14 Aug 2023 17:54:48

——-Wasting your time commenting on things you don’t understand. Nobody is spreading payments over 8 or 9 years———

1.) 14 Aug 2023
14 Aug 2023 18:26:28
Chelsea are, allegedly the caicedo deal is spread over 8 years with the option for another year so potentially 9 years, that’s what I read at least!

{Ed002's Note - That is not the payments. You are all getting very embarrassing. Truly ridiculous now.}

2.) 14 Aug 2023
14 Aug 2023 19:19:29
Amoritising the value of the transfer on the books over the life of the contract is not the same thing as actually paying for the transfer over that period.

Do you actually think Brighton would've accepted payments spread over 9 years? It

3.) 14 Aug 2023
14 Aug 2023 19:19:29
Amoritising the value of the transfer on the books over the life of the contract is not the same thing as actually paying for the transfer over that period.

Do you actually think Brighton would've accepted payments spread over 9 years?

4.) 14 Aug 2023
14 Aug 2023 19:28:09
Who cares what Chelsea are doing, facts are they are streets ahead of our dealings.

5.) 14 Aug 2023
14 Aug 2023 19:42:18
Oh good lord people. Even if you are kids, surely you can understand that Caicedo (and Lavia) have got 8-9 year long CONTRACTS.

They are not spreading the PAYMENTS (the amount you pay the other club for a player) over 8-9 years - that is against the rules.

However, you can currently give a player as long a contract as you want. And it's over the length of that contract that you AMORTISE the up front cost of the player.

All teams do the same.

Chelsea have chosen to give longer term contracts than is typical, good luck to them. It does mean that you can amortise the up front fee over a longer period, but it's also a risk as what if hat player doesn't work out? You've still got them contracted for 7+ years.

Please take some time to understand this so that the eds don't have to keep explaining this.

6.) 14 Aug 2023
14 Aug 2023 20:07:01
Amortising over a period of 5 years is no longer acceptable, regardless of the length of contract offered to a player. 5 years is the max if i have read correctly.

Anyways, cash aside, hints of embarassement aside, we seriously flppping the transfers after such a good start. Know how milan felt now in instanbul.

Need some last minute winners!

7.) 14 Aug 2023
14 Aug 2023 20:43:16
Ian not actually convinced that Chelsea have won the war with us. They have got two players at high prices and one is really unproven the other less so.

Pretty big risk betting on potential.

If we get a good defensive midfielder and a good centre back then I think our squad will be pretty good.

It will all make more sense once the transfer window closes and we can make a better assessment of where we are following a pretty seismic change in personnel.

8.) 14 Aug 2023
14 Aug 2023 21:09:22
Does amortising the cost over the length of the contract help meet FFP?

9.) 14 Aug 2023
14 Aug 2023 21:24:50
Tommy Gunn. Pretty sure lots of people were saying the same things last season. Remind me how that went?

10.) 14 Aug 2023
14 Aug 2023 20:12:59
Would help if there was an explanation though instead of saying that no one would understand. It’s a sure fire way to keep everyone ignorant and guessing or worse still, making stuff up like its is fact.

Like, what actually is amortisation and why does it sound like cooking the books? ( I realise it isn’t)

{Ed002's Note - It would attract more ignorant posts. It is stupid.}

11.) 14 Aug 2023
14 Aug 2023 22:55:07
How hard is it for people to google? A contract, payment terms and amortisation are different things, none of which are relevant to Liverpool until we agree to sign a player, this page is feeling more like the Chelsea page.

12.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 07:22:11
At risk of getting this wrong I’ll have a go Ed ?

Contract length : these can be as long as you want (FIFA says max 5yrs unless country regulations allow - which the UK does) hence Nunez signing an six year contract is perfectly fine

Transfer fees and payments : transfer fees can be paid upfront or staggered over time…. but I believe per Ed01 the UK requires the transfer fees to be settled within 5yrs to avoid clubs deferring all their payments and running into financial trouble down the line

Accounting treatment (or amortisation) - this is an accounting principle where the value of your ‘asset’ (ie. the players contract) needs to get written down over time (because at the end of the contract it will be worth zero as the player is free to walk away) . For example if the value of the contract is 100m and the contract is 2yrs that’s amortised at 50m a year, but if over 5yrs, that would be amortised at 20m a year.
The accounting is the basis for evaluating FFP, so UEFA requires amortisation to be within 5yrs to avoid people offering super long contracts to avoid this.

In summary, it would be completely normal/ legal for a player to get an 8yr contract, the club to pay the transfer fees over 3yrs, and for the amortisation of the contract value to be over 5yrs.

That’s why it’s so confusing for people, and there’s so much misinformation out there (eg people talking about contract length being capped at 5yrs when it’s not, or referring to ‘payments’ when they actually mean ‘amortisation’ etc. )

Hope that helps and I got it broadly correct.

{Ed002's Note - That is fine - and now we will drop the matter.}