OutByEaster? Posted March 11 Moderator Share Posted March 11 The key is getting that revenue up to £300m plus asap - that's why the sponsorship deals are so important. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 4 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: All teams will think the same "if we only offload our deadwood..." Doesn't change the fact we are still in worse position than others who will need to offload less. Not many takers around for deadwood on premier league wages. Yes but in many cases I don't think it'll be too difficult. The only one I'd be worried about is Coutinho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 9 hours ago, Czarnikjak said: We are facing 2 crunch seasons now (this season and next season). Due to £93m psr loss last season we will only have £12m combined psr loss to play with come this summer/next season. It's going to be very very tight. I'm confident we not going to break the limit, but we will be very restricted in our trading. Assuming the figures are correct. As I keep saying selling a player for a huge FFP profit solves this problem entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 9 hours ago, Mantis said: I do feel like we can cut the wage bill significantly this summer simply by offloading the deadwood and some good but not essential first teamers (e.g. Digne and Carlos). I mean, Dendoncker, Olsen, Carlos, Digne and Coutinho alone must be on a combined £400k+ a week surely? The problem is digne and Carlos have both featured significantly so would need good quality replacements. You also need to find someone to match their wages. (include Coutinho here) And you will likely make a loss on all these players who came in for quite big money. I can't really see how our position will be helped here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 10 hours ago, Mantis said: Yes but in many cases I don't think it'll be too difficult. The only one I'd be worried about is Coutinho. I do. Lot of clubs in same situation and we will want a fee for the likes of Carlos/ Digne/Dendoncker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 13 minutes ago, bobzy said: Really hate the idea of salary caps. You da man, love Lucas x 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 6 hours ago, cheltenham_villa said: The problem is digne and Carlos have both featured significantly so would need good quality replacements. You also need to find someone to match their wages. (include Coutinho here) And you will likely make a loss on all these players who came in for quite big money. I can't really see how our position will be helped here. People have already set the figures out to show how it helps massively. i suggested getting rid of 12 and bringing in 5 that leaves you with more players that actually play, also it should be considered we have 2 coming back in the summer that haven’t played all year. It sorts FFP and wages out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 12 Moderator Share Posted March 12 Please stop using this thread for general FFP discussion. Use the general ffp thread Multiple Posts have been moved to there, but any more in the wrong thread and warnings will be given. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 6 hours ago, paul514 said: People have already set the figures out to show how it helps massively. i suggested getting rid of 12 and bringing in 5 that leaves you with more players that actually play, also it should be considered we have 2 coming back in the summer that haven’t played all year. It sorts FFP and wages out The point about those players likely having negative "equity" if we sell them is valid. We 100% will not sell 12 players. I'll be pleased (and kind of surprised) if we manage to move on more than 6 with the tight belts shown by the rest of the league. It's valid to question the amount of money we'll save by selling Carlos and Digne, when there's a good chance we won't be able to move on either. We can definitely improve from our 90% ratio though. We'll have a lot more income this season with european football and price rises. We'll have had two high earners (Coutinho and Donk) out on loan this season, and sold Traore, that will be positively impacting our position for next years reporting period (assuming these new rules come in that quick). It's not going to be crippling for us, the worst part will be how much more room it gives the scum 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 3 minutes ago, MrBlack said: The point about those players likely having negative "equity" if we sell them is valid. We 100% will not sell 12 players. I'll be pleased (and kind of surprised) if we manage to move on more than 6 with the tight belts shown by the rest of the league. It's valid to question the amount of money we'll save by selling Carlos and Digne, when there's a good chance we won't be able to move on either. We can definitely improve from our 90% ratio though. We'll have a lot more income this season with european football and price rises. We'll have had two high earners (Coutinho and Donk) out on loan this season, and sold Traore, that will be positively impacting our position for next years reporting period (assuming these new rules come in that quick). It's not going to be crippling for us, the worst part will be how much more room it gives the scum 6. Page 21 of the transfer thread have a look at the figures it’s there in detail. It answers almost all of your points. as for supposed new rules not being crippling, the 85% is apparently for wages and amortisation. We spend 89% on wages without amortisation, it would be crippling. the current system going to 70% for wages on its own would be far better for us as we can game the FFP system on amortisation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 23 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: The key is getting that revenue up to £300m plus asap - that's why the sponsorship deals are so important. Something like… 2022/23 revenue - £220m 2023/24 revenue: +£20m Europe, +£5m sponsorship, +£10m matchday, +5m PL prize money = £260m 2024/25 revenue: Champions League +£30m, +£10m Adidas, +£10m matchday = £310m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 9 minutes ago, paul514 said: Page 21 of the transfer thread have a look at the figures it’s there in detail. It answers almost all of your points. as for supposed new rules not being crippling, the 85% is apparently for wages and amortisation. We spend 89% on wages without amortisation, it would be crippling. the current system going to 70% for wages on its own would be far better for us as we can game the FFP system on amortisation Depends on your definition of crippling. I meant in the sense we wouldn't have to sell anyone. But we would be pretty stuck with one in one out. I'm not sure what you mean about answering my points? The fact we won't sell 12 players isn't answered by anything at present. We might do, but I very much doubt we will 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas10 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 10 hours ago, Wainy316 said: You da man, love Lucas x Every time Lucas receives his pay cheque: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Jacob Tanswell was on the Athletic podcast earlier and talked about our PSR position: The relevant bit is from 25:36, and he says: 'The PSR elephant in the room has been there throughout the season and it's looming now before June 30th and the end of the financial year. It's going to be difficult - obviously Douglas Luiz is one of Villa's biggest assets, he's got a good contract left, everybody expected him to leave in 2022 when Arsenal came in with several offers. Villa even signed Morgan Sanson to replace him, as it turns out Sanson's now gone, Douglas Luiz is still there. He's one of those players that Villa fear or think they will have to move on simply to comply with PSR, similar to Jacob Ramsey, obviously you saw Newcastle were interested in him towards the end of the winter window, obviously not sure if that would be the case now but he's one of those players that would be open or would ease PSR concerns because he's pure bookable profit, it would be around fifty million and that's essentially what Villa are needing by June 30th to comply with PSR regulations. But you look at the wage bill as well I mentioned earlier they've got a really high wage-turnover ratio, they're gonna have to sell the likes of Lucas Digne who's Villa's best-performing left-back this season instead of Moreno because he's on £120,000 per week, Moreno's on a lot less than that . . . uhm . . . they've got to look at other high earners as well, but also keep Emery happy.' 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) That’s why clubs will pas through the luxury tax or whatever shit abbreviation they’ll use then change. Better to pay a fine and keep our star players than sell someone we don’t really want to. That said we do need to get better at maximise our sales at the right time to reinvest as well as building our commercially income. Selling Ramsey who hasn’t been fit for most of this season to reinvest in say Nico Williams as an example could be considered good business and good for the bottom line however unpalatable that is for some. We sell Ramsey for £50mill buy Williams for £50mill that’s a book profit of £40 mill now football is run by accountants. Edited April 4 by thabucks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHY Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Jacob Tanswell was on the Athletic podcast earlier and talked about our PSR position: The relevant bit is from 25:36, and he says: 'The PSR elephant in the room has been there throughout the season and it's looming now before June 30th and the end of the financial year. It's going to be difficult - obviously Douglas Luiz is one of Villa's biggest assets, he's got a good contract left, everybody expected him to leave in 2022 when Arsenal came in with several offers. Villa even signed Morgan Sanson to replace him, as it turns out Sanson's now gone, Douglas Luiz is still there. He's one of those players that Villa fear or think they will have to move on simply to comply with PSR, similar to Jacob Ramsey, obviously you saw Newcastle were interested in him towards the end of the winter window, obviously not sure if that would be the case now but he's one of those players that would be open or would ease PSR concerns because he's pure bookable profit, it would be around fifty million and that's essentially what Villa are needing by June 30th to comply with PSR regulations. But you look at the wage bill as well I mentioned earlier they've got a really high wage-turnover ratio, they're gonna have to sell the likes of Lucas Digne who's Villa's best-performing left-back this season instead of Moreno because he's on £120,000 per week, Moreno's on a lot less than that . . . uhm . . . they've got to look at other high earners as well, but also keep Emery happy.' I stopped reading at Morgan Sanson. At least get your facts right ffs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayEm Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) The line 'fifty million and that's essentially what Villa are needing by June 30th to comply with PSR regulations' concerns me -- having to raise funds that urgently seems like a very dangerous position to be in? Edited April 4 by jayEm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 4 minutes ago, WHY said: I stopped reading at Morgan Sanson. At least get your facts right ffs He may well mean that Sanson was signed in case of a Luiz bid that never happened some time prior to those Arsenal bids. Buying players to cover expected departures is pretty normal, it seems very likely that Rogers is Ramsey's replacement for instance. Edited April 4 by HanoiVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 3 minutes ago, jayEm said: The line 'fifty million and that's essentially what Villa are needing by June 30th to comply with PSR regulations' concerns me -- having to raise funds that urgently seems like a very dangerous position to be in? Yes, agree. Obviously puts us in a position where clubs can potentially low-ball offers and see if we cave. That being said though, the way he words that bit about Ramsey's fee ('it would be around fifty million') made me wonder a bit if there has been some concrete discussion with interested parties. Maybe not, but found it interesting that he chose to venture a guess around a specific number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotoMkali Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 6 minutes ago, jayEm said: The line 'fifty million and that's essentially what Villa are needing by June 30th to comply with PSR regulations' concerns me -- having to raise funds that urgently seems like a very dangerous position to be in? Idk how it works if we are in violation of uefa rules but if it's like a 4-6pt punishment then it doesn't matter really. I'd much rather just bite the bullet and avoid having to sell Dougie or Watkins who themselves are easily worth that for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts