Search results

Perfect. Thank you. Makes sense with the whole Chelsea thing. Seems slightly skewed you can 'improve' your P&L by representing a full future transfer fee to be received but don't have to represent a full future transfer fee that has to be paid. Thanks for summing up.

Thanks. No, you explained it fine, it's me getting my head round it!

Thanks. So us showing a big income on the P&L would suggest we received a big chunk of those fees in the first/only payment rather than spread thinly over a few accounting periods. Nice.

Question: Would the P&L only represent the physical amount of money received for Burn and White in that set period? So, for example, If Ben White's transfer fee was £50m but paid to us as £25m one season and then £25m again, we would only see £25m on this P&L? If the answer is yes, then does...