Jump to content
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
    We had also just changed ownership which may have something to do with changing manager. Deano hasn't been there that long, it would make sense to give him some time, also the current owners of Norwich employed Deano
  2. Peter Griffin
    We have already had a pretty good window as it stands. Okay, the Carlos injury is a blow but that has just happened. Back at the start of the transfer window we were the only club signing players, this is how Man Utd did it every year when SAF was there
  3. Peter Griffin
    I think wages can be covered depending on the policy. I don't believe it is the norm to insure against amortisation costs but if we are willing to pay the enormous premium I am sure someone would underwrite it
  4. Peter Griffin
    Maybe not cold feet, but I expect they will have a plan in place if they need to replace him and that plan would require significant funds
  5. Peter Griffin
    I do think we have money available to spend on players if we wish but the reluctance to spending it is that it reduces our budget for future transfer windows
  6. Peter Griffin
    I think clubs steer clear of swap deals as it is subject to so many potential tax and FFP issues it is not worth the hassle. Particularly so for a well run club, I suppose Blues must do lots of swap deals
  7. Peter Griffin
    It would still be a sale by the shop and considered revenue and also a purchase by the shop which would be considered a cost. They can't just leave it as a wash. When there is a swap deal in football, the clubs must agree a value for the swap. There is also VAT payable on player transfers, so even in a swap deal the VAT will need to be accounted for, that is for domestic transfers, I am not sure of the VAT rules with non UK based clubs but I am sure there is some sort of liability. EDIT: I just checked VAT on non domestic transfers and the club has no VAT liability to HMRC but for a domestic transfer the VAT is 20% of the transfer fee. I think we should be shopping abroad
  8. Peter Griffin
    The 'new' owner apparently doesn't want to spend any money and is much less of an appetite to invest in Leicester. Also, the main source of the money is from Duty free shopping and that has got a bit of a killing over the last few years with airports effectively closed.
  9. Peter Griffin
    The problem is with the term book value. We use that value with regard to the amortisation costs of a player. So player costs 20m, 4 year contract and the player has a book value (amortisation amount) of 5m a year which count towards FFP and tax liability. After 3 years, the player has a book value of 5m as the club has amortised 5m a yr for 3 years. However, the actual value of the player is not necessarily 5m. The player's value may have increased in value and could be worth 60m (although, this doesn't tend to be something that happens at Villa ). . We can only swap players if we agree a value for the swap otherwise it is open to tax fraud, hence it is not permitted. An analogy, if I am a painter and I agree to paint your house and you are a plumber and u agree to put in a new shower in my house that is not permitted as a swap. We are each providing a service to the other person and each of us has a tax liability on the value of the service we provide. HMRC gets a cut from everything we do.
  10. Peter Griffin
    As with any business we have a tax liability on the disposal of any asset. Players are considered assets, so if we buy a player for 10m and sell him for 30m we have a tax liability on the 20m profit. Yes, this is all accounted for at year end but it is tax fraud to dispose of an asset and not account for the value correctly. It is also against the law for two businesses to collude to undervalue the value of an asset to gain from the undervalued price. HMRC are all over football. They recently changed the rules on transfers so the club has now got to record certain information with regard to agent fees. Although the club pays the agent the player is liable for the taxation on this money. For example, if we buy Webster from Brighton for 50m and we pay 5m to an agent for brokering the deal, that 5m is considered money we paid Webster and Webster has a 48% tax liability on the 5m. Home grown players and free transfers are treated differently, they are treated like capital gains tax.When we dispose of a home grown player we have an 18% tax liability to HMRC for the sale. So the Jack 100m was only worth 82m to Villa.
  11. Peter Griffin
    The other player may not have the same book value e.g. Kamara is not amortised on our accounts. The revenue would be all over it too. In the Cash example we would have a tax liability on the profit on the sale i.e. 40m - 15m = 25m profit, that is 4.75m due in tax. Phil is not a 140m player, he is a 17m player as that is what the market dictated. Do u think Barca refused a higher bid because he is mates with Gerrard?
  12. Peter Griffin
    We should have gone for him instead of Carlos and spent the difference on a CM
  13. Peter Griffin
    You do realise Roma is in Italy and not Spain
  14. Peter Griffin
    Let's we were swapping Matty Cash, we probably have about 7m left on our books for Matty, if we are going to use him in a direct swap we would want a player of equal value e.g. 40m. If we brought in a player of 40m value and accounted for him at 7m (Matty's book value), the inland revenue would have an issue (we would not be declaring profit) and so too would FFP as we would be buying a player for 40m but only saying to FFP that he was 7m.
  15. Peter Griffin
    Good old swaps don't work too well for FFP. If we offload Traore we need to assign a value to the sale of Traore and we would want that as high as possible to make our accounts look good. Equally, if the club that sign Traore would want his value as low as possible as that determines their annual amortisation cost. It is much easier to just treat them as separate sales from an accounting perspective
  16. Peter Griffin
    I believe the use of soccer in the report is to distinguish between football we play on this side of the pond and football they play on the other side of the pond where they throw the ball to each other and catch it and run. The paper was written in the US by a US doctor.
  17. Peter Griffin
    I think the ruptured achilles tendon may be impacting his price tag. Maybe we are interested in him to test whether a player can actually return from that type of injury and to give Carlos some motivation
  18. Peter Griffin
    Those wages are very high. In the 3 seasons (22/23, 21/22, 20/21) we have paid out over 250m in players fees. Fag packet calculations and that is 62m a year in amortisation costs we have added to each year of our accounts. In the same period we have sold about 28m worth of players to take off amortisation which is a reduction of about 7m a year. Assuming all on 4 yr contracts. Yes, I know some will differ, but I am just looking for a ball park number. That means we have added added 55m a year to our costs before agent fees and wages and that doesn't include the players from 19/20 summer that are still costs each year. Our revenue last year was 184m and the year before 113m. We don't have the revenues to easily pay 3.5m in wages while also increasing our 55m amortisation costs
  19. Peter Griffin
    The real concern is the Benteke, Webb and Barnes examples and not getting back to his best. I doubt we will get any hint as to the return timeframe until next Jan at the earliest. Its a real bummer
  20. Peter Griffin
    Yep, that is the hope. I am assuming that Carlos is in peak fitness and will have the best treatment available which, to me, would suggest will increase the odds of a successful recovery
  21. Peter Griffin
    I don't think Villa will be sending their 26m asset to anything other than a world class treatment facility. As regards being unlikely due to body type and age, is that real? where is that from?
  22. Peter Griffin
    You are correct, and we can ditch anyone for nothing as it may help us with FFP. The big advantage of letting people go for free is that they get all the costs accounted for in the current financial year. Its takes the pain up front and gives us more headroom in the years to come. Letting someone go for free tends to save money, it is just about getting the timing right as to which financial year to make it happen
  23. Peter Griffin
    They both manage investment funds with billions of dollars of resources. It is not unusual that they, on occasion, invest in the same vehicle. They have worked together before this too and before Chelsea was acquired. Adidas pay Arsenal money every year via shirt sponsorship and Nassef Swairis is the largest individual shareholder of Adidas. I don't think that is dodgy
  24. Peter Griffin
    Who led us to believe that?
  25. Peter Griffin
    In an ideal world we would get both a CM and a CB but I expect we have some financial restrictions. It would be lovely if we could offload 5 or 6 fringe players and invest in 2 quality ones
×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Disabled
Not Now

Â