Swansea lose 7m despite massive player sales

Swansea lost 7 million reality of relegation

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foo ... k-17708427

Worth noting that those player sales are amortised, meaning the only part that counts in that set of accounts is the part we physically received.

Considering payments are usually spread over a number of years Wales Online aren’t really correct when they state it includes the amounts it does. It counts a fraction of those sales not the full amounts.

I was expecting a far worse figure as we had around a £40m shortfall.

Worth noting that those player sales are amortised, meaning the only part that counts in that set of accounts is the part we physically received.

Considering payments are usually spread over a number of years Wales Online aren’t really correct when they state it includes the amounts it does. It counts a fraction of those sales not the full amounts.

I was expecting a far worse figure as we had around a £40m shortfall.

Still,creditors must be twitchy.

Worth noting that those player sales are amortised, meaning the only part that counts in that set of accounts is the part we physically received.

Considering payments are usually spread over a number of years Wales Online aren’t really correct when they state it includes the amounts it does. It counts a fraction of those sales not the full amounts.

I was expecting a far worse figure as we had around a £40m shortfall.

Still,creditors must be twitchy.

I'd say Not as twitchy as Nantes

Worth noting that those player sales are amortised, meaning the only part that counts in that set of accounts is the part we physically received.

Considering payments are usually spread over a number of years Wales Online aren’t really correct when they state it includes the amounts it does. It counts a fraction of those sales not the full amounts.

I was expecting a far worse figure as we had around a £40m shortfall.

What's the figure of amortisation then?

Swansea lost 7 million reality of relegation

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foo ... k-17708427

sounds peanuts compared to how much our lot lose every year.

Worth noting that those player sales are amortised, meaning the only part that counts in that set of accounts is the part we physically received.

Considering payments are usually spread over a number of years Wales Online aren’t really correct when they state it includes the amounts it does. It counts a fraction of those sales not the full amounts.

I was expecting a far worse figure as we had around a £40m shortfall.

What's the figure of amortisation then?

I wouldn’t know exactly. But a safe guess would be 25% of the total transfer fees would be counted in that set.

That pouts home how little people on this board have a clue about championship clubs finances

£7m losss after selling millions of pounds worth

Granted been down longer than we have but it goes to show the £100m premier money means little when you get relegated as I’ve always said increased wages, increased general costs increased transfers and signing fees and then bang your relevances with inflated wages, 30+ players like we have and people think the parachute payments cover it, they may cover increased costs but they don’t cover another £20/30 m of signings like some strange folk on here want us to do but then the same folk in another breathe want me tan to leave, it’s no secret it was costing him almost £2m a month to keep us afloat I. The championship a few years back now people criticise Cos the club have cut costs or tried to on relegation.

You can’t have your cake and eat it people although that’s exactly what 95% of the muppets on this board want ...

As Snakerz says it shows the reality of relegation.... 7 years in premier league count for nothing financially once relegated.

Its why so many clubs push to the limit to get promoted.

Our fans need to realise this when moaning about no big name signings.

Worth noting that those player sales are amortised, meaning the only part that counts in that set of accounts is the part we physically received.

Considering payments are usually spread over a number of years Wales Online aren’t really correct when they state it includes the amounts it does. It counts a fraction of those sales not the full amounts.

I was expecting a far worse figure as we had around a £40m shortfall.

What's the figure of amortisation then?

You would expect the selling club to negotiate as much up front payment as possible and then any following payments to occur in a relatively short timeframe, say up to 12 months. Of course there are often contingent payments that will go on for a longer period, such as those based on ‘staying up’ or promotion or even international caps etc. I’d be very surprised if at least 60-75% wasn’t recognised on sale. Bigger clubs will more likely pay up quicker than smaller ones.
As you know this revenue doesn’t mean profit as you’d have to offset the book value of the player sold and then recognise a gain or loss.

Of course this is different from the buying club who will amortise the cost of any transfer over the life of the players contract.

Worth noting that those player sales are amortised, meaning the only part that counts in that set of accounts is the part we physically received.

Considering payments are usually spread over a number of years Wales Online aren’t really correct when they state it includes the amounts it does. It counts a fraction of those sales not the full amounts.

I was expecting a far worse figure as we had around a £40m shortfall.

What's the figure of amortisation then?

You would expect the selling club to negotiate as much up front payment as possible and then any following payments to occur in a relatively short timeframe, say up to 12 months. Of course there are often contingent payments that will go on for a longer period, such as those based on ‘staying up’ or promotion or even international caps etc. I’d be very surprised if at least 60-75% wasn’t recognised on sale. Bigger clubs will more likely pay up quicker than smaller ones.
As you know this revenue doesn’t mean profit as you’d have to offset the book value of the player sold and then recognise a gain or loss.

Of course this is different from the buying club who will amortise the cost of any transfer over the life of the players contract.

There is almost no chance we would have received anywhere near that in that financial year.

For example we sold Andre Ayew to West Ham in 2015/16 season.

When we signed him back in 2018 - they still owed us over £8m. Hence we were able to afford to bring him back.

Worth noting that those player sales are amortised, meaning the only part that counts in that set of accounts is the part we physically received.

Considering payments are usually spread over a number of years Wales Online aren’t really correct when they state it includes the amounts it does. It counts a fraction of those sales not the full amounts.

I was expecting a far worse figure as we had around a £40m shortfall.

What's the figure of amortisation then?

You would expect the selling club to negotiate as much up front payment as possible and then any following payments to occur in a relatively short timeframe, say up to 12 months. Of course there are often contingent payments that will go on for a longer period, such as those based on ‘staying up’ or promotion or even international caps etc. I’d be very surprised if at least 60-75% wasn’t recognised on sale. Bigger clubs will more likely pay up quicker than smaller ones.
As you know this revenue doesn’t mean profit as you’d have to offset the book value of the player sold and then recognise a gain or loss.

Of course this is different from the buying club who will amortise the cost of any transfer over the life of the players contract.

According to our accounts we paid upfront mostly on all our signings in the summer we went up

Worth noting that those player sales are amortised, meaning the only part that counts in that set of accounts is the part we physically received.

Considering payments are usually spread over a number of years Wales Online aren’t really correct when they state it includes the amounts it does. It counts a fraction of those sales not the full amounts.

I was expecting a far worse figure as we had around a £40m shortfall.

What's the figure of amortisation then?

I wouldn’t know exactly. But a safe guess would be 25% of the total transfer fees would be counted in that set.

In SCFC accounts for 2018 it states clearly the Jacks sold £46m in player sales that season and the whole lot was used to reduce losses to just over £2m. If what your stating is true then SCFC sold close to £200m worth of players that season

I'm pretty sure this is another example of your total bollocks where you make it up as you go.

Worth noting that those player sales are amortised, meaning the only part that counts in that set of accounts is the part we physically received.

Considering payments are usually spread over a number of years Wales Online aren’t really correct when they state it includes the amounts it does. It counts a fraction of those sales not the full amounts.

I was expecting a far worse figure as we had around a £40m shortfall.

What's the figure of amortisation then?

I wouldn’t know exactly. But a safe guess would be 25% of the total transfer fees would be counted in that set.

In SCFC accounts for 2018 it states clearly the Jacks sold £46m in player sales that season and the whole lot was used to reduce losses to just over £2m. If what your stating is true then SCFC sold close to £200m worth of players that season

I'm pretty sure this is another example of your total bollocks where you make it up as you go.

It doesn’t say anything of the sort, that’s just the latest in a long line of examples where your very basic and limited understanding of things leads you to come to your own (incorrect) conclusions. Player income in 2018 would count for a fraction (your guess is as good as mine) of those fees, and also previous years owed amortisation on past sales.

Again, you need to understand that player sales are amortised you cannot count future payments in annual accounts. While we received SOME of the sales of players in 2018, we obviously didn’t receive all. Companies House has not been updated so I have no idea where you are getting that daft information for. In the kindest possible terms of course.

Worth noting that those player sales are amortised, meaning the only part that counts in that set of accounts is the part we physically received.

Considering payments are usually spread over a number of years Wales Online aren’t really correct when they state it includes the amounts it does. It counts a fraction of those sales not the full amounts.

I was expecting a far worse figure as we had around a £40m shortfall.

Your first paragraph is not true.

The element of the transfer shown in the accounts will be whatever is certain from the deal.

So if it’s £10m over 4 seasons the whole £10m will be shown, with the £2.5 paid showing as cash and the other £7.5m showing as ‘debtors’

So the whole gain on the sale will be shown in the P & L as profit on player sale for that year, provided that gain is certain and not contingent ( eg on goals, appearances, etc)

If there are contingent add-ons then they won’t be in the accounts.

So if you sold a player valued as a net fixed asset in your books at £5m for £15m then it will show you as a £10m profit on sale of asset.

Worth noting that those player sales are amortised, meaning the only part that counts in that set of accounts is the part we physically received.

Considering payments are usually spread over a number of years Wales Online aren’t really correct when they state it includes the amounts it does. It counts a fraction of those sales not the full amounts.

I was expecting a far worse figure as we had around a £40m shortfall.

Your first paragraph is not true.

The element of the transfer shown in the accounts will be whatever is certain from the deal.

So if it’s £10m over 4 seasons the whole £10m will be shown, with the £2.5 paid showing as cash and the other £7.5m showing as ‘debtors’

So the whole gain on the sale will be shown in the P & L as profit on player sale for that year, provided that gain is certain and not contingent ( eg on goals, appearances, etc)

If there are contingent add-ons then they won’t be in the accounts.

So if you sold a player valued as a net fixed asset in your books at £5m for £15m then it will show you as a £10m profit on sale of asset.

That isn’t what was said Lawnmower.

The poster above was referring to receiving all transfer money which “all went to paying debt”. You cannot pay debt with future income and you cannot satisfy debts with future income.

In terms of satisfying debts, you can only do that with what you physically receive in that financial year. It is one thing showing solvency with regards to assets, quite something other by reducing immediate debt with future income in the form of assets.

So as was said, we would only have received a percentage of the reported transfer fees in that accounting year. We may well (in fact, did) have received precious amortised payments on previous years sales which added to the partial income from sales in 2018 contributed to paying the clubs debts.

Worth noting that those player sales are amortised, meaning the only part that counts in that set of accounts is the part we physically received.

Considering payments are usually spread over a number of years Wales Online aren’t really correct when they state it includes the amounts it does. It counts a fraction of those sales not the full amounts.

I was expecting a far worse figure as we had around a £40m shortfall.

Your first paragraph is not true.

The element of the transfer shown in the accounts will be whatever is certain from the deal.

So if it’s £10m over 4 seasons the whole £10m will be shown, with the £2.5 paid showing as cash and the other £7.5m showing as ‘debtors’

So the whole gain on the sale will be shown in the P & L as profit on player sale for that year, provided that gain is certain and not contingent ( eg on goals, appearances, etc)

If there are contingent add-ons then they won’t be in the accounts.

So if you sold a player valued as a net fixed asset in your books at £5m for £15m then it will show you as a £10m profit on sale of asset.

That isn’t what was said Lawnmower.

The poster above was referring to receiving all transfer money which “all went to paying debt”. You cannot pay debt with future income and you cannot satisfy debts with future income.

In terms of satisfying debts, you can only do that with what you physically receive in that financial year. It is one thing showing solvency with regards to assets, quite something other by reducing immediate debt with future income in the form of assets.

So as was said, we would only have received a percentage of the reported transfer fees in that accounting year. We may well (in fact, did) have received precious amortised payments on previous years sales which added to the partial income from sales in 2018 contributed to paying the clubs debts.

The first paragraph on your initial statement is incorrect. I’m not interested in anything else that was said as that was all I was addressing.
Simple as that.. and all explained in my post.

But what do I know .. try reading the PWC guidance on it.

The first paragraph on your initial statement is incorrect. I’m not interested in anything else that was said as that was all I was addressing.
Simple as that.. and all explained in my post.

But what do I know .. try reading the PWC guidance on it.

No it wasn’t, it was entirely correct in the context of what we were discussing. To understand what I said you have to understand what I was replying to otherwise you will continue to be confused. Although I suspect it’s intentional?

He said, the transfers were not amortised and all reported money we sold these players for was received and went to paying the debts. My first paragraph was in relation to that statement in which I said only money received can count towards that.

You have taken that out of context and attributed a different meaning to it, you have attached a meaning to it that I say it cannot be included in the accounts. But that isn’t what I said... because it wasn’t the point I was making

The first paragraph on your initial statement is incorrect. I’m not interested in anything else that was said as that was all I was addressing.
Simple as that.. and all explained in my post.

But what do I know .. try reading the PWC guidance on it.

No it wasn’t, it was entirely correct in the context of what we were discussing. To understand what I said you have to understand what I was replying to otherwise you will continue to be confused. Although I suspect it’s intentional?

He said, the transfers were not amortised and all reported money we sold these players for was received and went to paying the debts. My first paragraph was in relation to that statement in which I said only money received can count towards that.

You have taken that out of context and attributed a different meaning to it, you have attached a meaning to it that I say it cannot be included in the accounts. But that isn’t what I said... because it wasn’t the point I was making

You know me wez, take no prisoners when people enter conversations and attribute their own meaning to statements with a pre agreed context. Happens far too often on this board.

Poster A:- “Dwight Yorke plays for Cardiff”

Poster B:- “No he doesn’t, he’s not in the squad”

Excitable poster:- “You are wrong, he is in the squad. He plays for Trinidad seniors and he is in the squad”

Poster B:- “But that isn’t what we were discussing, it was in relation to Cardiff”

Excitable poster:- “Your comment was wrong, don’t care what the conversation was or what it was referring to”.

Poster B:- “ ok pal”

You know me wez, take no prisoners when people enter conversations and attribute their own meaning to statements with a pre agreed context. Happens far too often on this board.

Poster A:- “Dwight Yorke plays for Cardiff”

Poster B:- “No he doesn’t, he’s not in the squad”

Excitable poster:- “You are wrong, he is in the squad. He plays for Trinidad seniors and he is in the squad”

Poster B:- “But that isn’t what we were discussing, it was in relation to Cardiff”

Excitable poster:- “Your comment was wrong, don’t care what the conversation was or what it was referring to”.

Poster B:- “ ok pal”

weirdo

If you like. Very correct however.

Their just an irrelevance to us anyway. Small fry club that will eventually make their way back down to league one after a couple more seasons of mid table finishes in the championship.

... and yet there is a whole generation of Cardiff fans that only really know Swansea being above Cardiff, sing about us at every match and create threads about us constantly - much of them being fantasy tales to make themselves feel better about it.

While I respect your point - reality suggests you may be fibbing

You are simply wrong.

You can’t admit it I understand that, your ego won’t let you.

But it’s fact.

Accountant rules are rules, even you can’t twist them into being something else .

You can try to wriggle out of it all you want ..

You just aren’t as clever as you think you are.

Nice to see you squirming

You are simply wrong.

You can’t admit it I understand that, your ego won’t let you.

But it’s fact.

Accountant rules are rules, even you can’t twist them into being something else .

You can try to wriggle out of it all you want ..

You just aren’t as clever as you think you are.

Nice to see you squirming

Wrong about what?

Again, the discussion was regarding the reported player sales in 2018 and their total figures. The claim was that this was used in it's entirety to pay off debt. I correctly stated that not all of that can be used on the accounts to offset immediate debt.

You came along, isolated those comments and applied them to your own discussion - a discussion nobody was having.

If you want to get giddy that you are able to take comments about something else and copy and paste them into your own debate in which those comments were not in response to - then you go ahead, it just shows the lengths people go to on here to continue their nonsense.

So as I said, payments were amortised - we only would have received a fraction of the figure reported and only money received in that financial year can be used to offset immediate debt. You can disagree but you would be wrong.

As Snakerz says it shows the reality of relegation.... 7 years in premier league count for nothing financially once relegated.

Its why so many clubs push to the limit to get promoted.

Our fans need to realise this when moaning about no big name signings.

Not really for nothing. It funded us winning a Cup, having a European campaign resulting in getting to the knock out stages, back to back top 10 finishes including a top 8 finish, funded top class players playing for us including a Spanish international, 2 training grounds and an academy.

I can't imagine there is any Swans fan who would swap it for it never happening.

You are simply wrong.

You can’t admit it I understand that, your ego won’t let you.

But it’s fact.

Accountant rules are rules, even you can’t twist them into being something else .

You can try to wriggle out of it all you want ..

You just aren’t as clever as you think you are.

Nice to see you squirming

Wrong about what?

Again, the discussion was regarding the reported player sales in 2018 and their total figures. The claim was that this was used in it's entirety to pay off debt. I correctly stated that not all of that can be used on the accounts to offset immediate debt.

You came along, isolated those comments and applied them to your own discussion - a discussion nobody was having.

If you want to get giddy that you are able to take comments about something else and copy and paste them into your own debate in which those comments were not in response to - then you go ahead, it just shows the lengths people go to on here to continue their nonsense.

So as I said, payments were amortised - we only would have received a fraction of the figure reported and only money received in that financial year can be used to offset immediate debt. You can disagree but you would be wrong.

So given you didn’t mean to mislead , do you agree ? The quote from WOL is totally correct.

You lost £7m despite £45m of player sales as those FULL amounts will be accounted for in the P and L and the only entries to the P&L from player sales in future years will be if add-ons come to fruition

So given you didn’t mean to mislead , do you agree ? The quote from WOL is totally correct.

You lost £7m despite £45m of player sales as those FULL amounts will be accounted for in the P and L and the only entries to the P&L from player sales in future years will be if add-ons come to fruition

No idea, I have not seen the accounts yet (nor have you). It isn't my point so it's an irrelevant question.

My point is that immediate debts will not have been offset in those set of accounts as we only would have received a fraction of those sales due to amortisation. A company cannot satisfy debts with future income.

If you wish to have your own debate then feel free but not sure why you are wanting to rope me into it.

You are simply wrong.

You can’t admit it I understand that, your ego won’t let you.

But it’s fact.

Accountant rules are rules, even you can’t twist them into being something else .

You can try to wriggle out of it all you want ..

You just aren’t as clever as you think you are.

Nice to see you squirming

Wrong about what?

Again, the discussion was regarding the reported player sales in 2018 and their total figures. The claim was that this was used in it's entirety to pay off debt. I correctly stated that not all of that can be used on the accounts to offset immediate debt.

You came along, isolated those comments and applied them to your own discussion - a discussion nobody was having.

If you want to get giddy that you are able to take comments about something else and copy and paste them into your own debate in which those comments were not in response to - then you go ahead, it just shows the lengths people go to on here to continue their nonsense.

So as I said, payments were amortised - we only would have received a fraction of the figure reported and only money received in that financial year can be used to offset immediate debt. You can disagree but you would be wrong.

So given you didn’t mean to mislead , do you agree ? The quote from WOL is totally correct.

You lost £7m despite £45m of player sales as those FULL amounts will be accounted for in the P and L and the only entries to the P&L from player sales in future years will be if add-ons come to fruition

Looks like the same old passage, same outcome, he’s wrong as usual.