Jadon Sanchos contract terminated

[JackG]

Think that would be Irrelevant, it was still a public criticism, he called his manager a liar in public. There’s no coming back from that.

He’s entitled to disagree and argue his case to his manager and or someone else at the club but not on social media.

The club will also have all the data from his monitors so will be able to prove their case or not should it go to a tribunal / court on the fitness / laziness issue. They wouldn’t sack him unless they believe they had enough to back it up.

And his manager lied in public, at least in Sancho's opinion. If his manager had criticised him privately then the argument should continue privately. It was the manager who chose to bring it into the public domain.

 

[viv_andersons_nana]

And his manager lied in public, at least in Sancho's opinion. If his manager had criticised him privately then the argument should continue privately. It was the manager who chose to bring it into the public domain.

This feels like the crux of it. It’s been reported that Sancho didn’t know the club was going to mention his mental health/wellbeing in public and that the relationship has never really been the same since then. He was wrong to publicly criticise his manager but if my employer released my personal information into the public domain without agreeing/consulting with me first I’d be pretty p*ssed off as well.

 

[Alzi]

Sancho sounds a right idiot. Dortmund think he is unprofessional as he would reportedly stay up all night playing computer games and be knackered for training and games. All the talent in the world but that will only take you so far fi your attitude isn't right.

Another great bit of business for Man Utd.

 

[Priv]

And his manager lied in public, at least in Sancho's opinion. If his manager had criticised him privately then the argument should continue privately. It was the manager who chose to bring it into the public domain.

The club will have the data that proves who is right either way, I expect it backs ETHs version though as he will be evaluating that data with his analysts after every training session he’s not likely to make something up off the top of his head after being previously supportive of Sancho.

 

[Kowalski]

If they terminate the contract, and he's no longer playing for them, then they can surely write off the £35m immediately. I.e if he's not there, to play, and he's not on their registration, he has no "worth", and then their balance sheet will effectively show £0 for him, as he won't be one it, so basically the depreciation figure goes out the window. The "depreciation" is just a basic valuation method, for "normal" circumstances, which the tax man lets them get away with, for assets you're actually keeping, until you sell them, but if they go for zero, then the worth is zero, so it all gets written off. Surely FFP will see that they didn't want to shell out all that cash, for zero return, it's not like a company buying kit early in a good year, to dodge a corporation tax bill, when they know they might need the kit next year etc.

They might not have written off Greenwood, they're probably playing it by ear in the off chance there's going to be a positive development, but we all know it's not coming. He was effectively guilty in all but conviction, nothing is going to counterbalance that and they know if they could have had him ever play in a Man U shirt again, then the best chance to do it was this year and just get the carnage out of the way. They know the fans would never really accept him back, never mind the rest of English football. He can get away with it abroad, as it's more out of sight, out of mind, but that's poor form.

The "depreciation" is just a basic valuation method, for "normal" circumstances, which the tax man lets them get away with

The tax man does not let them get away with it. The cost is spread, quite rightly, over the length of the contract where the club will be getting the benefit of the players services.

Surely FFP will see that they didn't want to shell out all that cash, for zero return, it's not like a company buying kit early in a good year, to dodge a corporation tax bill, when they know they might need the kit next year etc.

I'm not sure the point you are making relating to FFP however, the company would not dodge a corporation tax bill by purchasing kits upfront, this is completely misleading. When they buy kit upfront it will be treated as stock and sit on the balance sheet until it is sold. Only then will the cost of the kit go through the accounts as expenditure to match with the sale generated.

 

[indeedido]

Sancho

If he is no longer contracted then ALL of the non-amortised fee will be a charge to this year P&L shown as one year's amortisation and the rest as an impairment. He will then no longer be an asset.
So if he was £14m per year amortisation on a £70m fee and he has been there two years, then they will be hit £14m amortisation this year and take a £28m impairment hit this year too. A £42m write off.

If his contract is terminated without justifiable reason then the Club would be effectively buying him out of it, so all the outstanding value (two and a half years at £350k per week - ouch). This would all be taken this year.
If they have reason then they can rid themselves without wage penalty hit.
My guess is they have reached a Compromise, with United agreeing to write him off, cancel his contract, be paid perhaps to the end of this season by United, then free to sign a new contract with a new club.
He won't get £350k per week for his last two years, but will be out of United and they will be rid of a clear problem.

Greenwood

He is upside to United, having no Balance Sheet value, if they sell him for £30m this summer that is £30m profit in this year/next year P&L.
They will be paying none of his current wage, nor his future wage.
The profit on Greenwood will go a long way to offsetting that Sancho amortisation/impairment charge.

 

[Hammies_Tash]

If they terminate the contract, and he's no longer playing for them, then they can surely write off the £35m immediately. I.e if he's not there, to play, and he's not on their registration, he has no "worth", and then their balance sheet will effectively show £0 for him, as he won't be one it, so basically the depreciation figure goes out the window. The "depreciation" is just a basic valuation method, for "normal" circumstances, which the tax man lets them get away with, for assets you're actually keeping, until you sell them, but if they go for zero, then the worth is zero, so it all gets written off. Surely FFP will see that they didn't want to shell out all that cash, for zero return, it's not like a company buying kit early in a good year, to dodge a corporation tax bill, when they know they might need the kit next year etc.

They might not have written off Greenwood, they're probably playing it by ear in the off chance there's going to be a positive development, but we all know it's not coming. He was effectively guilty in all but conviction, nothing is going to counterbalance that and they know if they could have had him ever play in a Man U shirt again, then the best chance to do it was this year and just get the carnage out of the way. They know the fans would never really accept him back, never mind the rest of English football. He can get away with it abroad, as it's more out of sight, out of mind, but that's poor form.

If they write off £35m off their balance that’s literally there allowable losses under FFP for 1 year, leaves them no headroom for anything else. Looks like it’s working out exactly like I predicted, 6 month loan back to Dortmund, no loan fee and Man U picking up 75% of his wages, no deal to buy him at the end, they’re just putting him back in the window, hope plays well enough to get a decent fee in the summer

 

[Soutra]

If they write off £35m off their balance that’s literally there allowable losses under FFP for 1 year, leaves them no headroom for anything else. Looks like it’s working out exactly like I predicted, 6 month loan back to Dortmund, no loan fee and Man U picking up 75% of his wages, no deal to buy him at the end, they’re just putting him back in the window, hope plays well enough to get a decent fee in the summer

No, not really. I don't know all the details of FFP but it's about OPERATIONAL losses, not reductions in the value of the company. As far as FFP is concerned, the important issue will be how much MU pays Sancho to go away. If MU and Sancho agree a compromise - let's say half of his salary for the rest of his contract, then that's the amount that's relevant for FFP.

The balance sheet takes a hammering for the year ending when they got rid of him but that doesn't directly affect FFP. The balance sheet affects the value of MU.

 

[Starbuck]

Never gonna happen