Farhad Moshiri

[The Esk]

Would we have to sell one of the top players. Would the wages saved on the players released so far and trying to shift the other dead wood like mcgeady, kone etc not be sufficient ?

Possibly, but it would still limit us as the sale of for example Kone or Niasse may create a trading loss.

 

[Mikelangelo]

I understand all that mate, but is selling a Lukaku or Stones the only way we will be able to fund the 100m, or whatever the amount that Koeman will have available for transfers, as to meet the control measures?

Just preparing myself if that is the case, as I was confident we would keep them all.

I'll await your upcoming report.

Not quite sure that you do. I think Esk has explained it quite well. It is not needed in order to fund transfers but in order to increase wages, we need to increase revenue in order to able to increase the wage bill.

 

[fozzy]

Can't we just sell Gibson?

 

[Dave Higgs]

It be Lukaku gone rather than Stones you would imagine

 

[lesbattersby]

Cheers was more just wishful thinking. But I guess the last boards failings on the commercial side of things will still hinder the club moving forward as quickly as we'd all like.

 

[fozzy]

It be Lukaku gone rather than Stones you would imagine

Unfortunately In the long run strikers hold/increase their value way more than defenders.

 

[cantlivewithem]

When we buy a player we absorb the cost of the transfer fee over the duration of the contract so the finances don't take an immediate hit. a 30 million transfer would be 6 million a year over 5 years. When we sell a player the cost of the transfer counts as immediate income so a 30 million sale means we have 30 million in revenue in our accounts immediately. It would theoretically mean we sell someone for 30 mill, buy a replacement for 30 mill and it show in our accounts that we have an extra 24 million.. Am I on the right track @The Esk

 

[kithnou]

The amount we spend on transfers is not the relevant point (until we get beyond approximately £300 million) - it's the increase in salaries. We cannot increase salaries beyond £7 million without a corresponding increase in non-broadcasting income. That increase can only come from an increase in sponsorship/commercial income, match day income or player trading profits.

There's funding way beyond this notional £100 million transfer war chest, but we need to keep within the cost control limitations set by the PL - my view is that this year we can only achieve that by one significant player sale. That shouldn't be a concern, it's a tactical decision, bit like in chess, sometimes you have to sacrifice a piece to win the game.

A slap in the face to my belief that we need to keep all our best players and build around them.
As asked above, we have a good 10 squad players we should be looking at moving on. Surely the wages saved there will cover the concern? However, if we are looking at getting in quality footballers that will require top wages, that shoots that argument out of the equation.

 

[The Esk]

When we buy a player we absorb the cost of the transfer fee over the duration of the contract so the finances don't take an immediate hit. a 30 million transfer would be 6 million a year over 5 years. When we sell a player the cost of the transfer counts as immediate income so a 30 million sale means we have 30 million in revenue in our accounts immediately. It would theoretically mean we sell someone for 30 mill, buy a replacement for 30 mill and it show in our accounts that we have an extra 24 million.. Am I on the right track @The Esk

Correct ! (although it would be £30 million less (cost plus depreciation) as profit)

 

[kithnou]

Not quite sure that you do. I think Esk has explained it quite well. It is not needed in order to fund transfers but in order to increase wages, we need to increase revenue in order to able to increase the wage bill.

I did understand it. Maybe worded it wrong in my initial post, but hopefully my last one explains my stance better.

 

[The Esk]

A slap in the face to my belief that we need to keep all our best players and build around them.
As asked above, we have a good 10 squad players we should be looking at moving on. Surely the wages saved there will cover the concern? However, if we are looking at getting in quality footballers that will require top wages, that shoots that argument out of the equation.

We can keep our best players but we can not acquire aggressively at the same time without growing our income. In the absence of growing income (other than broadcasting income) as is likely to be the case in 2016/17 the only other source of income is player trading profits.

This is not something we need do consistently in the future assuming we increase match day/commercial/sponsorship income streams, it's a legacy issue more than anything else.

 

[kithnou]

We can keep our best players but we can not acquire aggressively at the same time without growing our income. In the absence of growing income (other than broadcasting income) as is likely to be the case in 2016/17 the only other source of income is player trading profits.

This is not something we need do consistently in the future assuming we increase match day/commercial/sponsorship income streams, it's a legacy issue more than anything else.

Got it.
May I ask what the PL punishment is if we "break the rules"?

 

[The Esk]

Got it.
May I ask what the PL punishment is if we "break the rules"?

Fines, penalty points or expulsion (unlikely but theoretically possible)

 

[MikeEFC1878x]

We could in theory buy over 100 mil worth of players and not have adverse effects of FFP then?


surely if we spend alot we could balance the books by sponsorship;/rev player sales etc//

also isn't ffp over 3 years? surely we would be in europe by then and have increased income


isn't that why we looking to appoint people on financial side eg BP man and Dein etc? @The Esk or am i guessing in the dark here

 

[MikeEFC1878x]

I personally think 100 mil is low balling and we will spend more, not got any info to back that up but got a feeling moshiri wont even be spending most of his money as he is backed solidly by investors eg able to get 0 interest loans etc i guess how that will play into stadium