Allan Saint-Maximin (now playing for Fenerbahce, on loan from Al-Ahli)

[Nucasol]

If you look at some other deals they are taking a while to go through.

[TBG]

3 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

If you look at some other deals they are taking a while to go through.

 

Yes but we don't apply the same logic and evidence when it comes to our incoming and out going transfers.

 

Everything must be done NOW 

[Ikon]

So, I know it’s been mentioned this and that here but I have no idea what’s been correct and not. Say we this goes through for about 30m? How much leeway does this give us extra? Been on vacay so I haven’t been paying close attention tbh. 

[SUPERTOON]

2 minutes ago, Ikon said:

So, I know it’s been mentioned this and that here but I have no idea what’s been correct and not. Say we this goes through for about 30m? How much leeway does this give us extra? Been on vacay so I haven’t been paying close attention tbh. 

Quite a lot according to most people.

[Ikon]

6 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Quite a lot according to most people.

I’ve seen figures mentioned between 80-100m. Could it really be this much extra? 
 

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Ikon

[SUPERTOON]

1 minute ago, Ikon said:

I’ve seen figures mentioned between 80-100m. Could it really be this much extra? 
 

If so then I would blow it on two top quality permanent signings and a loan (backup CB) 

 

 

 

I’ll try find the tweet on it from a week or so ago.

[SUPERTOON]

5 minutes ago, Ikon said:

I’ve seen figures mentioned between 80-100m. Could it really be this much extra? 
 

 

 

 

 

Here it is, again not to sure how accurate:

 

 

[Unbelievable]

12 minutes ago, Ikon said:

I’ve seen figures mentioned between 80-100m. Could it really be this much extra? 
 

 

 

 

 

It’s profit*5, so assuming Maxi was still on the books for approx 6.5m at a fee of 30m it would be approx 117.5m, HOWEVER if we were to spend this all at once and assuming we are at the limit of FFP we would then need to make the same profit every year for the next five years (seling other players for considerable profit or through commercial revenue increases) before we could even think about further incomings. So really a better way to think about it is it allows to bring spending forward.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Unbelievable
Typo and clarification

[Wolfcastle]

If that's close to the case there can be no arguement about selling.

 

Mind if that had been on The Manager/Champ Manager/SWOS back in the day I don't think I could have been arsed.

[Stifler]

1 minute ago, Wolfcastle said:

If that's close to the case there can be no arguement about selling.

 

Mind if that had been on The Manager/Champ Manager/SWOS back in the day I don't think I could have been arsed.

FM

 

’You have sold a player for £100m, the board have added £1m of this to the transfer budget’.

[Abacus]

Equally, if the players you go on to buy don't work out, there's a drag on what you can do later. Amortisation works both ways - you still have to recover their costs at some point. 

E.g. if you buy someone for £100m on a 5 year contract, you're down £20m a year for each of those years in the future. Plus their wages. Unless you're confident your income will go up by more than that each year to cover it all, it's not some magic bullet.

 

So, it's only good if you're in expansion mode. We must be pretty confident we are.

[BonesJones]

11 hours ago, Stifler said:

FM

 

’You have sold a player for £100m, the board have added £1m of this to the transfer budget’.

 

Sounds like the Mike Ashley expansion pack.

[Lotus]

Wonder if there’ has been some confluence with ASM not finalising his move and Fabinho’s deal slowing down too.

 

If Liverpool are very vocal in their protest against any fee we might receive, perhaps PIF have decided to put the brakes on an extremely good deal for an over the hill Fabinho. Share the pain.

[Tina Tooner]

Liverpool are some whinge bags

[gjohnson]

Far too complicated all this accounting stuff. Should be simply no staggered payments allowed. If the club has the cold hard cash available they can spend it however they like. If the pots empty the pots empty.

 

Would instantly stop teams bending the rules to get players they shouldn't realistically be able to get.

 

Kind of agree with fair market value on sponsorships, but it could be based on last year's results rather than 'historic value'

[sushimonster85]

6 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Far too complicated all this accounting stuff. Should be simply no staggered payments allowed. If the club has the cold hard cash available they can spend it however they like. If the pots empty the pots empty.

 

This would likely make things even more difficult than they currently are for us in terms of FFP. 

[Hanshithispantz]

12 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

It’s profit*5, so assuming Maxi was still on the books for approx 6.5m at a fee of 30m it would be approx 117.5m, HOWEVER if we were to spend this all at once and assuming we are at the limit of FFP we would then need to make the same profit every year for the next five years (seling other players for considerable profit or through commercial revenue increases) before we could even think about further incomings. So really a better way to think about it is it allows to bring spending forward.

 

 

 

The bolded part of this gets ignored by an alarming number of people. Including those paid to write about football.

 

[madras]

Isnt there also a wages to turnover percentage rule to abide by as well ?

[SteV]

6 minutes ago, madras said:

Isnt there also a wages to turnover percentage rule to abide by as well ?

Only in EFL L1 and L2 I think

[Rich]

In the PL it's 90% this year, 80% next year, then 70% thereafter.

[madras]

Just now, Rich said:

In the PL it's 90% this year, 80% next year, then 70% thereafter.

Last accounts we were above 90% weren't we ?

[Manxst]

10 minutes ago, madras said:

Isnt there also a wages to turnover percentage rule to abide by as well ?

It’s a new UEFA regulation

 

“Clubs are expected to be allowed to spend 90% of their income in 2023-24, reducing to 80% in 2024-25 and 70% a year later.”

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/60973786.amp

 

 

[Rich]

Just now, madras said:

Last accounts we were above 90% weren't we ?

 

Aye, 94.6%.

[Manxst]

Just now, madras said:

Last accounts we were above 90% weren't we ?

95% I think.

[r0cafella]

Wouldn’t worry too much about the wages, our revenue as we know was destroyed by Ashley plus we had a lot of dead wood. As contracts expire and revenue increases it will become less of an issue.