Listening to radio (ithink it was) and they where talking about Liverpool finances. I think they said they had got all the money for the Torres transfer on their books but had only had part of the transfers for carroll on it which meant the books looked better tan they could have? Did i get that right do you think and how can they do that?
Because transfers can be paid in full or installments so someone pays you in full before you pay someone else. Or vice versa.
That simple then. Thats what i thought but surely the Torres deal will have been paid in a similar way or does that go straight on to the books even though its over x amount of time.
I suppose it would depend on Chelsea and if the wanted to pay it in full asap. As for when it would show on the books, I'm not sure - BFC Dave would be the best person to answer that. I suppose it's bit like someone giving you a cheque but it wouldn't show in your account until it has cleared.
I'm not an expert on football accounting but I would expect the full amount of the transfer fee to be recognised at the point of sale (even if paid in instalments) based on standard accounting principles. The only situation I could see this being deferred into another financial period is if there was some contingent element to the fee such as fees per appearances or per goals or per england caps which shouldn't be recognised until 'earned'. Hth
T dog has explained it almost to a T. Yes losing £49m is slightly better than losing about £90m. They really should ignore Liverpool as they have the assets to cover the debts on the playing staff. They should look at boltons. That's an eye opener.
Read somewhere that Botlon are trying to half the there wage budget. I think they said there budget was 25 million.
They owe £100+ million. A large chunk of that is to the owner at 5% interest. The club wanted more funding before relegation as they already had a shortfall in turnover. Can't wait till about January if they struggle mid table.