Stifler Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Just now, McDog said: Is that 85% year over year or across a rolling three year period? Year on year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, Stifler said: Year on year. If the club has voted for this then they must see some advantages in it for us, especially if FMV rules are relaxed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 While this seems better it really should be set against the highest earners in the league. You want to grow your club so you can spend the same as the highest earners. Possibly put in place some funds held elsewhere as a guarantee. Maybe 75% of the biggest income or 85% of yours whichever is highest. Having a spending cap that is different for each team seems stupid, but it's what we had with FFP anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcnick Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 7 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: “As much” as 85% of turnover is the worry, if clubs in Europe have a lower allowable %, the league is fucked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Just now, nufcnick said: “As much” as 85% of turnover is the worry, if clubs in Europe have a lower allowable %, the league is fucked. It's pretty clear it will be higher than the 70% UEFA is heading to, so that part is fine. But any club with European aspirations is going to need to trend closer to 70%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Just now, FloydianMag said: If the club has voted for this then they must see some advantages in it for us, especially if FMV rules are relaxed. With our current wage budget, and our current income, over a 3 year period we can spend £384,612,000 on players. That would obviously be amortised, but would then mean it would accounted for in our revenue to spend ratio. What I don’t get is that if you are only allowed to spend 70% up to 85% on your transfers and wages, assuming your none playing costs are below the 15%-30% ratio, overall you’ll end up with a massive surplus of cash that you could never spend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 So £300m turnover allows us to spend £5m a week on wages and transfer fees, every season, without any further deals and before player trading. How's that not a positive? Say half goes on wages and the other on transfers is £127m a year on fees (Inc agents) and an avg £100kpw on a 25man squad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcnick Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 4 minutes ago, Stifler said: With our current wage budget, and our current income, over a 3 year period we can spend £384,612,000 on players. That would obviously be amortised, but would then mean it would accounted for in our revenue to spend ratio. What I don’t get is that if you are only allowed to spend 70% up to 85% on your transfers and wages, assuming your none playing costs are below the 15%-30% ratio, overall you’ll end up with a massive surplus of cash that you could never spend. It will be on a season by season basis, a team wouldn’t be able to carry over what it didn’t spend the season before Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcnick Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, Dokko said: So £300m turnover allows us to spend £5m a week on wages and transfer fees, every season, without any further deals and before player trading. How's that not a positive? Say half goes on wages and the other on transfers is £127m a year on fees (Inc agents) and an avg £100kpw on a 25man squad. Good luck keeping your best players and being competitive only paying an average of £100k a week on players Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 2 minutes ago, Dokko said: So £300m turnover allows us to spend £5m a week on wages and transfer fees, every season, without any further deals and before player trading. How's that not a positive? Say half goes on wages and the other on transfers is £127m a year on fees (Inc agents) and an avg £100kpw on a 25man squad. If we can spend that, what will the "big 6" be able to spend? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 2 minutes ago, nufcnick said: It will be on a season by season basis, a team wouldn’t be able to carry over what it didn’t spend the season before That’s my point. So let’s say for example our revenue was £100m and we ran at the 70% for wages and transfers, so that’s £70m. Now let’s say that non-playing squad expenses (stadium & training ground upkeep, travel & transport, and everyone else’s wages) runs at say 15%. That means we would be spending £85m, and would have £15m in the bank that we could never spend. Year 2 and it’s £30m, 5 years down the line and you are at £75m, 10 years you are at £150m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, nufcnick said: Good luck keeping your best players and being competitive only paying an average of £100k a week on players We've only got 4-5 players on more than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 7 minutes ago, Dokko said: So £300m turnover allows us to spend £5m a week on wages and transfer fees, every season, without any further deals and before player trading. How's that not a positive? Say half goes on wages and the other on transfers is £127m a year on fees (Inc agents) and an avg £100kpw on a 25man squad. It's not £127m extra every year, you're still paying the amortisation on players already signed in previous years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 2 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said: If we can spend that, what will the "big 6" be able to spend? They've got to maintain the cash coming in via success. All of them at the same time. Manure service debt. Chelsea are fucked (Provably the 1 club who voted against) citeh will never be caught regardless of what model is in. Nothing changes for spurs, Liverpool and arsenal. Gives us a right leg up though, and it's just the start. Its the 1st stage of the PL admitting their model is broken, this releases some of the pressure, eventually it'll build and more will need to be done. By then though, we'll have kept building whereas the current mod has put the brakes on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcnick Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 2 minutes ago, Dokko said: We've only got 4-5 players on more than that. 6 or 7 at my count, and that will double next season Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 3 minutes ago, Stifler said: That’s my point. So let’s say for example our revenue was £100m and we ran at the 70% for wages and transfers, so that’s £70m. Now let’s say that non-playing squad expenses (stadium & training ground upkeep, travel & transport, and everyone else’s wages) runs at say 15%. That means we would be spending £85m, and would have £15m in the bank that we could never spend. Year 2 and it’s £30m, 5 years down the line and you are at £75m, 10 years you are at £150m. You could argue that it would encourage clubs to invest more in infrastructure, training facilities, academies etc which would be a good thing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 5 minutes ago, Dokko said: We've only got 4-5 players on more than that. And we’re 10th Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solitude20 Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 21 minutes ago, Stifler said: Year on year. Will that include the UCL revenue? Where will the UCL prize money be counted? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, Keegans Export said: It's not £127m extra every year, you're still paying the amortisation on players already signed in previous years. Amortisation works both ways though, you don't pay twice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, Shearergol said: And we’re 10th 4th last season with less. Whats your point? Eddie had a shite season? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 3 minutes ago, nufcnick said: 6 or 7 at my count, and that will double next season It can triple now, especially with a load of shite leaving. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, Dokko said: 4th last season with less. Whats your point? Eddie had a shite season? Nope, I mean we’ll look to invest to improve that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 This club has been working hard in the background for today. They've sown seeds in the media, within other clubs and gone to town with legal representation whilst painting a picture of compliance. If we are the one club who voted againdt then ok, it's shit for us, but I reckon this is whst they wanted for some time. Shackles off, not fully free, but enough for it not to be a problem right now whilst we exploit all commercial deals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 16 minutes ago, Dokko said: Amortisation works both ways though, you don't pay twice. Of course, but that's no different to now though. I just don't see how this has a huge impact on our spending power. Unless they're also scrapping all the FMV stuff (and there's been absolutely nothing to suggest that) our spending power is still capped and still considerably less than the clubs we need to overtake if we are going to regularly compete for top 4 places. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 28 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: Of course, but that's no different to now though. I just don't see how this has a huge impact on our spending power. Unless they're also scrapping all the FMV stuff (and there's been absolutely nothing to suggest that) our spending power is still capped and still considerably less than the clubs we need to overtake if we are going to regularly compete for top 4 places. All speculation on how this swings for us and everyone else. For now though, I'm going against type, and going to be optimistic about it. Next time someone moans at me for well, moaning, I'll remind them of tge one time I was happy, and you all tried to steal it from me. ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now