The Ultimate Football Thread 2013-2014 Vol. 4 EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A etc

[Kimchi Papi]

After weeks of rumors flying around Marseille finally hire Bielsa.

http://www.goal.com/en/news/90/fran...ille-announce-bielsa-appointment?ICID=HP_BN_1

 

[Gex the Damaja]

New espn WC ad. Ending is funny...

Surprise Surprise , Young had the worst attempt out the whole video.

 

[eiddyfouw]

Interesting read on Costa deal..

Diego Costa to Chelsea? Why this transfer rumour adds up
By Jake Cohen  @JakeFCohen on May 2 2014, 11:00a

http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2014/5/2/5673300/diego-costa-chelsea-transfer-finances-ffp

Now that the days of unlimited spending are over, and knowing that Chelsea is now on a (very large) budget due to UEFA's financial fair play regulations, it's worth taking a look at transfer rumours through a fiscal lens.

In some cases, a player may be a good fit for the club tactically speaking, but it may not make a lot of financial sense for Chelsea to buy that player or for the player's club to sell that player.

Given that the Diego Costa rumours are heating up, it's worth taking a look at what the twenty-five year old striker will cost Chelsea on the FFP books.

Fortunately, a look at the numbers show that Diego Costa seems to be a very good fit for Chelsea not only on the pitch, but also on the balance sheet.

Let's assume that Chelsea will pay Atletico Madrid the reported £32m for Diego Costa's services.

Let's also assume that the transaction takes the form of a transfer fee and not a buy-out clause being triggered. This is an important distinction, as buy-outs are technically paid by the want-away player to his club, whereas transfer fees are paid by the purchasing club to the selling club. Of course, in reality, buyouts are paid by the purchasing club as well, but the purchasing club has to give the money to the player first. In Spain, this type of transaction can be subject to exorbitant tax rates, and can drive the price up by as much as 40%.

Of course, the tax can be avoided if clubs agree on a transfer fee, rather than the purchasing club being forced to trigger the buy-out clause.

As Graham Hunter explains, "behind the scenes, the buying club will say, 'OK, we'll give you 99.9999 percent of the buyout clause, but if we make it a purchase rather than an actual buyout then we won't have to pay extra tax on the whole move, and we'll do the same for you one day or we'll look well on your next move for one of our fringe players.'"

Given that Chelsea and Atletico Madrid already have a good working relationship stemming from the Thibaut Courtois loans, I expect that the tax issues will be avoided and the clubs will agree on a transfer fee (for more on the nuances of buy-out and release clauses, see Ian Lynam's piece in The Guardian and Daniel Geey's piece on his website).

For the purposes of FFP accounting, when a player is purchased, the transfer fee is amortised over the life of the contract. Amortisation is the process by which an expenditure is paid off over time, and the transfer fee will be spread out evenly over the assumed five-year deal.

Costa's £32m transfer fee, then, is amortised to £6.4m annually (£32m divided by the five years on Costa's new Chelsea contract).

Matt Law at The Telegraph reported a few weeks back that Chelsea would offer Costa £185k per week. This works out to about £9.6m annually.

The total FFP cost for Costa's services, therefore, would be £16m annually (£9.6m wages plus the £6.4m amortised transfer fee).

Chelsea can easily absorb the £16m annual FFP cost into its 2014-15 books and beyond.

Starting this year, Chelsea's annual revenue will increase by around £35m simply by virtue of the new adidas deal (rising from £20m to £30m annually) and the new Premier League broadcasting deal (which will provide each club with, on average, around £25m more per year than the previous deal).

In addition, John Terry (£9.1m), Samuel Eto'o (£7m), Frank Lampard (£6.5m), Ashley Cole (£6.5m), and Michael Essien (£5.4m) are all scheduled to come off the books at the end of the season. In total, £34.5m would be cleared off the FFP wage bill, although some of those players could come back next season on reduced wages. In addition, the FFP cost of Nemanja Matic will double from £3.7m to £7.4m next season, as will Kurt Zouma's, from £2.36m to £4.72m, reducing that £34.5m savings a bit.

Further, while the £34.4m FFP profit from the January sales of Juan Mata (£23.6m) and Kevin de Bruyne (£10.8m) will be recorded on the 2013-14 books, this lump sum will help defray any losses accrued during the next three of FFP annual checkpoints.

Put simply, Chelsea is in healthy financial shape as far as financial fair play is concerned and can certainly avail itself of the available talent in the transfer market.

For perspective on how Costa's £16m FFP cost compares to Chelsea's other players, here's the current top five biggest player costs on the 2014-2015 FFP books -

1. Fernando Torres - £18.46m

2. Eden Hazard - £16.66m

3. Willian - £10.82m

4. André Schürrle - £7.96m

5. Nemanja Matić - £7.4m

Costa would become one of Chelsea's most expensive player investments, but as mentioned, Chelsea can easily afford Costa, and signing him won't necessarily preclude the club from also signing Star Player #2 in addition to its usual attempt to sign every young prospect Michael Emenalo and Piet de Visser can find.

Chelsea is in dire need of a striker, and while I'm excited about the prospect of Romelu Lukaku getting a shot to contribute at Stamford Bridge next season, Chelsea needs an established scorer while Lukaku continues to develop. Samuel Eto'o has been a pleasant surprise, Demba Ba scored that unforgettable goal against PSG, and Fernando Torres, erm, tries hard, but few Chelsea fans will feel comfortable with those three plus Lukaku leading the line next season. Chelsea needs an established presence up top, and Diego Costa fits the bill.

 

[vtotheinay]

love this one

 

[Coupé It]

1) La Liga haters can shut up now.

2) Jose and Pep had way more than enough talent to go thru, even if Chelsea didn't have a "striker". They both made mistakes. They'll have ample time to prove themselves again tho. No manager is or ever will be perfect.

3) Juventus ruined my day yesterday, how did you not score and let Benfica beat you. :x

4) Atletico has to be one of the best stories since Porto in 2004. With the budget they have.

 

[eiddyfouw]

1) La Liga haters can shut up now.

2) Jose and Pep had way more than enough talent to go thru, even if Chelsea didn't have a "striker". They both made mistakes. They'll have ample time to prove themselves again tho. No manager is or ever will be perfect.

3) Juventus ruined my day yesterday, how did you not score and let Benfica beat you. :x

4) Atletico has to be one of the best stories since Porto in 2004. With the budget they have.

My man.....

I couldn't have said that better...

Atletico starting XI

Courtois - loan

Juanfran – €4m

Miranda – Free

Diego Godin - €8m

Filipe Luis – €10.5m

Mario Suarez – Free

Tiago – Free

Koke – Free

Arda Turan - €12m

Adrian – Free

Diego Costa – €1.83m (€1m transfer fee, €833,000 in agents fees)

Total: €36.33m (£29.82m)

 

[AZwildcats]

 

1) La Liga haters can shut up now.

2) Jose and Pep had way more than enough talent to go thru, even if Chelsea didn't have a "striker". They both made mistakes. They'll have ample time to prove themselves again tho. No manager is or ever will be perfect.

3) Juventus ruined my day yesterday, how did you not score and let Benfica beat you.

4) Atletico has to be one of the best stories since Porto in 2004. With the budget they have.

My man.....

I couldn't have said that better...

Atletico starting XI

Courtois - loan

Juanfran – €4m

Miranda – Free

Diego Godin - €8m

Filipe Luis – €10.5m

Mario Suarez – Free

Tiago – Free

Koke – Free

Arda Turan - €12m

Adrian – Free

Diego Costa – €1.83m (€1m transfer fee, €833,000 in agents fees)

Total: €36.33m (£29.82m)

thats all less than Torres cost by himself, I hope they win the final

 

[eiddyfouw]

 

Atletico starting XI



Total: €36.33m (£29.82m)

:x thats all less than Torres cost by himself, I hope they win the final

Less than by like 20m

 

[imasoleman18]

anyone watching the united liverpoor u21 match

 

[Kimchi Papi]

3) Juventus ruined my day yesterday, how did you not score and let Benfica beat you. :x.

I think Benfica was down to 9 men at one point. Edit - due to an injury...

Seems like Conte has some answering to do. He's fine in a down Serie A but can't quite cut the mustard in European play...

Granted it's hard facing competition outside of one's domestic league but still, Juve was playing at home...

 

[flyeed]

Another thing that adds to the Atletico story is the financial situation in Spain. Actually makes it crazy that 4 of the 8 semifinal teams in Europe were Spanish. The only one that didn't make the final was knocked out by another La Liga team.

 

[mr marcus]

 

1) La Liga haters can shut up now.

2) Jose and Pep had way more than enough talent to go thru, even if Chelsea didn't have a "striker". They both made mistakes. They'll have ample time to prove themselves again tho. No manager is or ever will be perfect.

3) Juventus ruined my day yesterday, how did you not score and let Benfica beat you.

4) Atletico has to be one of the best stories since Porto in 2004. With the budget they have.

My man.....

I couldn't have said that better...

Atletico starting XI

Courtois - loan

Juanfran – €4m

Miranda – Free

Diego Godin - €8m

Filipe Luis – €10.5m

Mario Suarez – Free

Tiago – Free

Koke – Free

Arda Turan - €12m

Adrian – Free

Diego Costa – €1.83m (€1m transfer fee, €833,000 in agents fees)

Total: €36.33m (£29.82m)

free? newb question

 

[rck3sactown]

free transfer

 

[flyeed]

That probably doesn't explain anything if he's saying he's a newb

 

[mr marcus]

 
free transfer

ohhhhh so the previous club pays the salary?

and 

 the whole financial workings of soccer is different compared to sports here in america ....I know what a transfer is but I never knew who paid what

 

[b fresco]

I don't understand how people use transfer fees as the only base for classifying a team's payroll or budget...

In Eiddy's example above the actual payroll (what the players actually make in salary) isn't even mentioned...

So yeah ATM picked up 6 players via free transfers or loans but they still get paid salary... just curious as to why THAT isn't brought up when discussing financial "budget" for football in GENERAL...

Seems to be a Euro thing...

 

[eiddyfouw]

 
free transfer

ohhhhh so the previous club pays the salary?


and   the whole financial workings of soccer is different compared to sports here in america ....I know what a transfer is but I never knew who paid what

New club pays the players wages since he plays for the new club.
Free transfer means the new club didn't have to BUY the player (pay the club- for the player), but they will be required to pay his wages.

Things can get more complicated though with older clubs still having a some action in a deal, even when the player is gone.

 

[rck3sactown]

 

 
free transfer

ohhhhh so the previous club pays the salary?

and 

 the whole financial workings of soccer is different compared to sports here in america ....I know what a transfer is but I never knew who paid what

The transfer fee is separate from a player's salary.

The transfer fee is what a team pays another team to get the rights to that player.

Instead of trading a player for player like the American sports, in soccer they buy/sell players for sums of money.

Once they player is sold, then they negotiate the salary with their new team

 

[Coupé It]

Diego Costa went to Atletico via Braga right?

Braga has to be punching themseleves in the throat.

Is the Costa to Chelsea deal pretty official?

 

[eiddyfouw]

I don't understand how people use transfer fees as the only base for classifying a team's payroll or budget...

In Eiddy's example above the actual payroll (what the players actually make in salary) isn't even mentioned...

So yeah ATM picked up 6 players via free transfers or loans but they still get paid salary... just curious as to why THAT isn't brought up when discussing financial "budget" for football in GENERAL...

Seems to be a Euro thing...

"Matt Law at The Telegraph reported a few weeks back that Chelsea would offer Costa £185k per week. This works out to about £9.6m annually."

Since the deal hasn't been publicized yet, we don't know what the actual wages are.

 

[Coupé It]

The transfer fee is separate from a player's salary.

The transfer fee is what a team pays another team to get the rights to that player.

Instead of trading a player for player like the American sports, in soccer they buy/sell players for sums of money.

Once they player is sold, then they negotiate the salary with their new team

They can also transfer (trade) players for one another, it's just rarely done.

 

[b fresco]

"Matt Law at The Telegraph reported a few weeks back that Chelsea would offer Costa £185k per week. This works out to about £9.6m annually."

Since the deal hasn't been publicized yet, we don't know what the actual wages are.

The point flew over your head fam...

My point is that when financials are brought up in footy media, the transfer fees tend to be the only thing discussed regarding teams and the budgets they are working with...

Payroll takes a back seat, which IMO is a more important matter, from a business standpoint...

My construction company can buy 4 Machines at $100K... but That means very little if I can't afford to pay my staff their combined $1M a year in salaries... Crude example but you feel me?

 

[mr marcus]

thanks....you all touched on different things that I was wondering when it came to that.....especially the fee and wages being separate because I always assumed it was included 

 

[eiddyfouw]

"Matt Law at The Telegraph reported a few weeks back that Chelsea would offer Costa £185k per week. This works out to about £9.6m annually."

Since the deal hasn't been publicized yet, we don't know what the actual wages are.

The point flew over your head fam...

My point is that when financials are brought up in footy media, the transfer fees tend to be the only thing discussed regarding teams and the budgets they are working with...

Payroll takes a back seat, which IMO is a more important matter, from a business standpoint...

My construction company can buy 4 Machines at $100K... but That means very little if I can't afford to pay my staff their combined $1M a year in salaries... Crude example but you feel me?

Maybe in the media that you're reading. But most of the time when I look when I see a transfer (especially in EPL) wages are discussed. Hell, these days players are moving for money, so the topic of their wages is often put in black and white.

 

[b fresco]

I'm referring to teams financials on a broader COLLECTIVE scale (in the Media) NOT individual transfers FYI, but I get your drift...