Interview with Mel….

[Geoff Parkstone]

"As politely as possible, go forth but do not, under any circumstances, multiply."

Advice that, sadly, your parents did not take

[MadAmster]

"As politely as possible, go forth but do not, under any circumstances, multiply."

Advice that, sadly, your parents did not take

I take it that your comment is aimed at DCFCArmy and you meant to post "his" rather than "your".

If not, then I would politely request you to remove it.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Oops, yes!

[Trickytreesreds]

,
Xenophobic comment aimed at Holland

[StensonRam]

I've listened to the interview and listened with interest the part where Mel talks about the amortisation of player contracts which I basically understood said if a player is valued at 4m at the begining of a 4 year contract then that player loses 1m every year till both reach zero, thats simple maths, they said that is the default model unless you can find an alternative way, if not then use the default model, Mel argues our model still reaches zero at year 4 but doesn't lose 1m a year, his argument for that was that after 6 months into the 4 years you could probably sell that player for what you paid or maybe more because there is so long left on the contract so rather than losing 500k in 6 months you've made 500k if you sell at the same price, after 2 years rather than the model showing a 2m value our model showed a 3m value because theres still 2 years of the contract left, of course the closer you get to the end of the contract the value has to nose dive and plumet because it has to end at zero @4 years which is right because at 6 months left your effectively going to be giving the player away, our model reduces in an arc while the EFLs reduces at a 45° straight line 4m/4years down to £0/0years

Is this the accounting practice the EFL approved as opposed to their default? He also went on to say that there were accounting specialists on the panel that cleared us on the ammortisation but when the EFL appealed there were no such accounting specialists on the panel and we were found guilty

[Trickytreesreds]

I've listened to the interview and listened with interest the part where Mel talks about the amortisation of player contracts which I basically understood said if a player is valued at 4m at the begining of a 4 year contract then that player loses 1m every year till both reach zero, thats simple maths, they said that is the default model unless you can find an alternative way, if not then use the default model, Mel argues our model still reaches zero at year 4 but doesn't lose 1m a year, his argument for that was that after 6 months into the 4 years you could probably sell that player for what you paid or maybe more because there is so long left on the contract so rather than losing 500k in 6 months you've made 500k if you sell at the same price, after 2 years rather than the model showing a 2m value our model showed a 3m value because theres still 2 years of the contract left, of course the closer you get to the end of the contract the value has to nose dive and plumet because it has to end at zero @4 years which is right because at 6 months left your effectively going to be giving the player away, our model reduces in an arc while the EFLs reduces at a 45° straight line 4m/4years down to £0/0years

Is this the accounting practice the EFL approved as opposed to their default? He also went on to say that there were accounting specialists on the panel that cleared us on the ammortisation but when the EFL appealed there were no such accounting specialists on the panel and we were found guilty

Its never as simple as a linear devaluation.
A 28 year old player, goes down hill in valuation quicker, than a 21 year old, who has probably got better over that contract.
In fact his value may have doubled/trebled/quadrupled whatever.

All I would say where ammortisation is concerned, it would depend who and what cetain players were valued at.
Difficult to prove and ultimately a player is only worth what someone will pay for him.
Grealish for example went through the roof in valuation whilst the flops are too numerous to mention.

[Ramshank72]

I've just gotten around to listening to the whole interview. My thoughts on the key points:

Covid hit us harder than other clubs - Yes I'd agree, bigger fan base means getting hit harder without the premier league funding and such. Still needed to find a way of dealing with it though, the same as everyone (non football businesses) else!

Player values - Just suck it up and do the same as everyone else. If it needs to be changed, then get other clubs on side and canvas for change.

I don't understand the situation around the stadium and who owns / buys it.

[macstheman]

I agree re. Covid and Player values! With regard to PP it's a veritable spiders web, that the heart of the Club has been abused in this way is abhorrent!

[Trickytreesreds]

I agree re. Covid and Player values! With regard to PP it's a veritable spiders web, that the heart of the Club has been abused in this way is abhorrent!

PP, has been abused. But a lot of folks on lots of forums, called MM a genius and had out foxed FFP.

[Andy_Faber]

I've listened to the interview and listened with interest the part where Mel talks about the amortisation of player contracts which I basically understood said if a player is valued at 4m at the begining of a 4 year contract then that player loses 1m every year till both reach zero, thats simple maths, they said that is the default model unless you can find an alternative way, if not then use the default model, Mel argues our model still reaches zero at year 4 but doesn't lose 1m a year, his argument for that was that after 6 months into the 4 years you could probably sell that player for what you paid or maybe more because there is so long left on the contract so rather than losing 500k in 6 months you've made 500k if you sell at the same price, after 2 years rather than the model showing a 2m value our model showed a 3m value because theres still 2 years of the contract left, of course the closer you get to the end of the contract the value has to nose dive and plumet because it has to end at zero @4 years which is right because at 6 months left your effectively going to be giving the player away, our model reduces in an arc while the EFLs reduces at a 45° straight line 4m/4years down to £0/0years

Is this the accounting practice the EFL approved as opposed to their default? He also went on to say that there were accounting specialists on the panel that cleared us on the ammortisation but when the EFL appealed there were no such accounting specialists on the panel and we were found guilty

Theres clearly more to this depreciation mullarkey than we’ve been told. Both straight line and ‘reducing balance’ (curved) approaches are widely used in accounting, but footballers offer a number of excuses for fiddling: using different depreciation in different circumstances, or to suit FFP: revaluing players with insufficient justification. Making contract lengths unrealistically long for older players to reduce the ‘in year’ depreciation - I’ve been poacher and gamekeeper on this stuff for years so know the cheat codes (as gamekeeper only obviously guvnor!) - if you have too then this ramble is for others benefit. One thing the above tweaks might suggest is front-loading player values to beat FFP in an early year and hoping promotion makes future years irrelevant, problem being you can’t keep doing it or you run out of years and it all collapses like a pyramid/Ponzi scheme