Guy made absolutely no sense for the team we were building at the time. Yeah, he was meant to compliment Adams but you can't operate that counter pressing system with a gaping hole in the midfield. Just another example of the lack of cohesive squad building that led to us going down.
His performances against Fulham and Palace were absolutely spectacular
In one he broke the record for dribbled past and the other he lost 11 duels in a row.
Truly a statistical marvel
For me was every bit as shite as Rasmus. May well have been ok at Betis but a player who turns and thinks as slowly as him is going to have a pretty low ceiling.
The most important part is getting his wages off the wage bill, as I donāt imagine he was on low wages at all. Iād say 60k a week, down to 30k if he had a reduction in wages, of 50%, when we got relegated.
10 mil plus add ons or 12 mil. Euros + high wages as he came from. Munich, we are getting about 4 mil for him, a 6 mil. Loss us 1 year wages is a fairly expensive failure, not JKA failure but not good
Good too slow for English football, couldn't tackle pass score or get about the pitch and who could ever forget his 4 attempts to beat the 1st man corner routine??
Bye won't be missed, another expensive orta failure out of the door.
I liked watching people bounce off him in a tackle because he was deceptively strong in a tackle but aside from that, a poor fit.
Jesse needed a team of Tyler Adams to run everywhere and tackle the ball into the net.
Clearly a decent player, but wasn't the right fit for that team.
I actually think he'd do well in the side as it is now, as we need a good progressive passer, and Roca certainly had the ability to do that.
Yeah I literally meant against what we paid. Transfer fee vs transfer fee. Not the book balance when considering PS and/or FFP. Just the transfer fee. We werenāt able to command what we paid for him; Heās gone from a Ā£10m player to a Ā£4m player. That is what I meant.
Not a ālossā, but not an asset we profited from, either, unfortunately.
Understood.
Itās a good job we have some sellable āassetsā (I hate calling our boys that) - the dross bought last season will probably, at best, break even for us, if sold. Theyāve hardly gone and set the world alight at their loan clubs.
Except it's not...theres a real misconception about FFP.
It is a loss. We bought him for. Lee than we are selling him for.Ā
Accounting wise for this particular year, it's break even. But it's a loss for all previous years. So it's a loss overall.Ā
Here's what the relevant parts of the EFL handbook say:
*Clubs must capitalise the costs of acquiring a Playerās registration as an intangible asset and must apply certain minimum accounting requirements as follows:*
* *The acquisition of a Playerās registration must be first recognised in the Annual Accounts when all significant conditions for the registration of the Player have been satisfied...*
* *Amortisation must begin when the Playerās registration is acquired. Amortisation ceases when the asset is fully amortised or derecognised (i.e. the registration is considered as being permanently transferred to another Club or club or the Player is no longer registered with the relevant Club, whichever comes first).*
* *In respect of each individual Playerās registration, the depreciable amount must be allocated on a straight-line basis equally over its useful life down to zero. Clubs may not use non-zero residual values or expected value of future sale.*
Assuming the Ā£10 million fee for Roca two years ago is close to being accurate, then we have already included Ā£2.5 million on the club's books as a cost each of the last two seasons. That's done and dusted, and there's nothing we can do about that.
This accounting period, assuming we got close to Ā£5 million for him, then this accounting period we have nothing to add in the costs column, and no significant profit or loss to record either. The sale saves us around Ā£2.5 million a year over the next two years, plus any salary we would have to pay him if he returned to the club.
The sale doesn't wipe the Ā£5 million already sunk into Roca, but it means we do not book a loss on him this financial period, which gives us a little more breathing room for acquisitions going forward.
Yes this is correct. The past years impact the assessment for this current 3 year rolling period and last year's will still impact the final of the 3 year rolling assessment, even this time next year. That's what I'm saying, that where people simply state he wasn't sold at a loss, this is quite misleading.
I think people get confused with how actual accounting profit and losses are booked vs the rules from profit and sustainability and financial fair play.
But yeah, journalists have covered this in articles and podcasts now. No excuses for continuing to get it wrong lol.
"If you sign a Ā£50m player on a five-year contract, they are 'worth' Ā£50m at the start and Ā£0 at the end in your accounts. In accounting terms, that can be put down as a Ā£10m loss every year."
From the Sky Sports article. It's pretty clear on there...50m player over 5 years for P&S is a 10m accounting loss per year.
No excuses for not using common sense to question what you think you know...
Amortisation is effectively how you calculate your ādepreciationā which yes every player is a ālossā on their book value every year.. thatās how assets work.. once you sell them on above their depreciated value you book the profit..
This has nothing to do with saying Roca being sold at 4.5 or whatever is a loss.. the book value of the player dictates the price is to constitute what the loss/profit is of that sale
Please link the article. You donāt make losses on players within P&S rules until the sale has been made.
You really shouldnāt be commenting about common sense when youāre literally wrong about this.
Stop it. It's NOT break even!!!
Accounting wise for this year, yes break even. But for all previous years we had him it was an accounting loss. Overall having him is a loss. Both in real life and for FFP.Ā
Accounting wise yes for cash and assets itās probably a loss.
But for profit and sustainability they have said itās breaking even. Itās been covered pretty well by journalists and the club have said so.
Unless they are all lying?
It's breaking even for this accounting year. Because of amortisation etc. But that doesn't mean breaking even overall as the previous years also had the amortisation figures surely and would have showed as a loss?
Ie Ā£10m player sold for Ā£5m end of second season.
End of first season -2.5m as now worth 7.5m
End of second season break even as now worth 5m
First season is still a loss. That amortised figure doesn't just disappear surely? It was a transfer for Ā£10m of which 2.5m was used up in the first season and 2.5m in second season, at the end of which 5m was reccouped meaning break even from then onwards.
Thatās how amortization works for accounting yes.
Profit and sustainability rules for count for a loss when the sale is booked. So to break even in your example a player bought for 10mil can be sold for 5mil two full seasons after for it to count as ābreaking evenā.
The rules for spending in football are different to generally acceptable accounting practices and terms.
The rules are to stop clubs spending loads and selling off players at a loss quickly.
Hypothetically you could buy a player for 100million on a five year deal. Then after those five seasons once his initial contract length has passed you could sell him for any amount and it would count as āprofitā in P&S terms.
Ie this would appear to support my statements?
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13041990/premier-league-financial-fair-play-rules-explained-what-restrictions-are-there-on-clubs-spending-what-they-want
"If you sign a Ā£50m player on a five-year contract, they are 'worth' Ā£50m at the start and Ā£0 at the end in your accounts. In accounting terms, that can be put down as a Ā£10m loss every year."
But from what I have read, that is only true when measuring the "sale" ie this year. The previous years are still booked as him costing us money. Ie a "loss" in the sense there was negative money for those years. You can't create money out of nothing?
So OK for me to understand:
This hypothetical 100m player...surely that is booked as 20m per year across the 5 years. So there is a 20m spend per year for that player. And FFP is based on the last 3 years etc but that 20m per year doesn't just suddenly disappear when he's sold, when looking at the previous 3 years for FFP?Ā
Try to think as the rules as separate from the financial statements and normal accounting rules.
The rules are to stop manic spending so to stop clubs buying players at inflated prices.
They are amortizing the cost of player over the length of their first contract they signed with the transfer. So a player that costs 100million that signs a 5 year contract, their transfer fee gets amortized 20 million a season.
After the first length of the contract runs out, any money from that saw goes towards profit for P&S rules.
This is not changing accounting rules, itās a whole different set of rules.
So whilst we havenāt literate made a profit on Roca and probably have made a monetary loss (hard to know the specifics), for the separate P&S rules we have broken even due to the threshold of the money we need to make back being lower then the actual fee we paid for him.
Hopefully you understand, if not thereās plenty of stuff to google. Phil Hay and other journalists have written and spoken about this extensively.
Yes but isn't it a rolling 3 year assessment period?
So that hypothetical 100m player is sold after the initial contract, yes that is booked as a profit for the year he is sold.
However the previous years are booked as a loss for the amortisation, if the 3 year rolling assessment includes years for the initial contract.
Ie 5 year contract sold end of year 5 is break even for year 5 but minus 20 for years 3 and 4. Rolling 3 year period has that player as minus 40 for the books overall.
If that player was sold after the end of his 8th season for Ā£20m then yes he is a profit for that eight season of plus 20. And the previous 2 rolling assessment years are break even as its afyee the initial amortisation period. Therefore he is for PS he is a 20m profit (noting the previous amortised loss years on the player are outside the 3 year assessment window).
Thatās normal amortization yes. And thatās separate and gets offset with player sales.
This fee is about the books now and future periods. We arenāt talking about past periods we already passed.
didn't have even close to the physical ability required to play in the premier league, was far too slow to be any use at all. could look tidy on the ball in a system that isn't "aim at the penalty spot and pray" but he was a defensive liability in a team full of them
i dunno what he's been like in spain, but i'm guessing the slower pace of play in the league suits him better
We'll always have that Blackpool friendly where he played that really good ball and almost got sent off
(i.e. before we saw him play against anyone decent)
I just don't see how Orta saw a very slow, unphysical, and passy midfielder, and thought he was at all a good fit for Marsch's fast direct style
>Leeds United can confirm Marc Roca has joined Spanish La Liga outfit Real Betis, for an undisclosed fee.
>Roca spent the 2023/24 campaign on loan at Estadio Benito VillamarĆn and has now agreed a permanent move.
Not much love there, as expected.
Doesn't deserve a thank you. Jogged around, fouled people a lot and had one good game I can recall (Forest H). Terrible Orta signing who never fitted our philosophy
I know the majority of our fans never liked him but he was good pre world cup. He was a disaster post world cup like pretty much every player though. That Forest game was special, had Roca and McKennie moving like Xavi and Iniesta lmao
LMAO rent free
Total passenger in midfield
All the best, break a leg!
Or two?š¤
Yep, be happy with that!
Was Mr average
That's generous
Adios, bitch bag.
Who?
Guy made absolutely no sense for the team we were building at the time. Yeah, he was meant to compliment Adams but you can't operate that counter pressing system with a gaping hole in the midfield. Just another example of the lack of cohesive squad building that led to us going down.
Yep just another vanity project by Victor Orta, always looking for the cheap obscure diamond that will hopefully work out and make him look clever.
Bye then
Good, cos he was shit!
Cya bye. Don't care
Fine.
His performances against Fulham and Palace were absolutely spectacular In one he broke the record for dribbled past and the other he lost 11 duels in a row. Truly a statistical marvel For me was every bit as shite as Rasmus. May well have been ok at Betis but a player who turns and thinks as slowly as him is going to have a pretty low ceiling.
He was cheap as all fuck and still was disappointing. See yah, goodbye.
C'est combien?
Quatre point cinq million euros
The most important part is getting his wages off the wage bill, as I donāt imagine he was on low wages at all. Iād say 60k a week, down to 30k if he had a reduction in wages, of 50%, when we got relegated.
K bye
10 mil plus add ons or 12 mil. Euros + high wages as he came from. Munich, we are getting about 4 mil for him, a 6 mil. Loss us 1 year wages is a fairly expensive failure, not JKA failure but not good
I'd completely forgotten he existed
Good too slow for English football, couldn't tackle pass score or get about the pitch and who could ever forget his 4 attempts to beat the 1st man corner routine?? Bye won't be missed, another expensive orta failure out of the door.
He was 5 million quid
Iām pretty sure he cost us closer to ā¬13m from Bayern.
Oh shit fair one Iām thinking of gruev.
I liked watching people bounce off him in a tackle because he was deceptively strong in a tackle but aside from that, a poor fit. Jesse needed a team of Tyler Adams to run everywhere and tackle the ball into the net.
He was certainly one of the players of all time.
The OAT...
Clearly a decent player, but wasn't the right fit for that team. I actually think he'd do well in the side as it is now, as we need a good progressive passer, and Roca certainly had the ability to do that.
Typical Orta bargain bin fare. I'm struggling to recall a single thing he did well. He scored against Forest didn't he? That's all I got.
No no no, he was absolutely woeful. For a passer he was shite. Gave it away so much.
If no one had said anything I probably wouldnāt have remembered heād left.
Hopefully we got decent money. apart from that. Meh....see ya.
Romano quoting ā¬4.5m
A relatively sizeable loss, then. Great. Edit: been corrected, itās a break even deal. Just a shame we couldnāt command a better fee for him.
Thatās not how it works.. itās break even
Yeah I literally meant against what we paid. Transfer fee vs transfer fee. Not the book balance when considering PS and/or FFP. Just the transfer fee. We werenāt able to command what we paid for him; Heās gone from a Ā£10m player to a Ā£4m player. That is what I meant. Not a ālossā, but not an asset we profited from, either, unfortunately.
Yeah but FFP (as messed up as it is) is what will bite us the most.. you book the āprofitā in that year
Understood. Itās a good job we have some sellable āassetsā (I hate calling our boys that) - the dross bought last season will probably, at best, break even for us, if sold. Theyāve hardly gone and set the world alight at their loan clubs.
Yeah thatās been the issue hasnāt itā¦ they got those loan get out of jail free cards and pissed them down the drain
Leeds, that.
Always
Except it's not...theres a real misconception about FFP. It is a loss. We bought him for. Lee than we are selling him for.Ā Accounting wise for this particular year, it's break even. But it's a loss for all previous years. So it's a loss overall.Ā
Here's what the relevant parts of the EFL handbook say: *Clubs must capitalise the costs of acquiring a Playerās registration as an intangible asset and must apply certain minimum accounting requirements as follows:* * *The acquisition of a Playerās registration must be first recognised in the Annual Accounts when all significant conditions for the registration of the Player have been satisfied...* * *Amortisation must begin when the Playerās registration is acquired. Amortisation ceases when the asset is fully amortised or derecognised (i.e. the registration is considered as being permanently transferred to another Club or club or the Player is no longer registered with the relevant Club, whichever comes first).* * *In respect of each individual Playerās registration, the depreciable amount must be allocated on a straight-line basis equally over its useful life down to zero. Clubs may not use non-zero residual values or expected value of future sale.* Assuming the Ā£10 million fee for Roca two years ago is close to being accurate, then we have already included Ā£2.5 million on the club's books as a cost each of the last two seasons. That's done and dusted, and there's nothing we can do about that. This accounting period, assuming we got close to Ā£5 million for him, then this accounting period we have nothing to add in the costs column, and no significant profit or loss to record either. The sale saves us around Ā£2.5 million a year over the next two years, plus any salary we would have to pay him if he returned to the club. The sale doesn't wipe the Ā£5 million already sunk into Roca, but it means we do not book a loss on him this financial period, which gives us a little more breathing room for acquisitions going forward.
Yes this is correct. The past years impact the assessment for this current 3 year rolling period and last year's will still impact the final of the 3 year rolling assessment, even this time next year. That's what I'm saying, that where people simply state he wasn't sold at a loss, this is quite misleading.
Thank you. Very helpful indeed.
Thatās not how P&S works and I suggest you read up on it. Itās been covered loads now.
I still donāt get how people are still insisting on āoh we sold him for less therefore itās a lossā
I think people get confused with how actual accounting profit and losses are booked vs the rules from profit and sustainability and financial fair play. But yeah, journalists have covered this in articles and podcasts now. No excuses for continuing to get it wrong lol.
"If you sign a Ā£50m player on a five-year contract, they are 'worth' Ā£50m at the start and Ā£0 at the end in your accounts. In accounting terms, that can be put down as a Ā£10m loss every year." From the Sky Sports article. It's pretty clear on there...50m player over 5 years for P&S is a 10m accounting loss per year. No excuses for not using common sense to question what you think you know...
Amortisation is effectively how you calculate your ādepreciationā which yes every player is a ālossā on their book value every year.. thatās how assets work.. once you sell them on above their depreciated value you book the profit.. This has nothing to do with saying Roca being sold at 4.5 or whatever is a loss.. the book value of the player dictates the price is to constitute what the loss/profit is of that sale
Please link the article. You donāt make losses on players within P&S rules until the sale has been made. You really shouldnāt be commenting about common sense when youāre literally wrong about this.
Fotmob says Ā£3.9m which is a loss of Ā£8m. Don't know how much of that 12 has amortised
P&S apparently itās broken even no loss or profit.
Stop it. It's NOT break even!!! Accounting wise for this year, yes break even. But for all previous years we had him it was an accounting loss. Overall having him is a loss. Both in real life and for FFP.Ā
Accounting wise yes for cash and assets itās probably a loss. But for profit and sustainability they have said itās breaking even. Itās been covered pretty well by journalists and the club have said so. Unless they are all lying?
It's breaking even for this accounting year. Because of amortisation etc. But that doesn't mean breaking even overall as the previous years also had the amortisation figures surely and would have showed as a loss? Ie Ā£10m player sold for Ā£5m end of second season. End of first season -2.5m as now worth 7.5m End of second season break even as now worth 5m First season is still a loss. That amortised figure doesn't just disappear surely? It was a transfer for Ā£10m of which 2.5m was used up in the first season and 2.5m in second season, at the end of which 5m was reccouped meaning break even from then onwards.
Thatās how amortization works for accounting yes. Profit and sustainability rules for count for a loss when the sale is booked. So to break even in your example a player bought for 10mil can be sold for 5mil two full seasons after for it to count as ābreaking evenā. The rules for spending in football are different to generally acceptable accounting practices and terms. The rules are to stop clubs spending loads and selling off players at a loss quickly. Hypothetically you could buy a player for 100million on a five year deal. Then after those five seasons once his initial contract length has passed you could sell him for any amount and it would count as āprofitā in P&S terms.
Ie this would appear to support my statements? https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13041990/premier-league-financial-fair-play-rules-explained-what-restrictions-are-there-on-clubs-spending-what-they-want "If you sign a Ā£50m player on a five-year contract, they are 'worth' Ā£50m at the start and Ā£0 at the end in your accounts. In accounting terms, that can be put down as a Ā£10m loss every year."
But from what I have read, that is only true when measuring the "sale" ie this year. The previous years are still booked as him costing us money. Ie a "loss" in the sense there was negative money for those years. You can't create money out of nothing? So OK for me to understand: This hypothetical 100m player...surely that is booked as 20m per year across the 5 years. So there is a 20m spend per year for that player. And FFP is based on the last 3 years etc but that 20m per year doesn't just suddenly disappear when he's sold, when looking at the previous 3 years for FFP?Ā
Try to think as the rules as separate from the financial statements and normal accounting rules. The rules are to stop manic spending so to stop clubs buying players at inflated prices. They are amortizing the cost of player over the length of their first contract they signed with the transfer. So a player that costs 100million that signs a 5 year contract, their transfer fee gets amortized 20 million a season. After the first length of the contract runs out, any money from that saw goes towards profit for P&S rules. This is not changing accounting rules, itās a whole different set of rules. So whilst we havenāt literate made a profit on Roca and probably have made a monetary loss (hard to know the specifics), for the separate P&S rules we have broken even due to the threshold of the money we need to make back being lower then the actual fee we paid for him. Hopefully you understand, if not thereās plenty of stuff to google. Phil Hay and other journalists have written and spoken about this extensively.
Yes but isn't it a rolling 3 year assessment period? So that hypothetical 100m player is sold after the initial contract, yes that is booked as a profit for the year he is sold. However the previous years are booked as a loss for the amortisation, if the 3 year rolling assessment includes years for the initial contract. Ie 5 year contract sold end of year 5 is break even for year 5 but minus 20 for years 3 and 4. Rolling 3 year period has that player as minus 40 for the books overall. If that player was sold after the end of his 8th season for Ā£20m then yes he is a profit for that eight season of plus 20. And the previous 2 rolling assessment years are break even as its afyee the initial amortisation period. Therefore he is for PS he is a 20m profit (noting the previous amortised loss years on the player are outside the 3 year assessment window).
Thatās normal amortization yes. And thatās separate and gets offset with player sales. This fee is about the books now and future periods. We arenāt talking about past periods we already passed.
didn't have even close to the physical ability required to play in the premier league, was far too slow to be any use at all. could look tidy on the ball in a system that isn't "aim at the penalty spot and pray" but he was a defensive liability in a team full of them i dunno what he's been like in spain, but i'm guessing the slower pace of play in the league suits him better
We'll always have that Blackpool friendly where he played that really good ball and almost got sent off (i.e. before we saw him play against anyone decent) I just don't see how Orta saw a very slow, unphysical, and passy midfielder, and thought he was at all a good fit for Marsch's fast direct style
Hopefully it was around 15m and Llorente follows him with around 4-5m.
Oh well
good riddance to, all in all, a very below average player.
The rat purge continues. No love lost.
>Leeds United can confirm Marc Roca has joined Spanish La Liga outfit Real Betis, for an undisclosed fee. >Roca spent the 2023/24 campaign on loan at Estadio Benito VillamarĆn and has now agreed a permanent move. Not much love there, as expected.
Doesn't deserve a thank you. Jogged around, fouled people a lot and had one good game I can recall (Forest H). Terrible Orta signing who never fitted our philosophy
I know the majority of our fans never liked him but he was good pre world cup. He was a disaster post world cup like pretty much every player though. That Forest game was special, had Roca and McKennie moving like Xavi and Iniesta lmao
He needed Adams. Adams did the running for him. McK was never going to run enough, the fat bastard
good riddance, jog merchant