Lukaku

Status
Not open for further replies.
terraloon said:
It comes down to how close Everton were already to the cap, if they are able to add anything on to the allowable £4 million growth and also what the terms of the loans were.
Click to expand...
Where do you get the £71m figure from?

2013 accounts say wages were £63m. +£4m for 2014 and +£4m for 2015?
 

terraloon said:
It comes down to how close Everton were already to the cap, if they are able to add anything on to the allowable £4 million growth and also what the terms of the loans were.
Click to expand...
The £4m increase limit only applies to TV revenue. Any other revenue increases can be added to the wage bill at the clubs discretion i.e. increases in matchday revenue and sponsorship deals
 
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
Them remaining on the parent clubs payroll doesn't necessarily mean that they're included in any FFP wages calculation though.

As in the FL this piece states that loan players wages are deducted from the parent clubs total.

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/
Click to expand...

Was aware of the FL rule but neither Chelsea, Everton or Man City are in the PL. also I haven't read that the wages are then charged to the club where the player goes on loan in the PL.

It would be to clubs like Chelsea & Man City to keep their wage spend high so its quite probable that in the case of say Lukaka the fee would have included minimal sums in relation to wages and the bulk of the fee may well have been scheduled as the sum that Chelsea will have amortised in respect of his transfer fee during the season. We just don't know how the fee is made up & that's why it would be reckless to just dismiss any FFP issues
 
Last edited:
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
The £4m increase limit only applies to TV revenue. Any other revenue increases can be added to the wage bill at the clubs discretion i.e. increases in matchday revenue and sponsorship deals
Click to expand...

That's right its why I said

It comes down to how close Everton were already to the cap, if they are able to add anything on to the allowable £4 million growth and also what the terms of the loans were
 

Imagine our window should there of been no added tv revenue, even though our operating cost surly must be lower
 
terraloon said:
Was aware of the FL rule but neither Chelsea, Everton or Man City are in the PL. also I haven't read that the wages are then charged to the club where the player goes on loan in the PL.

It would be to clubs like Chelsea & Man City to keep their wage spend high so its quite probable that in the case of say Lukaka the fee would have included minimal sums in relation to wages and the bulk of the fee may well have been scheduled as the sum that Chelsea will have amortised in respect of his transfer fee during the season. We just don't know how the few is made up & that's why it would be reckless to just dismiss any FFP issues
Click to expand...

You posted an FA rule as your proof, the FL would be supposedly covered by that 'rule' and that's not how it's being administered under their FFP calcualtion, therefore there's no reason to believe that the PL would operate in that way either.
 
Allegedly we have the money, Martinez wants him, why isn't the club moving forward to sign him? 20mil for a striker with his potential is a small amount in today's market.
 

.A
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
You posted an FA rule as your proof, the FL would be supposedly covered by that 'rule' and that's not how it's being administered under their FFP calcualtion, therefore there's no reason to believe that the PL would operate in that way either.
Click to expand...

Think you are mixing two things up here

The FA rule is about who pays the player and on which payroll they are shown

Neither the FL version of FFP nor indeed the PL version would overrule FA regulations.What we are talking about here is what is shown under the heading "wages in relation to FFP and in terms of a loan player what and how a club is charged .

Put quite simply some clubs don't charge anything to a club that takes one of their players on loan, some charge just a proportion of the wages, some charge the wages plus a premium,some only charge expenses and I believe some charge all of that as well as the amortised costs.

Without seeing the agreements that were in place we have no way of knowing.

All we do know is that neither Lukaka or Barry weren't their paid wages through Everton
 
Last edited:
Everton pied off a fair few of the higher earners at the club, made money in transfers and had an increase in TV money. Think we'll be okay for FFP to be honest.
 
terraloon said:
Think you are mixing two things up here

The FA rule is about who pays the player and on which payroll they are shown

Neither the FL version of FFP nor indeed the PL version would overrule FA regulations.What we are talking about here is what is shown under the heading "wages in relation to FFP and in terms of a loan player what and how club is charged .
Click to expand...
So the FA regulation you posted is of no consequence and your original point that the club loaning the player wouldn't have their wages reflected in their total is surely wrong? As the FL calculation removes the wages of the loan player from the total wage bill of the loaning club for the purposes of the FFP calculation.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top