Jack Grealish

[George94]

Would be nice if AV would take Janssen or GKN on loan as part of any Grealish deal.

Jansen would be brilliant in the Championship - he's basically the dutch Mitrovic and look how well he did for Fulham

 

[voxy28]

Just close this deal and throw GKN in... loan to purchase

 

[Liamyid28]

Chuck GKN, Janssen, Foyth and any other non home grown player we don’t want in ???

 

[sausage]

Chuck GKN, Janssen, Foyth and any other non home grown player we don’t want in ???

Yeah, why not gift them one of our best prospects that our manager rates.... can't see how that'd go wrong

 

[Liamyid28]

It was a joke sausage

 

[Lilbaz]

For a team not selling their star player and ho have got no money they are being linked with a lot of cm's. The latest is saville from millwall.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

For a team not selling their star player and ho have got no money they are being linked with a lot of cm's. The latest is saville from millwall.

This is the bizarre thing about using annual accounts for FFP, particularly when they only seem interested in the P&L, whereas the Balance Sheet is where the interesting stuff is..

Imagine there are 2 identical twins in Birmingham (Adam & Bob) and both have identical skills and abilities, and both valued at £20m. Adam comes through the ranks at Villa and Bob at West Brom.

If you are Villa, for FFP purposes, you would be better selling Adam for £20m and buying Bob for the same price.
Adam would be 100% profit on sale against your FFP threshold.
Bob (assuming a 5 year contract) would only be £4m in that single year (though the ammortised balance would be charged to subsequent years).
By selling Adam and buying Bob they will have balanced £16m against their accounts for that single year, but have similar playing staff.

This, coupled with player inflation, is also why clubs that have spent obscene amounts and should be in a financial mess are surviving. Player value inflation has pretty much saved the scalp of a multitude of clubs, though like the housing bubble, eventually it'll burst as clubs will become dependant on inflation to cover their profligacy.

 

[Lilbaz]

This is the bizarre thing about using annual accounts for FFP, particularly when they only seem interested in the P&L, whereas the Balance Sheet is where the interesting stuff is..

Imagine there are 2 identical twins in Birmingham (Adam & Bob) and both have identical skills and abilities, and both valued at £20m. Adam comes through the ranks at Villa and Bob at West Brom.

If you are Villa, for FFP purposes, you would be better selling Adam for £20m and buying Bob for the same price.
Adam would be 100% profit on sale against your FFP threshold.
Bob (assuming a 5 year contract) would only be £4m in that single year (though the ammortised balance would be charged to subsequent years).
By selling Adam and buying Bob they will have balanced £16m against their accounts for that single year, but have similar playing staff.

This, coupled with player inflation, is also why clubs that have spent obscene amounts and should be in a financial mess are surviving. Player value inflation has pretty much saved the scalp of a multitude of clubs, though like the housing bubble, eventually it'll burst as clubs will become dependant on inflation to cover their profligacy.

Yep. What chelsea and city have been doing to get around ffp. Buying u21 doesn't count towards ffp.

 

[knilly]

This is the bizarre thing about using annual accounts for FFP.

Imagine there are 2 identical twins in Birmingham (Adam & Bob) and both have identical skills and abilities, and both valued at £20m. Adam comes through the ranks at Villa and Bob at West Brom.

If you are Villa, for FFP purposes, you would be better selling Adam for £20m and buying Bob for the same price.
Adam would be 100% profit on sale against your FFP threshold.
Bob (assuming a 5 year contract) would only be £4m in that single year (though the ammortised balance would be charged to subsequent years).
By selling Adam and buying Bob they will have balanced £16m against their accounts for that single year, but have similar playing staff.

This, coupled with player inflation, is also why clubs that have spent obscene amounts and should be in a financial mess are surviving. Player value inflation has pretty much saved the scalp of a multitude of clubs, though like the housing bubble, eventually it'll burst as clubs will become dependant on inflation to cover their profligacy.

I’ve put this similar sentiment in another thread this morning.

Our player trading has enabled us to sell established stars, and replace them with up and coming players. All in the hope their values increase / inflate or at the very least we get our money back.

 

[Lilbaz]

I’ve put this similar sentiment in another thread this morning.

Our player trading has enabled us to sell established stars, and replace them with up and coming players. All in the hope their values increase / inflate or at the very least we get our money back.

He's talking more of player amortisation.

 

[sausage]

It was a joke sausage

You decided to list Foyth in with the two other players we're trying to get rid of as a "joke"?

Is this one of the 2018 "yoof" things where you say something stupid and then say "you're stupid because I was obviously being fake stupid"?

 

[Lilbaz]

You decided to list Foyth in with the two other players we're trying to get rid of as a "joke"?

Is this one of the 2018 "yoof" things where you say something stupid and then say "you're stupid because I was obviously being fake stupid"?

Which only works if you are ken m.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

He's talking more of player amortisation.

Yes, and it's the main reason the nil net spend argument is invalid - you don't know the ammortised value of the player being sold (though you can have a good guess).
If you think back to when we sold Bale, I would suggest that the vast majority of that fee was pure profit on player sale (as his contract had run it's course and we paid a relatively low fee for him to start with). However, only the cash received at that time (perhaps £50m?) would be attributable to that year (the rest would be contingent income and would be realised when Bale hit the contingent milestones). If we didn't go out and spend then we would have either set the fee against losses or loans, or paid tax on it (no one likes to pay tax). By spending £100m it reduces the hit in that one year, though not by an equivalent amount (perhaps ~£20m).

 

[sausage]

Which only works if you are ken m.

Had to Google him! TIL I learn who/what a Ken M is

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

Had to Google him! TIL I learn who/what a Ken M is

I'm pretty certain ken M is a Chelsea fan.......it's the only answer!

 

[Lilbaz]

Yes, and it's the main reason the nil net spend argument is invalid - you don't know the ammortised value of the player being sold (though you can have a good guess).
If you think back to when we sold Bale, I would suggest that the vast majority of that fee was pure profit on player sale (as his contract had run it's course and we paid a relatively low fee for him to start with). However, only the cash received at that time (perhaps £50m?) would be attributable to that year (the rest would be contingent income and would be realised when Bale hit the contingent milestones). If we didn't go out and spend then we would have either set the fee against losses or loans, or paid tax on it (no one likes to pay tax). By spending £100m it reduces the hit in that one year, though not by an equivalent amount (perhaps ~£20m).

We made i think £65m profit that year due to the sale of bale and the fact that the purchases we made price was spread over the course of their contracts. So we spent £100m but if they were all on 5 year contracts we only recorded spending £20m.

Anyway back to jack. If they sell jack for £30m and buy two players for £15m each on 5 year contracts thy will record a £24m profit for ffp.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

We made i think £65m profit that year due to the sale of bale and the fact that the purchases we made price was spread over the course of their contracts. So we spent £100m but if they were all on 5 year contracts we only recorded spending £20m.

Anyway back to jack. If they sell jack for £30m and buy two players for £15m each on 5 year contracts thy will record a £24m profit for ffp.

It's a tad more complex than I've explained it, but that's the general gist of it. That is where the new owners come in as they can finance the player purchases, but they need a good sale to balance out FFP first.

 

[Lilbaz]

It's a tad more complex than I've explained it, but that's the general gist of it. That is where the new owners come in as they can finance the player purchases, but they need a good sale to balance out FFP first.

Only problem is they then have to sell again next year.

 

[sausage]

I'm pretty certain ken M is a Chelsea fan.......it's the only answer!

tbh I thought he might have been an American-Chinese chef until I looked it up.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

Only problem is they then have to sell again next year.

......and that's where player inflation comes in - the hope is a mediocre player worth £10m now is worth £20m next year. They sell him and that covers them for another year.