Czarnikjak

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).

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.