03 Jul 2025 19:50:16
Rumours that Newcastle have bid £55m today for Elanga. Does anyone know how much we will make if the deal goes through? Pretty sure we have a sell on clause. Every little helps in the coffers that's for sure.
03 Jul 2025 20:15:12
Believed to be 20% on net profit, if true would be £8m for us.
03 Jul 2025 21:04:16
Thanks ?.
04 Jul 2025 08:17:57
Hopefully there is some truth in Real Madrid looking at Alvaro as well which could bring in a similar amount of PSR profit.
Improves our position or let's us offset if we can't balance this on the Sancho/ Antony deals.
04 Jul 2025 15:22:11
The absolute ideal would be Mason Greenwood getting a transfer, rumours of him moving for circa £60m.
Now that would be fantastic as we get 50% of net profit, that would be circa £17m, certainly would be good for accounting purposes.
Him and Elanga would be circa £25m so covering £100m spend.
Bish Bosh give us the dosh.
04 Jul 2025 18:54:47
Circa.
05 Jul 2025 07:24:26
Hmm. Hopefully ex-players can help us more in the shorter run than our existing set of guys on ridiculous wages. hope Elanga, Alvaro and Greenwood get solid big money moves! Maybe add £30M or so to our skint budget.
05 Jul 2025 09:09:26
Iwotb. Love your posts generally but that's complete misinformation or ignorance on financial topic.
25m profit does not pay for a 100 m outlay or cover the outlay.
Imgurssing you have no idea so why refer to it . Your just making stuff up and people making stuff up lads to frustration.
05 Jul 2025 13:36:46
Ken, of course it does. If £100m is spent on players approx £25m of that spend will appear in the accounts initially.
I stated that this would be from an accounting standpoint meaning compliance with Profit and Sustainability, so not in terms of absolute spend.
I can assure you I have an understanding of these matters, if you believe something to be incorrect then instead of instantly resorting to abusing try being specific.
05 Jul 2025 16:34:04
Iwotb where in your post did you mention psr and from an accounting perspective. Where did i abuse?
Him and Elanga would be circa £25m so covering £100m spend.
Bish Bosh give us the dosh. That's what you posted. It's simply not true and wildly inaccurate.
Why would 25m of the spend appear in the accounts initially? What will be there to cover the 25m for next year's accounts in that case? 25m does not cover a 100m spend on the books or anywhere else and if you think it does your sadly mistaken.
No abuse just pointing out that that is misinformation. Do you read the clubs accounts? Where will the agents fees taxes etc and associated costs come in iwotb. It simply does not work they way your are stating.
05 Jul 2025 21:06:56
Ken, what are you talking about.
Yes, I do read the accounts.
Your post is clearly a somewhat vainglorious attempt at obfuscation and deflection, what's all this about associated costs, they are dealt with in a normal business manner.
You talk of agent's fees, well as you know these are amortised along with the transfer fee and represent a very small amount of the transaction.
Your sole explanation of why my post is wrong is 'it does not work like that'. First of all it does work that way and secondly how does it work then? You offer no explanation merely stating 'you are making stuff up'.
Now, for the final time, if we credit the accounts with £25m approx from sell on clauses that is net profit. If we purchase players at roughly £100m and then charge the accounts with an amortised sum of approx £25m, from an accounting and regulatory standpoint that is acceptable. This figure could, of course be reduced if you amortise over 5 years
You also ask where does next year's £25m come from, I find that a somewhat surprising question as clearly it comes in exactly the same way all amortised payments do, that is from next year's earnings. As you know this is normal business practice.
Now, clearly what I have said is true and you coming back with 'that's not how it work's' does not constitute a valid rebuttal.
I would hope this to be end of the matter, any continuation could lead to the conclusion, by some, that you are unable to accept reality and argue simply for the sake of it. Surely not!
06 Jul 2025 09:52:48
Its true for next year. Your statement was and one again I'll re post it
Him and Elanga would be circa £25m so covering £100m spend.
It doesn't cover a 100 m spend.
It will cover year 1 or about 20% short if year one when you take into account associated costs inc pay offs. As you say assuming a 4 year amortisation period.
Next year that 25m will need to come from other incomes so the 25 profit will not cover a 100m spend that's just a simple fact.
You worded your post inaccurately that will lead to confusion for many that are not a familiar.
06 Jul 2025 14:12:20
Ken, you are just making things up to confuse people. It does not work like that.