The AVFC FFP thread

[duke313]

This can’t be right? Can it?

[duke313]

1 minute ago, VillaChris said:

That's the point though. Brewster and Watkins both moving that summer is more comparable than saying Brewster cost 20m + so Kellyman must be close to that bracket.

You’re right, Kellymans is more comparable to the four U21 players City sold to Southampton for similar fees in 2022 when they made no senior appearances

[Czarnikjak]

2 minutes ago, duke313 said:

This can’t be right? Can it?

It can, but uefa are very lax with their punishments for one of breaking of their rules, so we would get away with it just with financial penalty. Unlike Premier League where we would get slammed with points deduction.

[VillaChris]

5 minutes ago, duke313 said:

You’re right, Kellymans is more comparable to the four U21 players City sold to Southampton for similar fees in 2022 when they made no senior appearances

Those were much lower weren't they? Larios was 6m and Edozie up to 10m.

Quote

Manchester City youngsters Sam Edozie and Juan Larios are down on the south coast as they look to complete moves to Southampton before the end of the day.

The deal for Edozie, who appeared certain to break into Pep Guardiola’s squad before injury last season, is worth up to £10million.

Saints are understood to have agreed a flat £6m fee for Larios, with the Spanish left back having never played a game for City.

We sell Kellyman for 7-8m and there is no case to answer at all.

[MrBlack]

13 minutes ago, duke313 said:

This can’t be right? Can it?

It isn't. Swiss ramble have over estimated our losses by including repeats of the payoff we gave Gerrard and the compensation we paid for Emery in their calcs for this year.

Edited Wednesday at 10:43 by MrBlack

[VillaChris]

21 minutes ago, duke313 said:

This can’t be right? Can it?

Only thing I can think of is we're still off getting the wage bill down to 80% of revenue/income which I think is a UEFA rule you must satisfy to compete in CL.

Doesn't full possible to do all that in less than a week, 100m off just to play in CL?

Is Coutinho still actually our player as that's the obvious one to release to get the wage bill down.

[The_Steve]

13 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

It isn't. Swiss ramble have over estimated our losses by including repeats of the payoff we gave Gerrard and the compensation we paid for Emery in their calcs for this year.

Did they include the Lerner £10m payoff also?

[MrBlack]

3 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

Did they include the Lerner £10m payoff also?

I doubt it unless that was also in last years?

They basically took our previous years incidental one off costs and added a 15% premium to them, rather than removing the known items that wouldnt be repeated before applying a 15% increase.  If the Lerner payoff was in last years then yes, they'd have included it in this year's calcs....although I think Lerner was paid off a couple of years ago.

[The_Steve]

2 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

I doubt it unless that was also in last years?

They basically took our previous years incidental one off costs and added a 15% premium to them, rather than removing the known items that wouldnt be repeated before applying a 15% increase.  If the Lerner payoff was in last years then yes, they'd have included it in this year's calcs....although I think Lerner was paid off a couple of years ago.

I stand corrected. The Lerner bonus was 2020. I am trying to understand the financials a little better so I appreciate your and other posts that help break it down. 

[MrBlack]

5 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

I stand corrected. The Lerner bonus was 2020. I am trying to understand the financials a little better so I appreciate your and other posts that help break it down. 

No problem! @CVByrne and @Czarnikjak are the GOATs for this sort of thing.

But 2020!!  Slightly more than a couple of years then. Man, time flies these days.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, cheltenham_villa said:

im not saying they will find them to be inflated. Im just saying that they definitely have the power to make that assessment

What makes you think they definitely have power to do that. They don’t.  With sponsorship deals the 20 member clubs voted to provide that power. They have not done so for transfer fees between two differently owned clubs.

[mattyvilla]

3 hours ago, cheltenham_villa said:

i dont think this is true. Weve already seen the premier league take a view on commercial deals they believe to be inflated, asset sales (stadium etc) if they believe them to be inflated and even a view on how clubs are allocating debt in the balance sheet. Id fully expect the PL or the independent PSR auditor to take a view on whether they think player valuations are inflated.

We may not like it, but they are literally doing it with everything else so why would this be different.

You see a property , a hotel , an item has a value , for me a player has the value of what someone wishes to pay , it is a very debatable value

[Follyfoot]

1 hour ago, VillaChris said:

That's the point though. Brewster and Watkins both moving that summer is more comparable than saying Brewster cost 20m + so Kellyman must be close to that bracket.

why?

[cheltenham_villa]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

What makes you think they definitely have power to do that. They don’t.  With sponsorship deals the 20 member clubs voted to provide that power. They have not done so for transfer fees between two differently owned clubs.

I dont know that they definitely have the power, i also dont know that they dont. This whole message board and this entire subject is one of peoples opinions.

Mine is that people shouldnt  assume they cannot do it, maybe i shouldnt assume that they can. But the evidence says to me that they are already taking a view on turnover and costs, why should this be different in the future.

[blandy]

32 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said:

the evidence says to me that they are already taking a view on turnover and costs, why should this be different in the future.

They are taking a view in accordance with the rules as endorsed by the 20 premier league clubs. These rules do not include what you seem to think they do, in terms of fair value on transfers like the one being discussed here, between two unrelated clubs with no shared ownership. I recall they (the PL Clubs) voted on transactions between related clubs, but IIRC even that was rejected.

[OutByEaster?]

43 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said:

I dont know that they definitely have the power, i also dont know that they dont. This whole message board and this entire subject is one of peoples opinions.

Mine is that people shouldnt  assume they cannot do it, maybe i shouldnt assume that they can. But the evidence says to me that they are already taking a view on turnover and costs, why should this be different in the future.

They could vote to have the power to do it in future - but I'm not sure they'd get that vote passed - there are several teams already involved in transfers for the PSR deadline who are very unlikely to vote in favour, and it's very unlikely that the Saudi's will want any restriction on fees that they can pay between the Saudi league and Newcastle, Forest are also unlikely to vote in favour as they've already suffered under this rule and may do again - you need to get fourteen clubs to vote in favour of a motion in order to get things passed - so if you rule out, us, Everton, Newcastle, Forest and Chelsea you'd need fourteen from fifteen to get the job done - and half of those fifteen are under really big PSR pressure.

It's very unlikely to be something the league would successfully legislate on, the nature of that legislation would be really difficult to write and proof that prices are being inflated would be very difficult to prove. 

 

[VillaChris]

7 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

why?

Eh? Kellyman's played about 5 senior games in his career and just started with England under 20s.

Brewster had a fantastic half scoring season in the championship and had just broken into the England under 21s. Think he was also part of the squad that won the under 17 World cup.

Yes he's flopped badly at Sheffield United but at the time I don't think too many were shocked he went for 20m + compared to this deal where it very much is based on future potential.

[ender4]

11 hours ago, MrBlack said:

It isn't. Swiss ramble have over estimated our losses by including repeats of the payoff we gave Gerrard and the compensation we paid for Emery in their calcs for this year.

Even once you take that out of the calcs, IF Swiss Ramble is correct, then there is still a big hole to meet UEFA limits.  But I think that’s for 24/25 season, wasn’t it 90% limit for 23/24?

[Aston_Villan4]

They’re trying to screw us over.

 

 

[villarule123]

I did say a week ago I wouldn't be surprised if something like this happened.