The January Transfer Thread | Page 60 | Vital Football

The January Transfer Thread

Reading all the quotes etc from the last couple of days looks like we are FFP challenged so we are unable to do much at the moment without selling a few , makes sense why we are not seeing much movement at the moment even though the squad needs improving in a couple of obvious areas - second striker / RB.
I think we are working to move a few out and create the headroom but no takers so far.
 
Is it really so tight regarding ffp ? I don’t pretend to understand the complexity of it all, it is after all anything but transparent. However we have sold Archer, Ramsey, Bidace and Azaz over the last year for a total of around 40 million. This is seen as pure profit. Amortization can be used over a period of 5 years can’t it ? So a 100 million investment, for example then, could be 20 million a year for the annual accounts, significantly under the 40 million for the academy players. Not sure what we paid for Diaby and Torres ( 75 million maybe ).
I know it’s calculated over a 3 year period and there’s a lot more to it than I have mentioned, but it sure would be nice to know just what our position is regarding ffp.
 
The French Connection said:
Is it really so tight regarding ffp ? I don’t pretend to understand the complexity of it all, it is after all anything but transparent. However we have sold Archer, Ramsey, Bidace and Azaz over the last year for a total of around 40 million. This is seen as pure profit. Amortization can be used over a period of 5 years can’t it ? So a 100 million investment, for example then, could be 20 million a year for the annual accounts, significantly under the 40 million for the academy players. Not sure what we paid for Diaby and Torres ( 75 million maybe ).
I know it’s calculated over a 3 year period and there’s a lot more to it than I have mentioned, but it sure would be nice to know just what our position is regarding ffp.
Click to expand...

The Gerrard experiment i think really screwed us over. From some of his expensive flops [coutinho] to paying off him and his team when he got sacked. Think thats part of the issue
 
Our turnover is really low compared to our peers leaves us with very little wriggle room and to appease FFP we have clearly reluctantly have to sell off some of the cream academy players . the Gerrard fiasco didn't help plus the the flops of Coutinho and Duran with big outlays has exacerbated the problem. Heck is here to get the t/over up and getting to the Champions League will be key to fasttracking this.
 
The French Connection said:
Is it really so tight regarding ffp ? I don’t pretend to understand the complexity of it all, it is after all anything but transparent. However we have sold Archer, Ramsey, Bidace and Azaz over the last year for a total of around 40 million. This is seen as pure profit. Amortization can be used over a period of 5 years can’t it ? So a 100 million investment, for example then, could be 20 million a year for the annual accounts, significantly under the 40 million for the academy players. Not sure what we paid for Diaby and Torres ( 75 million maybe ).
I know it’s calculated over a 3 year period and there’s a lot more to it than I have mentioned, but it sure would be nice to know just what our position is regarding ffp.
Click to expand...
It's the wages.

Best estimates show all the prem tv money going into the pocket of players and staff. Our ffp limit is effectively non prem prize money and what we get from sales.

Actually, it's less than that. The cap on wages, transfers and agents' fees to 70% of a club's total revenue. Ticket sales and merchandise helps of course, but it's not a big part of the pie.

Looks to me like we've already spent the academy sales money.

We're in a much better position than most, but only clubs that made massive sales recently will be spending, i.e Tottenham (Kane). I'm not expecting much if any movement in the prem.
 
It's not called FFP, that's the European bit, so the English bit is called P and S . Profit and sustainability and you are allowed to lose £15m over 3 seasons! The owners are allowed to boost that to 105m utilizing extra share issues.

Money spent on Stadiums, women's teams and youth football is extra and not included with the 105m as it's a benefit to football in general.

Now how simple is that?

courtesy of the Athletic.
 
Silhillvilla said:
Our turnover is really low compared to our peers leaves us with very little wriggle room and to appease FFP we have clearly reluctantly have to sell off some of the cream academy players . the Gerrard fiasco didn't help plus the the flops of Coutinho and Duran with big outlays has exacerbated the problem. Heck is here to get the t/over up and getting to the Champions League will be key to fasttracking this.
Click to expand...


I see Duran has replaced Bailey and Doug as your hate figure then.
 
Villan57 said:
It's not called FFP, that's the European bit, so the English bit is called P and S . Profit and sustainability and you are allowed to lose £15m over 3 seasons! The owners are allowed to boost that to 105m utilizing extra share issues.

Money spent on Stadiums, women's teams and youth football is extra and not included with the 105m as it's a benefit to football in general.

Now how simple is that?

courtesy of the Athletic.
Click to expand...
Thanks bud. I can understand that. I suppose the complexities arise due to length of contracts, amortisation etc.
I understand now why the owners have been pumping in money through share issues. So essentially 35M per year allowed.
 
The big 6 have a lot larger revenue than us like it or not. To really compete you need CL football every season. However as Newcastle are proving it takes a while to filter through. It's going to be tight for a lot of clubs. The reduction in wage percentage allowed v income is making it worse as well.
 
colavfc said:
FFP only applies to anyone outside the wank 6. Which is glaringly obvious. It's not even a conspiracy. It's fact. I'm starting to really hate football if I'm honest.
Click to expand...
No FFP only exists for clubs in European competitions, P&S is what most clubs are up against.
 
Gazvilla said:
Thanks bud. I can understand that. I suppose the complexities arise due to length of contracts, amortisation etc.
I understand now why the owners have been pumping in money through share issues. So essentially 35M per year allowed.
Click to expand...
Yep, you can amortise stuff over the length of the contract but the Chelsea loophole is now closed but not backdated.
All this complicated stuff isn't that complicated, what makes it hard is that nobody outside the club knows the figures so they just guess.
Like did we pay 33m or 55m for Diaby, how much is he on, how much bonus does he get etc? Nobody knows.
 
Until City & Chelsea are held to account it's just unfair but, in any case, I hate this idea that clubs that had money put in over the years prior to P&S/FFP have been given a perpetual advantage. At least the EPL has 6 moneybags clubs unlike most European leagues.
 
overlookedvillan said:
It's the wages.

Best estimates show all the prem tv money going into the pocket of players and staff. Our ffp limit is effectively non prem prize money and what we get from sales.

Actually, it's less than that. The cap on wages, transfers and agents' fees to 70% of a club's total revenue. Ticket sales and merchandise helps of course, but it's not a big part of the pie.

Looks to me like we've already spent the academy sales money.

We're in a much better position than most, but only clubs that made massive sales recently will be spending, i.e Tottenham (Kane). I'm not expecting much if any movement in the prem.
Click to expand...
Plus we have a full roster and no guarantee Coutinho and Sanson get permanent deals in the summer.

As I've said a few times, you can see the motivation to move on Digne, even though his performances have been excellent. I think Diego Carlos is another prime candidate.
 
ironside said:
This talk of “amortisation” gives me the shivers. I see Doug’s spectre hovering over us.
Click to expand...
Its mad how they look at it, the way I've see it explained is, if you sign a lad for 30m on a 3 year deal, it costs you 10m per year plus wages. If after two years you sell him for 20m they look at that as a 10m profit for that season.
 
Teamtalk linking us to smith-rowe again. If he is able to stay injury free he has huge potential and i think emery would definitely wanna work with him again.

But he seems like another Wilshire with all these injuries
 
Pangloss said:
Smith Rowe is a Palace level signing at this point, he has done fuck all for years now.
Click to expand...
Probably because he's been out injured. One thing I will say he seems a bit thick when I've heard him interviewed. Not a bright lad that could take in Unai's ways
 
You must log in or register to reply here.