Jump to content

The AVFC FFP thread


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, MaVilla said:

im hearing people saying that 100m for Jack is basically 200m (or more??) for FFP purposes, is anyone able to explain this to me please?!!?

Because signing fees and wages are spread over the contract length whereas Jack's fee is written off in one lump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot has happened in the last few days, good time to look at where we are with FFP.

In this post I will give my assessment of the situation before Jack left, and what were our options if he had stayed. 

Reminder, I am making 2 assumptions here:

1. We didn't break FFP in 20/21

2. We have no intention on breaking it in 21/22

 

To the best of my knowledge and information publicly available, our situation as of May 2021 (looking back at last 3 FFP monitoring periods) was near or right at the limit:

611096980_Screenshot2021-08-05at15_22_31.thumb.png.68565216ade6e59487b405385642bb32.png

 

Our transactions since then:

688912864_Screenshot2021-08-05at15_23_12.thumb.png.d37973bf303edceaa0f4ad0461af55ff.png

 

This is a deficit of about £4m. However, particularly bad 17/18 season will drop off from our FFP calculations now, releasing another £10m of FFP budget for wages and amortisation.

That gave us only about £6m left to play with if Jack decided to stay (which was probably already reserved for Sanson incoming and Jack wage increase that is not shown in my calculation).

 

So in my estimation, the bottom line is that Buendia and Bailey were bought regardless of Grealish staying or going (Ings is already coming for Grealish money though). However, any further purchases would need to be funded by player sales. Departures of the likes of Hourihane, would give us enough money to bring in a decent cover in CB position for example.

Once the dust settles on Grealish and Ings transfers, I will provide my assessment of the new scenario that unfolded now, and what we can do £100m kitty.

Edited by Czarnikjak
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

A lot has happened in the last few days, good time to look at where we are with FFP.

In this post I will give my assessment of the situation before Jack left, and what were our options if he had stayed. 

Reminder, I am making 2 assumptions here:

1. We didn't break FFP in 20/21

2. We have no intention on breaking it in 21/22

 

To the best of my knowledge and information publicly available, our situation as of May 2021 (looking back at last 3 FFP monitoring periods) was near or right at the limit:

611096980_Screenshot2021-08-05at15_22_31.thumb.png.68565216ade6e59487b405385642bb32.png

 

Our transactions since then:

688912864_Screenshot2021-08-05at15_23_12.thumb.png.d37973bf303edceaa0f4ad0461af55ff.png

 

This is a deficit of about £4m. However, particularly bad 17/18 season will drop off from our FFP calculations now, releasing another £10m of FFP budget for wages and amortisation.

That gave us only about £6m left to play with if Jack decided to stay (which was probably already reserved for Sanson incoming and Jack wage increase that is not shown in my calculation).

 

So in my estimation, the bottom line is that Buendia and Bailey were bought regardless of Grealish staying or going (Ings is already coming for Grealish money though). However, any further purchases would need to be funded by player sales. Departures of the likes of Hourihane, would give us enough money to bring in a decent cover in CB position for example.

Once the dust settles on Grealish and Ings transfers, I will provide my assessment of the new scenario that unfolded now, and what we can do £100m kitty.

Good work!

As you've noted, the above is based on having met the minimum requirement for passing FFP for 20/21. Any chance you've had a go at estimating the 20/21 position based on the published 19/20 accounts and how likely we are to have actually met FFP and what changes would have to occur from 19/20 to meet it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tomsky_11 said:

Good work!

As you've noted, the above is based on having met the minimum requirement for passing FFP for 20/21. Any chance you've had a go at estimating the 20/21 position based on the published 19/20 accounts and how likely we are to have actually met FFP and what changes would have to occur from 19/20 to meet it?

As far as I can tell from the information available, we have met the FFP limit last season, but only just.

The main change that occurred was the continuation of COVID and the ability to write off player's residual value (thus reducing amortisation costs) in the books, while treating this impairment as a FFP excluded covid induced cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Czarnikjak said:

A lot has happened in the last few days, good time to look at where we are with FFP.

In this post I will give my assessment of the situation before Jack left, and what were our options if he had stayed. 

Reminder, I am making 2 assumptions here:

1. We didn't break FFP in 20/21

2. We have no intention on breaking it in 21/22

 

To the best of my knowledge and information publicly available, our situation as of May 2021 (looking back at last 3 FFP monitoring periods) was near or right at the limit:

611096980_Screenshot2021-08-05at15_22_31.thumb.png.68565216ade6e59487b405385642bb32.png

 

Our transactions since then:

688912864_Screenshot2021-08-05at15_23_12.thumb.png.d37973bf303edceaa0f4ad0461af55ff.png

 

This is a deficit of about £4m. However, particularly bad 17/18 season will drop off from our FFP calculations now, releasing another £10m of FFP budget for wages and amortisation.

That gave us only about £6m left to play with if Jack decided to stay (which was probably already reserved for Sanson incoming and Jack wage increase that is not shown in my calculation).

 

So in my estimation, the bottom line is that Buendia and Bailey were bought regardless of Grealish staying or going (Ings is already coming for Grealish money though). However, any further purchases would need to be funded by player sales. Departures of the likes of Hourihane, would give us enough money to bring in a decent cover in CB position for example.

Once the dust settles on Grealish and Ings transfers, I will provide my assessment of the new scenario that unfolded now, and what we can do £100m kitty.

There's no amortisation on Barclay. He was never someone we bought. We paid his wages (and maybe a loan fee), but no wrote down of player value applies, surely. Equally Neil Taylor and Elmo I think we did pay fees for (even if a swap deal for Neil Taylor), so there will be amortisation for them, though only a relatively small amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barkley had a 6m loan fee and 5m wages. So the 11m is free'd up in terms of allowable cost. So above is correct I think.

*I think it was already reported we paid a loan fee and it was 6m

Edited by CVByrne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Barkley had a 6m loan fee and 5m wages. So the 11m is free'd up in terms of allowable cost. So above is correct I think.

*I think it was already reported we paid a loan fee and it was 6m

Not by anyone credible - maybe we did maybe we didn't. If we did, I dunno if it would go in the "amortisation" column, but I guess the effect on the calcs would be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Not by anyone credible - maybe we did maybe we didn't. If we did, I dunno if it would go in the "amortisation" column, but I guess the effect on the calcs would be the same.

Yeah impact to calcs is same and the assumption used was he cost 11m loan fee and wages included based on reports. Seems fair to include on that basis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, blandy said:

There's no amortisation on Barclay. He was never someone we bought. We paid his wages (and maybe a loan fee), but no wrote down of player value applies, surely. Equally Neil Taylor and Elmo I think we did pay fees for (even if a swap deal for Neil Taylor), so there will be amortisation for them, though only a relatively small amount.

Hello,

Loan fees PAID are classified as amortisation. £11m total cost for Barkley was widely reported, and looks very plausible to me.

Loan feed RECEIVED are classified as revenue (usually bundled  under commercial revenue label with other commercial income )

Taylor and Elmo amortisation would be negligible, so I ignored them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Hello,

Loan fees PAID are classified as amortisation. £11m total cost for Barkley was widely reported, and looks very plausible to me.

Loan feed RECEIVED are classified as revenue (usually bundled  under commercial revenue label with other commercial income )

Taylor and Elmo amortisation would be negligible, so I ignored them.

tbf Football Insider was the source and they're poor source. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Hello,

Loan fees PAID are classified as amortisation. £11m total cost for Barkley was widely reported, and looks very plausible to me.

Loan feed RECEIVED are classified as revenue (usually bundled  under commercial revenue label with other commercial income )

Taylor and Elmo amortisation would be negligible, so I ignored them.

I saw it a while ago, it was one of those things where it was tweeted by some so called ITK account, then repeated on the various newspaper tabloid websites. We won't know till Chelsea and Villa's accounts are issued next may time, and even then it may be hard to identify if there was a loan fee or how much it was or how much his wages were, or if we paid all or some of them. It's one of those things where we just make a semi educated guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, blandy said:

I saw it a while ago, it was one of those things where it was tweeted by some so called ITK account, then repeated on the various newspaper tabloid websites. We won't know till Chelsea and Villa's accounts are issued next may time, and even then it may be hard to identify if there was a loan fee or how much it was or how much his wages were, or if we paid all or some of them. It's one of those things where we just make a semi educated guess.

You are correct, we might never find out exactly how much we paid for him, my logic was as follows: 

1. Highly unlikely Chelsea would let him go without a loan fee at all

2. £6m was the only reported figure

3. Chelseas  valuation to sell him was about £30m last year which equates to £6m a year amortisation if signed on 5 year contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Yes.   Not for too many weeks though 😂

So we can we afford to bring Roy Keane in purely for the two matches against City? Maybe not as mobile as he once was but we’d only need one “tackle” from him in the right back position 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I’m suggesting that they should, but is there any FFP benefit in not spending all the money that is available in this summer’s transfer kitty?

Is there an advantage that isn’t immediately obvious in deferring some activity to next summer?

Or is it more the case of Villa are in a great position compared to most, let’s make the most of it while we can?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Not that I’m suggesting that they should, but is there any FFP benefit in not spending all the money that is available in this summer’s transfer kitty?

Is there an advantage that isn’t immediately obvious in deferring some activity to next summer?

Or is it more the case of Villa are in a great position compared to most, let’s make the most of it while we can?

We can spend more next window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â