Czarnikjak

Sounds like Dr Tony...why 60k? lets make it 80, a 100...

I am 99% certain. Although its not spelled out in publicly available Premier League rulebook yet, it is spelled out in EFL rulebook and both organisations use the same rules (apart from different £13m, £35m loss limit values obviously): 3.4 In respect of Season 2020/21, the Lower Loss Threshold and Upper Loss Threshold for each Club shall be calculated based on the aggregation of the Club’s Annual Lower Loss Threshold and Annual Upper Loss Threshold for T, T-1, T-2 and T-3 as per the figures set out table in Rule 3.1 as amended by dividing those figures by 4 and then multiplied them by 3. https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-5---financial-fair-play-regulations/

It's (70/2) + 13 + 13 = 61

The 19/20 and 20/21 are treated as one monitoring period, T-1, and averaged loss of £35m is allowed for it (£70m loss total for T-1 as it comprises of two seasons). Our two last championship years still stay in this calculation as T-2 and T-3 The reason for that was delayed end of 19/20 season and a lot of revenue deferred until 20/21. The deferred 19/20 revenue will appear in 20/21 accounts and average itself out over that period.

Good point about Sanson, he will use some of that leeway. Although not as much as one would expect as he was on our books already in previous accounting period ( for about 5 months , our accounting period ends on 31st May)

Normally receivable loan fees appear under “commercial revenue” on accounts which makes them count towards FFP income, I am not 100% sure if the same applies to under age players. Regardless, loan fee values for our kids will be relatively insignificant in grand scheme of things and won’t affect the calculations much.

@MrBlack I am making 2 assumptions here: 1. We didn't break FFP in 20/21 2. We have no intention on breaking it in 21/22 I think these are pretty safe assumptions as Purslow many times publicly reiterated his commitment to the rules. We also went as far as "selling" our stadium to stay within the rules, which I think indicates we are serious about sticking to them. So, with that in mind, this was our FFP situation as of May this year (looking back at last 3 FPP monitoring periods): Right near the limit, since then we have released about £23m from FFP balance as per the transactions below: And added about £13m, as below: That still leaves us about £10m spare (without any more outgoings and no major revenue increase), which basically allows you £30m player on £80k wage (£30m amortised over 5 years = £6m plus £4m wages), Bailey for example. However if you look closely, our 17/18 season will drop off from the calculations next year, and as it was a particulary bad year, it gives us another £10m or so to play with this summer. Selling Hourihane for example for £5m, frees up another £7m (£5m profit on the sale as he has hardly any value left on our books and £2m wages). That allows you a £20m player on £60k wage. So overall, it's not looking too bad, assuming we didn't go over last year.

Mr Black, You are asking a lot of questions there, let me address some of them. Two COVID affected seasons as you saying were rolled into one and any COVID related losses are exempt from FFP calculations ( on top of existing exempt items: academy costs, women’s football, community costs and tangible assets depreciation/amortisation). Club is allowed to loose £105 (£35m per season in Premier League or £13m in championship) over last 3 year rolling period ( with the exemption of 2 COVID seasons that are averaged out and treated as one season). However, the headline £99m loss you quoting is not the loss that goes into FFP calculations, see all the exempt items I listed above. We are pretty much on the limit of FFP as things stand, and some sales will be expected (hourihane, maybe ghazi and guilbert too) if we want to bring in more players and stay compliant. We don’t need to raise anywhere near £100m, so don’t worry, don’t have to sell grealish -) If you are interested I can provide you with the figures and calculations to back it up ( with some assumptions as 20/21 season accounts won’t be published until March next year)

Yes, their values can often be incorrect. But £12m for el ghazi feels about right, and I can see someone paying it.

Agreed, nobody will pay £20m for him in post covid market. According to transfer market his value is £11.7m (the highest it's ever been), it sounds reasonable and I would Be happy with it. https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/anwar-el-ghazi/profil/spieler/183720

It was £6m loan fee and £5m wages. Anyway, ridiculous amount for his output...he was our most expensive player last season. Maybe that explains Smith's insistence on playing him later on in the season when he was offering nothing on the pitch. For comparison Watkins cost us £10m ( 4m wages plus 6m amortisation), money well spent.

I wouldn't worry, he will do his job just fine. Arguably he was our best player against Spurs and Chelsea. Also i am sure I saw a stat that our win percentage with him in the team last season was much better than without him. Would need to check the stats myself to confirm that though.

There is no repayments untill around 2030. And even at that point they will just repay as much as they want/can. The rest will be simply refinanced for another 10 years with manageable interest payments. That's how large businesses operate. Debt is not a big deal at this level.

Well, the interest on their debt is around £25m a year, on £400m yearly revenue it's not much of a squeeze really. I would love for Villa to be in similar financial position. We have zero interest to pay but revenue around £150m.

Spurs are nowhere near breaching FFP limits, no need for them to be creative like that. It's probably some vanity Qatari sheik who likes Alderweireld.

If we don't sign new backup striker this summer, who would you rather keep as a backup : Wesley, Davis or both?

Flat salary cap aka NBA/NHL is an interesting idea but most likely imposissible to implement. First of all, it would need to be implement uniformally accross all European leagues to prevent player exodus to non capped leagues. It's also very vulnerable to legal challenge in EU and UK courts. They tried to implement it in League One and it was immediately challenged by the players association. There are no easy solutions to fix the current mess. Everybody looks to protect their own interests, we shouldn't be surprised.

Don't look at the headline loss figure, it's an accounting loss and it's not directly representative of actual cash flow. Since takeover NSWE put over £300m of their own cash into the club averaging over £100m per season. The vision is to make the club self sustainable so obviously any further cash injections will be reduced significantly in the future. As the revenues are raising slowly, we might look to emulate Leicester model where the books are balanced by targeted player sales, and money is reinvested in the squad. So far NSWE are executing their strategy in an impressive fashion, long may it continue.

Unfortunately FFP won't stop them. They already generated £46m FFP profit from selling fringe and academy players this summer. That's enough to cover amortisation costs of £230m worth of signings this year. freed up aguro wages would cover Jack's wages. One more squad player sale and they will balance incoming Kane in the FFP budget. We need to hope Jack wants to stay and see the project out with us. See my post here https://www.villatalk.com/topic/20719-finances-ffp-202021/?do=findComment&comment=3403060

Clearing up decks for Bailey and Mcneil?

Agent shopping him around?

I would imagine that Premier League reruns won't be available straight away due to licensing reasons. Monday probably

If money grew on trees and FFP didn't exist i could agree with your statement.

ESR signed new contract

More than 55 points