Robin Koch- Signs pre contract with Eintracht Frankfurt

[SG90]

Am I right in thinking that since he joined in 2020 the loss will not have a ffp implication?

Yup. Same with Rodrigo showing as a £3m profit, rather than a £24m loss lol.

[The Subhuman]

Am I right in thinking that since he joined in 2020 the loss will not have a ffp implication?

He'll be out of contract so shouldn't do....

[Cjay]

Am I right in thinking that since he joined in 2020 the loss will not have a ffp implication?

Explain that to me like I'm 3 please

Because FFP baffles me

A £13mil player leaving for 0 is a loss surely?

If we pay put his fee over his contract then we still owe £3.25mil for the final installment this year? So thats a loss as well isn't it?

[Cjay]

Yup. Same with Rodrigo showing as a £3m profit, rather than a £24m loss lol.

But that £3mil can't be a profit when we still owe the final installment of his fee which is twice that?

I hate ffp

[The Subhuman]

Explain that to me like I'm 3 please

Because FFP baffles me

A £13mil player leaving for 0 is a loss surely?

If we pay put his fee over his contract then we still owe £3.25mil for the final installment this year? So thats a loss as well isn't it?

He's out of contract.... we bought him he played out his contract. Once he's out of contract he's not worth 13M... he's worth exactly nothing so it should be the nothing that goes against FFP. Also FFP is over 3 years and we'll have had him 4

[Cjay]

He's out of contract.... we bought him he played out his contract. Once he's out of contract he's not worth 13M... he's worth exactly nothing so it should be the nothing that goes against FFP. Also FFP is over 3 years and we'll have had him 4

But we still owe the final installment on his contract for the 23/24 season so this season which is £3.25million.

We received nothing for him so when we pay that then that is a loss?

I don't understand how an asset leaving for nothing can ever be anything but a loss?

Same with Rodrigo.

We got £3million his final installment this year to Valencia is £6.75mil so when we pay that its still £3.75mil gone and not received?

I fail to see how this is some genius FFP trick because if it was every other club would do it but evidently literally nobody does.

[danhirons]

He's out of contract.... we bought him he played out his contract. Once he's out of contract he's not worth 13M... he's worth exactly nothing so it should be the nothing that goes against FFP. Also FFP is over 3 years and we'll have had him 4

the 13 mill will be amortized over the length of the contract i.e., 13 million divided by 4 on the FFP balance sheet each year for four years. So he will count as a 13/4 loss on the balance sheet this year (minus any loan fee we received).

[danhirons]

But we still owe the final installment on his contract for the 23/24 season so this season which is £3.25million.

We received nothing for him so when we pay that then that is a loss?

I don't understand how an asset leaving for nothing can ever be anything but a loss?

Same with Rodrigo.

We got £3million his final installment this year to Valencia is £6.75mil so when we pay that its still £3.75mil gone and not received?

I fail to see how this is some genius FFP trick because if it was every other club would do it but evidently literally nobody does.

you're right it's not a FFP trick, the loans were just put in place for the players benefit/as an exchange. In exchange for them having a wage drop clause if we were relegated, we inserted a loan release clause - but they've turned out to be a bit of a disaster

[JoeDenver]

Like everyone else he had the clauses written into his contract when he initially signed. I suspect we may have tried to extend his contract during the Jesse season like we did with Llorente but he was not stupid enough to sign.
He played his cards very well, he will get a significant signing on fee as his club get him for free.

People talking about nominal fees need to read up on football contracts.

Thanks for the dig, DDB! Noted!

[SG90]

But that £3mil can't be a profit when we still owe the final installment of his fee which is twice that?

I hate ffp

Not sure. I thought it only worked on 3 year rolling basis, so that'd meant since 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 all count. But since we were relegated we get a bit of leeway.

So any players bought before then ie Mes, Struijk, Cooper, Ayling, Llorente, would only show as a profit and not a profit on what we spent.

So basically, it explains why teams are desperate to sell academy players, like Chelsea with Gallagher, as it only shows as a profit.

[weasel]

Explain that to me like I'm 3 please

Because FFP baffles me

A £13mil player leaving for 0 is a loss surely?

If we pay put his fee over his contract then we still owe £3.25mil for the final installment this year? So thats a loss as well isn't it?

Let's say Leeds bought Koch for £10m on a 4 year contract.

As such every year his FFP value goes down by 1/4 until his 4 year contracts ends and his FFP value is £0.

If we sold him after a year then we'd have had to sell him for £7.5m to break even against FFP, sell him for more than £7.5m and we have more cash to spend sell him for less than £7.5m and we have less to spend.

If we sold him after 2 years then the break even figure for FFP is £5m

If we'd have sold him last year then it would have been £2.5m and as such if he goes in the summer for nowt (or presumably now) we have broken even with FFP.


Now where the loan contracts helped us out in the summer was that if for example we paid £25m for Aaronsen in the summer of 2022 on a 5 year deal then we'd have had to sell him for £20m in the summer of 2023. If we'd have sold him for £10m then instead of us havign £10m to spend we would have actually put ourselves £10m down against FFP. Sell Kristensen, Roca etc all at a big loss and for all we would have sya raised £50m we could have been in a situation where we were screwed because we might have sold at such a loss that we'd gone below the FFP threshold. We then have to sell a homegrown player, such as Archie Gray, as he resembles an FFP profit as we didn't pay for him.

This is why Chelsea, Man CIty etc have sold homegrown talents because the amoutn coming in is deducted in whole against FFP.

All really favours the big clubs.

[Cjay]

Let's say Leeds bought Koch for £10m on a 4 year contract.

As such every year his FFP value goes down by 1/4 until his 4 year contracts ends and his FFP value is £0.

If we sold him after a year then we'd have had to sell him for £7.5m to break even against FFP, sell him for more than £7.5m andwe have more cash to spend sell him for less than £7.5mand we have less to spend.

If we sold him after 2 years then the break even figure for FFP is £5m

If we'd have sold him last year then it would have been £2.5m and as such if he goes in the summer for nowt (or presumably now) we have broken even with FFP.

Now where the loan contracts helped us out in the summer of 2022 was that if for example we paid £25m for Aaronsen on a 5 year deal then we'd have had to sell him for £20m in the summer of 2023. If we'd have sold him for £10m then instead of us havign £10m to spend we would have actually put ourselves £10m down against FFP. Sell Kristensen, Roca etc all at a big loss and for all we would have sya raised £50m we could have been in a situation where we were screwed because we might have sold at such a loss that we'd gone below the FFP threshold. We then have to sell a homegrown player, such as Archie Gray, as he resembles an FFP profit as we didn't pay for him.

This is why Chelsea, Man CIty etc have sold homegrown talents because the amoutn coming in is deducted in whole against FFP.

All really favours the big clubs.

I get that so.

We signed Koch for £13mil on a 4 year deal.

So his fee is paid over that contract at £3.25mil a year.

So every year we pay out £3.25mil and his value decreases by the same amount.

So this summer we'd have had to sell for atleast £3.25mil to break even as that covers the cost of his last payment (we've still lost £3.25mil every year for 3 years on him and wages).

But he goes for nothing so I don't see how this is a good thing in any way?

We've paid out for him every year including this year and receive nothing back.

So from a ffp perspective its a loss? His value isn't officially 0 until he has left us.

Even with 1 week on his contract he has some value?

It still seems people are looking for a silver lining when in fact the club were forced to do this because they were insisting on above average wage reduction?

These loan clauses can't be some smart ffp loophole or they'd be common but we know they aren't.

So I get if you sell in the summer for £500,000 we make a loss on this year because we still over £3.25mil.

Over the last 3 years cycle on ffp terms we've paid out £9.75mil just in fees on Koch and received nothing so it has to be a loss anyway you look at it surely?

[weasel]

I get that so.

We signed Koch for £13mil on a 4 year deal.

So his fee is paid over that contract at £3.25mil a year.

So every year we pay out £3.25mil and his value decreases by the same amount.

So this summer we'd have had to sell for atleast £3.25mil to break even as that covers the cost of his last payment (we've still lost £3.25mil every year for 3 years on him and wages).

But he goes for nothing so I don't see how this is a good thing in any way?

We've paid out for him every year including this year and receive nothing back.

So from a ffp perspective its a loss? His value isn't officially 0 until he has left us.

Even with 1 week on his contract he has some value?

It still seems people are looking for a silver lining when in fact the club were forced to do this because they were insisting on above average wage reduction?

These loan clauses can't be some smart ffp loophole or they'd be common but we know they aren't.

So I get if you sell in the summer for £500,000 we make a loss on this year because we still over £3.25mil.

Over the last 3 years cycle on ffp terms we've paid out £9.75mil just in fees on Koch and received nothing so it has to be a loss anyway you look at it surely?

Yeah FFP is totally different to balancing the books. Like I say we could have sold a load of players and say brought in £100m but could have found ourselves with £100m in the bank but £50m down against the FFP balance and having to sell.

[weasel]

When Chelsea bought a load of players they gave them all 8 year contracts. So even if say they spent £1bn on players but put them all on 8 year contracts then that equates to £125m per year ffp wise. They then sell Mount for £60m and it means that they are just £65m down for the year FFPwise despite having spent £1bn. Similar with Man CIty selling Cole Palmer and the various youth players thay sell.

[Cjay]

Yeah FFP is totally different to balancing the books. Like I say we could have sold a load of players and say brought in £100m but could have found ourselves with £100m in the bank but £50m down against the FFP balance and having to sell.

I understand I think.

So if we sold Gray because he's an academy player we make pure profit.

But with signings you have to sell for whatever you have left to pay to make a balance sheet work for ffp.

But with Koch it's pure loss anyway you look at it?

Same as if we sold Aaronson for 15mil this summer just gone we still owe £20mil overall left on his 4 year contract so it's £5mil loss.

Rodrigo we sold for £3mil but owed £6mil on his final year of his contract so its a loss?

[danhirons]

Let's say Leeds bought Koch for £10m on a 4 year contract.

As such every year his FFP value goes down by 1/4 until his 4 year contracts ends and his FFP value is £0.

If we sold him after a year then we'd have had to sell him for £7.5m to break even against FFP, sell him for more than £7.5m and we have more cash to spend sell him for less than £7.5m and we have less to spend.

If we sold him after 2 years then the break even figure for FFP is £5m

If we'd have sold him last year then it would have been £2.5m and as such if he goes in the summer for nowt (or presumably now) we have broken even with FFP.


Now where the loan contracts helped us out in the summer was that if for example we paid £25m for Aaronsen in the summer of 2022 on a 5 year deal then we'd have had to sell him for £20m in the summer of 2023. If we'd have sold him for £10m then instead of us havign £10m to spend we would have actually put ourselves £10m down against FFP. Sell Kristensen, Roca etc all at a big loss and for all we would have sya raised £50m we could have been in a situation where we were screwed because we might have sold at such a loss that we'd gone below the FFP threshold. We then have to sell a homegrown player, such as Archie Gray, as he resembles an FFP profit as we didn't pay for him.

This is why Chelsea, Man CIty etc have sold homegrown talents because the amoutn coming in is deducted in whole against FFP.

All really favours the big clubs.

so is the initial transfer fee just counted in the ffp year in which we sign a player rather than split over the years of the player's contract?

surely for this financial year Koch is a -13/4 million quid on the balance sheet (quarter of his initial transfer fee, plus zero since we obtained nothing by way of transfer fee)

otherwise where does the 13 mill quid we spent on koch go on a balance sheet/for accounting purposes

[weasel]

I understand I think.

So if we sold Gray because he's an academy player we make pure profit.

But with signings you have to sell for whatever you have left to pay to make a balance sheet work for ffp.

But with Koch it's pure loss anyway you look at it?

Same as if we sold Aaronson for 15mil this summer just gone we still owe £20mil overall left on his 4 year contract so it's £5mil loss.

Rodrigo we sold for £3mil but owed £6mil on his final year of his contract so its a loss?

Koch is no loss at all FFP as he has no value with his contract having run out. If we'd have sold him for £5m last summer we would have been up FFP wise as we would have made £5m against his FFP value (£13m/4 so £3.25m). So by selling Koch it would have been a £1.75m FFP profit despite t being a £9.75m loss in terms of what we paid for him.

Most of our players were so shite last year that we'd have made FFP losses if we'd have sold them even though we'd have generally only have had to get 3/4s of the fee we paid back for them - if they were on a 4 year contracts. As such we in theory stand a better chance this summer as we only have to sell that at 1/2 the fee we paid for them to break even against FFP. So by keeping them for a year and possibly selling them for les than we might have got selling them last summer we will probably do much better against FFP (Rasmus Kristiansen for example if he cost us £10m to buy and signed a 4 year contract - if we sold him for £6m last summer we'd have been £1.5m down against FFP but if we sell him for £5m next summer we break even against FFP despite the fact we could have sold him for more last summer - so we do better FFP but worse in actually making money).

That is why Chelsea's crazy spending makes sense. Even if a few players do shite if a couple of them go up in value then Chelsea make a lot against FFP. So say a player they spent £50m on and gave an 8 year contract to does well and they sell him in 4 years time for the same £50m then they have made £25m FFP wise as the player's FFP value after 4 years would be £25m. Even if the player does sh*t then they could sell that £50m player for £25m after 4 years and have broke even against FFP.

So basically all FFP means is that rich clubs can spends absolute fortunes and it doesn't actually matter how many millions or billions they are down in terms of actual profit/loss.

[Kennyb41]

Koch is no loss at all FFP as he has no value with his contract having run out. If we'd have sold him for £5m last summer we would have been up FFP wise as we would have made £5m against his FFP value (£13m/4 so £3.25m). So by selling Koch it would have been a £1.75m FFP profit despite t being a £9.75m loss in terms of what we paid for him.

Most of our players were so shite last year that we'd have made FFP losses if we'd have sold them even though we'd have generally only have had to get 3/4s of the fee we paid back for them - if they were on a 4 year contracts. As such we in theory stand a better chance this summer as we only have to sell that at 1/2 the fee we paid for them to break even against FFP. So by keeping them for a year and possibly selling them for les than we might have got selling them last summer we will probably do much better against FFP (Rasmus Kristiansen for example if he cost us £10m to buy and signed a 4 year contract - if we sold him for £6m last summer we'd have been £1.5m down against FFP but if we sell him for £5m next summer we break even against FFP despite the fact we could have sold him for more last summer - so we do better FFP but worse in actually making money).

That is why Chelsea's crazy spending makes sense. Even if a few players do shite if a couple of them go up in value then Chelsea make a lot against FFP. So say a player they spent £50m on and gave an 8 year contract to does well and they sell him in 4 years time for the same £50m then they have made £25m FFP wise as the player's FFP value after 4 years would be £25m. Even if the player does sh*t then they could sell that £50m player for £25m after 4 years and have broke even against FFP.

So basically all FFP means is that rich clubs can spends absolute fortunes and it doesn't actually matter how many millions or billions they are down in terms of actual profit/loss.

So having read what you've wrote, it's another good reason to send all the so called rats away for a year and let someone else pay them especially as we're in the Championship, 1 year on and it's another 25% off their ffp based on a 4 year contract

[Carrick Dave]

My thinking was that irrespective of whether we pay outright for a player or pay in instalments, the value is amortised over 5 years for accounting purposes.

But I don't know if that relates directly to FFP - outgoings and incomings are looked at over a 3 year rolling period afaik, so I assumed that since Koch was signed 4 years ago his zero value to us today would leave us out of pocket at the bank but no worse off in terms of wriggle room for FFP.

I really wish I hadn't asked now.

[Cjay]

Koch is no loss at all FFP as he has no value with his contract having run out. If we'd have sold him for £5m last summer we would have been up FFP wise as we would have made £5m against his FFP value (£13m/4 so £3.25m). So by selling Koch it would have been a £1.75m FFP profit despite t being a £9.75m loss in terms of what we paid for him.

Most of our players were so shite last year that we'd have made FFP losses if we'd have sold them even though we'd have generally only have had to get 3/4s of the fee we paid back for them - if they were on a 4 year contracts. As such we in theory stand a better chance this summer as we only have to sell that at 1/2 the fee we paid for them to break even against FFP. So by keeping them for a year and possibly selling them for les than we might have got selling them last summer we will probably do much better against FFP (Rasmus Kristiansen for example if he cost us £10m to buy and signed a 4 year contract - if we sold him for £6m last summer we'd have been £1.5m down against FFP but if we sell him for £5m next summer we break even against FFP despite the fact we could have sold him for more last summer - so we do better FFP but worse in actually making money).

That is why Chelsea's crazy spending makes sense. Even if a few players do shite if a couple of them go up in value then Chelsea make a lot against FFP. So say a player they spent £50m on and gave an 8 year contract to does well and they sell him in 4 years time for the same £50m then they have made £25m FFP wise as the player's FFP value after 4 years would be £25m. Even if the player does sh*t then they could sell that £50m player for £25m after 4 years and have broke even against FFP.

So basically all FFP means is that rich clubs can spends absolute fortunes and it doesn't actually matter how many millions or billions they are down in terms of actual profit/loss.

Yeah this goes totally above my head but thanks for trying

I don't understand how a player in the 3 year rolling cycle of ffp we have spent £9.75mil on and will receive 0 for can be anything but a ffp loss.

It makes no sense to me.