Post by chiff on Jun 13, 2006 14:14:16 GMT
OK , so this is a slight exaggeration, but cos' I'm a bored sicko, I've just had a plough through the last accounts of the PLC. Now although the rules are different between the plc and the Glazers' private company, the accountancy will remain very much the same. And now you can get a better idea of how it's all run.
We look at £10 mill for X and £15 mill for Y and think we've got £25 mill to spend. I'm not sure that's the way they necessarily do it. Firstly, there's agents' fees and levy to pay. So Roo cost £23mill, agent was £1.5 and levy over a mill - Total 25.5 mill. But immediately, the company depreciate the value so that in June 2005, he had been written down to £21.485 000. So why does this matter?
Ruud came in July 01 and contract expires June 08. Therefore his worth in June 2005 was £ 7.1 mill and so today it's probably about £4.7 mill. Ergo, if we flog him for £8-10 mill we make a real book profit of £4-5 mill. And that's the way I think they'll look at it.
I was looking originally to see what I could find about wages but there's nothing in the accounts that splits off players. But this way of accounting for players throws the whole picture of Chavski into the open. Schev cost £30mill +wages of about £5mill a year. As he's on a 4 year contract., the fee works out at £7.5 mill a year. In other words, he is costing £12.5 mill a year. Doing it the same way, a younger player costing £20 mill and normal top wages will only cost £7-8 mill a year. Multiply this overspend by a squad of 22-24 and you can see that Chavski are spending at least £50 million a year more than anybody else and probably nearer £100 mill. And they get fined £10000 by the FA. What a laugh.
So when you look at a transfer fee, divide it by 4 or 5 depending on the length of the contract. Add that figure to the player's wage and you get an annual cost of the player. If you consider that because they're home grown, players like Gary Neville, Giggsy etc were home grown, they cost you less because there was no initial transfer fee. Therefore if you want to bring in a Diarra for £20 mill, you have to find savings of about £8 mill a year. Well Ruud's costing nearly £7 mill a year + the £4-5 mill profit as above.
Now do you think he's staying?
We look at £10 mill for X and £15 mill for Y and think we've got £25 mill to spend. I'm not sure that's the way they necessarily do it. Firstly, there's agents' fees and levy to pay. So Roo cost £23mill, agent was £1.5 and levy over a mill - Total 25.5 mill. But immediately, the company depreciate the value so that in June 2005, he had been written down to £21.485 000. So why does this matter?
Ruud came in July 01 and contract expires June 08. Therefore his worth in June 2005 was £ 7.1 mill and so today it's probably about £4.7 mill. Ergo, if we flog him for £8-10 mill we make a real book profit of £4-5 mill. And that's the way I think they'll look at it.
I was looking originally to see what I could find about wages but there's nothing in the accounts that splits off players. But this way of accounting for players throws the whole picture of Chavski into the open. Schev cost £30mill +wages of about £5mill a year. As he's on a 4 year contract., the fee works out at £7.5 mill a year. In other words, he is costing £12.5 mill a year. Doing it the same way, a younger player costing £20 mill and normal top wages will only cost £7-8 mill a year. Multiply this overspend by a squad of 22-24 and you can see that Chavski are spending at least £50 million a year more than anybody else and probably nearer £100 mill. And they get fined £10000 by the FA. What a laugh.
So when you look at a transfer fee, divide it by 4 or 5 depending on the length of the contract. Add that figure to the player's wage and you get an annual cost of the player. If you consider that because they're home grown, players like Gary Neville, Giggsy etc were home grown, they cost you less because there was no initial transfer fee. Therefore if you want to bring in a Diarra for £20 mill, you have to find savings of about £8 mill a year. Well Ruud's costing nearly £7 mill a year + the £4-5 mill profit as above.
Now do you think he's staying?
