Originally Posted by
Geoff Parkstone
I can only think it sort of goes like this:
Lets say a player initially signs for 4 years for £ 4 million and is on 500,000 wages a year.
The annual FFP hit is £ 1.5 million per year.
If he is deemed worthless to us but can be loaned out for 300,000 a year, then his annual FFP cost nets down to £ 1.2 million.
If in the final year of his contract he is extended another year at a lower wage of, say, 250k,per year then:
1) we write off the final tranche of his transfer fee across 2 years not one which = 500k pa
2) so the first year cost is that 500k + 500k wages less 300k loan fee = 700k (instead of 1.2m) FFP hit
3) in the extra year the hit is 500k transfer fee + 250k wages less 300k loan fee = 450k (instead of nil) FFP hit
Thus the overall cost is a little down by extending the contract and the cost is spread over an extra year (albeit that there is the three year rolling effect)
I have no clue if this is what is meant, but mathematically it is possible to extend a contract and reduce FFP hit in this sort of circumstance because you can spread the transfer fee over a longer period, but it only works well if you can offset the extra wages cost with a loan fee coming in