James Maddison (now playing for Tottenham Hotspur)

[OCK]

Linkin Park warned us, mate. 

[Mountain]

9 minutes ago, OCK said:

Linkin Park warned us, mate. 

 

[Beth]

14 minutes ago, Mountain said:

 

Any proof we are close to the edge?

 

The fact we have got effectively nothing in from transfers since we were taken over won't have helped I'd imagine.

[TheBrownBottle]

14 minutes ago, Mountain said:

 

Any proof we are close to the edge?

 

It is fairly straightforward to do the sums; the club releases its financial records on an annual basis.  Happily, FourFourTwo released a video the other day explaining it quite neatly.  It is why plenty of us laughed at Edwards's '75m' claim, but also poured cold water on those who thought that we'd be spending 150m+ net this summer. 

 

 

[The Prophet]

Didn't the last accounts raise wages to turnover as more of an issue thsk our actual spending?

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, The Prophet said:

Didn't the last accounts raise wages to turnover as more of an issue thsk our actual spending?

Yep, it is a significant problem - though it is a combination of the two.  Until we get some big leaps in revenue we're constrained in what we can offer - even with CL football we'll still bring in less than Spurs, for example.  And for our turnover, we've a lot of deadwood on solid PL wages.  Shelvey and Wood leaving helped, but the likes of Dummett, Lewis and Ritchie are on decent wages.  I understand that Ritchie and Dummett are good behind the scenes - but you don't pay a couple of coaches over 80k per week between them.

[sushimonster85]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yep, it is a significant problem - though it is a combination of the two.  Until we get some big leaps in revenue we're constrained in what we can offer - even with CL football we'll still bring in less than Spurs, for example.  And for our turnover, we've a lot of deadwood on solid PL wages.  Shelvey and Wood leaving helped, but the likes of Dummett, Lewis and Ritchie are on decent wages.  I understand that Ritchie and Dummett are good behind the scenes - but you don't pay a couple of coaches over 80k per week between them.

 

Dummett is going nowhere. We need him to help with the homegrown at the club quota UEFA has. 

[The Prophet]

 

[jack j]

5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yep, it is a significant problem - though it is a combination of the two.  Until we get some big leaps in revenue we're constrained in what we can offer - even with CL football we'll still bring in less than Spurs, for example.  And for our turnover, we've a lot of deadwood on solid PL wages.  Shelvey and Wood leaving helped, but the likes of Dummett, Lewis and Ritchie are on decent wages.  I understand that Ritchie and Dummett are good behind the scenes - but you don't pay a couple of coaches over 80k per week between them.

Is there any chance that the new  contracts they've been offered will be less than what they were on?

[Ikon]

Thinking of fee + wages would he end up being more expensive overall than Szoboszlai? 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Ikon said:

Thinking of fee + wages would he end up being more expensive overall than Szoboszlai? 

Bet there is a hefty signing on fee too.  I'm sticking by what I've always said - everything about him screams 'Spurs' for me

[TheBrownBottle]

6 minutes ago, jack j said:

Is there any chance that the new  contracts they've been offered will be less than what they were on?

You'd hope so  

[elbee909]

We should offer Leicester a loan to buy option, with us only buying him if they don't come back up at the first attempt. If they do get promoted, then he goes back to Leicester. 

[RobsonsWonderland]

So how do we know we are not packaging the deals like Chelsea, just not as extreme?  I'm still not 100 percent confident how it works but are people working out our 75 million based of the full fee or phased amounts over the various years?

 

Because I'm sure the club will know what it's doing on the money side more than a few local  journalists

 

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by RobsonsWonderland

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, RobsonsWonderland said:

So how do we know we are not packaging the deals like Chelsea, just not as extreme?  I'm still not 100 percent confident how it works but are people working out our 75 million based of the full fee or phased amounts over the various years?

 

Because I'm sure the club will know what it's doing on the money side more than a few local  journalists

 

 

 

The rules on FFP are pretty straightfoward tbh.  Amortisation works by dividing the total fee (not phased amounts) over the length of the player's contract.  This is why Chelsea was offering eight year deals last year.  We haven't been doing that - if the reports are true, Tonali has been offered a six year deal (which is still long in football terms).  Part of the problem is that while Tonali's 70m fee (or whatever it lands at) is split over six years, previous signings of ours are still being put through the FFP books.  

 

You don't need to be a professional accountant to grasp FFP - so most of these journalists will have a reasonable grasp of it (I don't doubt that some won't).  Chelsea's turnover is more than twice ours, too - they've a lot more wriggle-room. So even though ASM and Joelinton signed in 2019 (for example), their transfer fees are still being put onto the FFP books.  We haven't sold many players of late, so nothing is balanced, and the players bought in the last 18 months will still be impacting the books for years to come.

[Mountain]

45 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It is fairly straightforward to do the sums; the club releases its financial records on an annual basis.  Happily, FourFourTwo released a video the other day explaining it quite neatly.  It is why plenty of us laughed at Edwards's '75m' claim, but also poured cold water on those who thought that we'd be spending 150m+ net this summer. 

 

 

 

Total hogwash

[Mountain]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The rules on FFP are pretty straightfoward tbh.  Amortisation works by dividing the total fee (not phased amounts) over the length of the player's contract.  This is why Chelsea was offering eight year deals last year.  We haven't been doing that - if the reports are true, Tonali has been offered a six year deal (which is still long in football terms).  Part of the problem is that while Tonali's 70m fee (or whatever it lands at) is split over six years, previous signings of ours are still being put through the FFP books.  

 

You don't need to be a professional accountant to grasp FFP - so most of these journalists will have a reasonable grasp of it (I don't doubt that some won't).  Chelsea's turnover is more than twice ours, too - they've a lot more wriggle-room. So even though ASM and Joelinton signed in 2019 (for example), their transfer fees are still being put onto the FFP books.  We haven't sold many players of late, so nothing is balanced, and the players bought in the last 18 months will still be impacting the books for years to come.

 

Complete bollocks, litterally every point made is untrue.

[Jaqen]

10 minutes ago, RobsonsWonderland said:

So how do we know we are not packaging the deals like Chelsea, just not as extreme?  I'm still not 100 percent confident how it works but are people working out our 75 million based of the full fee or phased amounts over the various years?

 

Because I'm sure the club will know what it's doing on the money side more than a few local  journalists

 

 

 

 

100m signing on a 1 year deal is 100m in terms of FFP on the books for that year.

 

100m signing on a 10 year deal is 10m each year on the books.

 

Doesn't make a difference how the deal is structured or when the money changes hands. 

 

In terms of how the budget is referred to it's always in terms of what the player cost. 

 

So Tonali will be classed as 60m of the 'budget' not 10m because it's over a 6 year deal. Otherwise a £75m.budget could get us a team of superstars 

 

 

[et tu brute]

Got to remember that money has already been put in by the owners also, of which 95 million can be counted against FFP.

[TheBrownBottle]

12 minutes ago, Mountain said:

 

Complete bollocks, litterally every point made is untrue.

Alright keep your wig on.  Time will tell who is right

[McDog]

11 minutes ago, Mountain said:

 

Complete bollocks, litterally every point made is untrue.

 

 

Eh? Sando would be a 5 year amortization not 6 but what other points was he wrong about? We haven't gotten shite for player sales.

[Geordie Ahmed]

24 minutes ago, Mountain said:

 

Complete bollocks, litterally every point made is untrue.

He's actually right, only slight correction is Tonali fee would be amortised over 5 years for FFP (thanks to the rule change after Chelsea went crazy)

 

In terms of existing players, what does help is it a players contract is extended, so if we can 2-3 years to Bruno that will help lower his amortisation fee each year 

[Conjo]

38 minutes ago, elbee909 said:

We should offer Leicester a loan to buy option, with us only buying him if they don't come back up at the first attempt. If they do get promoted, then he goes back to Leicester. 

 

His contract has 1 year left on it. I doubt he would sign a new contract with Leicester to enable such an arrangement with a big chance of him returning there if they get promoted.

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, McDog said:

 

 

Eh? Sando would be a 5 year amortization not 6 but what other points was he wrong about? We haven't gotten shite for player sales.

 

1 hour ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

He's actually right, only slight correction is Tonali fee would be amortised over 5 years for FFP (thanks to the rule change after Chelsea went crazy)

 

In terms of existing players, what does help is it a players contract is extended, so if we can 2-3 years to Bruno that will help lower his amortisation fee each year 

Oops, forgot about the changes made after Chelsea gamed the system!  Yep, five year cap is in place now

[Displayname]

Champions league and the new shirt deal gives us 50m more in income next year than we could have expected. 

 

So if its true that we only can "afford" to purchase players for sub 100m this summer, then that means we would have been truly fucked if we didnt get this extra income. 

 

I think its just bullshit.

 

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by Displayname