Excuse me? You have no idea what I was talking about it seems.
For the purposes of accounting and therefore the effect FFP, players are treated as assets. Whether the club pay for the player in 1 lump sum or spread the payments over 100 years, the fee is still recorded on the accounts over the life of the players contract.
When you buy an asset you've not flushed that money (whether actual cash or credit) down the toilet, you've bought something that has a value therefore it's not recorded as an expense. It's the decrease in value of that asset year on year which is recorded as an expense and in the case of football transfers, when a players contract finishes they're worth nothing as they can leave on a free.
It's not quite as simple as I said in my post last night. When a player extends his contract the process begins again. For example if you sign a player for £50m on a 5 year contract, after 3 years his value on the books is now just £20m (£10m per season x 3). If he then signs a new 5 year contract, that remaining £20m gets spread over his new 5 year deal so the cost on the accounts decreases from £10m per year to £4m. Also, in theory although doesn't happen often, a club can revalue players and write them down further in any given year. For example, £50m player on a 5 year deal is worth £40m one year later but the club decide he's only worth £30m now so they'd record a £10m impairment charge on top of the £10m amotisation.
Lets be honest you bring up this 'rivalry' more than any of the fans on either side
Maybe on here but I'm only poking fun. And who mentioned a rivalry? We alwasy beat you
We'll only know for sure when Utd's accounts are revealed.
