suttonpaul

Try not to get het up it could take a year and it's only been a month

some bender on the myoldman website said we are paying Joe Cole 400k a week and everyday use of Randy's jet lmao.

And how do you know

Lol does this make me itk as I loled about Ellison buying us for a billion just hours before

What's your dishonest opinion? His dishonest opinion is Ellison is buying the club for 1 billion dollars

He's trying to justify the level of investment that's been put in under lerner by using FFP as a reason for it. The notion that this level of spending is all we could ever hope to see is rubbish. Am I? Cheers for explaining on my behalf.

He's alright not good not awful, should be alright as a backup.

Your right I did, but you can forget the 105m because the real rules are the 45m euros over three years aka 37m quid who on earth wants to spend 105m to be ok with Premier League rules then get a big fine for qualifying for Europe? Answer no one it makes it pointless and a vicious circle. Pure fantasy. Your not going to get much different than now under a new owner other than the possibility of us being run better

Oh dear please read the FFP rules your so far off

Why do you think the big clubs voted it in ..it maintains the status quo.Last thing Liverpool etc want is a rich owner turning us or someone else into the next City or Chelsea and stealing revenue and fans from them I agree that FFP is there to make sure nobody interferes with the big clubs. But we could get a £100m interest free loan from a new owner which we will pay back £1 per year over the next 100 million years? Anyway, buying players is not a cost. It's only changing one asset (cash) into another kind kind of asset (players). So buying five £20m players would only cost us the amortization cost each year, which on 4 year contracts would be £25m. each year. Which again will improve the value of our intangible assets, such as goodwill, so it might not even be £25m per year. However, they need to get paid. And if we are paying £80k p/w, it's another £20m which is a real cost per year. So buying five £20m players would mean a yearly cost of £40-45m (amortization+wages). And if they improve our results, we will see our income increase as well. From prize money, gate receipts and sponsorship deals, etc. If we invest in young, up and coming players, there is a chance we will have a profit on them. Playing a £20m players for three years would cost us £15m in amortization. But if he is then sold for €30m, it would mean a £25m profit the year he is sold, because his initial £20m cost has been paid for through amortization. It doesn't work like that

No. According to Faulkner we're now breaking even, but this years figures don't be out to next year and they won't include the new TV money which is only paid this summer. It'll be 2016 I think before we see those books Right okay the previous post confused me then. So a new owner could increase attendance and sponsor stadium and easily add £10m turnover for us to increase wages with. Yes but so could the current owner. Also investment in the ground or training ground is allowed by FFP without it affecting figures

It came up in takeover conversation as does many things that people speculate on such as Keane over the last couple of days. It's actually quite important to understand restrictions on the current and any future owner.

No. We can spend 20 to 25m on new players and costs without losing any money

I've been moaning about it for ages and moaning is the correct term to use. Yes it is a catch 22 but to make the situation worse on what you just said on top of all the previously mentioned regulations you can only increase the wage bill by 4 million per year unless you get bigger commercial deals to counteract that so if we sold naming rights to vp for 10m a year we could get a 14m increase the following year. If we were already getting 10m and it became 11m in that scenario we could increase it by 5m only. The whole thing stinks to be honest

Accounts were previously worked out including this years TV deal we can spend including all player costs so not just fees of 20 to 25m without making a loss

Nope that's not true either that is counted as an equity injection and as such can be done to the limits mentioned. If the losses are done through debt the amounts that can be lost is actually much much lower so instead of 45 million euros for the Uefa one over the space of three years it turns into 5 million euros

Why do you think the big clubs voted it in ..it maintains the status quo.Last thing Liverpool etc want is a rich owner turning us or someone else into the next City or Chelsea and stealing revenue and fans from them Actually the clubs voted the motion in when it was about clubs accruing debt like Leeds or Portsmouth not like PSG or city where the owners have imposed no debts on the clubs they have simply invested. It's a bit like Britain entering the EEC which has morphed into today's eu

Ok but city's deal was for 35m and seemed illegitimate. And randy waved interest payments already. As previously mentioned there are now moves that Uefa are making that change the amount both clubs can receive on a deal

Well FFP means they are too late for the party. I know everybody is sick of hearing this but it's true. Well we can run up a £105 mil loss and still be within the Premiership FFP rules. So add to some comical 100 mil per year sponsorship and we can get back up in the top 6 fairly sharpish. We'll get some extra revenue from tickets sales then too. Yea and then fall foul of Uefa rules which the loss is a third of the Premier League. Also don't ignore the fact that both PSG and city's sponsorship deals fell foul of the FFP rules and deemed illegitimate. It kind of shoots to pieces everything you just said

This disparate to sell thing doesn't add up AT ALL He can spend 20m more this season and not spend a penny of his own cash

Can people please stop talking about FFP rules. it is only a matter of time before it gets taken to court and blown out of the water. PSG and City know it and that's why they aren't bothered about it. Football is a business and as a business owner you are allowed to inject as much financial support as you like. Simple as that. You've referred to the UEFA FFP rules whereas the poster above is referencing the PL FFP which aren't being challenged, and won't be, because they were voted in by majority and had the backing of the top flight's old guard (e.g. Liverpool, Arsenal and United) They voted on not taking debts on, not what it is now about losses

Can people please stop talking about FFP rules. it is only a matter of time before it gets taken to court and blown out of the water. PSG and City know it and that's why they aren't bothered about it. Football is a business and as a business owner you are allowed to inject as much financial support as you like. Simple as that. Then why didn't they take them to court?

On the subject of this Mirror story it is complete BOLLOCKS. Many people in football say Villa is definitely worth 200m Story at the weekend and lets face it, a more reputable paper said there was 6 bidders and they could get 250m. Pay no attention to this story at all.

I don't know where to put this so I am putting it here. Roy Keane to be our assistant manager? I **** HATE ROY KEANE!!!! He has done sod all of worth since he quit being a player and is a complete dickhead. Seriously, NO!

I highly doubt it