villarule123 Posted June 11 VT Supporter Share Posted June 11 So, how bad is it looking for next summer? With Luiz's sale this summer hopefully getting us out of a hole, will we be back in a good spot with the extra sponsors/CL money or are we going to be in the shit again and have to sell another big player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 9 minutes ago, villarule123 said: So, how bad is it looking for next summer? With Luiz's sale this summer hopefully getting us out of a hole, will we be back in a good spot with the extra sponsors/CL money or are we going to be in the shit again and have to sell another big player? Nothing is certain looking ahead, but I would expect our revenues are unlikely to catch-up with our expenditure on wages/amortisation by next summer. This will most likely necessitate more sales next summer or in June 2026. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alakagom Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 12 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: Nothing is certain looking ahead, but I would expect our revenues are unlikely to catch-up with our expenditure on wages/amortisation by next summer. This will most likely necessitate more sales next summer or in June 2026. I think equally the bigger problem will be Euro wage/revenue cap coming fully in effect, it's 80% this year, but will be 70% in 2025. This season we were at 91%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 8 minutes ago, Alakagom said: I think equally the bigger problem will be Euro wage/revenue cap coming fully in effect, it's 80% this year, but will be 70% in 2025. This season we were at 91%. Yes, we will remain heavily constrained for a foreseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 26 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: Nothing is certain looking ahead, but I would expect our revenues are unlikely to catch-up with our expenditure on wages/amortisation by next summer. This will most likely necessitate more sales next summer or in June 2026. I think booking 60m+ profit on Luiz gets us most of the way there. We just need to focus on moving on the players who cost a lot on our books like Digne, Carlos, Coutinho & Dendonker and then making sales for the youth/fringe players. Chambers, Hause, KKH, Archer etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 59 minutes ago, Alakagom said: I think equally the bigger problem will be Euro wage/revenue cap coming fully in effect, it's 80% this year, but will be 70% in 2025. This season we were at 91%. It's not as much an issue as we count average of last 3 years of player sales P&L with a single year of club income. Then we have player salaries + amortisation / income = squad cost % So poor income or high player cost 2 or 3 years ago is irrelevant. Before a Luiz sale we've made 160m profit in player sales. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vreitti Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 Seems like we are selling anyone if the price is right. Are we really in such a terrible state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 2 minutes ago, vreitti said: Seems like we are selling anyone if the price is right. Are we really in such a terrible state? " Anyone "? All the players we are reported to be selling, we have been rumoured to be willing to let go of for quite some time? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWARLEY2 Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 Just now, vreitti said: Seems like we are selling anyone if the price is right. Are we really in such a terrible state? No would be my answer. Duran was inconsistent and Emery never trusted him fully . If Cash goes then there's not many that will be crying . Good servant but not what we need under Emery most of the time. Luiz is the strange one. But Emery will have a plan. We struggled when Kamara got injured.We have Tielemans and Barkley for set pieces and centre mid creativity. Kamara and McKennie for defensively minded play. And I think we will be bringing in someone v unexpected at a high price to replace Dougie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calcifer Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 8 hours ago, Czarnikjak said: Yes, we will remain heavily constrained for a foreseeable future. Yeah, I think we are going to see a lot more deals on younger players then sell them in a couple of season for maximum profit. We can't complete with the big boys with PSR or whatever the next load of tosh that's coming next season without having to sell players every year.. We don't have the commercial revenue or sponsorship deals to help us break even... yet. As long as we don't have to sell Martinez or Watkins as they are players that would cost just as much to replace with the same quality! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vreitti Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 14 minutes ago, MWARLEY2 said: No would be my answer. Duran was inconsistent and Emery never trusted him fully . If Cash goes then there's not many that will be crying . Good servant but not what we need under Emery most of the time. Luiz is the strange one. But Emery will have a plan. We struggled when Kamara got injured.We have Tielemans and Barkley for set pieces and centre mid creativity. Kamara and McKennie for defensively minded play. And I think we will be bringing in someone v unexpected at a high price to replace Dougie Didn't realize we've already completed the Barkley deal. Anyhow seems absolutely madness to "have to sell" Luiz, at any price. We're playing in the UCL for the first time in over 40 years, and now we need to offload our best players. Chelsea have spent half a billion and are seemingly in the clear. PSR is a **** joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) 14 hours ago, calcifer said: Yeah, I think we are going to see a lot more deals on younger players then sell them in a couple of season for maximum profit. We can't complete with the big boys with PSR or whatever the next load of tosh that's coming next season without having to sell players every year.. We don't have the commercial revenue or sponsorship deals to help us break even... yet. As long as we don't have to sell Martinez or Watkins as they are players that would cost just as much to replace with the same quality! Has to be an incredibly smart balance not to end up like the Southampton or Brighton though, it's not sustainable for success. I posted the other day that I saw something which was saying Monchis strategy is 70:30. 70 percent younger players for medium to long term, and 30 percent players for the here and now. It's why we shouldn't be surprised if we are sometimes linked with older players It's a pretty good strategy to keep a conveyor belt of young talent coming through to replace older talent and to be moved on at profit at the same time as continuing success. Edited June 12 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyjavfc Posted June 12 VT Supporter Share Posted June 12 When you think about it it is quite mad that a sporting competition assesses the profit and loss of the clubs and controls their investment based on this. What if we merged AVFC Ltd with another successful Sawiris business (say Sawiris Cement Ltd.) that generates £100million profit a year. Would the combined profit of AVFC & Cement Ltd be able to count towards FFP? This is an extreme example but I’m sure alternative versions of this are happening across the league (ie do any clubs make money renting out property for example?). Maybe the rules prohibit this as unrelated non-football income, I’m not sure. I do think spending control is needed to prevent nation states ruining the league but a flat club wage bill cap (I.e not linked to income) would be a lot fairer. Big six would never vote for this as it would be the end of their monopoly and ability to invest well above the others. That would be by far the fairest sporting outcome. If alternative measures are needed to prevent clubs from over reaching and going in debt / bust then this should be provided separately to the ‘sporting’ spend rules, applied by a gov regulator or similar. This could be achieved in many ways such as the use of an emergency bond or limits on debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkLillis Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 14 hours ago, vreitti said: Seems like we are selling anyone if the price is right. Are we really in such a terrible state? No - in the real world we have very rich owners who (currently) want to bankroll our continued rise). Yes - in the world of PSR because our revenues aren't close to the clubs we are trying to compete with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 17 minutes ago, mikeyjavfc said: I do think spending control is needed to prevent nation states ruining the league but a flat club wage bill cap (I.e not linked to income) would be a lot fairer. Big six would never vote for this as it would be the end of their monopoly and ability to invest well above the others. That would be by far the fairest sporting outcome. Would any club actually want this, though? It’s a perceived problem for us because we’re looking upwards… but I doubt our owners would want the likes of Brighton, West Ham etc to be able to close the gap on us due to a hard wage cap. Clubs (and fans) are self-serving. It’s a problem that Newcastle are state owned, but not that Sheff Utd are… because Sheff Utd aren’t a direct competitor. It’s a problem that we can’t spend the same as Spurs, but not a problem that Fulham can’t spend the same as us. etc etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one_ian_taylor Posted June 12 VT Supporter Share Posted June 12 13 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: Has to be an incredibly smart balance not to end up like the Southampton or Brighton though, it's not sustainable for success. I posted the other day that I saw something which was saying Monchis strategy is 70:30. 70 percent younger players for medium to long term, and 30 percent playersnfornthebhere and now. It's why we shouldn't be surprised if we are sometimes linked with older players It's a pretty good strategy to keep a conveyor belt of young talent coming through to replace older talent and to be moved on at profit at the same time as continuing success. The 70:30 balance makes sense - not all of the young players will make first team (regularly), but some will do well on loan and then be sold for profit. In many ways it's a bit of a depressing way to approach things, but needs must and the possibility of us unearthing some real talent is exciting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 I thibk luiz would be sold regardless of FFP as if he isnt signing a new deal whats point of losing him in a lesser fee or even worse a free? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 (edited) So if reports come true it would be circa: Duran - 35 mill? Matty - 25 mill? Luiz - " 60 mill " in value ( 15 - 20 in cash ) So let's say 80 - 120 mill pounds in " value " incoming. How does this set us up with PSR/Finance and how much does it then allow us to spend comfortably? Guess we can add in dead would sales and frees up wages later. Edited June 12 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made In Aston Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 44 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: So if reports come true it would be circa: Duran - 35 mill? Matty - 25 mill? Luiz - " 60 mill " in value ( 15 - 20 in cash ) So let's say 80 - 120 mill pounds in " value " incoming. How does this set us up with PSR/Finance and how much does it then allow us to spend comfortably? Guess we can add in dead would sales and frees up wages later. Let's say 100m PSR income then. A 50m player on a 4 year deal is about 12m a year cost. So we could potentially buy about 8 of those (totalling 400m) with that. The problem we have is that the new rules will limit player wages to about 80% of revenue and bringing in new 50m players will push us well over that. I think our wages to revenue is currently 90% so that is probably the biggest challenge. That's why heck has been tasked with increasing commercial income as an absolute priority to give us more headroom for wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete101 Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 Finished watching the latest episode of for the love of Paul McGrath podcast which was about FFP, answers a lot of questions for people, think the key thing I took from it was how the Grealish money goes off the books from next year on and we need to replace that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts