You said we have 35m in amortised transfer fees to spend and about a 60m increase in wages expected. How is that any different?
"it's always gross transfer fees" according to who? What an idiotic way to express things if so when length of deal and other costs in said deal impact how much capacity we have to spend? "oh yeah we could spend 100m on transfers even if they're all 1 year deals for mercenaries on 100k a week"
You're arguing semantics at this point. Whether it's a 60m increase in wages and 40m of transfer amortisation or 50/50 or 40/60 it's still roughly a 100m increase in spend.
You've taken a post meant to indicate that a gross transfer fee is not as relevant to our headroom this coming year as some think and made it far more complicated than it needed to be.
No I didn’t. Your assumption that we have £60m in increased wages to “spend” is also wrong.
A massive portion of that is already expended via contractural wage increases with the existing squad moving to the PL wages.
I’ve simply removed wages from individual calculations, as they are irrelevant in a case by case basis. It’s no coincidence that virtually every bottom third club in the PL has had a wage to turnover ratio in the same range for the last decade, as that’s how they calculate their wage bill budgets for the coming season.
You can just confidently assume that no matter how many people we sign and who we sign, the wage bill will be between £80m-£100m for next season.
What we are saying is entirely different. In your example, I’m saying we can afford to buy 5-6 THB before we cap out at SCR (£20m / 4 years on average x 110% to be inclusive of agent fees) which is a gross transfer spend of £80-£100m with the amount above £100 being eaten by agents. I.E coincidently what lines up with media reports and how they are always quoted…
Your calculations are stating we can sign 14 x £20m players, which is absolutely absurd for a club our size under SCR.
Leeds didn’t sign a single player above £20m last season. Sunderland signed 1.
My calcs could be adjusted to 6-7 £15m pound signings. Which seems spot on.
Your calcs state 16 x £15m signings are possible. Again, absurd.
Remembering, these are MAX amounts before owner fines are enforced for going above the 85% threshold.
It’s not “semantics” when your budget argument is DOUBLE the amount of mine.
It’s clear you just don’t grasp some of the rules for SCR yet or are unaware of the reporting amounts across most clubs being fairly consistent.
There is no possible scenario in which we can spend the amount you have stated. None.
