suttonpaul

What is our excuse for not spending any money? How will Lerner get away with it? From what I understand the club is not losing money anymore and the wage bill has decreased significantly from the last set of accounts.

So how can we not spend money this summer? I think its a really poor showing from Lerner. He doesn't have to spend his own money now he wants to sell but it seems like he's not even willing to spend money that the club generates. That's unacceptable to me.

Well if some could check the losses for the last three years we might know then we can balance it against FFP losses

Remember when we used to sign players for 4m 13 years ago......

Lampard is going to Man City on loan. Maybe they might have spare midfielder that we could get (on loan).

Possibly because Milner wants out if not first team and they need another English player to register

It appears 5% of a Northern football club is to be sold for £88.7m on the New York stock exchange and that is considered to be value for money but we cannot attract a bid of double or just above/below that for 100% of our football club from anyone.

We should have appointed Max Bialystock to bring some money into the club because we currently seem a very hard sell that needs a costly upgrade that everyone ignores as they hurry past the estate agent's window.

We really need something to start to happen without further delay. We would like to think that something is happening behind closed doors that neither we nor the press are aware of but I guess that we have heard nothing because that is what is currently happening sale wise.

Two years of there shirt deal buys our club

It's no secret they want him. I suspect vlaar will be sorted within a week staying or going.

Well Everton may have brought Lukaku for 28m but we have joe cole on a free

Bertrand has gone to Southampton on loan so he def not coming back

That's a shame

Hahahaha yea 19m

Just had a quick look at a few papers and seen nothing about free gifts but again this isn't majorly unusual and happened before FFP.

What he said^^

The likelihood of someone coming in and doing a Man City 5 years ago was slim.

The likelihood of someone coming in and doing a Man City now is a miniscule chance because of the FFP implications. (The reason I bang on about it is that so many people on here ignore it)

Surely the consensus of supporter opinion on this board should be we want (in an ideal world).......... 

An owner that has some expertise in sports franchises.

An owner who employs people are board level who know what they are doing.

An owner who puts a footballing ethos in the club aka a style of play regardless who is manager.

An owner who employs some of the best youth scouts around so we can nab talent earlier. 

An owner who will sell anything we have to advertisers such as the ground name.

An Owner who will spend 10m a year over whatever the income is so we are FFP compliant if and when the above plan works.

When the fans move in unison a club usually does better.

So some guy says to you there is something afoot in the next couple of weeks and you post it here? Riiiight.

On the subject of owner expectation club income + 10m a year so we are FFP compliant.

Yea so say what it is or what's the point saying anything in the first place.

Why

Why? I have heard something is afoot. I guess we will have to wait and see Paul.

So, what have you heard?

Why

Well that was what the vote was on and it would have been new not existing debt

Vive_La_Villa - Yes they will check the accounts of every team.

On the subject of 10.5m that would still be fine it is 37m over 3 years so spending 30m gives some room for error.

That's for Europe, it's 105m domestically

And what is the point of using the Premier League rules if it means you finish in a European position or win a cup and get a massive fine?

If you don't get into Europe or win something what is the point of losing the 105m?

It's talk of Premier League rules that confuse the issue because they are pointless.

What's the point in allowing teams to spend loads of money to achieve nothing then hit them with a big fine if they see any form of success like European qualification? It's the FA and FIFA...so that's that one cleared up then!

I don't like FFP in its current form, in its original form it was a great idea. It wasn't about losses but debts.

 

Vive_La_Villa - Yes they will check the accounts of every team.

On the subject of 10.5m that would still be fine it is 37m over 3 years so spending 30m gives some room for error.

That's for Europe, it's 105m domestically

And what is the point of using the Premier League rules if it means you finish in a European position or win a cup and get a massive fine?

If you don't get into Europe or win something what is the point of losing the 105m?

It's talk of Premier League rules that confuse the issue because they are pointless.

If we got holtby plus 5m I'd take it if just a loan I don't think the deal is sweet enough for us unless it was say 7/8m

Vive_La_Villa - Yes they will check the accounts of every team.

On the subject of 10.5m that would still be fine it is 37m over 3 years so spending 30m gives some room for error.

The most important thing is we spend 10m on average over the break even point every year so we are FFP compliant whilst spending as much as possible.

Can't talk about the reason players get injured here it is OT, I have been told.

The fact that it is way more than that surprises me you posted it. Everyone and his dog knows it wasn't about fees it was about wages

IMO a lot of injuries happen because of

1. Players over extending their physical abilities (trying too hard)

2. We call some players sick note but I personally think that they have a problem with how they move as in their running technique etc.

Should be around 10

Don't forget the club breaks even spending around 20m so it doesn't have to mean a new owner is paying

So we can spend around 30M without breaking FFP? Out of interest, all those clubs that got fined for breaking the rules. Did they slightly go over or blow the rules out the water?

Uefa rules are a loss of 37m over 3 seasons you would need to deduct the losses we have made in previous years from 37m the factor around 20m spending that could be made available if FFP didn't exist because that is what we could spend so if we had lost 37m exactly over previous seasons it would be 20m if 27 it would be 30 if the owner wanted to chip his own money in which he won't equally if it were 47m we would have 10m. Got it?

So how much can we spend?

Depends on the last few years finances and I've only seen last years.

Perhaps someone else knows what the losses were?