Jump to content
Euro 2024 Coverage ×
Just visiting?

Peter Griffin

Established Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,400

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Peter Griffin

  1. Peter Griffin
    Yep, I agree with that, we definitely need better fullback options
  2. Peter Griffin
    I agree he would not command a 40m fee, I think closer to 20m/25m and the tough part is finding the appropriate replacement but that is Lange's job. We need to have confidence in our recruitment team to improve the team with our transfers. Obviously we should not replace him unless we find the appropriate player but if / when the appropriate player is identified we should not be afraid of upgrading.
  3. Peter Griffin
    Why would he not come to us? If we sold Mings for 20m/25m we could add 25m/30m to that making him much more affordable.
  4. Peter Griffin
    Exactly, we are on an upward trajectory. This trajectory is linked with improving our squad. We have had 49 new players arrive at Villa and 51 players leave Villa in the last 3 years. We need to constantly improve our squad and not rest on our laurels. If we start to think we can't improve of Mings for the next 3 or 4 years we are taking a step backwards Hause does not have a significant transfer value, the financial benefit of selling Hause is not as compelling. We shouldn't be looking to put expensive older players as 3rd choice. We should move them on while they have value and replace them with better players.
  5. Peter Griffin
    But we are going to face the problem of losing Mings at some stage and we will have to replace the qualities we lose. Why wait to replace those qualities until Mings has no transfer value when we could do it while Mings still has value. If we don't have confidence in our recruitment team to replace Mings then we have the wrong recruitment team.
  6. Peter Griffin
    Hause doesn't have the transfer value to make a sale attractive. Mings would have the value and his value will only reduce with each transfer window. Mings is the one to sell. Our youth players should be replacing Hause in the squad
  7. Peter Griffin
    If White is Garbage and Arsenal got their pants pulled down than that means he is not worth 50m so it wouldn't make sense to value Mings at 60m/70m based on White's sale price. I do think White is a good player though. He was excellent at Leeds and he had a very good season for Brighton last season. Poor start for Arsenal but he has been sick. He will be a good CB for them imo
  8. Peter Griffin
    The likelihood of that decreases as he gets each year older. He is on a very high salary and I would not like to see him lose his place in the 1st XI and become a very expensive sub. We have done that way too many times in the past. We need to be smart and sell players while they still have value and replace them with better players. It is a lot of pressure on Lange to get it right but it is the better strategy to follow
  9. Peter Griffin
    That's why I would like to see him sold. We shouldn't be letting player's contracts expire and then losing them on a free or see them retiring.
  10. Peter Griffin
    I doubt it too but I wouldn't rule it out. Also, I am not suggesting replacing him with a 'name' I am suggesting replacing him with a younger, better player with more potential.
  11. Peter Griffin
    Playing at the top level and consistently up to 34 maybe be pushing it a little. I know some have done it but more players don't manage to do it. Why would it be mad to sell Mings for some decent money and reinvest in a younger player with the potential to increase in value. Financially it makes a lot of sense. It is not like Mings would be irreplaceable. He is a very good player but he is not world class.
  12. Peter Griffin
    White is 23, if we sold Mings next summer he will be 29. We wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting anything close to 60m/70m next summer for Mings
  13. Peter Griffin
    I understand your perspective but I do think it is open to interpretation. Swiss says profit made from selling a player is immediately written to accounts. I believe he is incorrect on this when considering the total profit on the player sale. However, as the club receives cash for a player sale this is then immediately written to the accounts. So for Jack 75m now and then 12.5m + 12.5m. The payments beyond the initial payment could be treated like addons which are only paid at a later date. The wording in the ruling is quite clear in that is takes into account cash flow. If it is not the case then what does the ruling "inclusion of net cash flow in respect of transfers of Players’ registrations" mean?
  14. Peter Griffin
    We would be either European Champions, Premier League Champions and winner's of the Carabao and FA Cups if I was in charge of transfers. Alternatively, we could be in the Championship trying to avoid relegation and NSWE would be looking for the exit door. I feel it would be the former
  15. Peter Griffin
    I would suspect it is because he is not a genuine target for January and the tabloids have **** all to write about so make up stories
  16. Peter Griffin
    I would like to sell Mings next summer. I know he is our captain and he has been great for us. But he is coming to an age where his value will plummet. He is also prone to the odd lack of concentration and error. If we could sell him for 20m next summer I would jump at it and put it towards a younger, better player for about 40m. Bring in Tarkowski on a free for a bit of solidity and experience and I would be a happy camper. Tarkowski would be serious competition for a starting birth which would make our CB pairing very strong. I think Tarkowski would be easy to sign. I can't imagine him being on too much money at Burnley and I am sure he would jump at 4m/5m a year to play for a high profile team looking to get into Europe
  17. Peter Griffin
    The 2m is just an estimate / rounding of the amortisation costs for half a season. If you go down to dates and do not round it will probably be pushing towards 2.3m. I didn't include half a year's wages in the post but it is probably closer to a third of a year's wages. Back of a fag packet calculations and it is going to be close to 3m loss from an accounting perspective
  18. Peter Griffin
    No we are not
  19. Peter Griffin
    For completeness you should probably add in 2m for Sanson too
  20. Peter Griffin
    We also have a 20m tax bill on the sale of Jack, youth / development players are treated as assets like CGT and it is 20%. So only 80m not 100m we get
  21. Peter Griffin
    Yep, I agree with that which would mean 75m this season
  22. Peter Griffin
    I think that is up to interpretation. I can't recall the specific wording but it specifically states amortisation can be based on cash flow of transfers
  23. Peter Griffin
    It doesn't only benefit us for 3 years. We get 100m into our bank account. We can invest that money, it helps to keep the club running and it shows profitability to keep our owners happy. From a P&S perspective it only contributes for 3 accounting periods but it is still our 100m after that period. Also, there isn't a chance we will carry over 100m profit in years from now. We are loss making if we exclude the outlier of Jack's sale
  24. Peter Griffin
    If u are just looking at swing, I think you need to include Samatta on that list too, we sold him at the start of the summer. Samatta and Engles need to have their entire amortisation costs written down in this set of accounts. We bought Engles for a reported 7.2 on a 4 yr contract. So we have 3.6m to write down this season and Transfermarkt says we sold him for 3.15m so that is about a 500k loss this year. Same thing with Samatta, I think we paid about 10m so need to write down about 6.25m this season. TMK say we sold for 5.4m so that will be a loss of about 1m. Also, my understanding is that football is treated slightly differently to normal amortisation and the revenue on sales is accounted for when the cash is actually received as opposed to when the player is sold, Jack would only be +75m for this year's accounts. Last point. when we refer to being on the FFP limit etc that is putting the baseline at losing 105m over 3 years. That is not sustainable which is where CP said he wants the club to be
  25. Peter Griffin
    I understand how amortisation works. But we bought Ollie last year for say 30m on a 4 yr deal. That is to be amortised at 7.5m per yr for each of the 4 years of his contract. So the 2021 amortisation costs you have listed should have Ollie in at 7.5m and all of the other players costs in for this year too. Those figures contribute to this year's accounts for P&L calculation and this determines where we are in relations to FFP/P&S. Also, the current set of P&S is over 4 years and not the usual 3 years. Years 3 and 4 for the purpose of P&S are to be averaged to give a single profit / loss which is then used with the preceding 2 years to give the 3 year calculation. This was introduced to help clubs as a result of Covid
×
×
  • Create New...
Â