Summer Transfer Window 2022

[Villarocker]

23 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

Calm down Slipknot 

He feels it all slipping away........

[Zatman]

1 minute ago, est1874 said:

Give over. It's pretty obvious I'm not the one acting obnoxiously childish here.

If you are realistic and not a happy clapper then you get shouted down from certain posters. I wouldnt pay attention  

[CVByrne]

5 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

Its funny how we discuss transfers for varying different positions and what options we have and it usually ends up with the determination that we don't need anyone else. Maybe we should listen to our own logic 

It's because we had gaps in the squad up until this window. Kamara, Carlos, Amundsson, Olsen filled the gaps we had.

We will need players now only if we move on players. So if we got buyers for Davis, AEG, Traore, Sanson we could easily buy a new forward and new midfielder. 

But Sanson and Traore cost over £30m combined so we cannot be keeping them around if we sign replacements for them. If we sign replacements for them first we will get a fraction of their true value in a sale as they would be getting no game time and that would be pretty evident to any potential buying clubs. We may just have them around in PL2 games paying their wages.

The right strategy is move players on and build the FFP headroom for use at end of window or in Jan / next Summer. 

[VillaFaninLondon]

4 hours ago, CVByrne said:

I disagree with everything you've you've said. It's just typical football fan stamping of feet demanding new players. Yes I'd like us to replace Sanson with a top midfield 8 who will push us on but that's not easy to do.

If we went out and signed a £30-35m new no8. What will that result in? If we don't have a buyer for Sanson lined up we're writing off most of what we paid for him. Luiz will not sign a new deal and leaves on a free. Is that a better outcome than convincing Luiz to stay by playing him. Giving Sanson a chance now he's had a pre season and hopefully is injury free like Bailey?

We've a stacked midfield atm. We've 3 players for no6 and 4 players for 8. It has to be a player out before we sign another one otherwise it's bad squad management

No surprise there then. 
 

On the no. 6 position, I’m not sure I agree. We have 2 senior players there and an Academy player who has 3 PL games to his name. We do have four no 8s yes, but Gerrard doesn’t trust Sanson and he seems to be backup and not in the plans, regardless of his situation we still have the same CM options as last season despite every man and his dog knowing we still can’t control games or keep possession well enough even against the average sides let alone the top ones.

 

We’ve just made a 20m profit on an Academy player who was part of the squad last season, there should be scope to bring in a like for like replacement and potentially someone good enough to come straight into the 11. Of course we need to manage the squad but we also need to be strong enough to have a good season and that position has needed fixing for a while now.

[VillaFaninLondon]

18 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Net spend is meaningless. It's not a thing. Counting part of a transfer in the fee paid to another club for the players registration and then netting these off is ridiculous.

It ignores wage and the fact the fee appears the same way wages do in the accounts over the period of the contract. 

Transfers with fee's are just two things. Annual wages to the player and the annual fee to the club we bought player off. Both are over the life of the contract. That's how it's accounted for in our accounts Wages + Fee Amortisation, they're both just annual costs

Maybe you should apply to be the Aston Villa Chief Finance Officer.

[CVByrne]

Just now, VillaFaninLondon said:

Maybe you should apply to be the Aston Villa Chief Finance Officer.

or maybe football fans can just raise their base knowledge of how the sport works

[nick76]

2 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

The right strategy is move players on and build the FFP headroom for use at end of window or in Jan / next Summer. 

I don’t think this is definitely the right strategy.  Gerrard and Lange might be setting up deals that do both in that we line up a signing and an exit.  Gerrard, in his mind, might not want to be left short so completes an incoming and then signs off the outgoing.  Just as we might have to wait for a player from another club, other clubs may have to wait to get our players.  Everything may have been agreed but execution is driven by other factors.

[bobzy]

20 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

or maybe football fans can just raise their base knowledge of how the sport works

I wonder how often it's tweaked rather than spread across the length of a contract.  Is it ever beneficial to take the full transfer costs into account now and allow the FFP benefit to be greater in, say, 2 or 3 years time? 

[HalfTimePost]

Technically yes, Net Spend is meaningless.

But when most clubs have strict wage budgets - and clubs announce their accounts Over 18 months after Pre-Season where the signings are made (our 2020/21 Season accounts came out at the end of March 2022)...

It means Net Spend is a decent barometer of a clubs investment and trajectory.

Yes, it doesn't account for wages, signing on and agent fees. And it is less relevant as Free Transfers drastically increase. Even more so for us where we anticipate our wage bill can change drastically too..

But it is an OK way for fans to monitor investment into their club without being shouted down to wait nearly 2 Years for a detailed Accountants Look at the full financials.

In 2020/21 our wage bill was +£29m (Vs 19/20, which itself was +£26m Vs 18/19) our agent fees were a total £9.5m (up just £600k). 

We made £100m worth of player purchases and £9m of sales.

Our 'traditional' Net Spend was £91m. Our actual net Spend in the accounts (no signing on fees) revealed 2 Years later was £129m.

But that also includes promotion clauses for everybody who stayed so is itself quite ambiguous.

So yeah Net Spend doesn't show the full picture and it's going to be wrong. But in that season, we could guesstimate over 70% of the changing financials (£110m) or we could wait 2 Years to see the 'actual' of £150m.

It's not outrageous Net Spend is a discussion on a Discussion Forum.

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by HalfTimePost

[burchy]

Apologies for the long post but I think, as many have stated, we need 2 x CMs this window, one starter or at least pushing for a start and one that can cover both CM and CDM at a push. 

We currently have only McGinn, Luiz, Sanson and J Ramsey, which for me is not enough.

To emphasise this (and because I’m bored at work) I did some analysis on the other teams we are trying to catch

Leicester x 5: Tielemans (25), Choidrury (24), Dewsbury-Hall (23), Soumare (23),  Praet (28) - I’ve not include Barnes (24)

Brighton x 8: March (28), Mac Allister (23), Mwepu (24), Gross (31), Moder (23), Alcatel (23), Samiento (20), Kozlowski (18)

West Ham x 5: Downes(23), Soucek (27), Odibeko (19), Coventry (22), Onana (23?)

Newcastle x 7: Jolelonton (25), Shelley (30), Almiron (28), Willock (22), Anderson (19), S Longstaff (24), M Longstaff (22) - I’ve not included Guimaraes (24)

Wolves x 7: Jordao (23), Neves (25), Gibbs-White (22), Moutinho (35), Dendoncker (27), Cundle (20), Roman (24)

I think we need 2 x CMs, if we’re going to compete with that lot above and two of real quality. 

[PaulMcGrath_5]

Just now, burchy said:

Apologies for the long post but I think, as many have stated, we need 2 x CMs this window, one starter or at least pushing for a start and one that can cover both CM and CDM at a push. 

We currently have only McGinn, Luiz, Sanson and J Ramsey, which for me is not enough.

To emphasise this (and because I’m bored at work) I did some analysis on the other teams we are trying to catch

Leicester x 5: Tielemans (25), Choidrury (24), Dewsbury-Hall (23), Soumare (23),  Praet (28) - I’ve not include Barnes (24)

Brighton x 8: March (28), Mac Allister (23), Mwepu (24), Gross (31), Moder (23), Alcatel (23), Samiento (20), Kozlowski (18)

West Ham x 5: Downes(23), Soucek (27), Odibeko (19), Coventry (22), Onana (23?)

Newcastle x 7: Jolelonton (25), Shelley (30), Almiron (28), Willock (22), Anderson (19), S Longstaff (24), M Longstaff (22) - I’ve not included Guimaraes (24)

Wolves x 7: Jordao (23), Neves (25), Gibbs-White (22), Moutinho (35), Dendoncker (27), Cundle (20), Roman (24)

I think we need 2 x CMs, if we’re going to compete with that lot above and two of real quality. 

and Tim and Nakamba.

[Peter Griffin]

26 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

or maybe football fans can just raise their base knowledge of how the sport works

Net spend has a very significant impact on FFP. Spend 200m on players and that is 200m cost amortised as per contracts. If we spend 200m on players and sell 120m i.e 80m net spend then we have a cost that year of circa 50m (assuming 4 year amortisation) and revenues of 120m. Of the 120m, lets say 50% is amortisation amounts brought forward which would leave a 60m profit for that accounting year on player sales. The difference between the two transactions is one shows a 50m loss while the other shows a 10m profit, yet both of them have us spending 200m on players. Net spend is very important.

[HalfTimePost]

1 minute ago, Peter Griffin said:

Net spend has a very significant impact on FFP. Spend 200m on players and that is 200m cost amortised as per contracts. If we spend 200m on players and sell 120m i.e 80m net spend then we have a cost that year of circa 50m (assuming 4 year amortisation) and revenues of 120m. Of the 120m, lets say 50% is amortisation amounts brought forward which would leave a 60m profit for that accounting year on player sales. The difference between the two transactions is one shows a 50m loss while the other shows a 10m profit, yet both of them have us spending 200m on players. Net spend is very important.

His point is the wages, signing on fees and agent fees also contribute to FFP, signing a player on a Free is often sold as a huge 'Net Spend' win. But ignores all the other fees that go along with it.

I agree with you though. Net Spend has a place in the discussion.

[TheMelvillan]

I am in awe of people on here who get bogged down on the club's financial governance. I'm an accountant and I couldn't give a toss preferring instead to assume that the club have employed competent financial professionals to figure all this stuff out. 

Hopefully if we buy someone it's cos we can afford them. If we don't, maybe we can't. 

[Peter Griffin]

14 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I wonder how often it's tweaked rather than spread across the length of a contract.  Is it ever beneficial to take the full transfer costs into account now and allow the FFP benefit to be greater in, say, 2 or 3 years time? 

Amortisation impacts taxable income. It can be considered fraudulent not to amoritise as this can impact tax liability. In accounting amortisation is based around the principle of consumption i.e. you pay for something when you use it. This is why we amoritise footballers over the term of their contracts, as we consume their value over the term of their contract. We can't account for the full cost of the player in year 1 of a 4 year contract as we have only consumed 25% of the value of the player. If we were to account for the full cost that would increase our costs for year 1, therefore reducing our profits. As we only pay tax on profits that would decrease the amount of tax we would pay and HMRC don't like that idea.

Obviously football is a different business and unlike a company delivery van which is amortised over a 4 year period and is effectively worth nothing at the end of the 4 years a footballer can increase in value which does complicate things. But the above explanation is the guiding principal without getting into detailed accounting practices.

[burchy]

16 minutes ago, PaulMcGrath_5 said:

and Tim and Nakamba.

Didn’t include them due to them being largely CDMs, same with Kamara. I wanted to do just a CM comparison

[Peter Griffin]

2 minutes ago, TheMelvillan said:

I am in awe of people on here who get bogged down on the club's financial governance. I'm an accountant and I couldn't give a toss preferring instead to assume that the club have employed competent financial professionals to figure all this stuff out. 

Hopefully if we buy someone it's cos we can afford them. If we don't, maybe we can't. 

On VT a lot of people make the assumption that the club doesn't employ any competent people in any role. Gerrard, transfer team, Purslow, coaches etc all get torn apart by some on here

[Peter Griffin]

16 minutes ago, HalfTimePost said:

His point is the wages, signing on fees and agent fees also contribute to FFP, signing a player on a Free is often sold as a huge 'Net Spend' win. But ignores all the other fees that go along with it.

I agree with you though. Net Spend has a place in the discussion.

I agree, wages, sign on etc are important but I don't believe they add up to the same amount as a transfer fee, particularly for the 'free transfers' we would make. Maybe if we got a Messi or a Ronaldo type player the costs may be more but in general I think it is safe to say that a free transfer will cost us less than a transfer that has a fee. For example, I expect 3 years of Danny Ings is a lot more expensive than 3 years of Kamara 

[KMitch]

How I picture all our VillaTalk FFP experts whenever the topic comes up...

[Peter Griffin]

7 minutes ago, burchy said:

Didn’t include them due to them being largely CDMs, same with Kamara. I wanted to do just a CM comparison

If u are not including DMs I think a few could be removed from the list above. I don't know all of the players positions but a few stand out: Neves, Soucek and Chowdhury are definitely DMs and Almiron is a winger like Traore