The AVFC FFP thread

[CVByrne]

So couple of questions for the boffins. Grealish sale for 100m gives us a positive in accounts that will remain there for 3 or is it 4 years? It'll also remove 6.5m of annual wages?

This would allow for significant room to improve the overall playing squad under FFP rules. Where we might be hitting the ceiling soon if he remains on 10.4m of wages.

I feel a Grealish sale might improve the overall playing squad more than his departure would impact it. Preferably end next season though

Edited August 2, 2021 by CVByrne

[blandy]

48 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Grealish sale for 100m gives us a positive in accounts that will remain there for 3 or is it 4 years? It'll also remove 6.5m of annual wages?

Broadly, yes.

It's worth pointing out that this 4 year window is probably temporary, and (assuming the pandemic doesn't endure much longer) after the temporary measures for accounting where games were played behind closed doors, with all the various implications (leading to Covid losses and the 19/20 and 20/21 seasons being averaged) have worked their way out of the rolling 3 year (temporary 4 year) window the calcs will return to the normal T, T-1 and T-2 (23/24, 22/23 and 21/22) rule at the start of the 23/24 season.

The other thing is any fee we get for selling a player - clubs are often quite smart in terms of how the deal is worked out and paid for. It might, for example, suit one party to want all the money paid in one go, up front, or it might suit to have it paid over 2 years, or even 3. I mean if a buying club (say) City pay it all in one payment, their accounts take a massive hit in that year, but if they pay over two, the damage is spread across 2 years. The selling club too may have a desire, often the opposite - wanting as much up front as possible...unless the impact would land them with a huge tax bill, when they may prefer instead to also have the income spread over a couple of accounting years, or more. Or they may have cashflow issues and want the money immediately.

Generally speaking, the selling club will need to re-invest the money (or some of it) to replace a player sold, so they will want a large up front payment.

[Villa_Stateside]

Can someone tell me why we had a loss 18/19 season. According to Yorkshire Dave we had zero loses due to stadium sale and other related promotion costs. So I am confused 

[Nigel]

20 hours ago, CVByrne said:

So couple of questions for the boffins. Grealish sale for 100m gives us a positive in accounts that will remain there for 3 or is it 4 years? It'll also remove 6.5m of annual wages?

This would allow for significant room to improve the overall playing squad under FFP rules. Where we might be hitting the ceiling soon if he remains on 10.4m of wages.

I feel a Grealish sale might improve the overall playing squad more than his departure would impact it. Preferably end next season though

Yes but this also ignores the positive side of keeping grealish in that he will help grow our profile and probably increase merchandise.

He is the a walking marketing dream now!

[MaVilla]

so am i reading this thread correct, in the sense that if no more sales were made, we had 72m to spend?

33m on Buendia, 30m(?) on Bailey.

So 9m left?

[Czarnikjak]

2 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

so am i reading this thread correct, in the sense that if no more sales were made, we had 72m to spend?

33m on Buendia, 30m(?) on Bailey.

So 9m left?

It's not that simple.

For example you can spend £0 on 5 free transfers but their wages will eat your whole FFP allowance.

Let's see the outcome of Grealish saga first and then reassess. But if everybody  stays, I wouldn't expect any more big incomings.

[ender4]

IF Grealish is sold for £100 million, that is all profit. 

That gives us £400 million extra to play with in terms of FFP, assuming new signings will have 4 year contacts.   

Part of that £400m will of course be wages, but could still mean £200 million transfer kitty this summer and £200 million on extra wages over the next 4 years.

[MaVilla]

2 minutes ago, ender4 said:

IF Grealish is sold for £100 million, that is all profit. 

That gives us £400 million extra to play with in terms of FFP, assuming new signings will have 4 year contacts.   

Part of that £400m will of course be wages, but could still mean £200 million transfer kitty this summer and £200 million on extra wages over the next 4 years.

you do wonder, with a cold hard and impartial view on it, whether the best thing for the club is to let Grealish go for 100/120m.

[Silent_Bob]

9 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

you do wonder, with a cold hard and impartial view on it, whether the best thing for the club is to let Grealish go for 100/120m.

The best thing is that he stays. If we let our only 'next level' player leave, then that is what they all are going to do. Even if selling Jack for 120m mean we can bring in five more 50m players, they aren't going to stay if they also reach that 'next level'.

Our best chance of having a player that would walk into every team in the world (except England) is to keep Jack. 

And having a chance of attracting players of a similar quality in the future is by having players that are already on that level at the club. 

If we indeed are going to challenge the top clubs, we need to be able to attract top quality players. And they don't come for money alone. When Manchester City tried to buy Ronaldinho back in 2008, he decided against going there. He would have been a statement signing for them, but they had to settle for Craig Bellamy instead. And it wasn't because of lack of money that Ronaldinho didn't want to come. He just didn't want to become their first big name player. 

So if we want to sign a really big name next summer he won't come, even if we offer more money than anyone else. For money alone we can get players of that calibre unless there are similar players already at the club. 

I remember the last time we tried to challenge. The top clubs took our best players off us, and made sure we stayed where we were. If we allow that to happen again, we will never break into the top 4. 

 

[MaVilla]

Just now, Silent_Bob said:

The best thing is that he stays. If we let our only 'next level' player leave, then that is what they all are going to do. Even if selling Jack for 120m mean we can bring in five more 50m players, they aren't going to stay if they also reach that 'next level'.

Our best chance of having a player that would walk into every team in the world (except England) is to keep Jack. 

And having a chance of attracting players of a similar quality in the future is by having players that are already on that level at the club. 

If we indeed are going to challenge the top clubs, we need to be able to attract top quality players. And they don't come for money alone. When Manchester City tried to buy Ronaldinho back in 2008, he decided against going there. He would have been a statement signing for them, but they had to settle for Craig Bellamy instead. And it wasn't because of lack of money that Ronaldinho didn't want to come. He just didn't want to become their first big name player. 

So if we want to sign a really big name next summer he won't come, even if we offer more money than anyone else. For money alone we can get players of that calibre unless there are similar players already at the club. 

I remember the last time we tried to challenge. The top clubs took our best players off us, and made sure we stayed where we were. If we allow that to happen again, we will never break into the top 4. 

 

i do see your point, and broadly i see your direction and agree with the sentiment.

However, you are missing some clear points.

Last time we were in a similar scenario (Young, Barry, Milner etc), we didnt reinvest that money, or money we did reinvest was spent badly, we kept most of it and the quality of the team deteriorated.

If we got 100m, and reinvested every penny of that, plus any money we were going to spend, to improve the first 11, its quite possible our first 11 would be better in that scenario, than if we kept Jack.

If we did reinvest that, improved the first 11 and were actually a better team, players would defo come to us, as the pull is at least in part that improvement and performance.

Now, a lot of that depends on top class recruitment, spending and reinvesting wisely, and not banking large portions of the cash which telegraphs the fact we arent a club who wants to progress, so a lot of things would need to happen right, but to say we cant be better witohut Jack just isnt true, it would just take a lot of dominoes to fall correctly for us, which ofc in reality might not happen.

Do i want to keep Jack?, yes.....do i think we cant get where we want to go witohut him?, no i dont.

You just need to look at Leicester as a model, again, im not saying we can repeat that, and there are many risks to it, but to say we cant progress without Jack is just plain wrong, however i do agree there are many risks to it.

[omariqy]

3 hours ago, Czarnikjak said:

It's not that simple.

For example you can spend £0 on 5 free transfers but their wages will eat your whole FFP allowance.

Let's see the outcome of Grealish saga first and then reassess. But if everybody  stays, I wouldn't expect any more big incomings.

Planning on doing an FFP special podcast episode - would you and/or @blandy be keen at all?

It stems from the rumours that we are after Tammy, Axel and JWP. I can't see how we can afford them without selling Grealish (doing the quick FFP maths in my head). I also think it would be great for fans to understand how FFP works with the new (relaxed but not relaxed) rules. Yes we could do a loan to buy but I can imagine most clubs want the income now rather than later. 

[Davkaus]

I think good players we could attract will be more tempted to play for us if we're in Europe than they will be to play in a midtable team with Jack. Obviously both of them would be even better, but I'm not buying that we're waving goodbye to signing better players if we sell Grealish.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Davkaus

[Czarnikjak]

31 minutes ago, omariqy said:

Planning on doing an FFP special podcast episode - would you and/or @blandy be keen at all?

It stems from the rumours that we are after Tammy, Axel and JWP. I can't see how we can afford them without selling Grealish (doing the quick FFP maths in my head). I also think it would be great for fans to understand how FFP works with the new (relaxed but not relaxed) rules. Yes we could do a loan to buy but I can imagine most clubs want the income now rather than later. 

Don't posses the necessary radio voice and my non British accent could prove to be a bit too much for the listeners. But if you DM me i will be happy to provide you with some info and pointers before the podcast.

[Silent_Bob]

1 hour ago, MaVilla said:

i do see your point, and broadly i see your direction and agree with the sentiment.

However, you are missing some clear points.

Last time we were in a similar scenario (Young, Barry, Milner etc), we didnt reinvest that money, or money we did reinvest was spent badly, we kept most of it and the quality of the team deteriorated.

If we got 100m, and reinvested every penny of that, plus any money we were going to spend, to improve the first 11, its quite possible our first 11 would be better in that scenario, than if we kept Jack.

If we did reinvest that, improved the first 11 and were actually a better team, players would defo come to us, as the pull is at least in part that improvement and performance.

Now, a lot of that depends on top class recruitment, spending and reinvesting wisely, and not banking large portions of the cash which telegraphs the fact we arent a club who wants to progress, so a lot of things would need to happen right, but to say we cant be better witohut Jack just isnt true, it would just take a lot of dominoes to fall correctly for us, which ofc in reality might not happen.

Do i want to keep Jack?, yes.....do i think we cant get where we want to go witohut him?, no i dont.

You just need to look at Leicester as a model, again, im not saying we can repeat that, and there are many risks to it, but to say we cant progress without Jack is just plain wrong, however i do agree there are many risks to it.

But every transfer is a gamble. And you don’t win every time. Some players brought in will perform, some even increasing further in value. Some players will not.

Watkins’ value might have increased. But that increase is eaten up by the decrease in value on Samatta and Wesley.

It is very difficult to make a good sale of your best player.

We don’t make 100m on selling Jack. We need to replace him. If the replacment player cost 50m and turn out to be shit, we need to spend another 50m on a third player. Then we’ve just replaced a 100m player with a 50m player and have  no more money than before we sold Jack.

 

 

[VillaJ100]

9 minutes ago, Silent_Bob said:

But every transfer is a gamble. And you don’t win every time. Some players brought in will perform, some even increasing further in value. Some players will not.

Watkins’ value might have increased. But that increase is eaten up by the decrease in value on Samatta and Wesley.

It is very difficult to make a good sale of your best player.

We don’t make 100m on selling Jack. We need to replace him. If the replacment player cost 50m and turn out to be shit, we need to spend another 50m on a third player. Then we’ve just replaced a 100m player with a 50m player and have  no more money than before we sold Jack.

 

 

lately there's been a worrying amount of 35-50 million duds as well

[turvontour]

6 hours ago, ender4 said:

IF Grealish is sold for £100 million, that is all profit. 

That gives us £400 million extra to play with in terms of FFP, assuming new signings will have 4 year contacts.   

Part of that £400m will of course be wages, but could still mean £200 million transfer kitty this summer and £200 million on extra wages over the next 4 years.

£200 mil transfer kitty this summer in addition to Bailey and Buendia? Or 130-140mil?

[ender4]

2 hours ago, turvontour said:

£200 mil transfer kitty this summer in addition to Bailey and Buendia? Or 130-140mil?

Assuming Bailey and Buendia were already factored into FFP by the club with Grealish staying, then we would have £200m more to spend.

[thabucks]

So if we sell Jack we could sign a Jonathan David or Lautaro  Martínez ( just as examples ) for big £££ with no FFP worries…  It does make you think that they may see merits in selling Jack. I’m starting to feel it may be the best option the longer this drags on … if we can get £100 mill cash and say Morgan Rogers or Jayden Braaf thrown in as well … 

[Czarnikjak]

25 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Assuming Bailey and Buendia were already factored into FFP by the club with Grealish staying, then we would have £200m more to spend.

Technically we could even spend more than £200m this summer(on top of what we already spent)  if grealish is sold and still be complaint from FFP standpoint this season.

The problem is we would be saddling ourselves with amortisation and wages we cannot sustain. That would force us to sell somebody for top dollar every year in the future just to keep complaint.

It really is a fine balance. Once the grealish saga is finished and Bailey is officially signed we can reassess our situation.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Czarnikjak

[mrjc]

On 02/08/2021 at 08:47, blandy said:

If you extend a players contract that also extends the amortisation, which is a positive impact. For example (hypothetical), we buy a defender for 20 million quid, on a 4 year contract and 100 k wages.

he costs us 5 mill a year in wages and 5 mill a year amortisation of his fee (20 mill /4).

now, after 2 years we give a new contract for 4 years with wages of 120 k. His value at the time = 20 - (2 x 5) = 10 mill. That now gets amortised at 2.5 mill a year ( a saving of 2.5 mill a year). His wage increase of 20 grand a week costs around 1 mill a year extra. In FFP terms that’s a win.

Fair point, I hadn't taken account of that (although understand how it works).  That's probably only really offsetting wages for Mings though.  For McGinn - his annual amortisation would have been pretty low anyway (not more than £0.5m / £0.6m I would think)....adding a year to his contract, which I think is what was done, will only reduce that fairly marginally, so I suspect it's not offsetting his wage increase (£10k per week would effectively be worth his whole amortisation charge, for example).  I guess these things are relatively marginal though, so difficult to assess with too much accuracy given the uncertainty over the overall 2020/21 position.