Generic small time football blather thread FOREVER

[The Fish 10963]

19 hours ago, ewerk said:

The thing is that the amortisation costs will continue every year. They can't keep selling that value of players every year.

 

Exactly this.

[The Fish 10963]

2 hours ago, PaddockLad said:

“Modern football data collection/analysis can be, on occasion, complete and utter pointless fuckin bollocks #42675” 

 

This one’s a fuckin doozy @The Fish ☺️

 

 

 

Just quantifies awareness of the pitch. Dunno what the problem is.  

 

If a player is looking around more, he'll have a better picture of the positions of the opponents and his teammates, so he's better informed about where danger or opportunity lies.

[PaddockLad 17643]

35 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

Just quantifies awareness of the pitch. Dunno what the problem is.  

 

If a player is looking around more, he'll have a better picture of the positions of the opponents and his teammates, so he's better informed about where danger or opportunity lies.

Who’s got greater footballing vision Dave, Bruno or Longstaff?… 

[The Fish 10963]

2 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

Who’s got greater footballing vision Dave, Bruno or Longstaff?… 

Bruno, and I bet those scan stats would back that up. But what about Bruno Fernandes vs Bruno Guimaraes? 

[PaddockLad 17643]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

Bruno, and I bet those scan stats would back that up. But what about Bruno Fernandes vs Bruno Guimaraes? 

if I say I don’t know will you tell me? 😀

[The Fish 10963]

2 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

if I say I don’t know will you tell me? 😀

If I had those scan stats, yeah, probably.

 

[Dazzler 10368]

44 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

Exactly this.

In player sales, do the accounting entries not work as they would selling any other asset? E.g. Profit/Sale of asset - so the amortisation would cease at the point the sale is recognised in the accounts as the value is written off the balance sheet.

 

I suppose the above only works with players purchased within the last five years, which Chelsea will find increasingly difficult to do, given the inflated fees and contracts they've dished out.

 

I'd say they have a tonne of kids on their books that could fetch upwards of £5m each though, which seems like it's never ending - similarly with Man City. They will always need a handful of those to fetch £20m-£30m+, and unless they start bringing some through they could be royally fucked in a year or two. They have (I would think) five years at around £200m in amortisation costs just from the Boehly spunkfest to cover.

[Gemmill 46023]

Let's get the double entry listed out lads. We could make it really fun with some T-accounts.

[The Fish 10963]

14 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

In player sales, do the accounting entries not work as they would selling any other asset? E.g. Profit/Sale of asset - so the amortisation would cease at the point the sale is recognised in the accounts as the value is written off the balance sheet.

 

I suppose the above only works with players purchased within the last five years, which Chelsea will find increasingly difficult to do, given the inflated fees and contracts they've dished out.

 

I'd say they have a tonne of kids on their books that could fetch upwards of £5m each though, which seems like it's never ending - similarly with Man City. They will always need a handful of those to fetch £20m-£30m+, and unless they start bringing some through they could be royally fucked in a year or two. They have (I would think) five years at around £200m in amortisation costs just from the Boehly spunkfest to cover.

 

Aren't the issues more linked to the amount they're accounting for each year?

 

E.G. Caicedo and Fernandez are gobbling up ~10m a year, (unless the 5-year amortisation limit is applied retroactively? in which case it's closer to £20m) so they'd have to sell them for a significant sum. Say they dump Caicedo for £40m in the summer, they'll only have paid £22m of the £110m they paid, leaving £50m of the initial fee to be amortised over how long?

 

All the while the deals for Mudryk, Jackson et al are gobbling up sizeable portions of the allowance.

[Dazzler 10368]

Just now, The Fish said:

 

Aren't the issues more linked to the amount they're accounting for each year?

 

E.G. Caicedo and Fernandez are gobbling up ~10m a year, (unless the 5-year amortisation limit is applied retroactively? in which case it's closer to £20m) so they'd have to sell them for a significant sum. Say they dump Caicedo for £40m in the summer, they'll only have paid £22m of the £110m they paid, leaving £50m of the initial fee to be amortised over how long?

 

All the while the deals for Mudryk, Jackson et al are gobbling up sizeable portions of the allowance.

This is the bit I am not certain of (due to not working in football) - the standard process for selling an asset would be that the £50m would be written off in the year you sold them as you can't depreciate an asset you no longer own. There may be different accounting procedures in football that means you can still amortise the fees even after a player is sold though but it seems to be an odd one as you'd be recognising a physical asset (a player) that now also sits on the balance sheet of another club.

 

In my plant and machinery brain it goes:

 

Purchase for £100m - Fixed Assets depreciated over five years (assuming the limit is applied retroactively)

Depreciation - £40m - Assuming the player has been with the club for two full seasons at point of sale.

NBV - £60m after two seasons

 

Transfer fee £40m - That leaves a balance on the fixed assets of £20m and this would be written off at the point of sale to the P&L as one hit.

 

I suppose in the above example at the start of year three it's cost neutral (from an accounting perspective) as you're going to amortise that £20m anyway, so suddenly £40m isn't so bad and after year 3 starts to actually become profitable in the P&L - if the amortisation limit is not applied retroactively then Chelsea are stuck with these players for much longer before it becomes even close to viable to sell for realistic fees.

 

 

 

[The Fish 10963]

1 hour ago, Dazzler said:

This is the bit I am not certain of (due to not working in football) - the standard process for selling an asset would be that the £50m would be written off in the year you sold them as you can't depreciate an asset you no longer own. There may be different accounting procedures in football that means you can still amortise the fees even after a player is sold though but it seems to be an odd one as you'd be recognising a physical asset (a player) that now also sits on the balance sheet of another club.

 

In my plant and machinery brain it goes:

 

Purchase for £100m - Fixed Assets depreciated over five years (assuming the limit is applied retroactively)

Depreciation - £40m - Assuming the player has been with the club for two full seasons at point of sale.

NBV - £60m after two seasons

 

Transfer fee £40m - That leaves a balance on the fixed assets of £20m and this would be written off at the point of sale to the P&L as one hit.

 

I suppose in the above example at the start of year three it's cost neutral (from an accounting perspective) as you're going to amortise that £20m anyway, so suddenly £40m isn't so bad and after year 3 starts to actually become profitable in the P&L - if the amortisation limit is not applied retroactively then Chelsea are stuck with these players for much longer before it becomes even close to viable to sell for realistic fees.

 

 

 

So in my example, could the remaining cost of the player fall into that years reporting?

 

Caicedo's remaining £50m suddenly dumped as a cost into the 24/25 accounts?

 

[MMXXVIII 1295]

4 hours ago, The Fish said:

 

Just quantifies awareness of the pitch. Dunno what the problem is.  

 

If a player is looking around more, he'll have a better picture of the positions of the opponents and his teammates, so he's better informed about where danger or opportunity lies.

 

Data could be misleading without a blink counter.

[Dazzler 10368]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

So in my example, could the remaining cost of the player fall into that years reporting?

 

Caicedo's remaining £50m suddenly dumped as a cost into the 24/25 accounts?

 

That's how it works for most asset sales, so I can't see it being any different tbh. Unless there is some specialist accounting treatment used in football that would differ.

 

Effectively the difference between the net book value and proceeds of the sale is written off to the P&L at the point the sale is finalised - so a player with a NBV of £90m being sold for £40m would lead to a £50m hit in that year's accounts - . Which makes their approach even more stupid when you think about it as it was hinging on immediate success and/or somehow the value of these players (which were already inflated) increasing. They are quite literally going to be stuck with these players until the NBV is at a point it's worth selling for a lower fee which will be years down the line.

 

 

[The Fish 10963]

16 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

That's how it works for most asset sales, so I can't see it being any different tbh. Unless there is some specialist accounting treatment used in football that would differ.

 

Effectively the difference between the net book value and proceeds of the sale is written off to the P&L at the point the sale is finalised - so a player with a NBV of £90m being sold for £40m would lead to a £50m hit in that year's accounts - . Which makes their approach even more stupid when you think about it as it was hinging on immediate success and/or somehow the value of these players (which were already inflated) increasing. They are quite literally going to be stuck with these players until the NBV is at a point it's worth selling for a lower fee which will be years down the line.

 

I think therein lies the rub. Boehly and whoever is advising him haven't given it much thought at all.

 

Caicedo is a good midfielder. But as a responsible owner you should ask yourself and your advisors the following questions;

Did he solve the problem they have?

Was he value for money?

Did his transfer put unnecessary pressure of the PSR/FFP burden? 

 

If the answer to any of those is "no", then you really should take pause. If two are answered "no", then you should take a long fucking pause. If it's three "nos" then you need to go have a fucking lie down.

[aimaad22 4222]

3 hours ago, The Fish said:

So in my example, could the remaining cost of the player fall into that years reporting?

 

Yup. I think Dazzler got it right (except players are intangible assets not physical 🤓) Profit/loss on sale is recognized in that same period. Chelea's predicament is definitely real, and must be why they were flogging about Gallagher about in the summer and might end up selling him even if they dont want to. 

 

I don't know if they can keep extending contracts to spread out amoritization indefinitely, (Let's assume they're ok paying extra wages and sign on fees etc.) If their 'project' continues to falter you'd think the likes of Mudryk, Enzo etc might suddenylfancy a European transfer, that when things will get really interesting. Who knows if Saudi will keep helping them or even if players will want to go there next season.

 

 

[Dr Gloom 22143]

scanning ffs

 

another completely unnecessary new word for something that has always existed in the game. file under low blocks, double pivots, turnovers and transitions. 

[Alex 35571]

50 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

scanning ffs

 

another completely unnecessary new word for something that has always existed in the game. file under low blocks, double pivots, turnovers and transitions. 

I think a lot of stats are useful from an analytical point of view. Without being particularly interesting to the layman in a lot of cases. I don’t even think this falls into that category tbh. It’s fairly subjective as to what a ‘scan’ is and I’m not sure how the fuck you could count it over the course of a match for every player. So comparing players goes out the window to an extent. Then I’m sure most of the top players have a better memory and are just able to process that visual information quicker than your average player. All of which makes just counting how many times someone looks around fucking ludicrous. 

[Howmanheyman 33829]

I wonder what Beardsley's scan would've been? That lad didn't even appear to look around, he could just ping it wherever well in advance.

[Howmanheyman 33829]

Just now, Howmanheyman said:

I wonder what Beardsley's scan would've been? That lad didn't even appear to look around, he could just ping it wherever well in advance.

 

GOAT btw in case anyone is watching.

[Holden McGroin 6783]

5 hours ago, Howmanheyman said:

I wonder what Beardsley's scan would've been? That lad didn't even appear to look around, he could just ping it wherever well in advance.

He permanently scanned but didn’t need to move his head as he is cross-eyed.

[Dr Gloom 22143]

14 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said:

He permanently scanned but didn’t need to move his head as he is cross-eyed.

Housewives’ favourite 

[Toonpack 9927]

If a player blinks mid-scan, does that cancel the scan or does it make it two scans, one each side of the blink? Or are they accounted for as partial scans, if so, how many partial scans do you need to equal a full scan, scan ? 
 

We really need the associated blink stats to make this meaningful unless we can apply a standard factor for expected blinks xB. We would also need a weather variable as bright sun or strong wind would obviously also increase the xB

 

Alternatively, we could (and this is radical) just identify players with vision by watching (scanning) them fucking play over time.

 

 

[RobinRobin 11550]

55 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

If a player blinks mid-scan, does that cancel the scan or does it make it two scans, one each side of the blink? Or are they accounted for as partial scans, if so, how many partial scans do you need to equal a full scan, scan ? 
 

We really need the associated blink stats to make this meaningful unless we can apply a standard factor for expected blinks xB. We would also need a weather variable as bright sun or strong wind would obviously also increase the xB

 

Alternatively, we could (and this is radical) just identify players with vision by watching (scanning) them fucking play over time.

 

 

[spongebob toonpants 4131]

The really elite players utilise the no-look scan

[Toonpack 9927]

1 minute ago, spongebob toonpants said:

The really elite players utilise the no-look scan

Aka a Bocelli