ThunderPower_14 Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Purslow is bang on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calcifer Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 2 hours ago, HeyAnty said: A system where clubs are having to sell their best academy graduates to established clubs isn’t fit for purpose. I am sure i saw Purslow on a video somewhere on this site and he said that! It's wrong that to comply with FFP you have to see your academy graduates. 15 minutes ago, Tomaszk said: Superleague type deal will happen with teams like Barca and Real leading the charge. This is what makes you laugh both clubs have huge debts but get away with it! Any super league wont have English clubs in it so they will invite the Saudis where FFP wont apply to them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 hour ago, allani said: Everton spent a lot of time buying players from "lower" clubs - they just spent over the odds and on questionable players. At the end of the day the reason they've had to sell their best players rather than their worst players is because they paid way over the odds for their worst players and put them on big salaries. Everton are in the position they are in because of their mismanagement not because FFP has failed. They are a bad example to use. I agree with your main point - I just take issue with using Everton as a victim of it. It's more the fact that Everton found themselves in the position of having to sell Richarlison within a certain time period to comply with the rules (which they subsequently didn't even do). They maintain they'd have got £20m+ more by holding out until the end of the window like most teams do, but weren't allowed to. So FFP rules have essentially done them out of a potential £20m - how is that in anybody's favour except for richer teams like Spurs? Levy will have known that Everton needed to sell and used that to negotiate. The same thing happened with Brennan Johnson - Forest wanted to keep him for another season to increase his value even further but weren't allowed to to the benefit of Spurs. It'll likely be the same for us this summer if we're tight against the FFP limits. The big 6 will be lowballing us for Watkins etc. knowing we need to sell by a certain accounting date. The rules are clearly designed to give those teams an advantage over anyone who's trying to catch up with them. The rules were drawn up in response to City throwing money and buying their way to the top. None of the traditional top teams want to see that happening again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted February 29 VT Supporter Share Posted February 29 Has this €138,000'loss' been confirmed by anyone other than McGuire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calcifer Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 35 minutes ago, El-Reacho said: Levy will have known that Everton needed to sell and used that to negotiate. This is the bloke that tried to get Jack for 3M and Josh Onomah... the guy loves to lowball teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 2 hours ago, El-Reacho said: It's more the fact that Everton found themselves in the position of having to sell Richarlison within a certain time period to comply with the rules (which they subsequently didn't even do). They maintain they'd have got £20m+ more by holding out until the end of the window like most teams do, but weren't allowed to. So FFP rules have essentially done them out of a potential £20m - how is that in anybody's favour except for richer teams like Spurs? Levy will have known that Everton needed to sell and used that to negotiate. The same thing happened with Brennan Johnson - Forest wanted to keep him for another season to increase his value even further but weren't allowed to to the benefit of Spurs. It'll likely be the same for us this summer if we're tight against the FFP limits. The big 6 will be lowballing us for Watkins etc. knowing we need to sell by a certain accounting date. The rules are clearly designed to give those teams an advantage over anyone who's trying to catch up with them. The rules were drawn up in response to City throwing money and buying their way to the top. None of the traditional top teams want to see that happening again. I think given the way Everton have conducted their transfer business I wouldn't be too sure that they'd have got much more. There's a big difference between saying they could have got £20m more and any club meeting that higher price. But as I say I agree with your point and I have plenty of concerns with the way that FFP has been implemented (I have always said it's to protect the status quo more than it is to prevent clubs from going under). That said as much as FFP is our enemy it could become our friend. The "Sky 6" (I refuse to call them the big 6) all budget on finishing in the top 6 and progressing a long way in Europe. The more that clubs like us, Newcastle, Brighton and West Ham can disrupt that and make them miss these targets - the harder it will be for them to keep hitting their FFP numbers. Chelsea are almost certainly going to have to offload players this summer and if Man Utd were to miss the Europa League as well the CL then they will struggle too. The challenge is that we need to be able to be good enough to keep qualifying without becoming reliant on qualifying to keep us compliant. Qualification has to be treated as a bonus rather than an expectation. But the more often we qualify the more that becomes true for the "Sky 6" too. Of course their other revenue streams are much higher than ours so they should be better able to handle missing out on CL money - but their expenses / outgoings are also likely to be considerably higher too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 hour ago, Follyfoot said: Has this €138,000'loss' been confirmed by anyone other than McGuire? It's €138m rather than €138,000 - but yes it has been widely reported from the accounts the club submitted and the report UEFA published a couple of weeks ago. Most of the independent analysis I have read seems to suggest that it sounds a lot worse than it is and that we should meet the PL FFP requirements without too much problem. Meeting the UEFA requirements is possibly a bit harder but mainly because the assessment period has been reduced whilst the limits change - but again I don't think too many people (apart from Villa fans) believe that it is a significant issue - other than limiting what we might be able to spend in the summer. So what I've read is basically that we're very unlikely to breach FFP but that we might have less to spend on transfers than we would like. On the flip side I don't think any projections have factored in the new deal with Adidas (which is rumoured to be significant), qualification for either the Europa League or CL, etc. I am also confident that we will announce a number of new sponsorship deals over the coming months - this is something that Heck did in Philadelphia and is an area that Atairos / Comcast have considerable experience of (it is unlikely to be just headline grabbing shirt or stadium sponsors - I think there will be other deals happening as well - American sports teams get sponsors / partners for almost everything). 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 21 hours ago, MrBlack said: Yup. Its why they need to set out a scale that clubs know in advance. If clubs know how many points they'll be deducted for a breach of £x million then they can't have any complaints. It's not a great system though - clubs will be able to be spend money as they wish knowing exactly what the punishments are. Wolves could buy 2 super players that will help them massively next year if they know this year they will only lose 6-9 points, which makes very little difference to them now. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think a scale as such is not good. It's like theft; when you go to court after stealing something, all things such as intent, motivation, circumstances, scale, etc are considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 3 minutes ago, Mic09 said: It's not a great system though - clubs will be able to be spend money as they wish knowing exactly what the punishments are. Wolves could buy 2 super players that will help them massively next year if they know this year they will only lose 6-9 points, which makes very little difference to them now. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think a scale as such is not good. It's like theft; when you go to court after stealing something, all things such as intent, motivation, circumstances, scale, etc are considered. That's why you make it harsh. 10m - 3 points 20m - 6 points 30m - 12 points 40m - 24 points etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 4 hours ago, Pinebro said: Newcastle are apparently in a worse position than us so how could they afford Ramsey.. its all just mindless speculation at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinebro Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 5 minutes ago, theboyangel said: Newcastle are apparently in a worse position than us so how could they afford Ramsey.. its all just mindless speculation at the moment. Everton point deduction has everyone shit scared. Will be an interesting summer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leemond2008 Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 10 minutes ago, Pinebro said: Everton point deduction has everyone shit scared. Will be an interesting summer That's just the thing, it won't be interesting at all because everyone will be too scared to spend any money...well, one team obviously won't be bothered by something as simple as FFP and we all know who they are so there isn't any point in concerning ourselves with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 27 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: I'm not sure you fully understand how ffp works. You can actually have 2 teams sell a player to each other and both benefit from FFP perspective. For example we sell JJ to Newcastle for £50m they sell Miley for £50m, both on 5 year contracts, both teams benefit £40m for their FFP for this financial period. So yes, all teams might have to sell, and that won't stop them from buying from each other. PS - this completely artificial market that FFP has created (as you described above) is just one example of how ridiculous the rules are. It's encouraged the behaviour of clubs like Chelsea (as an extreme example) where they could have massive issues in a couple of years (if they continue to keep finishing mid-table) because of deals they've made that have "played" the FFP rules in the short-term but with considerable longer-term risk. It certainly hasn't done anything to encourage a more sustainable approach to running a club. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 It would be good if all 20 PL clubs decide **** FFP and all get 10 point deductions at the same time, rendering the whole thing pointless. Then we would also see whether UEFA would risk having European competitions with no English teams in. It'd be crazy if we have to sell a player despite qualifying for the Champions League. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 3 Moderator Share Posted March 3 It'd be nice to agree with another Premier league team to buy a player off each other for a year - so maybe we buy a talented Brighton lad for £20m and they buy Iroegbunam for £20m and then after a year each working with the player, we both buy them back for £5m. Both clubs would pot a decent FFP bonus and the players would essentially just have been on loan. Would that work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: It'd be nice to agree with another Premier league team to buy a player off each other for a year - so maybe we buy a talented Brighton lad for £20m and they buy Iroegbunam for £20m and then after a year each working with the player, we both buy them back for £5m. Both clubs would pot a decent FFP bonus and the players would essentially just have been on loan. Would that work? If you were juventus and barca it would.... Pretty sure a few clubs played some sort of FFP game with morata too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 25 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: It'd be nice to agree with another Premier league team to buy a player off each other for a year - so maybe we buy a talented Brighton lad for £20m and they buy Iroegbunam for £20m and then after a year each working with the player, we both buy them back for £5m. Both clubs would pot a decent FFP bonus and the players would essentially just have been on loan. Would that work? that would result in both teams making a 15 million profit that year (assuming academy) signing a 4 year deal and then selling them back a year later for 5 million results in a 10 million loss the following season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: It'd be nice to agree with another Premier league team to buy a player off each other for a year - so maybe we buy a talented Brighton lad for £20m and they buy Iroegbunam for £20m and then after a year each working with the player, we both buy them back for £5m. Both clubs would pot a decent FFP bonus and the players would essentially just have been on loan. Would that work? Did Juventus' recent points deduction and mooted (no idea if they happened) prosecution of individuals not arise from a very similar situation in the Cancelo deal with City? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said: One thing I keep seeing in this thread is some variant of 'qualifying for the Champions League will help', which obviously yes it will, but it's very very likely that we will fail to qualify next season so it's not a reliable revenue stream. We shouldn't be going out buying players on the assumption that repeated qualification for the CL will pay for them, if that's what pays for them then we can't afford them. I've been saying this for ages. The Sky 6 have basically been able to budget on being in Europe every season AND then going a long way in Europe each season. I suspect that Chelsea probably budget on getting to the quarters or semi-finals of the CL. They look like they will probably miss out on all European competition again this season. The more that clubs like us, Newcastle, West Ham and Brighton can keep disrupting that - the more it means the Sky 6 have to be a bit more careful about their budget process. The trick is to be able to spend enough to compete on the pitch but be smart (tight) enough to regard European revenue as a bonus and not something that you are reliant on - so that you can absorb missing out on it better. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 15 hours ago, allani said: I've been saying this for ages. The Sky 6 have basically been able to budget on being in Europe every season AND then going a long way in Europe each season. I suspect that Chelsea probably budget on getting to the quarters or semi-finals of the CL. They look like they will probably miss out on all European competition again this season. The more that clubs like us, Newcastle, West Ham and Brighton can keep disrupting that - the more it means the Sky 6 have to be a bit more careful about their budget process. The trick is to be able to spend enough to compete on the pitch but be smart (tight) enough to regard European revenue as a bonus and not something that you are reliant on - so that you can absorb missing out on it better. I don't know where Hanoi's original post was, but the thing with the Champions League is the exposure. So, yes, you can't budget for qualifying season on season like a handful of clubs, but you can increase sponsorship immediately just for being in that competition. There's an initial monetary bonus for competing (rumoured around £30m I think?) and then you can probably drive another £10-20m for sponsors. With FFP as it is, a £50m "pure profit" income is worth £250m on players on 5 year contracts. That's why it's so big. Not the long term planning - although I'm sure clubs work with a "what if" and "what if not" scenario - but the immediate boost which 16 (or maybe 15) other clubs just don't get for that season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts