Briefcase Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 I think football is at a point now where your squad value means more than ever. Having cash reserves means nothing these days as £200m a few years ago might have bought you a very good squad, these days only a few top players towards the top end of the table. If you take Arsenal as case in point, assuming they lose Sanchez & Ozil for nothing, they will need to not only replace them without any incoming fees but they have little to no value elsewhere in the squad, those cash reserves of £100m-£200m (whatever it is rumoured to be) means nothing now. They would have been better investing that in the team. When you look at Liverpool & Spurs they could sell players for high fees and reinvest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Teedy Kay Posted January 9, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted January 9, 2018 22 minutes ago, NoUseforaUsername said: Wolves outspending Madrid and Barca ffs... You truly are an obscenely dumb cunt of the order of high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Teedy Kay Posted January 9, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted January 9, 2018 17 minutes ago, Briefcase said: I think football is at a point now where your squad value means more than ever. Having cash reserves means nothing these days as £200m a few years ago might have bought you a very good squad, these days only a few top players towards the top end of the table. The other key to this is player amortisation. Sign them for big money but on a long contract. The value of the player spread across the length of the contract. In theory owning the right to his contract of employment. Say you buy a player for 100 million but sign him to a 5 year deal. The accounts show 20 million (plus wages) every year. If you sell him at the end of year 4, that further 20 million is scrapped from the accounts, BUT the fee paid goes into your accounts. So the player we bought, if sold at the end of year 4 for 85 million. The books show a profit of 5 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Danger Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 I think a 20 point deduction for taking the piss is the only way to stamp out this crookedness in the championship. At least Liverpool and the other big boys earn their own money from upstanding sponsors like Standard Chartered and kit suppliers who by no means have ever employed masses of people for unfair wages in appalling working conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted January 10, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted January 10, 2018 I'm not going to knock Wolves for spending money. The only way to compete in football with the obscene amounts of money at the top end of the CL and PL is new money. It does make a mockery of FFP though. Always said the punishments are a joke. If they're serious, the punishment should be non-promotion and nothing less. Otherwise just scrap it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Teedy Kay Posted January 10, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted January 10, 2018 Wolves are nowhere near breaking FFP rules. Neves for example is costing Wolves less this financial year than Villa are paying out for John Terry. Shrewd loan signings on top and the occassional player for less than £2 million is good business. It also helps we managed to sell a wee bit of dross on top, £3.5 mil for Dicko for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MVP RULZ Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 FFP is also over a period of time, Wolves took the option of going all in and hoping for promotion to the PL before any punishments are handed out, Bournemouth got fined but as they had allready gained promotion it was irrelevant to them as they had achieved the goal. Nottingham Forest have shown what happens when you over spend over 2-3 years to make the promised land but fail to win promotion. We've (Sheffield Wednesday) also apparently had to watch our spending and its been given as a reason why we haven't really singed anyone over the past 12 months as Chansiri is concerned with how close we are to the FFP limits Whether thats just an excuse to not spend money or a way to put the prices up on everything saying it's to balance the books is another question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted January 10, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted January 10, 2018 3 hours ago, Teedy Kay said: Wolves are nowhere near breaking FFP rules. If you can commit £45m in fees on two players plus wages when you haven't sold anyone significant, don't get parachute payments and don't get 50k through the gate then there is a problem. You're ignoring it or finding a way around it. Either way my point still stands that it's useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Teedy Kay Posted January 10, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted January 10, 2018 1 hour ago, tiger_rick said: If you can commit £45m in fees on two players plus wages Where have Wolves done that though? We signed Neves for £15 million in a 5 year deal. This year we only have to declare £3 million spent on him plus wages. Selling Dicko to you covered this years financial burden of Neves and 500ks worth of his wages. Belting bit of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted January 10, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Teedy Kay said: Where have Wolves done that though? You haven't. The debate is about Wolves possibly buying Silva. Is that not obvious? Given you started it. Also, if FFP is as easy to workaround as "We've put £12m debt into next year" then it's still useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PunkStep Posted January 10, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted January 10, 2018 48 minutes ago, tiger_rick said: Also, if FFP is as easy to workaround as "We've put £12m debt into next year" then it's still useless. Exactly, which is why PSG have had to bring in Mbappe on 'loan', so that the outlay of the inevitable fee is deferred by one year, so they don't have the double whammy of his and Neymar's fee within the same accounting period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Teedy Kay Posted January 10, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted January 10, 2018 Best video I can find to explain amortisation and how it gets around FFP. Rick, you are right though, it makes a mockery of it all. But as previously mentioned (Arsenal and their coffers meaning sod all) the value of a club now, is better tied up in players that will carry a strong market value, but they need to be on long contracts. With regards to Wolves and an additional outlay of 35 million for another player. Our books over the last three years would still EASILY comply with FFP, we would still barely be touching the allowed losses at Championship level of £39 million over the three year period. Amortisation is the best way round FFP. We are not far from players putting pen to paper on contracts over ten year periods to aid with the burden of FFP for the wealthier of clubs out there. I knew sod all about FFP until Fosun took charge of us, and my mind was blown by the totals of cash being suggested or flung around, but when you actually dig into it, FFP rules do allow for clubs to spend big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_mole Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 It's Milan who need to offload players to pass FFP, they expected to be in the Champions League running (one of the 4 places from. serie A) and spent a shit load of money buying a full team worth of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Teedy Kay Posted January 11, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted January 11, 2018 Milan's other problem is that they didn't buy their players with their own money, they took out huge loans with large amounts of interest to fund the club. Milan are in a mess they may not be able to get out of. PSG's business model is strange too, but bt selling players like Moura and or Di Maria this season for decent amounts, they'll cover their yearly outlay for the big buys. This model will only work if they buy cheap up and comers that blossom and can produce profits that could help with the annual costs of the big signings. Or they sell a big money player two years on and make considerable profits due to amortisation to fund big again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted January 11, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted January 11, 2018 The Guardian are reporting Man Utd have bid £25M + Mkhitaryan for Sanchez. The only issue is Arsenal don't want to pay Mkhitaryan anywhere near his £200k a week wage he's currently robbing from United. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.55e5547a252a5ad1a05f197973025167.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.