Other clubs' transfers

[madras]

8 minutes ago, brummie said:

 

Not really sure how Grealish makes that much difference - even ignoring Grealish, there's £60m of other homegrown sales there. How is that skewed? If we wanted (and I definitely don't want to) we could sell Jacob Ramsey for a lot of money, too.

 

One thing we've got right in recent years is transfers and balancing with homegrown players - Tielemans, McGinn, Luiz, Ramsey, Kamara - total cost about £17m. Also, not sure how your splurge being a one off really changes anything, though?

 

I know I keep saying this, but the homegrown thing is gamechanging in terms of the wriggle room it gives you - it's 100% profit and you can book it all in one year if you want to, which makes a huge difference that you don't see if you just look at net transfer spend. 

 

That's the bit you guys need to get right.

Those were the transfer fees, what wages and bonuses, agents fees etc attracted those players that all count towards FFP as well.

 

It's why I singled out that sale as it was 100% profit and a big shot which will soon drop off the FFP books. Without that sale would those players have been affordable, and how does that affect things going forward.

[r0cafella]

16 minutes ago, brummie said:

 

Not really sure how Grealish makes that much difference - even ignoring Grealish, there's £60m of other homegrown sales there. How is that skewed? If we wanted (and I definitely don't want to) we could sell Jacob Ramsey for a lot of money, too.

 

One thing we've got right in recent years is transfers and balancing with homegrown players - Tielemans, McGinn, Luiz, Ramsey, Kamara - total cost about £17m. Also, not sure how your splurge being a one off really changes anything, though?

 

I know I keep saying this, but the homegrown thing is gamechanging in terms of the wriggle room it gives you - it's 100% profit and you can book it all in one year if you want to, which makes a huge difference that you don't see if you just look at net transfer spend. 

 

That's the bit you guys need to get right.

Grealish makes a massive difference, how often are you going to book a 100m sale?

 

As I said, the gap is skewed by these two items, yes you have some instances where you bought well for cheap but that becomes increasingly difficult as you scale. 
 

Homegrown sales will come but much later for us due to the state of our academy, it’s difficult to compare the clubs because you didn’t ever have 14 years of the worst owner the league has seen. 
 

Flat revenue over 14 years is literally unthinkable in this league but we managed to achieved it. 
 

The one advantage we should have over you is being able to inflate sponsorships because of state linked sponsors, even then we’ve utilised it poorly so far

[The Butcher]

Here's Chelsea's next 100m flop.

[The College Dropout]

On 01/01/2024 at 07:20, El Prontonise said:

 

Yeap I've said it previously but they are amazing at selling past it players to man utd.

Sold Odegaard on the cheap mind.

[The College Dropout]

2 things Villa have got right that we need to learn from - they've made some v. sensible low-fee or free signings, even if the wages are fairly high. Kamara lad, and Tielemans both on free transfers. We've signed 2 CMs for £100m. They use the loan market to fill out the squad. Zaniolo, Lenglet - I don't know how good either are but at least they are warm bodies the manager is willing to use. Do they earn multiples of what Ritchie / Dummett and co. earn?

 

And then obviously the youth setup. That's the FFP hack. It's going to take us 3-5 years to catch up properly but that will propel us. We seem to be signing a lot of youth players from other clubs so I'm hoping we jump the queue on that.

 

We seem to want to only sign potential superstars (apart from Barnes). Rather than a sensible 28 year-old £15-30m fullback to come in add value to the first team immediately like Alex Moreno. We'll sign a 19-year old for more money that the manager doesn't want to play with the hope he turns into a very top player. Which I think is generally a good idea for the long-term but man it has limits on filling out the squad in the short-term.

 

 

Edited January 3 by The College Dropout

[KaKa]

48 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

2 things Villa have got right that we need to learn from - they've made some v. sensible low-fee or free signings, even if the wages are fairly high. Kamara lad, and Tielemans both on free transfers. We've signed 2 CMs for £100m. They use the loan market to fill out the squad. Zaniolo, Lenglet - I don't know how good either are but at least they are warm bodies the manager is willing to use. Do they earn multiples of what Ritchie / Dummett and co. earn?

 

And then obviously the youth setup. That's the FFP hack. It's going to take us 3-5 years to catch up properly but that will propel us. We seem to be signing a lot of youth players from other clubs so I'm hoping we jump the queue on that.

 

We seem to want to only sign potential superstars (apart from Barnes). Rather than a sensible 28 year-old £15-30m fullback to come in add value to the first team immediately like Alex Moreno. We'll sign a 19-year old for more money that the manager doesn't want to play with the hope he turns into a very top player. Which I think is generally a good idea for the long-term but man it has limits on filling out the squad in the short-term.

 

 

 

 

We don't really have the flexibility they have, because we didn't/don't have the valuable home grown youngsters they've been able to move for pure profit FFP wise. We also have a bunch of dead weight eating up our wages, which they don't really have either.

 

Because of this we've tried to make some use of the players we have on the books as best we can, and focus on getting in higher value players to be in and around the first team.

 

We are still being hamstrung by the useless squad building and lack of youth infrastructure during the Mike Ashley years.

 

 

Edited January 3 by KaKa

[The College Dropout]

22 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

We don't really have the flexibility they have, because we didn't/don't have the valuable home grown youngsters they've been able to move for pure profit FFP wise. We also have a bunch of dead weight eating up our wages, which they don't really have either.

 

Because of this we've tried to make some use of the players we have on the books as best we can, and focus on getting in higher value players to be in and around the first team.

 

We are still being hamstrung by the useless squad building and lack of youth infrastructure during the Mike Ashley years.

 

 

 

I agree with this. But we've kept some dead wood on for seemingly no footballing reason.

[Menace]

Curious to see how Sancho gets on should he return at Dortmund - wouldn't even surprise me if they rejuvenate his career. There's no better club.

[The College Dropout]

23 minutes ago, Menace said:

Curious to see how Sancho gets on should he return at Dortmund - wouldn't even surprise me if they rejuvenate his career. There's no better club.

Did it work out for the like of Sahin, Kagawa and Hummels?

 

Genuinely asking. I don't know. In my mind, a fair few Dortmund players leave for big money then come back. Can add Goetze to that.

 

 

Edited January 3 by The College Dropout

[Mikky]

36 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Did it work out for the like of Sahin, Kagawa and Hummels?

 

Genuinely asking. I don't know. In my mind, a fair few Dortmund players leave for big money then come back. Can add Goetze to that.

 

 

 

There’s Jude and Lewandowski - struggling after that - talking about success here (and Gundogen)

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Mikky said:

There’s Jude and Lewandowski - struggling after that - talking about success here (and Gundogen)

I'm talking about players leaving Dortmund and then coming back and succeeding.

[brummie]

2 hours ago, KaKa said:

 

We don't really have the flexibility they have, because we didn't/don't have the valuable home grown youngsters they've been able to move for pure profit FFP wise. We also have a bunch of dead weight eating up our wages, which they don't really have either.

 

Because of this we've tried to make some use of the players we have on the books as best we can, and focus on getting in higher value players to be in and around the first team.

 

We are still being hamstrung by the useless squad building and lack of youth infrastructure during the Mike Ashley years.

 

 

 

 

The other factor I think worth considering, we had to go to absolute rock bottom and reset before we could start to improve things. Three years in the Championship, including at one point under that chancer Tony Xia getting literally days away from administration.

 

It was a reset of a lot of things, but it's a measure of how bad things had got structurally and in terms of deadwood - the same deadwood that led us to a comedy sub 20 points relegation.

[KaKa]

53 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I agree with this. But we've kept some dead wood on for seemingly no footballing reason.

 

Just Dummet and Ritchie right? Who they must feel add some important value off the pitch, which is fair enough I think. 

 

The real problem are the players that we cannot sell and who add no value on or off the pitch currently, who we have only managed to loan out at best, and still have years to run on significant money.

 

 

[brummie]

14 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Grealish makes a massive difference, how often are you going to book a 100m sale?

 

As I said, the gap is skewed by these two items, yes you have some instances where you bought well for cheap but that becomes increasingly difficult as you scale. 
 

Homegrown sales will come but much later for us due to the state of our academy, it’s difficult to compare the clubs because you didn’t ever have 14 years of the worst owner the league has seen. 
 

Flat revenue over 14 years is literally unthinkable in this league but we managed to achieved it. 
 

The one advantage we should have over you is being able to inflate sponsorships because of state linked sponsors, even then we’ve utilised it poorly so far

 

I meant re Grealish, even if you ignored that sale / if it hadn't happened, we've still done decent work moving other homegrown players on.

 

re 14 years of awful owner, true, but we had a totally disengaged owner followed by, basically,  a con man, and three years not in the PL (see last post) along the way.

 

re flat revenue - us too, it's pretty damning on both clubs, that fact, given that we had many years of membership of a league which is basically a licence to print money if you do it properly, and still didn't improve numbers (not talking transfers here).

[KaKa]

1 minute ago, brummie said:

 

The other factor I think worth considering, we had to go to absolute rock bottom and reset before we could start to improve things. Three years in the Championship, including at one point under that chancer Tony Xia getting literally days away from administration.

 

It was a reset of a lot of things, but it's a measure of how bad things had got structurally and in terms of deadwood - the same deadwood that led us to a comedy sub 20 points relegation.

 

Good point.

 

Yeah, you guys did suffer a lot more during that period than we ever did, because Mike Ashley was able to master being awful without the club bottoming out financially.

 

And so you are now able to reap the benefits quicker than we can.

[madras]

4 minutes ago, brummie said:

 

I meant re Grealish, even if you ignored that sale / if it hadn't happened, we've still done decent work moving other homegrown players on.

 

re 14 years of awful owner, true, but we had a totally disengaged owner followed by, basically,  a con man, and three years not in the PL (see last post) along the way.

 

re flat revenue - us too, it's pretty damning on both clubs, that fact, given that we had many years of membership of a league which is basically a licence to print money if you do it properly, and still didn't improve numbers (not talking transfers here).

Yeah, decent work, but £60m isnt £160m and that's multiplied for FFP purposes.

[Ronson333]

51 minutes ago, brummie said:

 

I meant re Grealish, even if you ignored that sale / if it hadn't happened, we've still done decent work moving other homegrown players on.

 

re 14 years of awful owner, true, but we had a totally disengaged owner followed by, basically,  a con man, and three years not in the PL (see last post) along the way.

 

re flat revenue - us too, it's pretty damning on both clubs, that fact, given that we had many years of membership of a league which is basically a licence to print money if you do it properly, and still didn't improve numbers (not talking transfers here).

Thing is Birmingham is a much bigger city than Manchester and Liverpool, as you’re the main team it was only a matter of time until you started upsetting the north west.

 

 

Edited January 3 by Ronson333

[Menace]

2 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

Did it work out for the like of Sahin, Kagawa and Hummels?

 

Genuinely asking. I don't know. In my mind, a fair few Dortmund players leave for big money then come back. Can add Goetze to that.

 

 

 

 

Not really the same though - those rejoined at the latter end of their careers. Sancho is 23. You could argue Hummels has been decent since he's been back too. Kagawa and Sahin were spent though.

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, Menace said:

 

Not really the same though - those rejoined at the latter end of their careers. Sancho is 23. You could argue Hummels has been decent since he's been back too. Kagawa and Sahin were spent though.

Kagawa and Sahin rejoined at 25 btw. 2 years after being sold.

 

It’s very similar tbf. 

[SteV]

 

Another bit of 100% profit from the Villa academy 

[timeEd32]

Do Villa have a lot of room once Grealish falls off the books? I don't know much about their situation other than their wages are ~£25m higher than ours on similar revenue. 

[joeyt]

2 hours ago, SteV said:

 

Another bit of 100% profit from the Villa academy 

 

He scored a great goal at the weekend:

 

 

 

 

[54]

Ah man thats a bit gutting for Plymouth  

[The Butcher]

We saved his career.

[TheBrownBottle]

7 hours ago, KaKa said:

 

We don't really have the flexibility they have, because we didn't/don't have the valuable home grown youngsters they've been able to move for pure profit FFP wise. We also have a bunch of dead weight eating up our wages, which they don't really have either.

 

Because of this we've tried to make some use of the players we have on the books as best we can, and focus on getting in higher value players to be in and around the first team.

 

We are still being hamstrung by the useless squad building and lack of youth infrastructure during the Mike Ashley years.

 

 

 

Yep.  It’s interesting that there is a view out there that Ashley ‘helped’ with our FFP due to being a tight fisted cunt.  The opposite is true; we had to spend a fortune to avoid relegation, he neglected the youth set-up, and were still lumbered with average players for wages well above their market value on contracts which were ludicrously long-term.