Czarnikjak

10 minutes ago, KMitch said:

I saw a chart which showed how much each club can spend this summer via FFP rules...  Villa had the 2nd lowest budget of any club at 40 million pounds.  Will have to sell El Ghazi/Hourihane to balance the FFP books now and will probably have one more CB in on loan this season. Next summer we'll probably only add 2-3 more as well, unless we're going to start flipping players for more money and reinvesting again.  

FFP is what's going to start holding us back now more than anything.  As much as I would hate to lose Jack, his transfer fee would be 100% profit and we'd be able to accelerate our progression by 2 years, if we invested properly.  

 

Link to the chart source would be appreciated 

2 hours ago, mrjc said:

Haven't visited this thread for a while, and thanks for this, looks good.  Only thoughts which might make this a bit less positive (admittedly without having fully thought this through....):

• I think using the average of 19/20 and 20/21 as the 'start point' for 21/22 maybe ends up too optimistic for a couple of things
• For example, even if we are saving £11m year-on-year for Barkley....because that's going into a two-year average, I think we'll only save half of that compared to the average, if that makes sense?
• On the 'ins', wouldn't we also need to include the fairly significant contract increases that we handed out last season to Jack, Mings, McGinn etc, which will also be diluted as being part of a 2-year average, but we will have a full year of next year?
• A full year of Sanson wages vs effectively a 1/4 year in a 2-yr average calc.

As I say, not fully thought through, but wouldn't this eat into the ~£10m surplus?

That said, this also ignores any increase in income (hopefully a bit through league position + gates + commercial), and also is pretty difficult given the uncertainty over the 20/21 numbers.

Also, clearly all before any change in Jack status!

 

Thanks, all good points.

@blandy explained contract extensions perfectly, no need to add anything to it.

Your Ross Barkley example would be correct if our combined £64m FFP loss for last 2 seasons ( £32m average) was very heavily skewed towards 20/21. Let's say 44-20. But in reality it will be much more evenly spread, limiting the "average" effect you mentioned.

Untill full 20/21 accounts are published (march/April 2022), we can only estimate obviously. Thus my calculations have margin of error in them. But I am fairly confident my numbers are not widely off the mark (within £5-10m)

59 minutes ago, AndFos said:

 

9 hours ago, AndFos said:

What we are forgetting is the increase in income. We can assume that our club have increased the income massively, therefore we can afford a couple more signings without selling Jack or anybody else?

Expand  

@Czarnikjak What are your thoughts on this?

 

Our income improved massively the season we got promoted. But not since then.

It improved by about £12m last season due to higher league position, but commercial revenue would see only very modest increase if at all.

This season again, the commercial revenue will see little increase, we didn't sign any new major sponsor deals. If we finish the league in let's say 6th position, our broadcast revenue will go up by another £10m or so.

I wouldn't call these increases "massive"

PS. I am ignoring any revenue lost to covid as that's excluded from FFP calculations anyway.

35 minutes ago, Villaphil said:

They’re cheaper because they aren’t as good, if they were, you’d have them on premier league contracts ??

EFL calculation would apparently allow us £11m more in losses.  That’s a sizeable disadvantage.

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.

1 hour ago, punkiller1981 said:

I wouldn’t worry about it I think Man City have shown the rules are irrelevant 

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.

7 hours ago, Villaphil said:

Must have something wrong but if you divide by 4 then * 3…. that’s (35 + 35 + 13 + 13)/4*3 = 96 * 0.75 = £72m ?

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 

3 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Eh?

Why would you worry about that now given that they’ve already pumped hundreds of millions in to get us where we are, in what illogical world would they then think to take another step could be done without spending the same or more?! 
 

It seems apparent to me that they’re taking a two pronged approach to our future success:

a) investing immediately to make us competitive at progressive levels through large outlays on transfers of (until now) appropriate quality 

b) investing in the academy and focus on signing high potential youth level players for long term sustainability, either in terms of future transfer fees or, more likely, future first team squad members

Everything until now points squarely to these guys know what the F they’re doing, even if we lose Jack, which I think is likely and seemingly cataclysmic to some on here, I trust them to make it right 

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.

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

My lad has just said Wes Edens has just landed in the UK.  Seen pictures or something. 

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

9 minutes ago, brummybloke said:

Each year nswe pump more money in through shares to offset debts ?

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.

18 minutes ago, sidcow said:

We've spent around £100m in the last 2 seasons, and as we're entering our third Premier League year now doesn't that increase our leeway? I would expect we'd spend another £30m or so even if Grealish stayed, and we've still got some probable sales yet.  Maybe after that we could have £45m or so to reinvest? 

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. 

9 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Are you sure that's how transfers work for FFP?

 

 

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.

2 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

cheers, so unlikely to be able to fix the DM issue if we dont get any major outgoings!

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.

4 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

@Czarnikjak, with the estimated 30m signing of Bailey, does FFP imply we have now spunked all our available transfer budget now? (not including the Grealish saga).

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)

4 minutes ago, GENTLEMAN said:

Tell me I'm crazy 

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

1 minute ago, KentVillan said:

As I said earlier in the thread, I'm pretty sure this is a real link - and Ornstein doesn't seem the type to lie about actual bids going in.

Whether we'll get him or not, hard to say, but Southampton aren't flush with cash and will have a selling price. Question is whether JWP is worth that to us?

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.

4 minutes ago, pete101 said:

Odds went from 1/2 to 1/6 in last few hours, something significant happen?

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

8 minutes ago, est1874 said:

Can we even realistically afford to spend big on another player while also giving Jack £200k per week (£10m a year) and still comply with FFP? 

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.

7 hours ago, blandy said:

I guess to be pedantic the third column in your spreadsheet should be headed "T-1 & T Avg" ?

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/

Quote

PSV Eindhoven are working with Denzel Dumfries to get the player a move this summer, but suitors Everton cannot move due to Financial Fair Play restrictions.…
We know that Everton are interested in him, but they have to wait because of the rules in England and the Financial Fair Play. It’s impossible for them to get a player now.

That would explain why they only spent £1.5m this summer so far.

34 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

Anyway, selling AEG is moot point, nobody is going to give you an offer you can't refuse. We'll keep him because he does have a goal in him and it's always good when you are chasing a game to have someone who can a)bag a penalty and b)shoot for fun.

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 

9 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

I'd take 15m for El Ghazi, think only complication is Trez injury as it would leave us very short for wide players going into first few days unless we can get Bailey done but given he's played in Gold cup I doubt he'd be involved until September anyway.

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

32 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Wasn’t there something about an American company paying some of Rooneys salary as part of a sponsorship deal?   Or did I completely dream that up?

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.

10 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

cool, so basically, with zero player sales, we can:

1) Afford 30m for a player (Bailey or similar), with an available salary of circa 80k.

2) We will then have roughly 10m to spare?

3) Any players sales can be added to the total(s)

4) so if we maxed out expenditure this summer, without any sales, we can expect to spend no more than 73m ish (33m - Buendia, 30m - Bailey (or similar), 10m - other) ?

 

Is that a fair assessment?

 

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.