The FFP thread

[yorkpud]

I didn't make the assumption, I used your numbers of our wage bill increasing to 90/100m. Of course some of that is expended on the existing squad. I referenced that previously.

As you say, our wage bill will be 80-100m next season. Last season our wage bill was about 32m. I presume that with not being able to spend transfer fees our wage bill has probably jumped quite a bit in 25/26 already which is why I was saying it may be around 48m for ease of working with a 52m increase. Of course a chunk of that will be on the existing squad. And a bunch of the existing squad will be sold/moved on as a consequence.

My calculations are doing nothing of the sort. I quite literally explained that we can sign 15 players on an average of 7m transfer fee presuming they are signed to a 3 year, 67k per week contract. How on earth did you extrapolate one example of THB as being my standard bearer for every signing?



I'm more than happy to discuss this topic - but if you're going to launch into a discussion with an assertion that my calculations are wrong (which you've since modified to, my calculation was right but the starting number was wrong) at least cite the right numbers in my posts.

I will try and make this clear, so we don’t need to go around and around. As this topic is clearly confusing you.

£67k per week is rounded to £3.5m per year.

The remaining 3.5m (£3.5 less £7m) aggregated over the 3 years you have stated there is a £10.5m gross signing (Hardly Harwood-Bellis now, is it? I assume you realise what you have done and are manipulating some numbers). Previously it equaled £20m when aggregated out, hence why I was stating £20m, it was your number.

15 x £10.5m = £157m total gross spend.

Do you think £157m is a realistic spend without accounting for outgoings?

Secondly, we aren’t signing Harwood-Bellis for £10.5m

If we revert to the £20m you said earlier we spend almost double that figure.


Every journalist, website lists gross transfer costs.

They don’t say Taylor Harwood Bellis signed for the amortized fee of £3.5m… so I was aggregating YOUR numbers into something widely legible.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

I will try and make this clear, so we don’t need to go around and around.

£67k per week is rounded to £3.5m per year.

The remaining 3.5m (£3.5 less £7m) aggregated over the 3 years you have stated there is a £10.5m gross signing (Hardly Harwood-Bellis now, is it? I assume you realise what you have done and are manipulating some numbers)

15 x £10.5m = £157m total gross spend.

Do you think £157m is a realistic spend without accounting for outgoings?

Secondly, we aren’t signing Harwood-Bellis for £10.5m

If we revert to the £20m you said earlier we spend almost double that figure.

I haven't manipulated anything. I quite clearly said that it works out to 7m average transfer fee for a player with some being bought for a lot more and some being free signings. That's kind of the essence of an average.

Yes 157m is absolutely a realistic spend, as explained by Kieran Maguire when looking at any number of promoted club accounts.

If we spend 20m on Harwood-Bellis and sign him for 70k a week, but then sign Callum Wilson for free, and also bring in a Championship prospect on 30k a week, do you see how the THB signing doesn't end up representing the norm for our business?

As I've said a few times now, we are talking about the same overall budget. This isn't a game of FIFA where you have a set wage budget and a set transfer budget. You can actually move the dial. Ultimately, it would mean on average committing 67k on additional wages per week per player and about 2.5m per year per player in amortised transfer fee (or 7.5m over a 3 year contract). This works out to a spend of roughly 100m next year. The very same number you cited as being our budget for next year. You quoted the 35m of transfer spend and you quoted the 60m step up in wages, then asked how those two numbers make 90-100m. Do you see why we're going around in circles?

 

[yorkpud]

I haven't manipulated anything. I quite clearly said that it works out to 7m average transfer fee for a player with some being bought for a lot more and some being free signings. That's kind of the essence of an average.

Yes 157m is absolutely a realistic spend, as explained by Kieran Maguire when looking at any number of promoted club accounts.

If we spend 20m on Harwood-Bellis and sign him for 70k a week, but then sign Callum Wilson for free, and also bring in a Championship prospect on 30k a week, do you see how the THB signing doesn't end up representing the norm for our business?

As I've said a few times now, we are talking about the same overall budget. This isn't a game of FIFA where you have a set wage budget and a set transfer budget. You can actually move the dial. Ultimately, it would mean on average committing 67k on additional wages per week per player and about 2.5m per year per player in amortised transfer fee (or 7.5m over a 3 year contract). This works out to a spend of roughly 100m next year. The very same number you cited as being our budget for next year. You quoted the 35m of transfer spend and you quoted the 60m step up in wages, then asked how those two numbers make 90-100m. Do you see why we're going around in circles?

I have no idea if Kieran has or hasn’t stated that, but I’m almost certain you have misinterpreted it.

We’d smash the PL record with that transfer spend for a promoted side.

Sunderland spent £157m last year AFTER they sold Bellingham for £37m which opened the floodgates under PSR rules. They wouldn’t have been able to spend what they did this year. Their net spend was £120m

Leeds spent £91m this season.

Forest spent £140m with a reputed drug dealing gangster as their owner who basically didn’t give a ****.

All 3 of these clubs have much higher commercial revenues than City and we are operated under a more restrictive system..

These are the 3 highest ever. Most promoted clubs (of a similar size to city) spend a gross transfer amount of 40-70m


If Kieran stated it, I disagree with it, we aren’t capable of spending £40m more than ****ing Sunderland last year (which is even far less than you originally stated to the poster in the other thread)

 

[SydneyTiger14]

I have no idea if Kieran has or hasn’t stated that, but I’m almost certain you have misinterpreted it.

We’d smash the PL record with that transfer spend for a promoted side.

Sunderland spent £157m last year AFTER they sold Bellingham for £37m which opened the floodgates under PSR rules. They wouldn’t have been able to spend what they did this year. Their net spend was £120m

Leeds spent £91m this season.

Forest spent £140m with a reputed drug dealing gangster as their owner who basically didn’t give a ****.

All 3 of these clubs have much higher commercial revenues than City and we are operated under a more restrictive system..


If Kieran stated it, I disagree with it, we aren’t capable of spending £40m more than ****ing Sunderland last year (which is even far less than you originally stated to the poster in the other thread)

You must log in or register to see media

"No reason Hull and Coventry can't match it under SCR". It's there in black and white.

This is the first year SCR is the rule not PSR. The reason sides have spent less has been they have been hamstrung by the three year cap regarding PSR and having two years of losses assessed under Championship constraints. That handbrake is now off.

 

[yorkpud]

You must log in or register to see media

"No reason Hull and Coventry can't match it under SCR". It's there in black and white.

This is the first year SCR is the rule not PSR. The reason sides have spent less has been they have been hamstrung by the three year cap regarding PSR and having two years of losses assessed under Championship constraints. That handbrake is now off.

As someone who reads football accounts regularly. Additions also include player agent fees.

So now deduct £10m off Ipswich’s spend instantly and £14m off of Sunderland and you are exactly where I stated they were for gross transfers

How are we interpreting Hull can spend more than those two clubs?

Ipswich and Sunderland had 300% the commercial revenue of Hull in the Championship.

And 50% and 80% more total turnover.

And we are moving to a system entirely based on turnover, as everyone receives the same TV revenue exclusive of end of year prize money.


Kieran would have to explain that to me… Kieran’s numbers don’t make sense. I’ll await Swiss Ramble to tell me I’ve somehow managed to miscalculate 4 numbers on a balance sheet and or Hull have the lowest wage bill in PL history…

Coventry makes more sense, as commercially they are only 5-10% below where Sunderland were.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

As someone who reads football accounts regularly. Additions also include player agent fees.

So now deduct £10m off Ipswich’s spend instantly and £14m off of Sunderland and you are exactly where I stated they were for gross transfers

How are we interpreting Hull can spend more than those two clubs?

Ipswich and Sunderland had 300% the commercial revenue of Hull in the Championship.

And 50% and 80% more total turnover.

And we are moving to a system entirely based on turnover, as everyone receives the same TV revenue exclusive of end of year prize money.


Kieran would have to explain that to me…

I think the problem with this discussion is that you keep moving the goal posts or redefining what the topic actually is.

This began purely because I happened to point out that a 20m spend on THB doesn't hit the accounts in full in this year. Which you confirmed was correct. You started your first reply to me with the very abrupt "Your calculation is wrong". Putting aside that that's obviously going to get my back up and is probably not the most diplomatic way to start a discussion, it then became redefining what the 100m of spend that Maguire initially quoted (and has now been repeated by Hodges, Acun, and Baz Cooper) as our budget actually refers to. I began by saying that 100m represented transfer amortisation and wages (you know, the costs actually hitting our accounts this year and assessable under SCR). You seemed to agree, indicating that this would likely be split 35/65 transfer fees/wages with some of those wages also comprising current squad, just as transfer amortisation would also be somewhat made up of the current squad. I'm at a loss at how the conversation devolved from there, with every step of the way my trying to explain that we were actually agreeing, and every step you saying we were disagreeing, and plucking numbers out of my posts and extrapolating to them to extremes I never expressed (e.g. THB supposedly being an 'average' transfer in my world).

At the end of the day this is all very fun to discuss and hypothesise (fun maybe a subjective word there for any neutral readers of this thread or the first six posts in the transfer thread), but what will be will be. I suspect we will bring in perhaps 2 players in that 15-20m realm (according to Acun's own words about targeting two 'significant players'), another 7-8 players in the 5-10m realm, and pick up the rest as cheap or free agent signings.

I would be shocked if the increase in squad value isn't around that 100-120m mark that Maguire seems to think we'll spend.

 

[yorkpud]

I think the problem with this discussion is that you keep moving the goal posts or redefining what the topic actually is.

This began purely because I happened to point out that a 20m spend on THB doesn't hit the accounts in this year. Which you confirmed was correct. You started your first reply to me with the very abrupt "Your calculation is wrong". Putting aside that that's obviously going to get my back up and is probably not the most diplomatic way to start a discussion, it then became redefining what the 100m of spend that Maguire initially quoted (and has now been repeated by Hodges, Acun, and Baz Cooper) as our budget actually refers to. I began by saying that 100m represented transfer amortisation and wages (you know, the costs actually hitting our accounts this year and assessable under SCR). You seemed to agree, indicating that this would likely be split 35/65 transfer fees/wages with some of those wages also comprising current squad, just as transfer amortisation would also be somewhat made up of the current squad. I'm at a loss at how the conversation devolved from there, with every step of the way my trying to explain that we were actually agreeing, and every step you saying we were disagreeing, and plucking numbers out of my posts and extrapolating to them to extremes I never expressed (e.g. THB supposedly being an 'average' transfer in my world).

At the end of the day this is all very fun to discuss and hypothesise (fun maybe a subjective word there for any neutral readers of this thread or the first six posts in the transfer thread), but what will be will be. I suspect we will bring in perhaps 2 players in that 15-20m realm (according to Acun's own words about targeting two 'significant players'), another 7-8 players in the 5-10m realm, and pick up the rest as cheap or free agent signings.

I would be shocked if the increase in squad value isn't around that 100-120m mark that Maguire seems to think we'll spend.

We finally agree on something.

I stated I believe we will spend 80-100m in gross fees.

That is simply not what you originally stated though.

I’m happy to leave it.

The proof will be in the pudding, which certainly won’t be £140m+ despite what McGuire has said there.

Ipswich can outspend us by £30-40m based on both of our Championship, public accounts. As can Coventry. Given he’s put us together, I know has hasn’t thought about it in enough detail.

We do not have the same spending power as Coventry under SCR.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

We finally agree on something.

I stated I believe we will spend 80-100m in gross fees.

That is simply not what you originally stated though.

I’m happy to leave it.

The proof will be in the pudding, which certainly won’t be £140m+ despite what McGuire has said there.

Ipswich can outspend us by £30-40m based on both of our Championship, public accounts. As can Coventry. Given he’s put us together, I know has hasn’t thought about it in enough detail.

We do not have the same spending power as Coventry under SCR.

100m in gross fees + 60m of wages is far more than what you originally stated. 100m in gross fees on a 3 year deal on average + 60m step up in wages is the 100m I started by suggesting we would spend. This is why I said we were agreeing about 10 posts ago.

 

[yorkpud]

100m in gross fees + 60m of wages is far more than what you originally stated. 100m in gross fees on a 3 year deal on average + 60m step up in wages is the 100m I started by suggesting we would spend. This is why I said we were agreeing about 10 posts ago.

Jesus.

It’s not + wages ffs.

Intangable Assets Cost is not inclusive of wages.

Player Wages are their own line item within football club balance sheets. It’s an ongoing liability.

Kieran McGuire (and you as you were quoting him) is stating we can spend £142m on gross transfers (the lump sum transfer fee, pre amortisation, + the agents fee).

Stop wrapping yourself up with wages. They are important under SCR, obviously, but they are their own fixed budget and won’t fluctuate greatly as they are the single largest risk liability for a football club.

Teams will outspend their transfer budget well before their wage budget…

The intangible asset in the balance sheet is the instant realization of the players book value inclusive of agent fees. Wages are not included… Did you look at the screenshot in the tweet you sent me?

The extent at which you’ve twisted your original wrong post is incredible viewing.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

Jesus.

It’s not + wages ffs.

Intangable Assets Cost is not inclusive of wages.

Player Wages are their own line item within football club balance sheets. It’s an ongoing liability.

Kieran McGuire (and you as you were quoting him) is stating we can spend £142m on gross transfers (the lump sum transfer fee, pre amortisation, + the agents fee).

Stop wrapping yourself up with wages. They are important under SCR, obviously, but they are their own fixed budget and won’t fluctuate greatly as they are the single largest risk liability for a football club.

Teams will outspend their transfer budget well before their wage budget…

The intangible asset in the balance sheet is the instant realization of the players book value inclusive of agent fees. Wages are not included… Did you look at the screenshot in the tweet you sent me?

The extent at which you’ve twisted your original wrong post is incredible viewing.

I don't know why you're going around in circles on this? We're talking about a transfer budget. A completely conceptual term that is used to describe the money a club has to spend on players - be that wages or transfer fees. We have a 100m budget to spend which includes about 60m of wages and 35m of amortised transfer fees. You said this yourself.

Kieran Maguire (not McGuire) said we can spend 142m on gross transfers, yes, and then how much would the associated wages be do you think? We're arguing two sides of the same coin, and I've said this repeatedly and I'm not sure why you can't figure that out. One of us is talking gross transfer fees only, one of us is talking the entire package - wages and the amortisation cost to hit the P&L this season.

You can also quote a gross transfer figure of 100m excluding wages. Coincidentally they're roughly the same number. Whichever way you want to look at it - a catchall for everything we have to spend - or as just the gross transfer fees - it's roughly 100m pounds. This is why I don't understand why you've been so desperate to argue and tell me I'm wrong when we're coming at it from two sides to get to the same outcome?

Why do you keep insisting that a 'transfer budget' would exclude wages? How do you think free transfers are funded? Do they not count as a 'transfer'?

This is why above I said you're arguing over semantics not numbers. You're arguing over what people refer to when they refer to a transfer budget.

Wages are not a fixed budget. Like I said, this isn't a game of FIFA. Do you think if we were budgeting for a roughly 60m increase in wages and 35m of transfer spend but we had only increased wages by 45m and only had 5m of transfer fees unspent, Acun wouldn't just say 'well let's spend an extra 10m on a transfer out of the wage budget'? It's one pool of money.

Wages, by the way, are not on the balance sheet at all, they're a P&L item. If you're going to lecture me about football finance maybe don't make such a big error. The liability on the BS is outstanding transfer instalments.

I haven't twisted anything, and my original post - which you actually acknowledged was right some time ago (and yet are now back to saying it's wrong, a bit 'twisted' wouldn't you say?) - is still just as accurate. THB on 20m pounds does not take up 20% of our budget.

Anyway, I've tried to be amicable and acknowledge that you've been right, I think you've tried to do the same, but if we keep going I don't think it's going to do any good. I'm still quite sure that we're both right and there's wires being crossed about what is being referred to.