Jackie Broon

For FFP the costs are spread by amortisation anyway. A £60m transfer fee is a £12m per season amortisation cost, including wages as say £150k per week it's an annual FFP accounting cost of roughly £20m.

Commercial deals of the size that could alter our budget, and that would probably be related party deals, will need PL sign-off so it's not just a case of our CEO signing-off on them. Our budget this season isn't really that limited in terms of FFP, according to that Swiss Ramble twitter thread, including the cost of the transfers we've already made we could afford to spend another £300m on transfers without being in danger of failing FFP this season. The issue would come in two years if we don't increase our revenue. If our revenue doesn't increase over the next two years by his calculations we could spend only another £100m in transfers over that time before FFP becomes an issue. That increase in revenue isn't an issue for right now, provided that it does increase over the next two years, which it clearly will. Although we clearly don't have an unlimited budget we do still have plenty of ability to spend without FFP being an issue, I think a lot of the talk of FFP being an issue is still the club trying to improve it's bargaining position which other clubs who think we have an unlimited budget.

Possibly the type of match where he could actually be useful, would allow us to bypass midfield.

Can we have some happy medium between the selfish running into dead-ends ASM and this pass it to no one ASM please?

We've been so sloppy, very lucky to be 0-0.

That Trippier, Schar, Botman, Burn back four is like the physical embodiment of St James' Park.

The PL FFP allowance of £105m losses over three years is reduced by £22m for each season outside of the PL. According to Swiss Ramble they've run at an EFL FFP loss of £13m per season for last two seasons, that means they can afford a loss of up to £35m this season without breaching FFP. That doesn't mean they've only got £35m to spend on transfers, because transfers are amortised over the length of the contract so spending £15m on a player on a five year contract would be just £3m per year for FFP, although there is the cost of wages too. They'll probably have big buffer of profit because of the massive injection of money they get just from being in the PL, plus starting out with their players on championship wages. So they're probably nowhere near FFP being an issue. Their problem will come if the gamble doesn't pay off and they end up back in the Championship.

They already are, they took out a bank loan of £500m and set up a £300m credit facility last month.

Yeah, even with the farcical £170m cost of covid deduction the PL seem to have allowed them they're probably way over FFP limits and continuing to spend, seemingly without any consequences.

It's difficult from the outside to know how able he was at his job. But, from the outside, it seemed that he rose from an admin monkey due to everyone above him leaving and being an unquestioning yes man. Ok, he has experience of running a PL club, but they seem to be after advice about the commercial side of that, which it seems he'd have very little really experience of from running Spots Direct United.

The French report suggests that €39m is the upfront fee they want, plus addons, which potentially could make the fee they're looking for a lot higher.

Yes, but the £41m is just what he calculates the remaining amount from the £105m we're allowed to lose under FFP to be if our revenue stays the same as it was under Ashley. Which won't happen.

The potential spend he referred to of £41m isn't the same as buying a player for 41m because a player's fee is amortised over the length of their contract. Also, he was talking about for the accounting period ending the end of next season and assuming that our revenue stays the same, which will increase this season and dramatically increase next season when we can get a new main sponsor.

pa-key-ta surely?

Watching his highlights it seems like he has played, or is very capable of playing, as a wide forward on either side. Although, the link is probably bollocks.

Must've been a really tough negotiation between the Red Bull owned FC Red Bull Salzburg and the totally not Red Bull owned RB Leipzig completely coincidentally run by Red Bull's 'Head of Global Soccer'.

I'm relaxed about it, we have a very good squad and all we really need is extra depth at CF and an upgrade at RW, ideally a player who can do both. The club are obviously being patient about it and will only buy the right player/s at the right price who will be a genuine upgrade on what we have. If we don't get that in this window we've got plenty enough talent and depth to have a very good season.

That's irrelevant to their current spending, which is what was being discussed. Also, the new owner paid more for the club than Abramovich paid and put in.

Chelsea don't have £1.5bn in the bank. Even if they did it wouldn't make any difference to how much they could spend under FFP.

I'm not sure I see the relevance again?

Leicester probably don't have an issue with FFP. They had losses of £60m in 19/20 and £31m in 20/21 but they have claimed covid costs of £50m which will be discounted from that for the FFP calculation. So that's a FFP loss of at most £40 for 19/20 and 20/21 (in reality it will be less than that because there are other expenses that can be discounted). PL FFP allows losses of up to £105m over three seasons, so they could have lost up to £65m in 21/22 and still been ok, which they won't have because they only lost £31m in 20/21 when most games were played to empty stadiums. This season they're in an improved position because their £60m loss in 19/20 no longer counts towards FFP and the majority of their covid costs (£36m) are from 20/21, so that wipes out all of their loss from that year and leave them with the full £105 loss allowance for 21/22 and 22/23. I think their need to sell is more to do with the owners wanting to cut costs and reduce a bloated squad.

Yes, but again I don't see the relevance of that to what was being discussed. Which isn't relevant to the thread anyway, so I'll leave it there so as not to derail discussion of all those new James Maddison transfer updates.

I agree with that, I just don't see why it's relevant. We were discussing whether they can afford their current spending.

Chelsea's turnover isn't that much lower than Man U's, they also have the most successful academy in England which has made them hundreds of millions of profit. I'd love to see Chelsea collapse now they haven't got Abramovich's backing, but they're probably not going to.