Czarnikjak
-
Posts
770 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Downloads
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Store
Events
Posts posted by Czarnikjak
-
-
2 minutes ago, CVByrne said:
The second is by maintaining a smaller first team squad supplemented by our academy. Chukwuemeka for example will likely sign a 5 year deal in a few weeks when he turns 18 on something like 10k per week ( I think Ramsey's new deal was £7,500 pw).
Good post with good points made.
I have tried to advocate that our squad needs to be a "lean but mean" machine with no bloat, to allow us to compete on wage front with higher revenue clubs.
People keep talking about bringing more depth, that's where our young players need to step in. There's an obvious risk to this approach, but it has a big potential reward.
We are in a good position now with our squad, probably the best position we have been in for decades, the so called dead wood is minimal.
-
2
-
-
On the other hand, once everybody was fit again ( Wilson, asm) they stayed up pretty comfortably. That's all Ashley wants while he is looking for a sale.
If they avoid major injuries they will stay up again. A horrible reality for the fans, they really need new owner to kick on ( we don't want that mind you, don't need another competitor)
-
31 minutes ago, MaVilla said:
thats interesting and all, but we really need to look at it over 3 years, rather than 1.
even with this summer included, we are still the 4th biggest spenders.
I really wanted us to sign a DM, however i can see why we decided to not go mad this summer, also, unless im wrong, when we get to next summer we will be able to spend knowing the 19/20 spend of 140m will come off the books soon, so we will then only have a net spend of roughly 75m over the two prior seasons of 20/21 and 21/22 (excluding next summers spend), rather than the 210m ish currently showing.
Unless im wrong, that means next summer we might be able to have a huge war chest.
I wonder if this seaosn is consolidating, bedding in the new signings (who are actually very good signings), and looking to go big next summer.
@Czarnikjak thoughts?
Table - 19/20, 20/21, 21/22 net spend (ie: 3 yr FFP spend as of now)
Since promotion we have clearly punched above our revenue weight with transfers (we had no choice if we wanted to be competitive). The 3 year table you have here shows it.
Although Premier League FFP is not a big concern to us anymore (for a while at least following JG sale), our growing wage bill will be a stumbling block to any huge spending next summer imo. We are likely to see maybe 1/2 big additions, not 5 like we have seen in previous years.
I am going to post financial summary of our transfer window in the FFP thread later on this week.
-
2
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Condimentalist said:
Is Ireogbunam someone who could play first team this season do we think? Given our need for a DM...
This season? Not a chance IMO.
Would need a loan first i think to see how he copes with senior football over good few matches.
-
Small would've been great, but he wanted 1st squad place, not to be part of academy anymore. He got that at Southampton.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, lexicon said:
You can see the difference a bit of experience makes tbf
Samson should be running this game
-
6 minutes ago, lexicon said:
Poor Sil Swinkels is having a tough time today. Made a few mistakes, giving the ball away through nerves etc.
Bonus trivia, Zych is pronounced 'zeek' apparently. Wycombe commentator butchering his name.
Speak of the devil, just made a great save. He looks like a very good prospect tbf.
Should be pronounced Zih
-
2 minutes ago, MaVilla said:
so what level is this wycombe team?, its not in PL2 is it?
It's the senior Wycombe team, they are in League 1 i think.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Genie said:
Arsenal look like they are in big trouble.
Weak squad, over paying on players, unhappy players speaking publicly, poor form, bottom of the league, rookie manager.
What a mess. They’ll probably sack Arteta after the next next loss and leave the new manager several months away from a transfer window.
The concern shown by some for Arsenal is commendable. I didn't realise Arsenal football club has some much affection amongst our fanbase.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, blandy said:
I think there's a slight area where there's a tad more to it.
Yes, wages (including any sign on fee and pension and NI contributions), but rather than "amortisation" I'd put it as "transfer fee paid, timing of payments, agents fees, VAT and transfer levy - the amount and timing of outgoings to third parties, basically. Timing matters, not just for pure accounting purposes, but because for many clubs large chunks of income (mainly from TV, season ticket sales and sponsorship) are provided at specific times of the year, and this helps with payments out - the actual cashflow together with the date(s). If the club doesn't have owners with lots of available cash, then they'd need to take out short term loans, which adds more cost.
You are correct to list these items out, the all matter.
I am just trying to show that people shouldn't be looking at the "net transfer spend" to make informed opinions about our transfer window.
I understand that's it's an easy to present and digest figure, but reality is much more complicated than that.
-
2
-
-
Willian has walked away from £20.5m and has just now terminated his Arsenal contract.
He had two years left on £240,000 a week deal.
Honourable
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
23 minutes ago, a-k said:Sorry, but this is a moot point. We know that Buendia was brought in to play with JG, Young was already incoming, and that we were offering JG a new deal of around +100k p/w more. It can be argued whether Bailey would also have come even if JG stayed, but let's consider that he was brought in with the JG money. So, irrespective of other fees to be paid from dealings from previous windows, we were at minimum looking of an outlay of 35mil in transfer fees and around 200k p/w in wages (in addition to JG's original salary, although I may even be underestimating Young's + Buendia's weekly pay). We then end up with 100mil incoming and JG's p/w off the books. We have since brought in Bailey (30 mil), Ings (25 mil), Tuanzebe (5 mil? loan fee), at let's say a combined 300k p/w.
So, our plans were at minimum to spend 35 mil in fees and increase the wage bill by around 200k p/w. We have since received 100 mil in fees and spent 60 mil. We have then decreased the wage bill by 100k p/w (underestimating JG's deal for simplicity) and increased the bill by 300k p/w. Therefore, we now have 40mil in the bank from transfers fees when we were meant to outlay 35mil (i.e., net difference of 75mil worth of money to spend), and have broken even on weekly salary (meant to increase by 200k p/w, in the end got 3 players in at 300k p/w combined while dropping 100k p/w from JG).
These calculations are all based on the original outlay that was planned even knowing we had other payments from previous years. Now, we may have since looked at players and tried to get some but they didn't work out for whatever reason (fee was too much even though we have the money, player didn't want to come, etc.), but to say that net spend is meaningless in our case and that we don't have cash to spend is incorrect, sorry. The only other reason I could see us holding on to the extra money is if we feel our commercial value (or the extra revenue) from having JG has dropped by a substantial amount now that he is gone, but who knows. NSWE have brought us a long way and I believe we will continue in the right direction with them, but from the outside looking in it is disappointing that we are well off our initial planned spend.
I appreciate your post, as it looks like you have put some effort into it.
My premise still stands that the "Transfer Net Spend" as Sky like to present it to an average punter is a meaningless figure to football clubs.
Clubs don't look at, or use this figure in their plans and calculations. We shouldn't be using it either if we want to accurately describe our situation.
What clubs are interested in is:
1. Total cost of ownership of the player (wages plus amortisation)
2. Actual cash flow behind the transfers (which can be very different to the Sky touted "net spend")
It's too simplistic to quote the "net spend" like the original poster did and complain that we have negative value.
Regarding the figures you're quoting, I mostly agree with them. Looking from the outside, yes we could spend more money this summer. But the management and coaching staff decided it's not necessary/beneficial in the long-term (or maybe simply the players they really wanted were not available). I have trust in their decisions as they are much better informed then us to make them.
-
5
-
21 minutes ago, KMitch said:
I can't wait for the window to shut so I can stop checking this thread daily for transfer updates, but instead find myself reading page after page of the doom mongers spewing the same garbage for the last 8+ seasons. Some of you moaners must be great at parties... Unbelievable. This culture of instant gratification/entitlement makes me hate being a fan of sports. Nothing is good enough for some people...
This is the strongest Villa team we've had during my 15 years of following the Premier League, and yes that includes our 07-08 squad. We have the best youth team setup in the country with several superb talents on the verge of breaking through, and just brought in 4 quality players this summer. Yeah, we sold Jack... Boo hoo... We got the 6th highest transfer fee of all time for him, when we nearly sold him for Josh Onomah and a bag of crisps 3 summers ago. We finally have some smart men who have business sense in control of the club, along with a fantastic manager who worked his way up to the Premier League from League 1 and hasn't let us down yet. If they've decided to not spend more money or not to buy this magical brick shithouse defensive midfielder who will magically allow us to qualify for the Champions League, I trust them. UTV!!!
You need to stop posting here. Your post is far too sensible and measured.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, a-k said:
It is not meaningless when we dropped 35mil on player to play with JG, ergo we were looking at having a net spend of circa 35mil . That's the point.
Net spend is meaningless touted by Sky as it is easy to understand by average punter.
What counts to clubs is the overall cost of ownership of a player (amortisation plus wages) and cash flow. You forgeting to factor wages of any more of potential incomings.
-
Just now, a-k said:
No, I agree. If the right player at the right price was available, I'm sure we would go for them. I think we are wise enough to not overpay for players just because we have the cash. I was just saying that from the outside looking in, it is just a bit disappointing that we have a negative net spend.
Net Spend is a meaningless figure, not reflecting how the transfers are actually accounted and paid for.
Our actual cash spent this summer on transfers will significantly outweigh the cash received. People seem to forget we still paying large chunks of moneys for our 2019 and 2020 summer transfers. For example we still had to pay outstanding £6m to Bournemouth for Mings last month.
-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, jacketspuds said:
As impressed as I've been with our youngsters, it does feel like we're cutting things a bit close by letting Guilbert and Hourihane leave without bringing anyone else in.
I just hope that this "too good to turn down" deal crops up before the window closes.
Hourihane is our 7th choice midfielder...how is that cutting close?
-
18 minutes ago, CVByrne said:
Shame we couldn't find a club to buy him because of his wages. A loan is next best thing as long as it covers those wages.
He did good for us and I'll have fond memories of him.
That's the problem, nobody has the money to take players like that.
Regarding wages, if they pay 50% of his wages we should be happy. Brugge allegedly only took on 20% of Wesley's wages.
-
12 minutes ago, KAZZAM said:
Spurs splashing the cash again on Emerson Royal 30 mill euros
That'll take there spending way over 100 mill
Wasn't it Spurs and Arsenal who took out loans from the government for corona? But now spending more than anyone else.
How's that happened then?
They paid those loans back with long term bonds.
Also their money making machine stadiums opened again and they will rake in £100m gate receitets each this season ( big chunks of it already received as season ticket renewals).
-
8 minutes ago, CVByrne said:
Barry continually being omitted from an Ipswich side in poor form and winless so far this season. I worry for his progression. Assume a recall is possible if he's not had enough game time come Jan?
Good reality check for him. It’s not easy to make it in professional football, regardless of the talent you have.
let’s hope he reacts well and works even harder.
-
13 hours ago, Delphinho123 said:
Yeh, exactly.
If you want to judge him as a 17yr old making their debut then he did well. All things considered.
But as a player in a PL match? He struggled.
Like we’ve said. Who cares, he’s 17. He’ll be great I’m sure.
Agreed with your points. Carney is not ready yet to start games in Premier League and make an impact. Off the bench cameos, yes.
Amazes me how well Bellingham is doing at the same age, already starring for Dortmund and playing for England. He must be one in generation talent.
-
1 minute ago, Delphinho123 said:
Grealish or no Grealish, not replacing the weakest area of your side (defensive midfield) is mind blowing, especially for an organisation as well run as Villa.
Im stunned they haven’t bought a player in to properly shield the back 4. It should have been our number one priority.
They must have very high hopes for Luiz and his development, and see him as the type of sitting midfielder we want to play with. The results this season will show if it is a good or bad decision.
-
4 minutes ago, Paul33 said:
I think we've seen a lot of consistent evidence over the last year or so that what Smith says in interviews/press conferences has more to do with broader club strategies than providing the media/fans with the truth. Not saying we'll be in for anybody but Smith's comments have no value whatsoever in determining that !
He does usually talk rubbish when it comes to injuries, but apart from that he is reliable. When he says no more incomings it means no more incomings.
-
1 hour ago, mallett said:
Does anyone else think that our academy doesn’t seem overly focused on results?
It's not just our academy, the same applies to all academies. Focus is on developing the players.
-
1 minute ago, useless said:
A new signing would cheer me up.
Not happening. Smith said again today after the match - no more incomings.
There might be couple loans out, that's it. We are done ladies and gentlemen, accept it.
Summer transfer window 2021
in Villa Talk
Posted
Amortisation concept is not unique to football, it's standard accounting practise for all businesses.
As to the question if it should be used for FFP purposes? Who knows, I don't think there's a good and fair way to implement FFP.
UEFA seems to be moving to abandon it now and go for Salary Cap. Depending on the implementation details of this proposal, it could prove to be even more skewed towards the top clubs that the current model.