Abacus

That comment right there is why I want to beat Burnley finish above 12th. We already have more points this year than the shameful Bruce's two full seasons in charge, despite the terrible start he made and the state he left the squad in.

Targett was also voted Villa's Players' Player of the season last year. So, clearly valued in their squad.

I don't believe so, no. The equivalent figure quoted for the previous year was £36m. That would be mainly the transfers of Wilson and Lewis, who cost around £35m. If you look at what was then capitalised as an intangible asset (I e. the cost of registering those players) it's around the same amount - about £40m. If you believe what's reported about their wages (on 4 and 5 year contracts respectively), which you can't capitalise in the same way, that would add another £20m or thereabouts to the total. The short answer being that it doesn't look like those figures include wages. (Nor should they be - not least as those amounts are described as transfer costs).

And that's before you factor in the cost of living crisis.

Plus, if you bought him for what's been quoted and decided there were better options a year or two later, on the basis of what we've seen so far he's not going to lose much value if you decide to sell him on.

I know what you mean - I'd also be more excited by someone like Lodi (and preferably would have both), but I think there are actual holes right throughout other parts of the team that are more pressing for next year. Target doesn't strike me as an urgent weak link at least, and he's a known quantity. Instead I'd be looking at a striker (possibly two), keeper, central defence, arguably both wingers depending on your view of St Max (and anyway as cover), defensive midfielder, creative number 10... Depends where the priorities are really, as that's already more than half a team

£4m a month?? That's a lot of sherbet dabs and cola bottles. I'm kind of glad we're not in that territory of spend. I would become a monster on those sort of wages.

I read it differently - that sentence says 'after the period end', which would specifically include everything after the 30 June accounting period, not just after the takeover. But hey, not that it matters much, other than to a pedant like me.

The accounts were made up until the 30 June. So, I'm assuming that £112m includes the reported £25m we spent on Willock in August. When in a brilliant set of tactics, we made it known that he was our main target and our opening gambit was to ask for him on loan again, only to be told no, so we caved in straight away and bought him. That £25m would presumably explain most of the difference between the £112m reported in the accounts, and the c.£90m that I've read elsewhere as being our January spend post takeover.

It said £15m minus the £2m loan fee - presumably £13m then. Which, for an experienced PL defender is very decent. Sounds like he wants to be here too. Mind, I'd mainly like to sign him so that Agbonlahor implodes in disbelief, whilst struggling to put a sentence together.

I think Cabaye really flourished for being alongside peak Tiote. He did the physical stuff, and let Cabaye get on with the playmaker role. Cabaye did have a decent 'whippy' tackle if he needed to make one mind. A bit like Beardsley, come to that I think that's the thing with debates about great players - it's often about who they are playing with and that connection as much as it is about their individual skill. Going back to Beardsley, for example, he elevated Andy Cole to a whole new level.

Somebody should tell Martin Ziegler that factually we are owned by PIF and not Saudi Arabia. And that the premier league received written assurances that they were different things. So, why would they bring up an irrelevant country in their accounts?

After that, I really don't think any team will want to play us at St James' any time soon.

He was immense.

Put Gayle on, we really are taking the piss

Joelinton has the bit between his teeth right now

Great start from Target. Think he should have whipped in that free kick rather than Bruno

Will this terrible pundemic never end? Transfer wise, I'd be delighted with most of the names mentioned here. Almost every one is an upgrade on at least someone in the squad. I'd be very excited with Ekitike, even though he might be a gamble to see if suited the PL. It's mainly just good to be able to have some chips on the table for a change.

Colo is a good shout from earlier actually. I remember when we got relegated the Chronicle dubbed him Colo the Clown. Actually, him and one or two others really benefitted from that season in the championship. Then he was excellent when we got back to the PL, and we had the nucleus of a decent team that had gotten used to winning. But Joelinton is altogether a different kettle of halibut. The total definition of a flop, and then completely reinvented himself as a proper footballer in an entirely different position. I don't remember anything like that before.

So, now we're finishing a minimum of 15th. Ei ei ei o...

And, the teams that spent in the summer had the benefit of those players all year. We had those players for half a season, even ignoring that Trippier promptly broke his foot. I do agree with Lenny's point about the mentality effect of adding new players to the rest of the squad, though. But on the other hand, there's a reason that lot seemed so demotivated beforehand - turning that around in the space of a few months is pretty damn remarkable and it takes more than just money and new faces to do that.

Could be Burnley as well, as it stands. Meaning the lowest we could finish was 16th.

Yes, as Jackie Broon says, it's about what hits your short term profit and loss. You're allowed to inject cash for specific longer term reasons. So, you're not supposed to excessively fund short term spending e.g. on players and wages, whilst gambling that you'll be successful. Building a stadium, on the other hand is seen as a longer term thing and less risky - since at very least you'll have an asset to show for it at the end of it - so it's less of an issue for FFP. It's not perfect, but that's the idea.

It's a good question. Many people have said that all they want is a well run club, that competes commercially and is ambitious on the pitch as a result. So presumably lots would be fine with that. I wouldn't. Ever since it's looked like the self appointed ESL 6 were influencing how the league was run and also attempted to stitch up and destroy the league with their breakaway, I've wanted to smash them to pieces. I'd love it if we kept Man U and their despicable owners out of the champions league money trough, and make life hell for the likes of Spurs and their owners by blowing their transfer business out of the water. And I really don't think PIF are planning to be in the most high profile league in the world's biggest sport with the intention of purely making up the numbers. That's the reflected success they'll want those shirts to convey around the world. I think having chosen those colours in the first place is very much a sign of their intentions - they'll not want them to be associated with a losing team.

I'm pretty sure that money is earmarked for infrastructure - mainly Stadium development. That kind of spend doesn't count from a FFP point of view anyway. So I don't think it should make a difference, no.