles from Atletico while making the very decent loan signings of Romelu Lukaku and Gareth Barry.

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/...sition-090901/



Ready fi yuh , run fi yuh skirt.


http://images.freshnessmag.com/wp-co...ue-boot-01.jpg

[Peter R]

Isn't that from 2013? at the end of which season LFC were second if I remember correctly. If you had found the stats from this year, i.e. 2014 you might have a better leg (foot) to put that Tims on. LOL

[Sir X]

Yuh waan mi find Falco loan wages...lol....as mi say nuh man nuh smart like paul.

[Sir X]

Seeit yah....whey yuh fren deh, i await his dissertation


Radamel Falcao’s season-long loan to Manchester United will cost the Old Trafford club a staggering £24 million, with the forward’s £265,000-a-week before tax salary being paid in full by United

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...long-loan.html

Man ead nuh good sah.


http://images.freshnessmag.com/wp-co...ue-boot-01.jpg

[Peter R]

Here is a quote for you for from one article you posted :

With United already spending £146.3 million on new signings this summer, Falcao’s arrival will take the recruitment outlay beyond £150m with the loan fee.

Notice the writer did NOT add the wages of £18M to the £146.3M but rather the loan fee of £6M. The writer added the £18 to the £6 to arrive at the £24.
As an aside, his numbers worry me a bit because his math does not add up, but correct me if I am wrong. He says the salary before tax is £265K / week. If I multiply that by 52 (assuming they are paid on a 52 week basis) I only get £13.78M, so I'm unsure where the other £4M comes from. Maybe you can explain that because I must be missing something. But anyway....

From a business perspective the two amounts wages and loan fee) are not (necessarily) commingled: wages are expensed in the year they are paid, against revenue earned in the same year. Transfer fees, or amounts paid to buy players are amortised over the duration of the player's contract. In this case since his loan was for one year I assume they could expense the full amount this year, unless they sign him for an additional fee, in which case they may choose to amortise the loan fee plus payment fee, over the life of his contract. Monies spent to buy players (transfer fees) and expensing of salaries vs. amortisation expense are important distinctions to grasp as (remember these are BUSINESSES too) how you treat monies spent have an impact on what you report on your Balance Sheet as well as your Profit/Loss statement.

Yes, any way you slice it, it will be money spent, but not because you pay £50M (Sterling say) for a player means his salary will be the same as say what you are paying a player you paid £25M for. I cannot imagine Sterling's salary will be greater than say Agüero's, but anyway that is another discussion, maybe.

[Sir X]

Seriously Peter the debate is about ,money spent in a transfer budget ,how a club, spends it is their perogative.Anyone who wants to set rigids terms on how it should be spent to justify a philosopy of not including loan wages ,is an idiot.

[Peter R]

A transfer budget would NOT include wages! How could it?? But, OF COURSE a club would have to consider wages when planning... I never said otherwise. I am merely pointing out what I believe the considerations are when looking to buy and sell players.

[Paul Marin]

Seriously Peter the debate is about ,money spent in a transfer budget ,how a club, spends it is their perogative.Anyone who wants to set rigids terms on how it should be spent to justify a philosopy of not including loan wages ,is an idiot.

Xcuse me - what exactly is your argument???? The whole thing started when you cuss off the youth coach for spending 100m in transfers to finish 6th. I tried to educate you, but the concrete eena you blockhead jes too tough. I told you that there is NO DATA that shows transfer budgets (money spent) is a predictor of league position. The data show that LEAGUE TABLE performance is predictably tied to:

1) wage bill and
2) squad value.

PERIOD!!

It is NOT tied to "money spent" or better said, transfer spending. In fact, your article proves that!! Look at the net spend and see how many of those clubs were ahead of Liverpool but end up in the lower end of the table.

Go back and find your brain...u mussi leave it unda u tims at the etihad.

[Paul Marin]

A transfer budget would NOT include wages! How could it?? But, OF COURSE a club would have to consider wages when planning... I never said otherwise. I am merely pointing out what I believe the considerations are when looking to buy and sell players.

His problem is that him too fool. The joke wid this bwoy is that him call people fifth columnist, yet him is the one a tear down the club...him call people idiot, yet him cyan do simple sums...him call the youth coach all kind a name, but jump on the wagon when we start fi show promise...him dus' off him tims, yet him kick out him own teeth