Other clubs' transfers

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Pata said:

Kamara ended up as a bargain but must be getting close to 10x his Marseille wage at Villa. He earns significantly more than Brazilian international Bruno did with his initial contract after the big money move from the same league.

 

There are bargains to be had in the free transfers but they are not free of risk. If Kamara had flopped there’s no way Villa could move him anywhere with the reported £150k per week wages. We’ve seen how hard it is to even give away players that earn way more than they should.

 

 

 

This is true.  The cost of the entire transfer is still 1/3 of the cost of the Tonali transfer.  
 

Im not saying we are wrong. There’s just multiple ways to go about things. 
 

If Bruno flops it’s still hard to get his £80k p/w off the books. He likely doubled his wages himself when he moved. The total cost of the original Bruno transfer is still considerably higher in the short term. 

[Ben]

I used to love transfer windows me, but with the big clubs snookering everyone with daft FFP rules it's tedious as fuck now. Fuckin renting players man !! 

 

Nobody can build quality teams anymore and we are left with the same boring players getting extended contracts, festering away in defensive teams that eventually nobody will want to watch.

[r0cafella]

6 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

How do you reckon that?

 

You think Tonali came for 60m euros to earn half of Youri Tielemans?

 

Tielemans is rumoured to earn £8m p/a. Tonali is rumoured to earn £7m p/a. Isak similar. Tonali costs £18m per year FFP wise. That pays for Tielemans & Kamara (both rumoured to earn around £8m p/a) FFP wise.  Isak is roughly £16.5 per year FFP wise. That almost pays for Pau Torres at £11.8m & Alex Moreno at £5.3m.

 

In the short-term FFP wise ours are still much more expensive.

 

Long-term - we are largely signing younger players with better resale value. Moreno, Diego Carlos are 30ish. 

 

But we could do a bit more mix and matching - especially with free transfers of young players or loans. Sometimes you need to do short-term things that contribute to long-term goals even if the action is contradictory.

 

 

 

Why are you comparing the cost of one of the highest rated strikers in Europe to two older defenders who don’t have the same pedigree. 

let’s put it this way, if a club were to try buy Watkins right now they would be looking at the same sort of figures we paid for Isak in terms of fee and contract. 
 

I do agree with the sentiment about Kamara as he was free, you pay more in wages so what, if he’d shit you just sell and book the profit. 

[The College Dropout]

Any transfer for a player over 60m euros is going to be one of the highest-rated players in Europe tbf.

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Any transfer for a player over 60m euros is going to be one of the highest-rated players in Europe tbf.

Indeed which is why your comparison isn’t exactly apples to apples. Buying a striker at our level will always be a hit to FFP. 
 

All the reason more we must raise more revenue. Get that training ground and kit sponsored. This should have been done already. 

[brummie]

4 hours ago, Menace said:

Tielemans is shite. I'm glad we avoided. 

 

You've clearly not seen his recent performances for us, he's been our best player on more than one occasion recently.

[brummie]

When people start to talk about player salaries, there's only one thing that is for sure - the figures are all guesswork.

[Mahoneys Tache]

6 hours ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Tonali is 17.3, Isak 16.3 (6 year deal when it was allowed for FFP), Botman and Gordon 11, and Tino 9. £64.83m/yr with all the proper decimals.

 

Tielemans and Kamara 8, Diaby 16, Moreno 5 (cheap but also only a 3.5 year deal), Torres 11, and Carlos 11.8 (4 year deal). £59.77m/yr with all the actual numbers.

 

It's a fairly random set of players, but I'm just trying to illustrate that it's quite pointless to talk about finances in terms of only transfer fees. The fact their wage bill is ~£25m more than ours is quite significant. And, if anything, it's probably preferable to be paying higher fees + lower wages because you can finesse the amortisation with contract extensions. Once you commit to paying someone £7.8m/yr then that's that, especially if they are unlikely to carry a lot of resale value.

 

To even more neatly illustrate the point just take Gordon + Tino and Kamara + Diaby. With transfer fees only we spent £72m and they spent £47.5. But when you add wages and amoritisation it becomes £20.14m/yr for us and £24.06 for them. What looks like £25m more in all of the headlines is actually £4m less per year. Even if you want to remove all the funky accounting and amortisation from the equation, the actual five year outlay on those players is £120.3 for Villa and £100.7m for Newcastle.

 

There’s nothing funky about accountancy. This is funky. Wash your mouth out. 
 

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2024 by Mahoneys Tache

[TheBrownBottle]

12 hours ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Tonali is 17.3, Isak 16.3 (6 year deal when it was allowed for FFP), Botman and Gordon 11, and Tino 9. £64.83m/yr with all the proper decimals.

 

Tielemans and Kamara 8, Diaby 16, Moreno 5 (cheap but also only a 3.5 year deal), Torres 11, and Carlos 11.8 (4 year deal). £59.77m/yr with all the actual numbers.

 

It's a fairly random set of players, but I'm just trying to illustrate that it's quite pointless to talk about finances in terms of only transfer fees. The fact their wage bill is ~£25m more than ours is quite significant. And, if anything, it's probably preferable to be paying higher fees + lower wages because you can finesse the amortisation with contract extensions. Once you commit to paying someone £7.8m/yr then that's that, especially if they are unlikely to carry a lot of resale value.

 

To even more neatly illustrate the point just take Gordon + Tino and Kamara + Diaby. With transfer fees only we spent £72m and they spent £47.5. But when you add wages and amoritisation it becomes £20.14m/yr for us and £24.06 for them. What looks like £25m more in all of the headlines is actually £4m less per year. Even if you want to remove all the funky accounting and amortisation from the equation, the actual five year outlay on those players is £120.3 for Villa and £100.7m for Newcastle.

 

And that’s not allowing for signing-on fees, bonuses etc. 

[TheBrownBottle]

5 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Indeed which is why your comparison isn’t exactly apples to apples. Buying a striker at our level will always be a hit to FFP. 
 

All the reason more we must raise more revenue. Get that training ground and kit sponsored. This should have been done already. 

I’m still scratching my head as to why this hasn’t occurred tbh.  The lowest of low-hanging fruit. 

[Ben]

8 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I’m still scratching my head as to why this hasn’t occurred tbh.  The lowest of low-hanging fruit. 

The big 6 will find some way of stopping it or at the very least making it a very low number.

[r0cafella]

19 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I’m still scratching my head as to why this hasn’t occurred tbh.  The lowest of low-hanging fruit. 

Because our owners and quite as on the ball as they get credit for. And this isn’t to knock them either it’s super low hanging fruit as you mentioned. The concerns about fair market value are of no relevance either as we can just sign short term 1 year deals until we scale. 
 

Man United deal 2011 with dhl for training wear was 40m.  We are leaving so much on the table. 

Usmanov’s USM Holdings company began a five-year sponsorship of Everton’s training ground worth about £12m a year in 2017 From the guardian. 
 

The man united one is excessive but I’m sure we could argue FMV for half of a deal from 13 years ago. 
 

So that’s 20+m of free money left on the table per year which can be scaled. That’s a lot of FFP 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2024 by r0cafella

[TheBrownBottle]

9 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Because our owners and quite as on the ball as they get credit for. And this isn’t to knock them either it’s super low hanging fruit as you mentioned. The concerns about fair market value are of no relevance either as we can just sign short term 1 year deals until we scale. 
 

Man United deal 2011 with dhl for training wear was 40m.  We are leaving so much on the table. 

Usmanov’s USM Holdings company began a five-year sponsorship of Everton’s training ground worth about £12m a year in 2017 From the guardian. 
 

The man united one is excessive but I’m sure we could argue FMV for half of a deal from 13 years ago. 
 

So that’s 20+m of free money left on the table per year which can be scaled. That’s a lot of FFP 

 

 

 

Completely agree on all counts

[r0cafella]

7 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Completely agree on all counts

Also to add on, usamanov also paid 30m for the OPTION to name the new stadium. The option. 
 

It’s also important to note FMV is only for related parties. If you get someone external your good for whatever you can get. 
 

I would love to know why this hasn’t been done yet et btw, I truly do struggle to comprehend this.

[TheBrownBottle]

18 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Also to add on, usamanov also paid 30m for the OPTION to name the new stadium. The option. 
 

It’s also important to note FMV is only for related parties. If you get someone external your good for whatever you can get. 
 

I would love to know why this hasn’t been done yet et btw, I truly do struggle to comprehend this.

It would involve asking questions of how good a job certain parties are doing at the club - which isn’t quite verboten, but there is a lot of defensiveness around it.

 

Personally, I don’t think Staveley, Reuben, Eales and Silverstone have pulled up any trees commercially.  There has been nothing innovative about the approach based upon the deals landed.
 

Noon and Sela are PIF, and the adidas deal - for all the Amazon doc, biggest deal in the club’s history crack - is still simply a kit manufacturing deal, which last I checked pretty much every professional football club on the planet managed to land.  Like you, I was anticipating commercial deals left, right and centre.  Man Utd have an official ‘Percussive Therapy’ partner.  It’s right old load of bollocks, but there is nothing stopping the club pulling literally dozens of these in - they won’t be close to what Man Utd rakes in, but it all counts.  Get PIF’s contacts books out - and aren’t the Reuben’s connected?  Staveley is a broker by background.  Silverstone is a commercial gun, apparently.

 

I look forward to being shot down on this  

 

 

Edited January 5, 2024 by TheBrownBottle

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It would involve asking questions of how good a job certain parties are doing at the club - which isn’t quite verboten, but there is a lot of defensiveness around it.

 

Personally, I don’t think Staveley, Reuben, Eales and Silverstone have pulled up any trees commercially.  There has been nothing innovative about the approach based upon the deals landed.
 

Noon and Sela are PIF, and the adidas deal - for all the Amazon doc, biggest deal in the club’s history crack - is still simply a kit manufacturing deal, which last I checked pretty much every professional football club on the planet managed to land.  Like you, I was anticipating commercial deals left, right and centre.  Man Utd have an official ‘Percussive Therapy’ partner.  It’s right old load of bollocks, but there is nothing stopping the club pulling literally dozens of these in - they won’t be close to what Man Utd rakes in, but it all counts.  Get PIF’s contacts books out - and aren’t the Reuben’s connected?  Staveley is a broker by background.  Silverstone is a commercial gun, apparently.

 

I look forward to being shot down on this  

I think you’re being slightly harsh, I think the money we are getting from adidas is quite large, considering where we currently are. Also our rumoured placement of being an elite club is a big deal and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was Peter Silverstone doing. 
 

That being said I do find us slow to move and I’m really actually shocked we didn’t get this low hanging fruit sponsors done by now even if it’s PI linked companies. 
 

Maybe the club just lacks resources and support on the PIF said, I imagine they are a highly structured organisation. 

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I think you’re being slightly harsh, I think the money we are getting from adidas is quite large, considering where we currently are. Also our rumoured placement of being an elite club is a big deal and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was Peter Silverstone doing. 
 

That being said I do find us slow to move and I’m really actually shocked we didn’t get this low hanging fruit sponsors done by now even if it’s PI linked companies. 
 

Maybe the club just lacks resources and support on the PIF said, I imagine they are a highly structured organisation. 

Aye, fair enough - I likely am.  It’s borne of frustration more than anything.  FFP absolutely hamstrings us, and even a dozen of these smaller deals would likely cover a player’s wages for a season.  

[r0cafella]

In totally going off in the wrong thread here but w/e. 
 

final point on this subject from is for a club which loves to talk about FFP and how hamstrung we are by it we’ve don remarkably little to either challenge it or ease the situation. I wrote a post a few days ago in the PIF thread echoing similar sentiments but now I think about the sponsor side in no detail and consider how every transfer window FFP is brought up on a scale never seen before it really has me scratching my head wondering. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

In totally going off in the wrong thread here but w/e. 
 

final point on this subject from is for a club which loves to talk about FFP and how hamstrung we are by it we’ve don remarkably little to either challenge it or ease the situation. I wrote a post a few days ago in the PIF thread echoing similar sentiments but now I think about the sponsor side in no detail and consider how every transfer window FFP is brought up on a scale never seen before it really has me scratching my head wondering. 

Likewise mate.  It’s irritated me thinking about it because I that Howe really does need reinforcements, and I don’t think they’ll be coming (and if they are, they won’t be significant).  No other club talks about FFP as much.

[Menace]

7 hours ago, brummie said:

 

You've clearly not seen his recent performances for us, he's been our best player on more than one occasion recently.

That's fair enough. Most times I saw him play he looked absolutely gassed and was moaning in the press about lack of playing time. How has Moreno been since? Started off very bright for you lot if I recall 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2024 by Menace

[Geordie Ahmed]

2 hours ago, r0cafella said:

In totally going off in the wrong thread here but w/e. 
 

final point on this subject from is for a club which loves to talk about FFP and how hamstrung we are by it we’ve don remarkably little to either challenge it or ease the situation. I wrote a post a few days ago in the PIF thread echoing similar sentiments but now I think about the sponsor side in no detail and consider how every transfer window FFP is brought up on a scale never seen before it really has me scratching my head wondering. 

 

I think it's brought up to downplay the idea we have a huge budget, never a good thing to tell other clubs you are flash with cash and also it's a reality and something we have to adhere to

 

FFP exists and as a result we have to play by the rules

 

As for doing something about it? I disagree that we haven't done anything. The Sela sponsorship, the noon sponsorship, the multiple official partners, the Adidas deal etc is all part of doing something about

 

Very basic calculations but that's probably an increase of £60m in revenue and no doubt we'll continue drive that revenue up. That's the sensible approach rather than just going to court (this should always be a final resort) 

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

 

I think it's brought up to downplay the idea we have a huge budget, never a good thing to tell other clubs you are flash with cash and also it's a reality and something we have to adhere to

 

FFP exists and as a result we have to play by the rules

 

As for doing something about it? I disagree that we haven't done anything. The Sela sponsorship, the noon sponsorship, the multiple official partners, the Adidas deal etc is all part of doing something about

 

Very basic calculations but that's probably an increase of £60m in revenue and no doubt we'll continue drive that revenue up. That's the sensible approach rather than just going to court (this should always be a final resort) 

Bro, I appreciate the response and agree to an extent. My point is we can and should have done much more as I’ve outlined in other posts. 
 

if we are to achieve the aims stated publicly we will require a lot of Investment and quickly. 

[Geordie Ahmed]

4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Bro, I appreciate the response and agree to an extent. My point is we can and should have done much more as I’ve outlined in other posts. 
 

if we are to achieve the aims stated publicly we will require a lot of Investment and quickly. 

 

I hear you but I just feel going down the route of challenging FFP is a long winded and murky road

 

I'm not necessarily against that approach as I can see how decent lawyers highlight the flaws

 

I just prefer the approach we are taking, it's gradual and more organic (just to clarify, it at least feels more organic, I'm not naive to why we ha e Sela/Noon)

[Guest reefatoon]

11 hours ago, Ben said:

I used to love transfer windows me, but with the big clubs snookering everyone with daft FFP rules it's tedious as fuck now. Fuckin renting players man !! 

 

Nobody can build quality teams anymore and we are left with the same boring players getting extended contracts, festering away in defensive teams that eventually nobody will want to watch.

Agree with you. Transfer windows were always an exciting time (well apart from under Ashley) as bringing in new players is all part of the excitement of football. Take that away and it is tedious as fuck. Nobody wants to hear that we can’t afford this or we can’t afford that

[r0cafella]

24 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

 

I hear you but I just feel going down the route of challenging FFP is a long winded and murky road

 

I'm not necessarily against that approach as I can see how decent lawyers highlight the flaws

 

I just prefer the approach we are taking, it's gradual and more organic (just to clarify, it at least feels more organic, I'm not naive to why we ha e Sela/Noon)

To clarify in not asking we go down the route of legally challenging it, it’s politically not feasible for us to do so imo. 
 

What I’ve been referring to is the amount of low hanging fruit we haven’t taken advantage of. I’m all for us boxing clever but we should have given ourselves more leeway, instead we hear about the FFP limitations constantly whilst we don’t do what we can within the rules that exist.