Czarnikjak

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.

We should, but 10 years of criminal negligence and mismanagement under Lerner and Dr Tony left us behind. We are also still recovering our reputation after 3 years spent in the championship.

This data is a bit misleading as number of clubs extended their accounting period that year to cover project restart. We didn't, hence large chunk of our revenue was deferred to 20/21 set of accounts. Still, we are very average in our ability to generate revenue, on par with teams like Southampton and Crystal Palace perhaps.

More so, don't make Europe this season and we might see Watkins, Konsa or Martinez pushing for a move next summer. I'm not saying getting to Europe this season will be easy or even very likely, but the pressure is starting to build on the management team.

Full respect to AEG. But barring major injury crisis, he will see even less minutes this season than last. He might decide himself it's time to go and look for 1st team football.

Well, you don't HAVE to register 25 players, that's the maximum. We can register less senior players and complement it with few youngsters (chuck, jpb for example) who don't count towards the 25 limit anyway. We need to be a lean and mean machine, no need to bloat the squad unnecessarily ( although couple more incomings are necessary, including CB cover).

FFP or no FFP you just can't compete with state owned clubs like psg and city. Doesn't matter how wealthy our owners are, they will never be able to compete with a sovereign state. Fundamental changes are required in football. No idea what the right solution is thought.

We just need to accumulate more than 55 points and the league position will take care of itself.

Expected deflation of transfer fees due to COVID making players less valuable. For example, in their 19/20 accounts Everton took an intangible assets ( in other words players) impairment charge of £26m and attributed it to COVID. I fully expect us to do the same in 20/21 accounts. It’s a free FFP hit.

You are correct, we might never find out exactly how much we paid for him, my logic was as follows: 1. Highly unlikely Chelsea would let him go without a loan fee at all 2. £6m was the only reported figure 3. Chelseas valuation to sell him was about £30m last year which equates to £6m a year amortisation if signed on 5 year contract.

Hello, Loan fees PAID are classified as amortisation. £11m total cost for Barkley was widely reported, and looks very plausible to me. Loan feed RECEIVED are classified as revenue (usually bundled under commercial revenue label with other commercial income ) Taylor and Elmo amortisation would be negligible, so I ignored them.

As far as I can tell from the information available, we have met the FFP limit last season, but only just. The main change that occurred was the continuation of COVID and the ability to write off player's residual value (thus reducing amortisation costs) in the books, while treating this impairment as a FFP excluded covid induced cost.

A lot has happened in the last few days, good time to look at where we are with FFP. In this post I will give my assessment of the situation before Jack left, and what were our options if he had stayed. Reminder, 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 To the best of my knowledge and information publicly available, our situation as of May 2021 (looking back at last 3 FFP monitoring periods) was near or right at the limit: Our transactions since then: This is a deficit of about £4m. However, particularly bad 17/18 season will drop off from our FFP calculations now, releasing another £10m of FFP budget for wages and amortisation. That gave us only about £6m left to play with if Jack decided to stay (which was probably already reserved for Sanson incoming and Jack wage increase that is not shown in my calculation). So in my estimation, the bottom line is that Buendia and Bailey were bought regardless of Grealish staying or going (Ings is already coming for Grealish money though). However, any further purchases would need to be funded by player sales. Departures of the likes of Hourihane, would give us enough money to bring in a decent cover in CB position for example. Once the dust settles on Grealish and Ings transfers, I will provide my assessment of the new scenario that unfolded now, and what we can do £100m kitty.

5 separate injuries last season

Easily. One word: amortisation If Jack signs 5 year contract, his accounting cost to City is only £20m per season plus wages. Not a biggie for a club with £500m yearly revenue.

Spurs fans not happy that they missed out on Ings...they apparently wanted him at the club. Interesting development

Second that. Looks like very well informed article by Guardian, predicting bright future for us, with or without grealish.

Technically we could even spend more than £200m this summer(on top of what we already spent) if grealish is sold and still be complaint from FFP standpoint this season. The problem is we would be saddling ourselves with amortisation and wages we cannot sustain. That would force us to sell somebody for top dollar every year in the future just to keep complaint. It really is a fine balance. Once the grealish saga is finished and Bailey is officially signed we can reassess our situation.

Don't posses the necessary radio voice and my non British accent could prove to be a bit too much for the listeners. But if you DM me i will be happy to provide you with some info and pointers before the podcast.

Lol, sound like you describing us bidding £25m on JWP