17 Jan 2014 10:06:04
So Anderson has his medical today in Florence will this be the domino Affect we hope for and a midfielder brought in to replace him or is it the return of Fletcher that has brought this on or is Powell or Pearson going to join the first team, I would like us to buy a central mid and see Tom Cleverly sold or loaned and Pearson get on the bench.

1.) 17 Jan 2014
17 Jan 2014 10:23:13
And that's more than 20 mill Loss on this player.
Anderson lad. hope u play well there and they seal a permenant deal.

{Ed002's Note - Another example showing why we don't discuss finances. There is no loss on Anderson.}

2.) 17 Jan 2014
17 Jan 2014 10:59:33
Ed02. sorry. that's a very important info. As there are too many stuppid articles in the paper.
But Hows that a no loss, I mean We bought him for 27 mill, If you could can you explain?

{Ed002's Note - I really don't want to get in to the finances - it really looks like you have no understanding off them at all.}

3.) 17 Jan 2014
Given that the deal is a loan deal I fail to see how we've lost anything. The papers are also conveniently forgetting that we actually paid for Ando in Euros (26m rings a bell). When we signed him the Euro was a lot weaker than it is now.

4.) 17 Jan 2014
@ Attitude, a basic grasp of finances helps . I'ts all about initial fee paid and return on investment . In his time with Utd the league was won 4 times, the CL once although 3 finals were reached, a couple of league cups, a world club cup and a couple of Charity shields . There is prize monwey associated with all these wins and there is the TV money also but as important are the commercial revenues that being champions bring . So when you put all the prize money, tv deal money & commercial revenues gained as a result of success which Anderson played a part in then you can arrive at the conclusion that financially there was no loss . There is a loss in respect that we had hoped he could become a world class player but injuries etc kind of skewed that one .

5.) 17 Jan 2014
I think what the Ed is politely trying to say is that Ando's value has been written down to zero over the course of his contract(s). Any sell on is effectively a profit at this stage. Good luck to the lad, a rare character.

6.) 17 Jan 2014
Its a bit concerning though. we'e having a nightmare season for injuries and we're letting players go without bringing in replacements.

That could come back to bite us.

Or, perhaps we have someone lined up to come in before the window closes?

Either way, Anderson needed to be shipped out, this squad needs a major refresh - out with the old, in with the new.

7.) 17 Jan 2014
As I understand it, there are 2 costs associated with a player. The transfer fee and the wages. The transfer fee is amortized for expense purposes over the contract period. So if a player costs 20m for 4 years then the expense per year in the books will be 5m plus the wages. So if we sell that player after 3 years for 5m then, yes, we will be getting less than we paid for him, but in the year of sale we would recognize no loss because 15m would have already been written off the players value. If we sold him for 10m then our books would show a 5m profit. In other words players are treated the same way for accounting purposes as machinery in a manufacturing plant.

My guess with Anderson is that he has already been pretty much been fully depreciated from an asset point of view, so any sale will yield a profit. Plus we reduce our wage bill by 80k per week, which I believe is what he earned from sitting on the bench.

{Ed002's Note - There are a lot more costs than the transfer fee and the wages both when a player is purchased and then during his time with the club. As a taster, what is paid by the buying club would typically include:
(a) Transfer fee - the big number.
(b) Any levy applied by the local FA – 5% for the EPL.
(c) Tax due on the transfer fee – typically this will be VAT (at varying rates across Europe) some or all of which should be reclaimable.
(d) Agent fees – this may be to one or more agents (as an example, Liverpool have spent £25M plus VAT on agent fees over the past three years).
(e) Tax due on the agent fees – typically this is VAT at the local rate where the agent bills from – it is not reclaimable.
(f) Intermediary fees – this may be to one or more sponging leeches(what do you mean you have a super agent?) .
(g) Tax due on the Intermediary fees – typically this is VAT at the local rate where the Intermediary bills from – it is not reclaimable.
(h) Signing on fee to the player (possibly including non-reclaimable VAT if the player is VAT registered).
(i) Legal fees.
(j) VAT on legal fees which is reclaimable.
(k) Moving/relocation costs for the player.
(l) VAT on moving/relocation costs which is reclaimable.
(m) Paying up insurance costs to the selling club (sometimes waived).

Then of course once he is at the club there are administration fees, allowances for expenses, insurance costs, NI contributions, etc. etc..}

8.) 17 Jan 2014
@Attitude

Ed002 has amortized you. Now go stand in the corner and serve your punishment.

9.) 17 Jan 2014
Attitude, Anderson cost €30m, in June 2007 that equated to around £20m.

10.) 17 Jan 2014
17 Jan 2014 12:37:55
Dougal Marriue.

I have a simple question. you buy a pair of shoes XX pounds. and then use it for 2 years. and then scrap it. what's the situation there?. are you on profit or loss. or neutral?.
Anderson was alos paid wage?. how much was that for all these years?.
But I would certainly like to know How is this not a loss. Which also means most of the UTD players who won some medals with us all would go for a profit?

{Ed002's Note - You need to drop all of this financial stuff. This should have gone far enough know for all to see the reason I don't wish to go in to it.}

11.) 17 Jan 2014
@ attitude . So you are comparing Anderson to a pair of shoes . Anyway it depends on what your budget is for shoes, what you hope to achieve with your shoes and ultimately the use of the shoes . Are they a shoe you propose to use as often as possible like every day . If that is the case and you get 2 full years out of the shoes I would say you have not made a loss . What cost were the shoes? this is important . Profit ould only come into it when you decide your shoe budget and also if you intended on selling the shoes on

12.) 17 Jan 2014
17 Jan 2014 13:19:05
RedFaith

Which was your last post?. I need to have a look.

13.) 17 Jan 2014
Ed002,

I think it is safe to say the last 2 posts are 'point proved'.

14.) 17 Jan 2014
OMG never get in an argument with a girl over shoes. Remember the saying;

Heaven hath no wrath
like love to hatred turned
nor hell a fury
as a woman scorned (deprived of shoes)

15.) 17 Jan 2014
17 Jan 2014 14:24:22
Dougal.

Whats your point Mate. A player bought at 27 mill from a club spend years in the bench and sold to Fiorentina for 5, 4 mill (If they decides to buy him in the summer).
Then Most of our Deadwoods would go at Profit. Ashley young, Nani, since they all were part of the title winning UTD team.
If the Eds, says It not a Loss, then I agree, But your whole point doesn't add up anything.

Ed02, don't wanna bother you in this Question.

16.) 17 Jan 2014
17 jan 2014 14:27:16
titude . so you are comparing anderson to a pair of shoes . anyway it depends on what your budget is for shoes, what you hope to achieve with your shoes and ultimately the use of the shoes . are they a shoe you propose to use as often as possible like every day . if that is the case and you get 2 full years out of the shoes i would say you have not made a loss . what cost were the shoes? this is important . profit ould only come into it when you decide your shoe budget and also if you intended on selling the shoes on

do you honeslty believe a common man would look itno such before buying a shoe??.
i bought a shoe, and i would wear when i wish to (it has nothing to do with the quality, as it should remain same ) the only thing which reduces is his value known as depreciation value if its been used. but its stil my asset.

17.) 17 Jan 2014
@ attitude . The point is total cost of ownwership . How long was Andersons initial contract? This is the important part of this as this determines the period of time that Utd feel that the investment will have broken even, made a profit or made a loss . It's like any business where a contract is involved, the potential for a return . Why do u think the perm deal value is set a £5million ( if the loan is successful ). Do u think Utd will accept a loss? Look at commercial revenues in the period that Anderson has been at the club . The chevrolet deal is worth a reported £357million and a lot of the other deals put in place also gate receipts TV money, merchandising etc more than offset the investment in players, fee's and wages . Also in relation to some of the list Ed02 posted, nearly all the vat mentioned is reclaimable, also some of the services provided are a tax write off .
Also it doesn't matter if he sat on the bench the point is he contributted to the clubs success over a 6.5yr spell a successful squad . Your point re Young, if he was to go now you would need to see a sizeable return on a transfer fee asd he 2 years at Utd so his value has not been offset yet .
If you don't get it now there is no point in me explaining anymore .

18.) 17 Jan 2014
Thanks ed for the pong explanation even though you didn't need to. Ed, aren't there also other variable costs such as appearance, goals, trophy add ons etc? Would these add ons generally be reflected in a transfer fee on paper up front? Or are they variables that tend to be on top of quoted transfer fees? I.e. Quoted transfer fees rarely get completely paid as a player doesn't fulfill all the terms of a contract of sale by the time he transfers again or retires. Obviously understand if you don't feel the need to answer. Would just be interesting to know a bit more. Also don't understand why agents fees are non-reclaim able. I would imagine an agent operating from a tax haven would have an advantage.
What would stop any club from having their main office in Jersey and paying everything through it? I think arsenal used to or still do use this type of set-up from jersey to pay their players. Hence apparently a smaller wage structure but actually tax free.

19.) 17 Jan 2014
17 Jan 2014 18:27:40
Dougal.

@ attitude . The point is total cost of ownwership . How long was Andersons initial contract? This is the important part of this as this determines the period of time that Utd feel that the investment will have broken even, made a profit or made a loss . It's like any business where a contract is involved, the potential for a return . Why do u think the perm deal value is set a £5million ( if the loan is successful ). Do u think Utd will accept a loss? Look at commercial revenues in the period that Anderson has been at the club . The chevrolet deal is worth a reported £357million and a lot of the other deals put in place also gate receipts TV money, merchandising etc more than offset the investment in players, fee's and wages . Also in relation to some of the list Ed02 posted, nearly all the vat mentioned is reclaimable, also some of the services provided are a tax write off .
Also it doesn't matter if he sat on the bench the point is he contributted to the clubs success over a 6.5yr spell a successful squad . Your point re Young, if he was to go now you would need to see a sizeable return on a transfer fee asd he 2 years at Utd so his value has not been offset yet .
If you don't get it now there is no point in me explaining anymore .

Hah. Mate. You are trying to defend your comment.

1. Fiorentina or any club, If willing to buy a player after a successful Loan will have a fee in place, which unfortunately is 5 mill.

2. Can you explain what did he contributed?

3. what about the wages we paid over the 27 mill Transfer fees for all the 6 years.

4, List the Benefit, the club had in keeping Anderson as a player? Both commercially or Financially, Anderson didn't contribute anything.
He was not the best player, nor his shirt was sold at high rates, he has nothing to do with any of the sponsorship deals the club had those times.

5. Finally, Who in case would be a loss to any club, If Anderson is a profit?.

There would some reasons eds claimed to be a no loss status. I am not aware. Nor you have a clue.

20.) 18 Jan 2014
Dougal, I'd stop now, mate :)