Nicolas Jackson

[Kudos]

Cant see them doing that, or any clubs in this era really. What with ffp.

See what?

What I'm saying is that they have his contract over 8 years as a FFP fiddle before the loophole was closed.

That means they've got a tonne of expense which hasn't hit their debt column yet. If they want to let him go, I can't see anyone matching the £35M they paid for him or even the £31M amortized "asset value" (for want of a better term) so they would be in loss making territory. If they sold him for £15M they would be £16M in debt in the next set of accounts. It's not -£35M year one, +£15M year two, it's -£4M year one, -£16M year two in accountant world.

As a tangential rant. I don't get how FFP has been such a big argument recently, within FFP an owner can lose £5M with the club picking up the tab and a further £30M of their own money each year. Unless this a vanity project like Man City how many owners are happy to run a business losing £35M a year?

 

[MB1980]

See what?

What I'm saying is that they have his contract over 8 years as a FFP fiddle before the loophole was closed.

That means they've got a tonne of expense which hasn't hit their debt column yet. If they want to let him go, I can't see anyone matching the £35M they paid for him or even the £31M amortized "asset value" (for want of a better term) so they would be in loss making territory. If they sold him for £15M they would be £16M in debt in the next set of accounts. It's not -£35M year one, +£15M year two, it's -£4M year one, -£16M year two in accountant world.

As a tangential rant. I don't get how FFP has been such a big argument recently, within FFP an owner can lose £5M with the club picking up the tab and a further £30M of their own money each year. Unless this a vanity project like Man City how many owners are happy to run a business losing £35M a year?

Thought you meant by by both parties sweating... you meant jackson and Chelsea.

Ffp, regardless of how marginal or otherwise, means still funds being alloted to someone that that could be put to better use elsewhere.

Scatter gun approach aside, before loophole mitigation made it even tougher, they'd still be better off selling at loss and subsidising wages to use elsewhere on other players, than keep a surplus to requirements dead weight.

Otherwise they're falling into sunk cost fallacy.

Lessons they should be learning Is be discerning about who they sign and not vastly overpay... but there'll always be players that underachieve and don't deliver as expected.

But as I say, scatter gun approach tougher now away, due ffp and loopholes closing.