Czarnikjak

The point you are making is a minor implementation detail that could be argued the way you see it. Overall though, covid and the FFP regulations around it, gave teams with owners willing to plough the money in (villa, city and Chelsea mainly) massive advantage. Namely the provision to not include any losses caused by covid in FFP calculations. While other teams had to tighter their belts and reign in spending, we continued like covid doesn't exists thanks to injections from our owners. Overall i estimate that gave us about £60m advantage over the likes of West ham or Wolves.

Why would you say that? There's no suggestion that their current spending puts them anywhere near breaking the limits. The ongoing premier league investigation into ManCity looks at events from 2014, the outcome of it and possible penalty remain to be seen. Look at Everton, they pushed FFP to the limits over last few seasons and now ended up only being permitted to sign freebies like Townsend and Grey for £1m. They are desperate for someone to buy some of their players so they can sign Dumfries.

If you look at that Premier League PSR rule closely it's average of last two years, so: (70/2) + 13 + 13 = 61 4 by 3 formula is what EFL decided to use in the championship

Agree with everything you said. But make no mistake, this wasn't part of the plan. It's first big setback for NSWE regime. It will be interesting to see how the owners, management, players and fans react to it.

Did he carry big suitcase that fits £100m notes?

Yes, they pumped about £100m every year so far. Problem is that FFP calculations are based on revenue generated by the club not on the amount of money you pump in through shares. That’s why Man City are now being investigated by Premier League as they disguised some of their owners money as fake commercial revenue to cheat FFP. That was back in 2014 mind you, Premier League is more wise now to tricks like that, so no, we wouldn’t get away with it now.

The more you spend in previous seasons the less leeway you have left, unless your revenue increases significantly. See my calculations on how much we can spend in the FFP thread.

Yes. Normally you would deduct residual net book value of the player from your sale price, but Connors value in our books will be zero ( he was signed years ago for 1m, that will be almost fully amortised by now). Obviously that only balances this year, next year you still need to find another £4m to balance next year's amortisation. But we only worry about this year atm.

Depends how much that fix would cost. With the way transfer amortisation works, selling Connor for £4m allows you to sign £20m player (cost spread over 5 years contract), assuming the wages of both players are the same. From FFP perspective those 2 transactions equal to 0 in this accounting period.

Close to it. Although some smaller outgoings later on in the window (like Connor) would free more budget (we could buy before sell, the order of transactions doesn't matter as the FFP is submitted in March)

You are crazy. There is no Athletic agenda against Villa. Ornstein has been pretty balanced on the whole saga.

I concur, the bid will be genuine. Difficult to say how much Southampton will actually let him go for, £35-40m? Would we pay that much? With Jack going, I would say yes.

Grealish £100m bid. Punters will link the two together and start betting on Bailey to come to us

Just about. Selling Connor or Anwar would make it easier. See the details on the FFP thread

There's too many unresolved questions at the moment that can affect Anwars future with us. 1. Is Bailey coming? 2. Any other wide players incoming? 3. Is Jack staying? 4. Is JPB going out on loan? Once we have answers to the above we will be in better position to assess the need to keep Anwar around and his value to us.

Indeed, if we are being pedantic BTW, interesting article below, looks like our friends at Everton find themselves in hot water with FFP: http://sportwitness.co.uk/ffp-restrictions-stopping-everton-finalising-deal-belief-transfer-will-happen-soon/ That would explain why they only spent £1.5m this summer so far.

I don't think it would take silly offer for us to sell him. £10-12 would do it i reckon. If we get Bailey in we have Bailey,grealish,traore,Buendia,young,jpb who all can play on the wing. There's really no need to keep him around. Pocket small profit on him and get his wages off the bill. His value will only go down from now on

We can keep him till end of august and let him go in the deadline day. by then we should have fit Traore and Bailey. Also Grealish, Buendia and Young can play on the wings. Plenty of cover, no need for AEG really

You are right, he was given number 32 and RED32 payed for his wages

@blandy Found it, it is in the Premier League Handbook after all, just in different section of it: It is 4 seasons as I assumed in my calculations.

If I had a penny for every Footbal Insider story that didn't materialise i could buy him. They are one of the worst.

Yes pretty much. Although some of that spare money might have to reserved for improved contract for Jack and sanson which came in halfway last accounting period and who I didn't include in my calculations. So realistically after signing Bailey, we will have to sell somebody like Hourihane or Elghazi to balance the books if we want further incomings.

Even at €15m we should snap their hand ASAP. But I can't see it happening tbh...they were looking to sign Xhaka from Arsenal but were lowballing arsenal...not sure they have the money

We will find out in due course. Hope Premier League was more transparent, EFL upped their game recently and are much better at publishing this kind of information...not that Derby County are very happy with this

@blandy Yes, you are correct that the latest publicly available 21/22 Premier League Handbook doesn't document any COVID allowances. The 20/21 Handbook had the rule below added to it: E.53. In respect of Season 2019/20, the provisions of Rules E.48 to E.51 shall not apply. That basically meant that last summer nobody was scrutinised on FFP. If you take the published 21/22 Handbook rules at their face value. they ignore COVID completely and are 100% the same as before 20/21 season, so you would need to calculate last 3 seasons individually: T-1 20/21 T-2 19/20 T-3 18/19 Without any allowable COVID caused write-offs, as the handbook doesn't mention you are allowed to write anything off. Most teams would fail the FFP scrutiny if that was the case as losses for 20/21 will be massive if you don't exclude COVID induced losses. I suspect that privately shareholders (clubs and Premier League board) have updated rulebook that will be published in due course. This rulebook will contain similar changes that EFL already published (COVID costs excluded and last 2 seasons combined into 1).