what is Koeman's 'big project' in his mind?

[The Esk]

The FFP play rules actually allow us to make a 100 million pound loss over the course of three years. The idea that we are restricted to a 7 million pound increase in expenditure just isn't true, and that's without acknowledging the fact that the sale of Stones raised our revenue by 50 million pound, and the forthcoming sale of Lukaku will bring in a minimum of 65 million.

It isn't an idea. Moshiri confirmed this. I'm going to go with him rather than you tbh

I'm sure @The Esk can explain it better, but you probably wouldn't listen like.

It's fairly simple, there are two regulations in play (i) Profit & Sustainability and (ii) STCC (short term cost control)

Profit and Sustainability allows a club to make up to £105 million loss in any three year period subject to the club providing details of how they will fund those losses. Losses do not include expenditure on stadium/infrastructure nor academy development costs.

STCC relates to wages, and permits clubs to increase their wages by £7 million a year from the 2014/15 base, plus any increase in non-broadcasting income. Non-broadcasting income includes the profit from player sales.

Just a word on how a player purchase and a player sale affects profitability. Let's say we buy a player for £30 million on a 3 year contract. That purchase adds £10 million to costs each year over the length of the contract (player depreciation= cost/length of contract)

When we sell a player, the profit calculation is worked out as follows: The player in the example above is sold after 18 months for £45 million. The profit is calculated as follows: Sale price - value on the books (not purchase price). So in this case it is £45m - £15m (30x1.5/3) = £30 million. Thus for STCC purposes £30 million would be available to be added to player wages.

Hope that helps.

 

[Dymak]

It's fairly simple, there are two regulations in play (i) Profit & Sustainability and (ii) STCC (short term cost control)

Profit and Sustainability allows a club to make up to £105 million loss in any three year period subject to the club providing details of how they will fund those losses. Losses do not include expenditure on stadium/infrastructure nor academy development costs.

STCC relates to wages, and permits clubs to increase their wages by £7 million a year from the 2014/15 base, plus any increase in non-broadcasting income. Non-broadcasting income includes the profit from player sales.

Just a word on how a player purchase and a player sale affects profitability. Let's say we buy a player for £30 million on a 3 year contract. That purchase adds £10 million to costs each year over the length of the contract (player depreciation= cost/length of contract)

When we sell a player, the profit calculation is worked out as follows: The player in the example above is sold after 18 months for £45 million. The profit is calculated as follows: Sale price - value on the books (not purchase price). So in this case it is £45m - £15m (30x1.5/3) = £30 million. Thus for STCC purposes £30 million would be available to be added to player wages.

Hope that helps.

So we absolutely have the means to increase our wage bill beyond 7 million, and the idea that it is restricted to a 7 million pound increase is incorrect.

 

[Dymak]

It isn't an idea. Moshiri confirmed this. I'm going to go with him rather than you tbh

I'm sure @The Esk can explain it better, but you probably wouldn't listen like.

Moshiri didn't confirm anything but an inaccuracy.

 

[The Esk]

So we absolutely have the means to increase our wage bill beyond 7 million, and the idea that it is restricted to a 7 million pound increase is incorrect.

We must increase non-broadcasting income in order to increase wages by more than £7 million.

 

[Papa Shango]

This is ridiculous. People are desperate to excuse our lack of spending, it's almost like they find some kind of security in being a perpetual also-ran. So if the Stones money was needed to fund transfer activity alone, why were people harping on for months about how the sale of Stones was required in order to move on from our 2007 midtable wage structure?

The extra 50 million in revenue from the sale of Stones allows us to significantly increase our out dated wage bill. It could be easily argued that our negative net spend in the transfer window was funded through other revenue streams. We are also allowed to make losses totaling 100 million over three years under FFP. But at present, we have seen no change to the transfer strategy that we were employing 10 years ago.

You keep bringing up our wage bill.

There is nothing wrong with the wages we pay. We pay well and pretty equally. Our top earner may not get as much as some but our wage structure is sound and everyone in the squad is paid well.

 

[Dymak]

We must increase non-broadcasting income in order to increase wages by more than £7 million.

Which we have done with the sale of Stones.

 

[joseph]

He's going to to get rid of some of these fairies, sign a boss playmaker/door unlocker, sign a few dogs of war...and then lead us to glory on the battlefield!

But this will take a few seasons of course.

In the meantime, he is just going to do or say whatever comes into his mind.

 

[Dymak]

You keep bringing up our wage bill.

There is nothing wrong with the wages we pay. We pay well and pretty equally. Our top earner may not get as much as some but our wage structure is sound and everyone in the squad is paid well.

We remain midtable wage payers. People are stating that we tried to progress during the summer and pay what is required to attract top players in 2017. If we have the means to do this then the players will eventually come imo, and there won't be a problem. But there clearly is a need to progress beyond our current wage structures if we want to compete with everyone else who is already doing so, and some of which have been doing so for a very long time.

 

[Huyton Layne]

'Kin gutted he thinks Barcelona are bigger than us and he's not planning to help us eclipse them within 5 years. /sarcasm

 

[Papa Shango]

We remain midtable wage payers. People are stating that we tried to progress during the summer and pay what is required to attract top players in 2017. If we have the means to do this then the players will eventually come imo, and there won't be a problem. But there clearly is a need to progress beyond our current wage structures if we want to compete with everyone else who is already doing so, and some of which have been doing so for a very long time.

Its very easy for you to say this when its not your money.

Its a dangerous game to just change a wage structure in a short amount of time. One step at a time. We sign a big player his wage and it will mean others move up a bit. Takes time unless you want a bunch of pure mercenaries?

 

[Huyton Layne]

Its very easy for you to say this when its not your money.

Its a dangerous game to just change a wage structure in a short amount of time. One step at a time. We sign a big player his wage and it will mean others move up a bit. Takes time unless you want a bunch of pure mercenaries?

We may also already have contracts that involve matching or being at least a percentage of the club's top earner. One big wage for certain will domino in to a bunch of wage rises

 

[Dymak]

Its very easy for you to say this when its not your money.

Its a dangerous game to just change a wage structure in a short amount of time. One step at a time. We sign a big player his wage and it will mean others move up a bit. Takes time unless you want a bunch of pure mercenaries?

It's not dangerous. It's what everyone else is doing and what has been done for years. It's what is required if we want to compete and not fall further behind. Our revenues are at the highest they have ever been, we supposedly have someone who is willing to invest in the squad as well. The idea that we should be delaying what has been required for decades is crazy.

 

[Papa Shango]

It's not dangerous. It's what everyone else is doing and what has been done for years. It's what is required if we want to compete and not fall further behind. Our revenues are at the highest they have ever been, we supposedly have someone who is willing to invest in the squad as well. The idea that we should be delaying what has been required for decades is crazy.

Its not Football Manager! Its nowhere near as easy as doing that.

All you will be doing is paying top 4 wages whilst still having a top 10 team under your strategy.

 

[Dymak]

Its not Football Manager! Its nowhere near as easy as doing that.

All you will be doing is paying top 4 wages whilst still having a top 10 team under your strategy.

What?

I'm advocating a significant increase in our wages that is in line with our humongous revenues, and supposedly forthcoming investment from Moshiri, so that we can attract the level of players that are required to compete in 2017. Your strategy seems to be concerned with maintaining a 2007 wage structure in order to hopefully maintain our status as also-rans, which I find bizarre.

It's a necessity. If we want good players in 2017 then we will need to pay the going rate. Failure to do this will result in us falling further behind.

 

[Papa Shango]

What?

I'm advocating a significant increase in our wages that is in line with our humongous revenues, and supposedly forthcoming investment from Moshiri, so that we can attract the level of players that are required to compete in 2017. Your strategy seems to be concerned with maintaining a 2007 wage structure in order to hopefully maintain our status as also-rans, which I find bizarre.

It's a necessity. If we want good players in 2017 then we will need to pay the going rate. Failure to do this will result in us falling further behind.

Who says we wont pay the going rate???

You act like we pay ridiculously low wages. We dont.