The January 2024 "Will we actually sign a striker or just Che Adams/Kieffer Moore" Transfer Thread

[Tredman]

We’ll get no players. Fosun have given up, unless we are in the bottom 3 they don’t care.

[TTMode]A lot of words and tweets to say the same thing [/TTmode]

 

[GLASGOWOLF]

I saw some comment attributed to GON, wh said we face a points deduction if we had gone after Broja....

I am not an accountant, so don't know the ins and outs but if that's true then we needed to be careful

 

[Kenny]

I mean that's bullshit and I barely understand the rules.

Would like to see where GO said that as I think that might be someone stretching his words a little*



*a lot

 

[Jabbawolf]

I mean that's bullshit and I barely understand the rules.

Would like to see where GO said that as I think that might be someone stretching his words a little*



*a lot

It’s on BBC daily transfer news page.

 

[Tony Towner]

Add Glasgo to the list of those who have been gaslighted

 

[Dire Wolf]

I read that. He basically said that if we'd have signed Broja (or anyone for money I suppose) we would have had a 10 point deduction next season.

1. I'm not sure he actually said that.
2. I'm not sure if we actually would.

 

[Kenny]

So just read the article which is via the Mail.

His words don't match the headline.
Just a repeat of the club being careful and not doing things that may put them at risk.
Didn't say points deduction if we signed Broja.

 

[Kenny]

To add more he said wages not a problem but couldn't accept obligations to buy, penalties if not played etc

 

[Tony Towner]

To add more he said wages not a problem but couldn't accept obligations to buy, penalties if not played etc

Couldn't accept or couldn't afford? Very different meanings

 

[AndyWolves]

I think we could have afforded to do the Broja deal, but didn't want to because it presented poor value for us.

Fulham however have, I think, loaned out Vinicius and Raul is injured so Broja is gonna play for them so they won't incur penalties as per the loan agreement.

No problem with us turning that deal down, but surely there were deals available that presented better value to us?

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

So just read the article which is via the Mail.

His words don't match the headline.
Just a repeat of the club being careful and not doing things that may put them at risk.
Didn't say points deduction if we signed Broja.

99% of our fans will only read the headline, so that is what is fact now.

 

[Tony Towner]

Someone more clued up like Sniffer can correct me if I'm wrong, but these are the indisputable facts before any supposition. For the 3 years ending 23 we didn't fall foul.

The year which falls off at the end of this season is 2020/21 where we made a profit of £18.4m not a typical year as the tv payments were delayed from the previous season. Therefore before considering any unknown changes to the rules, which will only make things better not worse this season we needed to make a maximum profit of £18.4m

The mistake some make is then just putting transfers in and transfers out and saying that's the profit / loss which isn't the case. For instance we signed Collins for around £20.5m on a 5 year deal and sold him for £23m, from an accounting perspective we gain the £4mish ammortisation from last season and the £2.5m profit into this years accounts so that sale made us £6.5m. The figures are different but the principle the same for Nunes. Similarly we signed Cunha on what I think is a 4 year contract for £44m so his charge to this season is £11m, so Nunes and Collins will have covered him.

In addition we spent around £30m on players who let's say have an average of a 4 year contract so £7.5m, just selling Sanderson and Giles, youth team players with no overhang costs cover that.

On top of that we have £5m for Raul, £7.5m for Coady both who were with us beyond their initial contracts and slashed our wage bill with the likes of those above plus Moutinho leaving. So with all of that the path to making £18.4m profit is pretty transparent, on top of that we will likely finish higher than would have been budgeted for delivering circa £2.2m for each position.

All of the above should be factual, the grey area is Neves and this is the one I'm not so sure on. We know we got £47m and it won't be in the accounts to the end of the 23 season, what we don't know is if any of that sale was used in mitigation to cover an overspend and if so how much. I've not seen anything to say that was the case, if not then that's £47m we'd have available. That will become clearer when the accounts are published on the next month or so.

Also worth pointing out that losses are not the same as FFP losses, Newcastle for instance had circa £50m additional allowed for as infrastructure costs which fell outside of FFP regs.

Long winded post to say there is no chance we are in FFP trouble for this season, the only question is how far we are clear by and how much we could have spent if we'd chosen to. See Johnny Phillips' Tweet higher up for evidence.

 

[Johnny75]

Neves can't go in last year's accounts as he was sold after 31st May.

Edit: it's roughly £90m in transfer profits for this season.

There's also a saving on the wage bill of roughly £30m for the season (assuming Guedes, Silva and Podence have their wages covered). That's £120m in head room which should put us at break even for the last 3 years.

 

[Tony Towner]

Neves can't go in last year's accounts as he was sold after 31st May.

No I said that, but could be used to mitigate an overspend as a June sale with the flexible rules the PL seem to have implemented, so let's say we hypothetically overspent by £10m, the Neves balance allowed into this season would only be £37m. Like I say, I've seen nothing to suggest that is the case, but we know other teams have alluded to it being accepted even though I don't think it should be. They supposedly told Forest they'd have been OK if they'd sold Johnson in June.

Just tried to seperate the factual from the probable

 

[Johnny75]

No I said that, but could be used to mitigate an overspend as a June sale with the flexible rules the PL seem to have implemented, so let's say we hypothetically overspent by £10m, the Neves balance allowed into this season would only be £37m. Like I say, I've seen nothing to suggest that is the case, but we know other teams have alluded to it being accepted even though I don't think it should be. They supposedly told Forest they'd have been OK if they'd sold Johnson in June

Isn't that just to mitigate the penalty not the accounts?

As in they knew they were falling foul of the rules and were making remedial efforts as soon as they could (June being the opportunity).

 

[Tony Towner]

Isn't that just to mitigate the penalty not the accounts?

As in they knew they were falling foul of the rules and were making remedial efforts as soon as they could (June being the opportunity).

Yes, that may well be the case, although not the way Forest put it across when i read it. Although I wouldn't trust anything coming out of that club

 

[Carrotdude]

The funny thing about Forest was they want to claim the Johnson money because they got more than they would if they’d sold before the cut off, but then they also signed 6 players on deadline day

 

[Sniffer]

Someone more clued up like Sniffer ( you’ve seen my attempts to keep the prediction league table right!)can correct me if I'm wrong, but these are the indisputable facts before any supposition. For the 3 years ending 23 we didn't fall foul.

The year which falls off at the end of this season is 2020/21 where we made a profit of £18.4m not a typical year as the tv payments were delayed from the previous season. Therefore before considering any unknown changes to the rules, which will only make things better not worse this season we needed to make a maximum profit of £18.4m

I think that you’re mainly correct in your assumptions Tony.
The only thing I’ll quickly throw into the conversation is that the £18.4m profit is false due to the tv receipts so it is harder to make that money this year as your tv income is that much less hence needing more transfer profits.
As for the June sales, my guess as I’ve not looked into the rules, is that some clubs have May year ends, others have June so late receipts are allowable for ffp to make it a level playing field in terms of having that extra month to put your house in order.

 

[sycophantia]

I'm very impressed by people's on here understanding of the rules, completely outside my comfort zone.
What surprises me is that none of the rules are news, so why have clubs financial teams allowed them to get into this state? Or is it that everyone knows they've broken the rules but just thought fuck it, it'll only be a slap on the wrists?

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I'm very impressed by people's on here understanding of the rules, completely outside my comfort zone.
What surprises me is that none of the rules are news, so why have clubs financial teams allowed them to get into this state? Or is it that everyone knows they've broken the rules but just thought fuck it, it'll only be a slap on the wrists?

Yeah I think the 10 point deduction on Everton really focussed some minds, it wasn't expected. But I'm not sure why.