Czarnikjak

No Feeney? Surprising

It's past 10pm but I can't see the game being available yet...do you?

You’re missing the point here. In MLB every team has the same salary cap. What uefa are proposing here is a cap that depends on each team’s individual revenue. This is the whole point of the argument against it. it means that it won’t be the top teams paying the luxury tax. It will be the smaller teams who try to catch up to the elite (like villa ) that will be forced to pay the luxury tax if they want to compete.

I don’t have the sub for times (if someone has please paste the article here if allowed), but it doesn’t look like the NBA model. In NBA every team has the same salary cap, this one is related to the revenue. It means that teams like city and united would have the cap 3 or 4 times bigger than a team like villa

Bailey can certainly play LW. He did play there for Bayer a lot, although not last season . So it could have been Bailey-esr-buendia behind Watkins.

Not necessarily. He played alongside odegaard last season.

This is interesting. Although this is UEFA FFP, it would only applie to clubs involved in European competitions. It remains to be seen if Premier League follows suit or it sticks with its current regulations. Need to see more details of this proposal before we can make full judgement.

Injured for half a season and drugged up on sleeping pills for the rest of it? but seriously, who’s gonna play LW in this case? Bailey?

EFL have already closed that loophole. As of last month clubs are not allowed to do that anymore. It might still be possible in Premier League though, not sure on that. But so far only championship teams were forced to do that.

100% agree But Wesley would need to loaned out first, nobody will take a chance to buy him out right unless it's for peanuts.

It's not that simple though. These few owners that would be allowed to spend unlimited funds would massively inflate already high player wages. That in turn would force other teams, not so lucky to have rich owners, to get in to debt just to try to compete and stay relevant. It would affect the whole football pyramid. Current FFP rules are crap and need to be scrapped, but there has to be some other regulation.

Don't forget that since the takeover they injected further ~£300m via share issues. Purslow always says the the aim of the project is to bring "sustainable success" to the club. Which makes perfect sense, this is not a charity. I think we will not see the same level of cash injections from the owners anymore. They will still support the club where necessary, but the £100m yearly injections we saw since the takeover are gone IMO.

Indeed, our commercial deals reflect our current reputation and exposure around the world. Coming back from the championship we are midtable at best in this respect. The reason why Everton are getting £9m and we are getting £6m from Cazzoo is reputation and worldwide following. See the real-time Social media followers numbers, good approximation of the above. https://footballpredictions.net/social-rating/england/premier-league One of the reasons why Chelsea are getting x10 commercial revenue to us is that they have x10 number of fans around the world. Only through the on pitch success we will increase our worldwide recognition and commercial revenue will follow.

Somebody left brilliant comment on Twitter about Spurs: ”Balance sheet champions, you’ll never sing that.”

Oh no, he’s getting sacked in the morning…

@blandy, you are really overcomplicating it Rules are clear on this and don't allow wriggle room in terms of when you bank the profit from a player sale. You bank the whole profit at the point of sale. PSR calculations look only at Adjusted Earnings before Tax, these are not related to Cash Losses at all. Cash Losses are only relevant to the Secure Funding part of regulations which determines if you are allowed to go the the higher "tier" of losses (£105m vs £15m). Cash Losses indeed look at the actual money coming in from the transfer as per agreed payment plan, but in no way they affect PSR calculation, providing you satisfy the Secure Funding clause. Basically, as per point (ii) below, we just need a guarantee from our owners that they gonna cover the extra losses, which obviously already was given in the pervious years and will be extended if we want to continue loosing more than £15m in 3 year periods.

I am positive. See my discussion with blandy

No, that's how Cash Losses are defined in the rule A.1.28 PSR calculation doesn't use Cash Losses at all.

@blandy Apologies, I should have been clearer when I said "they". I meant Premier League and UEFA. And when I mentioned FFP, in relation to Premier League I obviously meant P&S rules. Lets look at Premier League rules as an example. Definition A.1.166: “PSR Calculation” means, save as indicated below, the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2. In respect of Season 2021/22, the PSR Calculation shall be the aggregation of: (a) the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T; (b) themeanoftheAdjustedEarningsBeforeTaxofT-1andT-2;and (c) the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-3; Clearly says that Adjusted Earnings Before Tax are used for PSR calculation (allowed adjustments are listed in paragraph A.1.5) If you look at Earnings Before Tax of any football club, you will find that the Profit on Player sales is accounted at once, regardless of the structure of the payment (as it should be if you follow correct accounting practices). The paragraph you are quoting is related to Secure Funding and what it should cover to be considered as adequate Secure Funding. Not strictly related to PSR calculation. There is no place for wriggle room in terms of how these profits are booked. I am 100% sure on this point.

This fact does not originate from Premier League or UEFA rules. It's just how accounting works. They decided to use profit and loss account for FFP calculations and not actual cash flows.

Payment structure of a transfer only impacts cash flow, not profit and loss account.The whole £100m is accounted as profit at the date of sale. They could structure they payments over 100 years, but it still gives us £100m profit for FFP purposes this year.

Reports of United wanting £5m loan fee for Tuanzebe, if that indeed includes wages I would be ok with it, if not, than it is taking a micky. https://www.unitedinfocus.com/news/manchester-united-hope-to-land-8-75m-in-loan-fees-for-williams-and-tuanzebe/

I wouldn’t be surprised if we let Guilbert go now with Tuanzebe capable of covering RB position if Cash is out. Smith never seemed to rate Fred.

Looked like we switched to 4-3-3 I wouldn't read too much into it. Salernitana were done by that point and couldn't run anymore. They looked really poor side tbh, average championship side at best.

In this post I will try to show how the departure of JG for £100m changes our FFP position and what's possible with this kind of money. For some background, you can look at one of my previous posts (linked below), where I explained our situation before JG departure. I also showed some numbers in that post explaining why I think that Buendia and Bailey came in regardless of JG money, but Ings and any further incomings will be funded by his departure: Important thing to remember is that the £100m sale profit is a one-off injection and it will disappear from our FFP balance after 3 years. For this reason one would always prefer a long term revenue increase instead of a player sale, but I digress. With this in mind, the sale of JG frees up ~£106.5m (including his £6.5m per season wages) from our FFP allowance this year and ~£120m (including £20m 3 years wages) over the next 3 years. Past the 3rd year, its just his wages that are freed up. Obviously there is an unlimited number of ways how you can spend this £100m, below I will show 3 illustrative examples how we can do that from the FFP standpoint. I am not suggesting that any of these options are what we will or should do. Its just to show what's possible. Option 1 - Lets go mental (aka Dr Tony's method) Lets just spend all this money straight away, ok...we freed up £106.5m for this season and used £16m on Danny Ings (£10m amortisation and £6m wages). Still have £90m allowance left this season. Technically, we could still buy players for about £250m to fill that allowance (£50m amortisation if signed on 5 year contracts and £40m to cover their wages) and not breach FFP this season. Possible, but nobody in their right mind would do that as it leaves us massively exposed next year. We would need to either win the Champions League to bring in £100m extra revenue or sell players again for close to £100m just to balance the FFP books. Option 2 - Full on but sustainable As I mentioned before this £100m is time boxed to 3 years. Including freed up wages we have £120m allowance to play with over the next 3 years. This gives us £40m per year if divided equally. With that in mind, we can increase our wages and amortisation by £40m this summer and it will be covered from FFP standpoint for next 3 years. In 3 years time, hopefully our revenue will be sufficiently higher to cover that, or we can simply sell a player or two. The table below shows how that could look in terms of incomings (number of players is irrelevant as long as total wages and amortisation don't exceed £40m per season): Option 3 - Cautious approach Maybe we don't want to bring in too many players at once to destabilise the squad? Maybe we want to leave some money in reserve for next year? We could just simply only add one more cheap CB cover (£2m amortisation + £2m wages) and only use £20m of our newly freed up FFP allowance this year. That would leave us with sizeable budget for next summer spending. Personally I think we will end up doing something in between Option 2 and 3.