Viktor Moving on (18 Viewers)

[SBbucks]

Pretty much every transfer is paid over years, normally the length of the contract signed. It’s how the buying club writes off the value of the player

Not true, there is no connection between the payment terms and how the club writes off the value of the player. The transfer value is amortized (effectively written down) over the number of years of the contract term; the payment terms/schedule are completely irrelevant.
Chelsea are the most obvious and extreme exponent of this with their recent 8 year contracts, enabling them to write off the player value over 8 years (and thus minimise their annual PSR exposure).

 

---

[Mr Panda]

Just need Arsenal to absolutely batter Villa tomorrow, shots coming left, right and centre from Havertz and Jesus, nothing going in only for Watkins to go through the other end and win it 1-0 and make it plainly obvious what Arteta needs to do

 

[The watchmaker]

Pretty much every transfer is paid over years, normally the length of the contract signed. It’s how the buying club writes off the value of the player

I'll leave the accountancy stuff to others but my point was that in order to trigger the buy out clause they may have to pay the full amount up front (this is the standard in buy out clauses). i.e. a buying club may not have an option to unilaterally declare that it is paying £86m in installments. If a buyer can't afford the full amount upfront then it may have to agree terms with Sporting who may a) refuse to sell or b) ask for (e.g.) £100m spread over 5 years. In the current climate £20m a year may be more attractive than £86m in one go.

 

[ptr]

He’s pricing himself out of a move ffs. No need to score a hatrick just showing off.

Said it way back though, who pays the money? Only big clubs in the PL that need a striker are Chelsea and Arsenal. Despite signing 136 players this summer, Chelsea still need a proper centre forward. Gyokeres improves their team massively. With Arsenal, Arteta think he is too clever for a striker, Havertz experiment working tbf but he seems desperate to win the PL without one, will be his and Arsenal’s downfall.

It’s still absolute madness that a lower premier club didn’t take him that January from us. Must be kicking themselves….mostly Everton.

 

[steve cooper]

He’s pricing himself out of a move ffs. No need to score a hatrick just showing off.

Said it way back though, who pays the money? Only big clubs in the PL that need a striker are Chelsea and Arsenal. Despite signing 136 players this summer, Chelsea still need a proper centre forward. Gyokeres improves their team massively. With Arsenal, Arteta think he is too clever for a striker, Havertz experiment working tbf but he seems desperate to win the PL without one, will be his and Arsenal’s downfall.

It’s still absolute madness that a lower premier club didn’t take him that January from us. Must be kicking themselves….mostly Everton.

I thought Everton put in an offer but Vik didn't want to go there

 

[Perennial Lurker]

I thought PSG might've looked at him after losing Mbappe

 

[CCFCSteve]

An extra few quid will obviously be nice but it’s great to see a lad who’s worked hard, continued to believe in himself and improved himself year on year, deliver and get the recognition he deserves.

So many people in all walks of life are looking for the quick money without all the effort and any hardship but gyokeres is proving that with the right mentality and belief (and talent) you can reach the top

 

[wingy]

An extra few quid will obviously be nice but it’s great to see a lad who’s worked hard, continued to believe in himself and improved himself year on year, deliver and get the recognition he deserves.

So many people in all walks of life are looking for the quick money without all the effort and any hardship but gyokeres is proving that with the right mentality and belief (and talent) you can reach the top

And playing to his strengths in the process, probably a major sticking point as any, always searching for that perfect way as certain managers do, unorthodox!

 

[PVA]

Some absolutely shocking defending for the goals last night to be fair. He deserves a move and I hope he gets it, but he won't face defending like that every week in the PL!

Though of course there's an element of him making defenders look shit.

 

[skybluegod]

Pretty much every transfer is paid over years, normally the length of the contract signed. It’s how the buying club writes off the value of the player

Not necessarily true. It can be paid over years/length of the contract. But a lot are also paid up front. It's why you see lots of transfers drag on as the clubs negotiate the structure. Good example this year is Zirkzee to United. They paid higher than the release clause so they could pay it over a longer period whereas if they wanted to pay less it was all up front.

You may be getting confused with the amortisation of the contract, where the value account wise is spread over the length of the contract.

 

[edgy]

Here we go..... agent working again.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

He’s pricing himself out of a move ffs. No need to score a hatrick just showing off.

Said it way back though, who pays the money? Only big clubs in the PL that need a striker are Chelsea and Arsenal. Despite signing 136 players this summer, Chelsea still need a proper centre forward. Gyokeres improves their team massively. With Arsenal, Arteta think he is too clever for a striker, Havertz experiment working tbf but he seems desperate to win the PL without one, will be his and Arsenal’s downfall.

It’s still absolute madness that a lower premier club didn’t take him that January from us. Must be kicking themselves….mostly Everton.

Arsenal are like the socialists in the Labour Party only happy finishing second

 

[fatso]

Here we go..... agent working again.

In other words, I'll be gone by the end of the week!

 

[Ashdown]

Absolute quality player…..but he’s not facing the toughest defences at times is he

 

[wingy]

Absolute quality player…..but he’s not facing the toughest defences at times is he

Still got to stick it in the onion bag as they say!

 

[Evo1883]

What a player

 

[Tommo1993]

I’d be gutted if he ended up at Chelsea

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I’d be gutted if he ended up at Chelsea

I wouldn’t, they’d probably pay double his release clause for the lols

 

[Tommo1993]

I wouldn’t, they’d probably pay double his release clause for the lols

25 year contract. Paying his massive wages off in League Two

 

[Brylowes]

I’d be gutted if he ended up at Chelsea

In the long run, I think he would too.

 

[chiefdave]

'You never know what happens' must be up there with the dreaded vote of confidence in the manager.

 

[lord_garrincha]

I'd expect it will be Arsenal playing hard ball late to drive down the fee.

There is also an element of jeopardy for Sporting too... like few have said on here, the level in Portugal is not great. So what happens if Sporting get bombed out of their CL group & Vik doesn't score any goals... his stock, at present, may never reach this high again.

 

[mark82]

Watching the Arsenal game and wondering why they haven't moved for Gyokeres yet. He would definitely improve them.

 

[sotvtoday]

A lot of PL teams were not prepared to pay 21m for him when he left us. Their minds aren't going to change now at 80m+ based on a season in a weak European league. If he does the business in the CL it may change. (Obviously I could be wrong - hope so).

 

[Skyblue Bangkok]

Twice6

A lot of PL teams were not prepared to pay 21m for him when he left us. Their minds aren't going to change now at 80m+ based on a season in a weak European league. If he does the business in the CL it may change. (Obviously I could be wrong - hope so).

Chelsea paid 100 million plus for a Argentinian midfield player playing in Portugal. Vik has now scored 6 goals in 3 games.

 

[StrettoBoy]

I think Gykores will move, probably to Arsenal, in this transfer window.

The problem for us may be that it happens so late that there is insufficient time for us to spend the money on the players we need.

 

[DrPoolittle]

Not necessarily true. It can be paid over years/length of the contract. But a lot are also paid up front. It's why you see lots of transfers drag on as the clubs negotiate the structure. Good example this year is Zirkzee to United. They paid higher than the release clause so they could pay it over a longer period whereas if they wanted to pay less it was all up front.

You may be getting confused with the amortisation of the contract, where the value account wise is spread over the length of the contract.

I can pick out lots of examples from Lee Hughes (where Cov had barely started to pay for him before he was sold all the way to Luis Suarez. I can even remember the foaming at the mouth denial when Liverpool fans found out the fee was paid over 5 (6?) years.

But very few are paid in one fell swoop. The phrase “up front” often confuses many fans. It doesn’t mean one lump sum, as in Championship Manager. It simply means that part of the fee which isn’t subject to clauses.

But yes, the structure often means clubs haggling over how the fee is paid but staggered over years is the norm. I think the Guardian had a decent comment on this when they ran an article by the Secret Football Agent.

Oddly enough, Mike Ashley at Newcastle was one of the few owners who insisted on up front transfers.

Lisbon still owe for Gyokeres

 

[DrPoolittle]

Not true, there is no connection between the payment terms and how the club writes off the value of the player. The transfer value is amortized (effectively written down) over the number of years of the contract term; the payment terms/schedule are completely irrelevant.
Chelsea are the most obvious and extreme exponent of this with their recent 8 year contracts, enabling them to write off the player value over 8 years (and thus minimise their annual PSR exposure).

We shall have to agree to differ

I will need to dig out the article what learned me a lot. It was from a series of articles about transfers run by the Guardian. I forget the details but most transfers, according to the football agent, are funded over years

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I think Gykores will move, probably to Arsenal, in this transfer window.

The problem for us may be that it happens so late that there is insufficient time for us to spend the money on the players we need.

Given recent events I think it’s more likely we’re working on any targets regardless of Vik moving or not.

 

[Didge76]

I think Gykores will move, probably to Arsenal, in this transfer window.

The problem for us may be that it happens so late that there is insufficient time for us to spend the money on the players we need.

Well Doug will have to risk it

 

[long way home]

Id be shocked if a club doesn't push to get Vik before the window closes. I think it could be a last minute thing which doesn't help us this window but its still money in the bank which we may need in Jan to push on.

 

[DrPoolittle]

Well Doug will have to risk it

Not sure he is the risking kind.

 

[SBbucks]

We shall have to agree to differ

I will need to dig out the article what learned me a lot. It was from a series of articles about transfers run by the Guardian. I forget the details but most transfers, according to the football agent, are funded over years

You can differ as much as you want, but you’re factually incorrect in saying payment terms affect how the value is written off. Of course transfer fees might well be funded over years but that’s not the point. The point is that from an accounting (and thus PSR) perspective the value of the player is written off in equal amounts annually over the length of the contract, i.e. if a transfer fee is £10m and the player has a five year contract it will be written off (amortised) at £2m per year for 5 years. It has nothing to do with payment terms; payment terms have no relevance to the club accounts or for PSR, they just affect the club’s cash flow.

I suggest you listen to “The Price of Football” pod by Kevin Maguire, an accountant who teaches football finance at the Uni of Liverpool and is the UK’s foremost authority on amortisation in football. That will you “learn” you a lot too.

 

[DrPoolittle]

You can differ as much as you want, but you’re factually incorrect in saying payment terms affect how the value is written off. Of course transfer fees might well be funded over years but that’s not the point. The point is that from an accounting (and thus PSR) perspective the value of the player is written off in equal amounts annually over the length of the contract, i.e. if a transfer fee is £10m and the player has a five year contract it will be written off (amortised) at £2m per year for 5 years. It has nothing to do with payment terms; payment terms have no relevance to the club accounts or for PSR, they just affect the club’s cash flow.

I suggest you listen to “The Price of Football” pod by Kevin Maguire, an accountant who teaches football finance at the Uni of Liverpool and is the UK’s foremost authority on amortisation in football. That will you “learn” you a lot too.

You don’t have to react so badly. I have read several sources of information. And to be honest, I don’t care. Because the main thrust of my original comment is that most transfer fees are structured over years. But you take care now

 

[SBbucks]

You don’t have to react so badly. I have read several sources of information. And to be honest, I don’t care. Because the main thrust of my original comment is that most transfer fees are structured over years. But you take care now

I just think people talking bollocks on a subject they clearly know nothing about should make an effort to be better informed.
Good luck with your “several sources of information” but it might be better to read something factual next time.