FFP

[Drummond]

I also suspect that there would be quite a lot of noise along the lines of “you’re preventing us fans of seeing our heroes haaland, grealish etc” too.

Sky need the tv revenue, so does the FA (is that who gets the tv money?), so there’s plenty if important stakeholders that will happily see it buried.

I am not sure this can be buried. Man City are a financial behemoth. Everton can't be the fall guys for what is going on elsewhere. Maybe this is why they wanted a super league so there could be none of this nonsense about trying to put a brake on their spending

I agree, there is no way they can now bury this.

If they've punished Everton pretty strongly, it's going to bring the Chelsea and Man City situations to the fore (already is) and put the PL in a situation where those clubs' cases can't be swept under the carpet.

My understanding and theory

I am confident that justice will be served.
Manchester City have been refusing to cooperate and they have used delaying tactics, this will result in only adding to the punishment.

I believe they will face thus in two years around 2025, and it is no coincidence that Guardiola signed a two-year deal extension and will leave in 2025.
After this time then Man City will face consequences. That's my reckoning.
They are not looking into Pep's tenure. The FFP issue are charges before that.
And it appears to be an agreement to protect his legacy before Man City are demoted.

What? As if anyone gives a fuck about Guardiola's legacy. The FFP issues include at least 2 years of his tenure, but the payments to the manager cited related to Mancini.

[eamonn]

Be nice to see Jack playing out his days at Notts County, where it all started.

[Footy-Vill]

I believe Pep would not have signed if he hadn't been assured before taking his two-year deal extension and that Man City till 2025 are safe from punishment..

[paul_e]

I believe Pep would not have signed if he hadn't been assured before taking his two-year deal extension and that Man City till 2025 are safe from punishment..

No one who he negotiated with has the power to promise that. What they can promise (and do) is to delay things for as long as possible and make things as difficult as possible.

[jwarry]

How crazy is this? Quote from Newcastle CEO Darren Eales in The Times

“It’s risky as we’ve already got that player here and we know what they can do, but under Financial Fair Play [or PSR], if you sell a £50 million player and bring in an identical one on £50 million and the same wages, but amortise [gradually write off the initial cost of a player over the course of their contract] over the five years the player you are bringing in, that’s only £10 million a year so you are creating £40 million of headroom. That’s the reality of the FFP model.”

[Ads]

They on about getting rid of Issak to get Solanke to free up cash for somebody else?

[Dogtanian]

Makes sense.

The £50m goes straight on the books as profit on the day you do the deal, whereas the £50m you spend goes out over the course of the five year contract.

[pablo_picasso]

They on about getting rid of Issak to get Solanke to free up cash for somebody else?

If they are selling Isaak, we would be insane not to go in for him.

He is perfect for us.

[Gareth]

They on about getting rid of Issak to get Solanke to free up cash for somebody else?

If they are selling Isaak, we would be insane not to go in for him.

He is perfect for us.

You are presuming we have headroom in our FFP tho…& Isak would cost 75/80m id guess

[LeeB]

They on about getting rid of Issak to get Solanke to free up cash for somebody else?

Selling Longstaff to make room for Bellingham, man.

[pablo_picasso]

They on about getting rid of Issak to get Solanke to free up cash for somebody else?

If they are selling Isaak, we would be insane not to go in for him.

He is perfect for us.

You are presuming we have headroom in our FFP tho…& Isak would cost 75/80m id guess

For that player, if available, I would make room.

I think I read somewhere, we have about £50M headroom. (Cant remember where)

Sell Digne, Dendoncker, Diego Carlos, Olsen & we might be good...

Especially if we get rid of Traore, Hause, etc this summer too.

Although math(s) isn't my strong point, I will readily admit...

[Risso]

How crazy is this? Quote from Newcastle CEO Darren Eales in The Times

“It’s risky as we’ve already got that player here and we know what they can do, but under Financial Fair Play [or PSR], if you sell a £50 million player and bring in an identical one on £50 million and the same wages, but amortise [gradually write off the initial cost of a player over the course of their contract] over the five years the player you are bringing in, that’s only £10 million a year so you are creating £40 million of headroom. That’s the reality of the FFP model.”

Ummm, it's not quite as straighforward as that though.

If they're talking about Isak, he cost £60m and is on a 6 year contract, So £10m amortisation a year. He's been there 18 months, so if you pro rate his amortisation it's £15m and his value on the balance sheet is therefore £45m. If they sold him for for what they paid for him, ie £60m, they'd make a £15m profit. If they got £45m for him, they'd make nothing at all. So with all players, it depends on if their value increases over time, and how long they have left on their contract. If they kept him until summer 2028 and he was still worth £60m, then yes that would be all profit.

[Rigadon]

Is this type of pissing about with squads really the point of FFP, or a ridiculous symptom of it.  They say it's to protect clubs from going bust.  It isn't though, is it.

[Sexual Ealing]

Is this type of pissing about with squads really the point of FFP, or a ridiculous symptom of it.  They say it's to protect clubs from going bust.  It isn't though, is it.

Quite right. It's perverse. Everyone's addicted to spending money. Say Newcastle were keen to sell Isak (I doubt they are), it'd be getting rid of an excellent player, who's settled and performing, in order to get 'headroom' to sign Solanke, who's no better, and might not fit in. Total madness.

[paul_e]

How crazy is this? Quote from Newcastle CEO Darren Eales in The Times

“It’s risky as we’ve already got that player here and we know what they can do, but under Financial Fair Play [or PSR], if you sell a £50 million player and bring in an identical one on £50 million and the same wages, but amortise [gradually write off the initial cost of a player over the course of their contract] over the five years the player you are bringing in, that’s only £10 million a year so you are creating £40 million of headroom. That’s the reality of the FFP model.”

Ummm, it's not quite as straighforward as that though.

If they're talking about Isak, he cost £60m and is on a 6 year contract, So £10m amortisation a year. He's been there 18 months, so if you pro rate his amortisation it's £15m and his value on the balance sheet is therefore £45m. If they sold him for for what they paid for him, ie £60m, they'd make a £15m profit. If they got £45m for him, they'd make nothing at all. So with all players, it depends on if their value increases over time, and how long they have left on their contract. If they kept him until summer 2028 and he was still worth £60m, then yes that would be all profit.

Being horribly nit-picky but in that scenario he'd either be up for a free as he'd be out of contract or, if they'd extended his contract, his book value would be changed to spread over the new deal. So in reality you'd never get full value of the fee on any player that didn't come through the academy or on a free (including if that free is a player reaching the end of their existing contract and then signing a new deal when they could walk away.

I'm not saying this to be a twat though, just to point out why selling an academy product for a decent fee is probably a better way to handle FFP than selling players you spent big money on, which is why so many teams are starting to do that. It's also why I don't think FFP as it stands will last much longer because whatever they were trying to achieve with it turning academies into cash farms rather than a genuine source of players for the club was definitely not something they'll have wanted.