Premier League Squad Cap and Home Grown Player Quota

No, Shakhtar rejected the offer to loan him to us for a year...we had to buy him outright




(don't know how it was funded, though there's a possibility that you're right because his signing came after all the "no debt has been used to sign players this summer" statements had died down post-Ibrahimovic...still, find me some sources )

kas wrote:

Net profit is the difference between revenue and expenditure. Expenditure includes money spent on transfers.

Barça made a profit for the past few years, so this implies that their total revenue was in excess of all their expenditure, including transfers. This year the profit was 8m euros...I don't remember past figures.

This summer's spending was around 70m euros (plus the bonuses of 40m) so next year it's possible that the club makes a loss. And there was a story that the club has extended their line of credit (but I'm not sure if they just extended it in case it's needed for future use, or actually used it already) although the directors claim that no debt was used to buy players this summer. Guess we'll only find out when the accounts are published next year.

Hope that explains it

I'm familiar with the 'we didn't borrow one Euro to buy players' statements.

They are as true as the Glazers saying that the debt wouldn't be put on the club.

You are borrowing money to buy players, it really is that simple.

Stimulus Package wrote:

kas wrote:

Net profit is the difference between revenue and expenditure. Expenditure includes money spent on transfers.

Barça made a profit for the past few years, so this implies that their total revenue was in excess of all their expenditure, including transfers. This year the profit was 8m euros...I don't remember past figures.

This summer's spending was around 70m euros (plus the bonuses of 40m) so next year it's possible that the club makes a loss. And there was a story that the club has extended their line of credit (but I'm not sure if they just extended it in case it's needed for future use, or actually used it already) although the directors claim that no debt was used to buy players this summer. Guess we'll only find out when the accounts are published next year.

Hope that explains it

I'm familiar with the 'we didn't borrow one Euro to buy players' statements.

They are as true as the Glazers saying that the debt wouldn't be put on the club.

You are borrowing money to buy players, it really is that simple.

Ok thanks for the clarification. I'll send out a notice that accounting textbooks should be updated: there really is no relation between net profit and total expenditure.

Well done Kas, you've pretended I said something I didn't so you can avoid the issue that your club is no different to those you patronisingly hold in contempt.

Ok, let's tackle "the issue".

Show me proof that Barça has borrowed money specifically to buy players. You may collaborate with Jaime if you wish

all of the Barcelona players came through their academy because it's a great shortcut to the car park

I'm on the case.

kas wrote:Ok, let's tackle "the issue".

Show me proof that Barça has borrowed money specifically to buy players. You may collaborate with Jaime if you wish

If you'd been paying attention then you'd have noticed I've already given you proof.

G for Glenndetta wrote:all of the Barcelona players came through their academy because it's a great shortcut to the car park

Stimulus Package wrote:

kas wrote:Ok, let's tackle "the issue".

Show me proof that Barça has borrowed money specifically to buy players. You may collaborate with Jaime if you wish

If you'd been paying attention then you'd have noticed I've already given you proof.

Where?

Please don't tell me it's the bit where you say that if expenditure is greater than net profit it means debt has been used

I already explained that the definition of net profit is revenue less expenditure. ie. this expenditure has already been taken into account.

You'd be wrong.

kas wrote:

Net profit is the difference between revenue and expenditure. Expenditure includes money spent on transfers.

Barça made a profit for the past few years, so this implies that their total revenue was in excess of all their expenditure, including transfers. This year the profit was 8m euros...I don't remember past figures.

This summer's spending was around 70m euros (plus the bonuses of 40m) so next year it's possible that the club makes a loss. And there was a story that the club has extended their line of credit (but I'm not sure if they just extended it in case it's needed for future use, or actually used it already) although the directors claim that no debt was used to buy players this summer. Guess we'll only find out when the accounts are published next year.

Hope that explains it

This is wrong Kas

I'm pretty sure spending on footballers never actually hits profit/loss so Saints is right in what he is saying. It is all on the balance sheet. I could bore you with more details if you want.

I thought Barca were known to be in deep debt anyway

Officially Barca have reduced their debt, but that is largely done by massively overvaluing players.

@Saints: Fair enough, I trust COTR on this since he's the board's resident accountant. I wasn't wrong about the concept of net profit, just about how football clubs apparently treat expenditure on players.
Though it would be nice if you bothered to explain your own statements instead of waiting for others...a good starting point would be how Barça reduced their debt by overvaluing players?


@COTR: You can go into detail, I have a decent knowledge of accounting so you won't bore me. But although I've read about clubs treating footballers as assets and amortising their value over the life of their contracts, I'm still surprised that transfer spending isn't considered in profit/loss...is it treated as capital expenditure then?

Barça do have anywhere between 40m to 200m euros of debt, depending what reports you believe.

kas wrote:@Saints: Fair enough, I trust COTR on this since he's the board's resident accountant. I wasn't wrong about the concept of net profit, just about how football clubs apparently treat expenditure on players.

Yes, you were wrong about the concept of net profit.

Though it would be nice if you bothered to explain your own statements instead of waiting for others...a good starting point would be how Barça reduced their debt by overvaluing players?

I already explained to you that if Barca spent more than their net profit on players then they must have borrowed money to do so.

I'm just repeating myself here because your sore pride won't allow you to admit that you were wrong and I was right.

I already said I was wrong, but you're not answering my questions.

Kimbo can organise the victory celebration party

kas wrote:I already said I was wrong, but you're not answering my questions.

You still think transfer fees are factored in when calculating net profit.

You are wrong about that and always were wrong about that, and still haven't said you were.

You still claim I haven't explained how Barca are no different to Chelsea or Man City or whoever in borrowing money to buy players, when I explained that 2 pages ago.

Can you see why I can't really be arsed explaining to you how clubs reduce debt by overvaluing playing assets in an ever-growing transfer market?

Are we speaking different languages here?

This is where I said I was wrong about how football clubs treat transfer spending, which implies that I was wrong about transfer fees being included in net profit calculations:

I wasn't wrong about the concept of net profit, just about how football clubs apparently treat expenditure on players.

Doesn't change the fact that in general accounting terms, net profit = revenue - expenditure. Which is why I said I'm not wrong about the "concept of net profit". Just net profit for football clubs.

Next time I'll spell out everything I say

If you can be arsed to explain the debt/player valuation point, go for it, I'm curious to know. But you won't be getting any further replies from me on this topic, what a fucking waste of time over a minor issue.

The 'minor issue' of you pretending Barca are whiter than white and don't borrow money to buy players like the rest of the footballing elite?

If you think lying about your club to make out it is somehow better than the rest is a minor issue then you might as well join the Arsenal supporters who you've mimicked superbly on this thread.

kas wrote:

@COTR: You can go into detail, I have a decent knowledge of accounting so you won't bore me. But although I've read about clubs treating footballers as assets and amortising their value over the life of their contracts, I'm still surprised that transfer spending isn't considered in profit/loss...is it treated as capital expenditure then?

Barça do have anywhere between 40m to 200m euros of debt, depending what reports you believe.

Think of it this way Kas. Man City have spent £200 billion this summer on players. Say for example they then sell the players for £200 billion next year. It would be pointless recognising a loss of £200 billion for this year and a profit of £200 billion next year when the players are sold. So you just capitalise them and when the player is sold if they are sold for more than they were bought for the difference is profit in the year they are sold and the capitalised amount is taken off the balance sheet. Expect to see a dramatic improvement in United's profit figure to reflect the profit on Ronaldo. Obviously a club like Chelsea will have had to recognise a massive loss over players like Sheva and Veron so if you do spend foolishly it does make its way to profit and loss eventually.

Saints is thinking of debt in terms of gearing rather than actual levels. If you revalue Messi to £100m and your debt stays the same then your overall debt level is reduced in terms of the gearing levels which banks will look at and you are able to borrow more against messi's artificial value. Debt isn't in any way negative as long as what you are using it for retains it's value.

Thanks, all that makes sense