paul514 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Just now, HalfTimePost said: Fans gonna be pissed when they realise that selling players was also part of the "Strategic Business Plan" Gif size limit is way too low to be usable! It should be, I would use it to grow the club if I were them 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalfTimePost Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Just now, paul514 said: It should be, I would use it to grow the club if I were them I agree. It's just that some appear to be arguing that we won't need to sell players because the club highlighted that we are in line with the strategic business plan. It's highly likely that plan involves the selling of players, and quite likely that some of them will be players we see as important 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 (edited) 4 minutes ago, HalfTimePost said: I agree. It's just that some appear to be arguing that we won't need to sell players because the club highlighted that we are in line with the strategic business plan. It's highly likely that plan involves the selling of players, and quite likely that some of them will be players we see as important To those people I am happy to say we don't NEED to sell the player to comply as long as we don't buy but all the issues that come with that are dumb Edited March 5 by paul514 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 3 hours ago, VillaJ100 said: So how much will we have to spend on players this summer? Without selling Depends. If we get CL we have a big revenue boost next year and that means we can sign players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 minute ago, CVByrne said: Depends. If we get CL we have a big revenue boost next year and that means we can sign players Also need to take into account that revenue isn’t permanent though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Every club sells players, particularly these days. Would City have let Cole Palmer leave if they didn’t need to? Invariably this means we’ll lose one or two of our star players but if we get good value and can replace them well it’s not a major issue. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsky_11 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 3 hours ago, CVByrne said: Yes, so more an increase in the Depreciation from the 22 accounts. So my £25m estimate for 2023 is probably right Yeah. I'd say at least that. Can imagine there being increases in other deductables too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted March 5 VT Supporter Share Posted March 5 44 minutes ago, paul514 said: It is an option but seriously, clear out the players that should be cleared out and sell one of our circa 100m pound player bring in 5 more and the whole situation is hunky dory. I posted this on the transfer thread a couple of weeks back with details. It is so obvious It's not hunky dory the year after when you need to sell another £100m pound player to fund that year's amortisation costs of the 5 players you bought the previous year though is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 The problem with FFP is that it’s a gigantic bait and switch. It was supposedly brought in to prevent a Leeds / Portsmouth scenario, and yes, to some extent it does prevent that from happening. But it ludicrously forces clubs with enormous external resources to either treat those capital injections as something like debt (Villa) or to play accounting tricks to disguise that money as revenue (all the Middle Eastern owned clubs). So the main effect is to just pull up the drawbridge after Chelsea, City, PSG, etc had carte blanche to spend their way to established Champions League status. The worst thing is it may force clubs to undermine their identity by cashing in on academy talent, as that brings the biggest FFP benefit. The whole thing is a fkin shambles when it’s being tightly enforced while the fit and proper test is routinely ignored for club takeovers. It’s like there are two parallel universes, one where the rules are strictly enforced, and one where they are laughed at, and we seem to operate in the first universe. It’s completely bent 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 8 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Every club sells players, particularly these days. Would City have let Cole Palmer leave if they didn’t need to? Invariably this means we’ll lose one or two of our star players but if we get good value and can replace them well it’s not a major issue. Cole Palmer was not a star player for City, he was an academy player on the fringes of the first team. It's the equivalent of us selling Philogene or Archer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 (edited) 43 minutes ago, HalfTimePost said: Fans gonna be pissed when they realise that selling players was also part of the "Strategic Business Plan" Gif size limit is way too low to be usable! In fairness, I don't think this would be any sort of " secret " or bombshell, for any club really. Even Man City, Brighton, Villarreal, Leverkusen etc Al have sold players which have baffled onlookers and ended up just getting better. For me it's strategically more about WHO you sell to. Certain players I'd straight up reject selling to local and direct rivals. Whereas some players are worth more than money to us, as a club on the whole. I genuinely think there are many ways we can navigate the climate without doing ourselves too much morale damage and still grow. Edited March 5 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 2 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said: For non-accountants like myself, the only question is, whether such accounts are a matter of fact or a matter of opinion? Unless you falsify accounts it's pretty straightforward to read. The allowable deductions are simple now COVID is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 32 minutes ago, paul514 said: Also need to take into account that revenue isn’t permanent though True but it stays in our accounts for 3 years like any player sale does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 24 minutes ago, KentVillan said: The problem with FFP is that it’s a gigantic bait and switch. It was supposedly brought in to prevent a Leeds / Portsmouth scenario, and yes, to some extent it does prevent that from happening. But it ludicrously forces clubs with enormous external resources to either treat those capital injections as something like debt (Villa) or to play accounting tricks to disguise that money as revenue (all the Middle Eastern owned clubs). So the main effect is to just pull up the drawbridge after Chelsea, City, PSG, etc had carte blanche to spend their way to established Champions League status. The worst thing is it may force clubs to undermine their identity by cashing in on academy talent, as that brings the biggest FFP benefit. The whole thing is a fkin shambles when it’s being tightly enforced while the fit and proper test is routinely ignored for club takeovers. It’s like there are two parallel universes, one where the rules are strictly enforced, and one where they are laughed at, and we seem to operate in the first universe. It’s completely bent Do you think the owners would be happy losing 100m every other year should FFP be abolished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishVilla10 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 89% of our revenue covering the wage bill, it’s hard to crack the top 6 without top 6 revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 4 minutes ago, IrishVilla10 said: 89% of our revenue covering the wage bill, it’s hard to crack the top 6 without top 6 revenue. The amount of deadwood taking up a large chunk of those wages is the most frustrating part. That should change soon though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioVilla Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 (edited) 2 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: The amount of deadwood taking up a large chunk of those wages is the most frustrating part. That should change soon though. Just off the top of my head, Digne and Coutinho should be among the tops. Is there another deadwood player I'm forgetting? (Not saying Digne is deadwood, but for a backup, his wages are unsustainable.) Edited March 5 by OhioVilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 minute ago, OhioVilla said: Just off the top of my head, Digne and Coutinho should be among the tops. Is there another deadwood player I'm forgetting? (Not saying Digne is deadwood, but for a backup, his wages are unsustainable.) Donk would have made up a chunk, as would Chambers and Hause. There's a lot we can save there, and none of it weakens our team. Digne the exception. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 3 minutes ago, OhioVilla said: Just off the top of my head, Digne and Coutinho should be among the tops. Is there another deadwood player I'm forgetting? (Not saying Digne is deadwood, but for a backup, his wages are unsustainable.) Hause, Chambers, Olsen, Dendoncker, Coutinho, Digne, Sanson. I think we'll struggle to sell a lot of these, so maybe more loans with us paying part of their salary. Lenglet and Zaniolo will automatically be gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 6 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: The amount of deadwood taking up a large chunk of those wages is the most frustrating part. That should change soon though. Our wage bill is all staff and also includes players who were out on Loan (as we get income in terms of fees back from those clubs) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts