Czarnikjak

27 minutes ago, omariqy said:

So trying to get my head round where we are at with FFP.

2021/22 - we booked a £0.4m profit

2020/21 - we lost £37m 

2019/20 - we lost £99m but £36m of this was COVID losses

Allowable losses are £105m over a 3 year rolling period. Next year the 2019/20 rolls away. So for 2022/23 we should have allowable losses of c£70m to stay within FFP? Or am I missing something. 

On 31/07/2023 at 17:18, grantholtgolazo said:

125k per week is not a huge outlay for a top team, I agree he needs to play well but the endless gnashing of teeth over weekly wages is tiresome, especially viewed in context of majority of teams we need to overtake 

We are not a top team in terms of wages though and we never will be.

In our wage structure he is one of the top 3 earners and I would expect him to perform like that. Not just to be a bit part player like some people here are suggesting.

If he can't deliver that (due to injuries or whatever else), we need to try to get rid of him.

1 hour ago, DCJonah said:

I think he'll play a part. 

He looked better than Buendia or Bailey today. 

You can't play a part if you're constantly on the treatment table like he was for last 5 years. Let it go, he's not coming back.

He signed 1 year deal with them...So essentially it is a loan but put through as a transfer so not to take up one of their loan slots.

Apart from his wages off the wagebill I wouldn't think we getting a penny for him. Still, it's good we managed to offload him, what a disastrous transfer that was.

6 minutes ago, Jas10 said:

 

The last paragraph would suggest that we are done with major signings.

Now time for outgoings, and maybe incoming only if an opportunity hard to pass arises.

Looks like he will never be fit again.

1 hour ago, paul514 said:

 

we need to spend 100m + net every year just to try and catch then keep pace with the big six.

Net spent is such a meaningless figure, you shouldn't be using it.

Kamara and Tielemans - net spent zero

3 hours ago, RichW said:

 

Regardless of his injury at no point did he look good enough for the Premier League. £22 million fee for him was crazy. 

Suso was sacked for a reason after all

1 hour ago, TRO said:

I fear, if we sell him, we will regret it....thats how confident, I am of his ability.

We can sell with a buy back clause inserted. 

16 hours ago, CVByrne said:

Archer is fast

Looked fast against U21s defenders....different ball game in Premier League. Louie Barry looked fast against U21s as well...

Morals aside, how much are we actually benefiting from this deal?

Cazoo deal was apparently worth £6m per year, I can't find much information about this new deal...the only figure i could find mentioned £8m, if this is true, the extra 2 million doesn't seem to be worth the bad publicity associated with it.

Just now, tomav84 said:

Go back and check this thread when his signing was announced...no one thought we were being stupid back then?

I thought we were. I was against this signing from the very beginning. I'm sure I wasn't alone, maybe people didn't vocalized it here, but I couldn't be the only one thinking that this is a terrible idea.

3 hours ago, CVByrne said:

No Coutinho signed a 4 year contract not 3. Plus his wages were reported at 125k per week when he signed for 17m. 

Oh, you're right...4 years....we were even more stupid than I thought.

12 hours ago, CVByrne said:

Yeah they won't be able to cover even half of his annual cost. He costs £10.75m per year so we'd want at least 6/7m covered to entertain the idea of loaning. 

More than that.

Wages 7m (135k per week), amortisation 6m ( 17m / 3 year contract)...so more like £13m per year.

1 hour ago, Villan_of_oz said:

This isn't meant to be personal, but anyone who still thinks Coutinho can offer us anything is surely still writing a letter to Santa each year telling him what you want for Xmas

Some people are still waiting for Micah Richards to get fit....you can't help them.

3 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

You set the cap now and don't change it, so as clubs overall get wealthier it stops clubs at the top from spending disproportionately more than the clubs behind them. It gives some disparity of course, but it caps that advantage. This is amazing, this benefits us the most as we will have more income than the smaller clubs and it drags the bigger clubs down towards us more over time

I wouldn't get too excited just yet.

First, it's only a rumoured proposal, we don't even know if it will be put up for a vote and when it will be applied (if ever).

Second, that would be in place alongside revenue based cap as well...So we still won't be able to match the big six in terms of wages.

Third, this proposal is not for a fixed, never changing cap. It will go up together with the broadcast revenue (the multiplier).

On 08/06/2023 at 09:17, Jas10 said:

https://www.myoldmansaid.com/aston-villa-to-go-bold-in-the-summer-transfer-market/?amp

 

I'm not sure I want Purslow to go bold in the transfer market. Last time he did we ended up with Coutinho and Ings

Just now, thabucks said:

See Newcastle have a new Saudi based sponsor which will net them £25mill a season…  

Hopefully next summer will be the last of dodgy Chinese gambling firms and we can attract a better commercial deal across the V.Sports Group…  

Dodgy Chinese gambling firms pay the best buck for teams like us.

Unless you're Saudi government you can't "entice" middle eastern companies to fork out £25m to sponsor your team.

43 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

We are ignored by the media largely, so the average fan probably won't know how loaded and well run we are. I didn't know Wolves were owned by the 7th richest owner, for example, until I dug into it. 

But yes, it does make for an exciting time to make money off your ignorant friends :). Or at least get a return that you could use to lay the alternative with a real bookie and be quids in anyway.

The wealth of the owners is almost meaningless. It's the willingness of the owners to invest that wealth that matters. As you pointed out, Wolves have loaded owners, yet they closed the taps.

Additionally, with FFP around, you also need the willingness and ability to circumvent the rules and inject your club with funds to push you to the next level (aka PSG, City and now Newcastle). Political clout of state owned clubs is perfect for this. Our owners don't want to or can't do it, thus we play by the rules putting as at a disadvantage against those clubs.

2 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

How could our squad be a similar level to 4th and 18th placed teams? The gulf between those two teams is massive.

We are also very unlikely to finish top 4 and just as unlikely to finish bottom half unless we have a disastrously different season to the season just ended.

That's why 2nd to 20th is unrealistic whereas 5th to 10th, as I suggested, is realistic.

The competitiveness of most  teams in Premier League has increased massively due to the influx of money. Even lesser clubs can now afford to sign very good players from any other European league. As Leicester showed You can have one bad season and get relegated. Look at us under Gerrard as well , the same squad as under Emery and we struggled as hell.

By any objective metric (wages and squad cost) Leicester had comparative squad to Newcastle this season. They just massively underperformed  while Newcastle over performed. The same can happen to us next season.
 

Obviously us finishing 8th is much more likely than 18th, but both outcomes are still realistic possibilities.

14 minutes ago, Dante_Lockhart said:

Or, we could actually keep him and use him next season. He's hardly useless. Just been a bit unlucky with injuries lately.

His injuries were all muscular, not impact.

I would say they have more to do with his physiology than luck. There's a reason why he has hardly played over last 5 years. 

6 hours ago, CVByrne said:

We can't actually sell him only loan him. Barcelona hold a 50% sell on clause and he has £12.75m remaining book value. So to break even financially we need to sell him for £25.5m.

This signing looks worse and worse with time. We can't sell him without making a big loss.

I wonder if it's actually better to sell him this summer and take the FFP hit now, while grealish money is still part of the calculations.

That would free up his wages and amortisation for next seasons when we are going to be more exposed. We would be saving £6m amortisation and £7m wages yearly. So even taking £13m netbook loss on him, evens itself out over one season.

2 minutes ago, PussEKatt said:

I personally would like to see T.Abraham back.

He is not a "premier league proven" striker. Much less than Watkins at least. He only has one season out of 3 with double digit goals in Premier League. Watkins has 3 out of 3.

Besides, he's just done his ACL...why the heck would you sign someone with ACL?

1 hour ago, PussEKatt said:

As you say,we definately need more quality players but we dont need them all for next season.Players like Dendonkers etc will only play the odd game ( when needed ) But we definately need a proven striker,IMHo if we had a proven PL striker we would be better off by about 12 points.

People still harping on about "proven PL strikers"? What a load of tosh.

Haland and Kane are the only 2 more proven Premier League strikers than Watkins. Which one do you fancy? Or maybe you want Ings back? He was signed as proven pl striker.

43 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

Would that not be unrealistic. I think realistic would be 5th to 10th.

Our squad is at similar levels to Newcastle and Leicester this season. If they can finish in top 4 and 18th, so can we.

Our expected position is probably around 8th, but if we have very good or very bad season, it can swing massively, up or down respectively. I said 2nd to 20th as I don't think anyone can touch city