Jump to content

Summer Speculation 2015


lexicon

Recommended Posts

"Why should Lerner continue pumping his own cash in to a game where the odds have been fixed against him?" 

 

Because he is the custodian of our football club and needs to protect his investment by making sure we do not get relegated? 

Edited by John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ffp is a cop out. Bournemouth spent 8 million on a left back. We spent 9 million on a player..after recouping 3-4 million from sales.. so we spent 5 million and we need to sell to buy?

With the increase of the new TV deal as well?

Randy is pocketing funds or its bs

Their wage bill will be considerably lower than ours, and with their promotion and new TV money they probably have more freedom to spend than we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that newly promoted teams can outspend established Premier League sides because of their lower outgoings and the rise in prize money/TV revenue. 

 

That in itself really shows how flawed FFP is IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that newly promoted teams can outspend established Premier League sides because of their lower outgoings and the rise in prize money/TV revenue.

That in itself really shows how flawed FFP is IMO.

You could argue it makes it fairer as the league is a more even playing field in terms of quality. Edited by PieFacE
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that newly promoted teams can outspend established Premier League sides because of their lower outgoings and the rise in prize money/TV revenue.

That in itself really shows how flawed FFP is IMO.

You could argue it makes it fairer as the league is a more even playing field in terms of quality.

 

 

Only for the league within a league. Premier League teams who are established are punished for being just that whilst the gap between the top 4-5 clubs and the rest grows even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that newly promoted teams can outspend established Premier League sides because of their lower outgoings and the rise in prize money/TV revenue.

That in itself really shows how flawed FFP is IMO.

But they haven't received any TV money yet whereas we've been getting it for the last 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that newly promoted teams can outspend established Premier League sides because of their lower outgoings and the rise in prize money/TV revenue.

That in itself really shows how flawed FFP is IMO.

But they haven't received any TV money yet whereas we've been getting it for the last 20 years.

 

 

Actually, that's a good point.

 

When do they switch over to the Premier League FFP rules and are they different to the Championship FFP rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know roughly what the maximum Villa could theoretically spend is?

 

See where we will be caught will be the wage bill, as we can only increase that £4m a year + the positive difference in other income not including tv revenue from the previous season, basically match day and commercial revenue.

 

So from last year we will have lost Bent (80k), Cleverley (50k), Weimann (30k), Lowton (25k), Given (50k), Vlaar (30k) then Stevens, Burke, Luna, Helenius, Sylla (40k) so say roughly and that's all that these figures are before someone starts giving out is about 300k a week off our wage budget, or 15.5m a year before or almost 18m if you include national insurance. So therefore in theory we can add another 23m to the wage budget or 375k a week before taking into account our increase in non tv revenue from the prior year. Then you take into account we've added Sinclair assuming we've kept him on the same money and we've had him since January the difference to the wage budget would only be half so say we are giving him 40k a week the difference will only be 20k, Richards 60k, Bunn negligible, Gueye 40k. Roughly speaking there should be another 255k a week to spend on players before we have to worry about difference in other revenues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nocolas lombaerts failed medical at sunderland id take him must be something minor he failed on could be worth a punt

If he's failed a medical at Sunderland why would it be something minor he's failed on?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that newly promoted teams can outspend established Premier League sides because of their lower outgoings and the rise in prize money/TV revenue.

That in itself really shows how flawed FFP is IMO.

But they haven't received any TV money yet whereas we've been getting it for the last 20 years.

 

 

Does it matter?

 

Their budget would be based on wages/outgoing for <£x> amount per season in the Championship.  All of a sudden, they have an apparent £120m windfall (the rumoured "prize" for the playoff game, therefore I assume a promotion thing?) of funds through TV money, increased sponsorship etc. etc. and can offer a hell of a lot more for players in the immediate short term.

 

I'd assume that, if you look at the spending of promoted clubs who have survived in the Premier League, their initial spends would be relatively high and, after a couple of seasons, they've then been reliant on player sales etc. meaning net spends come down.

 

Just a theory, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that newly promoted teams can outspend established Premier League sides because of their lower outgoings and the rise in prize money/TV revenue.

That in itself really shows how flawed FFP is IMO.

You could argue it makes it fairer as the league is a more even playing field in terms of quality.

Only at the arse end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nocolas lombaerts failed medical at sunderland id take him must be something minor he failed on could be worth a punt

If he's failed a medical at Sunderland why would it be something minor he's failed on?

 

 

Failure to use "marra" when addressed by the examining doctor and omission of the word "like" in every sentence. All crimes in Sunderland. No wonder he flopped.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â