Jack Grealish

[freeeki]

No it's just difficult and expensive to improve on a cl level team that we struggle with while building the stadium.

Ah, and there’s the tired excuse. Excellent.

Do you think your hero Levy forgot to budget for the stadium?

 

[spursgirls]

There would be a host of clubs willing to buy sessengon for £30m

He's an obvious outlier as he was a top 5 leading scorer at 17...

We definitely aren't getting him this TW. So don't waste your time on wishing for it. On this one I'm actually ITK!

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

I think the thing that annoys me about the "spend some farkin' money" attitude (not suggesting that's yours, but it seemed like the most logical post to follow on from), is that Levy won't do anything that harms the club. His interests and the club's interests are aligned. So it follows that his interests and Pochettino's interests are also aligned.

They're pulling in the same directioun. They're on the same team. I get the sense that some try and create a "club vs. Levy" style rivalry, that everything he does is to deliberately spite the club.

And even if you think he's just in it for the money, again, why would he not want Spurs to succeed? Why would he want to be a chairman of a failing club?

With that always in mind I can never understand the negative; especially when a lot of people just generally don't have a clue about running a multi-million pound business.

What are his interests? And when you say the clubs interest who do you refer to? Do you think he’s desperate for titles/trophies? What do you think spurs sucedding is to to him? Just for people who don’t have a clue about running a multi million pound business like.

 

[Lilbaz]

Ah, and there’s the tired excuse. Excellent.

Do you think your hero Levy forgot to budget for the stadium?

Have we missed a payment for the stadium?
The transfer budget is probably the same it has been for the last 10 years. £0.

Not my fault you get over excited by itk.

 

[freeeki]

Have we missed a payment for the stadium?
The transfer budget is probably the same it has been for the last 10 years. £0.

Not my fault you get over excited by itk.

The club made a profit of £41M last year alone.

This fantasy land where Daniel Levy lives off beans on toast to keep the club afloat simply does not exist I’m afraid.

 

[JB_Spurs]

Nice to see we’re all enjoying ourselves in here

 

[Lilbaz]

The club made a profit of £41M last year alone.

This fantasy land where Daniel Levy lives off beans on toast to keep the club afloat simply does not exist I’m afraid.

Due to player amortisation profit means little.

 

[RJR1949]

Villa have to find £40-45m by the end of the transfer window through wage cuts or player sales. They've sold a few and released others. They got £13m from sales and their wages will have come down a bit as terry etc... are gone. Not sure if new owners are allowed a one off investment (they are in the prem). But still think they need to sell someone.

There are a few, but this is what one of the blokes on there said about it:

"The £45 mill was a headline - it wasn't a real fine.

I think over £20 million had to be put into the club by the owners to pay off debt (exactly what FFP is stopping owners from doing!!!)

£17 million is payable to the EFL over 10 years !!! Wow, a huge £1.7 million per year (nothing in football terms.)

Basically FFP is bollox- the clubs know it, the EFL knows it and thus far it seems, as long as you throw them some cash and they 'appear' to be being tough the rules can be bent and broken."

This is completely wrong.

The financial fair play regulations are to do with profitability not debts.

The new owners at Villa can put in money to pay off debts but Villa will still fall foul of the FFP regulations if its losses exceed £39m over a three year period including the current season. The only practical way out of the problem for Villa is to sell players at a profit and that means selling Grealish.

If they fail the FFP test the punishment can now include a points deduction or exclusion from automatic promotion or the play-offs. Basically failing FFP means another season in the Championship.

 

[sausage]

The club made a profit of £41M last year alone.

This fantasy land where Daniel Levy lives off beans on toast to keep the club afloat simply does not exist I’m afraid.

Neither does the one where it's cheap to build fooking massive stadiums in London either, in all fairness.

 

[Lilbaz]

This is completely wrong.

The financial fair play regulations are to do with profitability not debts.

The new owners at Villa can put in money to pay off debts but Villa will still fall foul of the FFP regulations if its losses exceed £39m over a three year period including the current season. The only practical way out of the problem for Villa is to sell players at a profit and that means selling Grealish.

If they fail the FFP test the punishment can now include a points deduction or exclusion from automatic promotion or the play-offs. Basically failing FFP means another season in the Championship.

I didn't say it was to do with debts but a part of ffp does include debts not paid to other teams. Most of the clubs that have been prosecuted under uefa rules ffp is because they owed other teams money for player transactions.

It is not really to do with profitability either. It is about player transactions and wages.

 

[Jody]

We definitely aren't getting him this TW. So don't waste your time on wishing for it. On this one I'm actually ITK!

When you say this window..... January? ?

 

[freeeki]

Neither does the one where it's cheap to build fooking massive stadiums in London either, in all fairness.

Who is claiming this?

The stadium is the reason we’ve been given for spending modestly for 15 years.

Now it’s the reason we’re using to justify Levy spending fuck all (while taking a £5M salary himself)

This madness needs to end

 

[Colston]

Who is claiming this?

The stadium is the reason we’ve been given for spending modestly for 15 years.

Now it’s the reason we’re using to justify Levy spending fuck all (while taking a £5M salary himself)

This madness needs to end

Yeah, it's almost like ENIC isn't a billionaire playboy who wants to somewhere to burn their excessive fortune, but rather a company that is run for-profit.

 

[wrd]

Yeah, it's almost like ENIC isn't a billionaire playboy who wants to somewhere to burn their excessive fortune, but rather a company that is run for-profit.

I'm sorry have you seen his yaught?

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

I'm pretty certain Grealish will be sold if villa are paying

Villa have to find £40-45m by the end of the transfer window through wage cuts or player sales. They've sold a few and released others. They got £13m from sales and their wages will have come down a bit as terry etc... are gone. Not sure if new owners are allowed a one off investment (they are in the prem). But still think they need to sell someone.

If Villa are trying to abide by FFP rules then things are a little interesting:
To release players may cut costs (wages), but also increase immediate losses as the ammortised value of the released player would be a right off. To actually decrease losses (or increase profit) they need to sell players at substantially above their ammortised value.

Ammortisation is kind of equivalent to depreciation on an intangiable asset.

If you buy a player for £40m and his contract is 5 years, his ammortised value would drop by 1/5 or £8m per year (now valued at £32m). If you sold him for £20m after a year you might think it's putting £20m in the coffers, but in accounting terms you would actually make a loss of £12m (£20m-£32m).
So, Villa selling their high value bought players would not necessarily solve too many problems - they cut the wage, but could make a loss on sale unless they get substantial fees.
However, if they sold a home grown player like Grealish, then the ammortised value would be relatively low (as there was no fee originally paid for him), and any fee they receive would be all profit against their accounts.

 

[Lilbaz]

I'm pretty certain Grealish will be sold if villa are paying

If Villa are trying to abide by FFP rules then things are a little interesting:
To release players may cut costs (wages), but also increase immediate losses as the ammortised value of the released player would be a right off. To actually decrease losses (or increase profit) they need to sell players at substantially above their ammortised value.

Ammortisation is kind of equivalent to depreciation on an intangiable asset.

If you buy a player for £40m and his contract is 5 years, his ammortised value would drop by 1/5 or £8m per year (now valued at £32m). If you sold him for £20m after a year you might think it's putting £20m in the coffers, but in accounting terms you would actually make a loss of £12m (£20m-£32m).
So, Villa selling their high value bought players would not necessarily solve too many problems - they cut the wage, but could make a loss on sale unless they get substantial fees.
However, if they sold a home grown player like Grealish, then the ammortised value would be relatively low (as there was no fee originally paid for him), and any fee they receive would be all profit against their accounts.

Terry was a free so no amortisation cost.

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

Neither does the one where it's cheap to build fooking massive stadiums in London either, in all fairness.

You keep on peddling this but ENIC haven’t financed the stadium. They have borrowed the money. They would have been lent the money on the basis that the stadium will generate enough revenue to pay back the loan over that period and more. I’m sure ENIC have put some money in but they will get all that money back and plenty more make no mistake. Can we drop this idea that ENIC are in it for anything but the money at least then it’s a bit more palatable

 

[Colston]

I'm sorry have you seen his yaught?

Yep. He's not Tottenham's owner though, the owners of Tottenham Hotspur is a company called ENIC. They have a fiscal responsibility towards their investors. His ownership also runs through Tavistock, who I'm sure has many investors who don't give two shits about football.

 

[wrd]

Yep. He's not Tottenham's owner though, the owners of Tottenham Hotspur is a company called ENIC. They have a fiscal responsibility towards their investors.

Cool I'll look forward to our quarterly financial reviews bus tour celebration

 

[Colston]

Cool I'll look forward to our quarterly financial reviews bus tour celebration

I'm just providing a reason why we're not spending money like City, even if we somehow could viably do so.

I want us to buy pretty much every top level player we're linked to, don't get me wrong. But if I had money in the club right now I don't know if I'd want that on top of the huge loans that's been taken due to the stadium construction and I also can't say for sure that it'd be in the club's best interest to do so.