Youri Tielemans

[chrisw1]

This is why it's so hard for us to compete with the established CL clubs in terms of squad building.  A few free's and a few £30m players and we start to hit FFP limits.  It's even easier for the oil clubs that can invent sponsorships and write their own cheques.

[Smithy]

This is why it's so hard for us to compete with the established CL clubs in terms of squad building.  A few free's and a few £30m players and we start to hit FFP limits.  It's even easier for the oil clubs that can invent sponsorships and write their own cheques.

Yes, that is true, but at the same time I also think you have to give the owners/club enormous credit for getting us from a team not even good enough to be promoted via the automatic spots to one on the fringes of the Champions league fight in four years, all while NOT breaking the FFP rules (though we apparently went very close in the first 2 years we were up).

The next bit is the biggest, and toughest step to take, and I honestly don't know how we take that step if we don't have any money to spend.  Short of selling someone like Dougie for £100m and letting Monchi invest it in four players who we hope will all be brilliant.  But that feels extremely risky, and I hope it doesn't come to that.  Everyone sells their best players at some point, but I don't want us to be a Brighton where it becomes a regular occurrence.  I'm sure Tom Heck is focussed on improving the commercial areas to help with FFP, but I don't think he could have made even a tiny dent by the next transfer window.

[SoccerHQ]

What are you basing that on?

Just some stuff I read a while back.  The Jack money is off the books now, so the 'net spend' narrative isn't what it was.  I think the FFP maths is an awful lot tighter than people realise.

I think you're right.

There was clearly some method to pretty much selling every promising young player we had on verge of first team squad this season as those type of sales are big pluses for the FFP balance sheet and it was going to be much harder to shift guys like Digne, Bert and Donk so might aswell keep them around with their experience and extra games.

Of course if Emery was desperate to keep one of them allowances would've been made I'm sure but I think he understood the bigger picture.

I think in January we'll see a Zaniolo type deal of loan with option to buy if we make CL and also a Duran type signing.

[SoccerHQ]

This is why it's so hard for us to compete with the established CL clubs in terms of squad building.  A few free's and a few £30m players and we start to hit FFP limits.  It's even easier for the oil clubs that can invent sponsorships and write their own cheques.

Yes, that is true, but at the same time I also think you have to give the owners/club enormous credit for getting us from a team not even good enough to be promoted via the automatic spots to one on the fringes of the Champions league fight in four years, all while NOT breaking the FFP rules (though we apparently went very close in the first 2 years we were up).

The next bit is the biggest, and toughest step to take, and I honestly don't know how we take that step if we don't have any money to spend.  Short of selling someone like Dougie for £100m and letting Monchi invest it in four players who we hope will all be brilliant.  But that feels extremely risky, and I hope it doesn't come to that.  Everyone sells their best players at some point, but I don't want us to be a Brighton where it becomes a regular occurrence.  I'm sure Tom Heck is focussed on improving the commercial areas to help with FFP, but I don't think he could have made even a tiny dent by the next transfer window.

Need to get Doug on a new deal a.s.a.p. Probably be end of season but would be a strange time for him to walk out on us if we make CL while he signed a new deal 18 months back when we were in the relegation zone and he wasn't even getting a game. Also back in the Brazil squad.

This is a controversial one as like everyone else I think he's brilliant but if we want a big sale to balance FFP for a year or two I think everything points at Ramsey tbh.

His value will increase once England start calling him up which would've already happened but for injury by all accounts.

He's very good of course. However we've still won all these games without him hardly playing a minute this season and our central midfield unit is fixed for the foreseeable so he isn't playing there again unless we get significant injuries.

Found his niche nicely coming in from the left but not like he's irreplaceable there with how Emery sets up.

We'll see how Monchi adapts the model as the season goes on. At Sevilla it was a fact of life they had to sell homegrown products like Navas and Ramos even when they were winning european titles and finishing top 4.

[Dante Lavelli]

Not that I’m advocating selling either but selling Dougie/SJM would be similar to selling a homegrown player now as their transfer fees have been written off over the duration of their first contract (I think).

[olaftab]

Not only that Dante but we have developed these two boys fron OK players into absolutely top end performers. It's taken a few years, we don't need to chop down our fruit trees.

[Risso]

Not that I’m advocating selling either but selling Dougie/SJM would be similar to selling a homegrown player now as their transfer fees have been written off over the duration of their first contract (I think).

That's not quite how it works, but both of them will have hardly anything left value wise on the balance sheet. McGinn was so cheap that that would have been the case if we'd sold him 6 months after he signed to be honest.

[Dante Lavelli]

Not that I’m advocating selling either but selling Dougie/SJM would be similar to selling a homegrown player now as their transfer fees have been written off over the duration of their first contract (I think).

That's not quite how it works, but both of them will have hardly anything left value wise on the balance sheet. McGinn was so cheap that that would have been the case if we'd sold him 6 months after he signed to be honest.

Oh right, can you expand or correct the below so I finally get it right?
Hypothetically, If a player is signed for £10m on a 5 year deal I thought each year £2m was written off. If his signs new deal in year 6 there is no fee left so effectively when sold it’d be “homegrown” style profit.

[paul_e]

That's sort of right but the important bit is that whatever their 'value' is when they sign a new deal gets redistributed over that new deal.

So signs for £10m over 5 years. After 3 years value is 4m but signs a new deal over 4 years. From them their value drops by £1m a year until the end of the new contract.

The only way they'd hit zero is if the contract had ended and they were free to leave but then signed a new deal.

[Smithy]

That's sort of right but the important bit is that whatever their 'value' is when they sign a new deal gets redistributed over that new deal.

So signs for £10m over 5 years. After 3 years value is 4m but signs a new deal over 4 years. From them their value drops by £1m a year until the end of the new contract.

The only way they'd hit zero is if the contract had ended and they were free to leave but then signed a new deal.

I assume we're talking about the amortisation of their purchase price here, rather than their book value?  What you've described sounds like it makes perfect sense, but it also feels like it would be open to abuse by clubs who could extend the contracts of expensive players to improve their FFP numbers in the short-term? 

For example, you buy a £100m player on a four-year deal, who costs you £25m a year in FFP terms, but after two years you're in potential FFP trouble; to mitigate that you could give that player a new 5-year contract, and the year-three amortised cost drops from £25m (for the 3rd year of a 4-year deal for a player costing £100m) down to £10m (The 1st year of a five-year deal for a player who now "costs" only £50m).

Or have I got this completely arse-end backwards?

[Risso]

That's basically right, yes. But for FFP purposes, you'd assume a new contract is going to mean an uplift in salary as well. And obviously you're going to have that £10m a year coming off for an extra 3 years, so it starts to get a bit like credit card debt.

[Smithy]

That's basically right, yes. But for FFP purposes, you'd assume a new contract is going to mean an uplift in salary as well. And obviously you're going to have that £10m a year coming off for an extra 3 years, so it starts to get a bit like credit card debt.

Oh yes, sorry, I didn't mean it's a way to "cheat" the system entirely, you're just delaying it.  The debt is still there.  I just meant in the short term, it could be a way to fudge the FFP numbers if you're facing a bad year. Say, for example, you've spent big but you don't qualify for the Champions League for a couple of seasons.  I guess it's a loophole in the same way Chelsea were giving out 7-year contracts to keep their annual costs lower (a loophole they are closing).  This feels like just another way to achieve the same thing.  Albeit much harder, as you'd still have to get the players themselves to agree to take an extended contract (maybe with a release clause incentive?).

I'm way out of my comfort zone here (clearly), it just seems that if a layperson like me can spot a few seemingly obvious loopholes, the clubs themselves must be doing all sorts of stuff like this, and in far more creative ways.

[paul_e]

That's sort of right but the important bit is that whatever their 'value' is when they sign a new deal gets redistributed over that new deal.

So signs for £10m over 5 years. After 3 years value is 4m but signs a new deal over 4 years. From them their value drops by £1m a year until the end of the new contract.

The only way they'd hit zero is if the contract had ended and they were free to leave but then signed a new deal.

I assume we're talking about the amortisation of their purchase price here, rather than their book value?  What you've described sounds like it makes perfect sense, but it also feels like it would be open to abuse by clubs who could extend the contracts of expensive players to improve their FFP numbers in the short-term? 

For example, you buy a £100m player on a four-year deal, who costs you £25m a year in FFP terms, but after two years you're in potential FFP trouble; to mitigate that you could give that player a new 5-year contract, and the year-three amortised cost drops from £25m (for the 3rd year of a 4-year deal for a player costing £100m) down to £10m (The 1st year of a five-year deal for a player who now "costs" only £50m).

Or have I got this completely arse-end backwards?

Yes this is amortisation, and yes it was open to exactly the sort of 'trick' you describe, that's also why Chelsea were offering such long contracts. I suspect it would now be subject to the same rule change that came in because of what Chelsea did that means player costs are now amortised over 5 years at most, regardless of contracts - https://theathletic.com/4647825/2023/06/28/uefa-amortisation-ffp-transfers/

[OCD]

If there's a loophole, you can expect Chelsea or Man City to find it.

[Toronto Villa]

Hope he starts at weekend. We need more control in midfield when playing away. They’re going to be confident after recent results so we need to make sure we keep the ball and them penned in as we find a way through