FFP

[brontebilly]

Selling him could easily have cost us more than the hundred million he brought in. Signing Ings and Buendia with their fees and wages. Then there’s loss of income from finishing lower in the table, less TV money because we’re less attractive to broadcasters without our star man, less commercial opportunities, less merchandise sold. Any number of things along those lines.

Then there’s the cost involved in sacking Smith, appointing Gerrard and then signing more expensive players for Gerrard. Assuming that Smith may have gotten better results with Grealish still here.

It’s impossible to say with any certainty. So I can’t thank him for leaving because it can’t be proven we wouldn’t have been better off keeping him.

That's like saying, "if my wife hadn't left me I'd still have the house and access to the kids." Well yeah, but she did leave you pal. She didn't love you anymore, and you crying into your pint about it three years later makes me think she had a point.

😂

[tomd2103]

It would be good if all FFP figures/adjustments were a matter of public record.

I was thinking about this.

So, currently, the three years we have are 37, 0 and 119. We know in this current financial year, we have shifted 40+ million of home grown and Ings for 15, so although we spent last summer, we've at least improved the base the figures are built on for the next set of figures.

To be compliant we know we've had deductibles of at least 51m over the 3 years (37 + 119 - 51 = 105)

Do you know what? I've totally lost interest in this post. I don't even know what I am trying to say.

From the little I understand of it, we were OK at December 2023, otherwise we would have been charged along with Everton and Forest.  So therefore isn't 'year one' now the year we made the £300k profit and the next calculation will take into account the year we lost £120m plus this year, with the decision made in December 2024?

Guess it depends on the deductibles applied as well.  Think Everton got their 10 point deduction as the powers that be did not agree with their calculations from a couple of years back (think it was the 21/22 season).

I have no idea how much those deductibles are and whether they will be accepted, but let's say they are a conservative estimate of £20m each season.  Does that mean for this period we would be + £20.3m year one, - £79.7m year 2 (20.3 - 100), leaving whatever the figure is for this season to be added?

The deductibles might be significantly more than £20m, which would give us more wriggle room.  If not and £20m is about right, then it is going to be tight.  Guess it could be tight while that £120m loss (minus deductibles) remains on there as well?

[Baldy]

Players agents must be right p*ssed off with FFP being used as a bargaining tool in all contract talks.

Any increase in wage for an existing player could result in another player getting the boot. Win bonuses are the way forward!!

Bezos, Musk, States etc will be very hesitant about investing in a club in the future. Newcastle will have scared them off.

The Premier League was like a runaway train going downhill. It had to be controlled. FFP and in particular the Everton point deduction might just have brought some sanity back into the game.

Yes, it needs fine tuning but in the long term it has merit.

[brontebilly]

Players agents must be right p*ssed off with FFP being used as a bargaining tool in all contract talks.

Any increase in wage for an existing player could result in another player getting the boot. Win bonuses are the way forward!!

Bezos, Musk, States etc will be very hesitant about investing in a club in the future. Newcastle will have scared them off.

The Premier League was like a runaway train going downhill. It had to be controlled. FFP and in particular the Everton point deduction might just have brought some sanity back into the game.

Yes, it needs fine tuning but in the long term it has merit.

Until they can land charges on Man City that actually stick they are at nothing. There was merit in FFP but it's implementation is having unintended consequences that are damaging to player and club development. Any model that incentivises academy 'farms' is not good for the game.

[tomd2103]

Players agents must be right p*ssed off with FFP being used as a bargaining tool in all contract talks.

Any increase in wage for an existing player could result in another player getting the boot. Win bonuses are the way forward!!

Bezos, Musk, States etc will be very hesitant about investing in a club in the future. Newcastle will have scared them off.

The Premier League was like a runaway train going downhill. It had to be controlled. FFP and in particular the Everton point deduction might just have brought some sanity back into the game.

Yes, it needs fine tuning but in the long term it has merit.

Until they can land charges on Man City that actually stick they are at nothing. There was merit in FFP but it's implementation is having unintended consequences that are damaging to player and club development. Any model that incentivises academy 'farms' is not good for the game.

Yep, for decades I have been wondering what would be required for us to 'take that next step' and that list a few pages back showing the wage bills of those six clubs and the percentage they are of their turnover puts it in black and white.

With FFP, even having billionaire owners is not enough. 

[pablo_picasso]

Players agents must be right p*ssed off with FFP being used as a bargaining tool in all contract talks.

Any increase in wage for an existing player could result in another player getting the boot. Win bonuses are the way forward!!

Bezos, Musk, States etc will be very hesitant about investing in a club in the future. Newcastle will have scared them off.

The Premier League was like a runaway train going downhill. It had to be controlled. FFP and in particular the Everton point deduction might just have brought some sanity back into the game.

Yes, it needs fine tuning but in the long term it has merit.

Until they can land charges on Man City that actually stick they are at nothing. There was merit in FFP but it's implementation is having unintended consequences that are damaging to player and club development. Any model that incentivises academy 'farms' is not good for the game.

Absolutely this.

FFP or whatever the fuck they are calling it now will never work while the likes of ManC & Chelsea can still utilise the profits from sponsorships gained while they were cheating the fuck out of the game.

[Brazilian Villain]

Chelseas announce losses of £90m. https://www.bbc.com/sport/articles/cgevny0vg4qo

Their parent company lost £653m in its first 16 months.

[pablo_picasso]

Chelseas announce losses of £90m. https://www.bbc.com/sport/articles/cgevny0vg4qo

Their parent company lost £653m in its first 16 months.

£210M over two years...

Christ, I hope they get fucked over seven ways from Sunday.

Im sure they will sleaze their way out of it somehow...

[Mister E]

Buendia came in before JG was sold; he came in to add further quality to the team not to replace JG.
But I take the point you're making.
I, like others, hold no vitriol towards JG: I think he made a big mistake (because he could have been part of our renaissance), but selling him may have saved us from financial restrictions.

Although "deals" are usually thrashed out in the weeks beforehand between clubs so although Bailey, Buendia and Ings were all bought before Grealish was sold, the money spent might be knowing he was leaving and ensuring transfer fees then didn't shoot up due to having the Citeh cash.
But when they came in, we did think the purchases were to free Grealish up as when he was stopped, the team used to be stopped.

No. I think you're conflating the Buendia acquisition with those of Bailey and Ings. Buendia came in very early, as a complement to JG; the other two (and particularly Ings) came in to compensate for JG's departure. Regardless of how Purslow tried to spin it.

[itbrvilla]

Wrong thread....

[Percy McCarthy]

Posted this in the Diaby thread, more appropriate in here:

According to the accounts we only spent sixty-odd million in the last TWO transfer windows. I think there must be a few clauses in the reported fees for Torres and Diaby.

EDIT: Since the reporting period, £67.9m spent, £40.3m in sales. Better than I would have expected.

[Dante Lavelli]

It would be good if all FFP figures/adjustments were a matter of public record.

Agree.  The media do not help as they’re quoting ‘accounting’ losses and then saying that clubs can lose £105m over three seasons.  They're linked but they’re not the same.

[PeterWithe]

Posted this in the Diaby thread, more appropriate in here:

According to the accounts we only spent sixty-odd million in the last TWO transfer windows. I think there must be a few clauses in the reported fees for Torres and Diaby.

EDIT: Since the reporting period, £67.9m spent, £40.3m in sales. Better than I would have expected.

How are outgoing transfer fees accounted for? The money leaves us over the length of the contract signed doesn’t it? So is that accounted for in one hit or as a ‘future liability’ in the accounts?

[Chap]

It would be good if all FFP figures/adjustments were a matter of public record.

Agree.  The media do not help as they’re quoting ‘accounting’ losses and then saying that clubs can lose £105m over three seasons.  They're linked but they’re not the same.

Why let fact get in the way of a scare story?

[Risso]

Posted this in the Diaby thread, more appropriate in here:

According to the accounts we only spent sixty-odd million in the last TWO transfer windows. I think there must be a few clauses in the reported fees for Torres and Diaby.

EDIT: Since the reporting period, £67.9m spent, £40.3m in sales. Better than I would have expected.

There's £62m in contingent liabilities, so you're right mate. Some of that will be for Torres and Diaby, no doubt. More to do do with Diaby I'd have thought, but there's absolutely no way of knowing or even having a guess really.