Czarnikjak

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

Interesting development 

4 hours ago, villa4europe said:

They only predicted us to finish 11th but in their season preview the guardian gave a very good and knowledgeable write up about us that's worth a read 

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

25 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Assuming Bailey and Buendia were already factored into FFP by the club with Grealish staying, then we would have £200m more to spend.

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.

31 minutes ago, omariqy said:

Planning on doing an FFP special podcast episode - would you and/or @blandy be keen at all?

It stems from the rumours that we are after Tammy, Axel and JWP. I can't see how we can afford them without selling Grealish (doing the quick FFP maths in my head). I also think it would be great for fans to understand how FFP works with the new (relaxed but not relaxed) rules. Yes we could do a loan to buy but I can imagine most clubs want the income now rather than later. 

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.

4 hours ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

If they were trying to buy Kane from someone they would offer 35 M

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

2 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

so am i reading this thread correct, in the sense that if no more sales were made, we had 72m to spend?

33m on Buendia, 30m(?) on Bailey.

So 9m left?

It's not that simple.

For example you can spend £0 on 5 free transfers but their wages will eat your whole FFP allowance.

Let's see the outcome of Grealish saga first and then reassess. But if everybody  stays, I wouldn't expect any more big incomings.

Another 2 months injury layoff...unfortunately constant injury issue mean he simply cannot be relied on in any shape or form. 

We just need to hope he will stay fit in one of the future transfer Windows and try to sell him sad for the lad

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.