How much money can we invest in the squad?

[Chappers]

Never understand the obsession with how much we spend, it's what we get for our money that's important, and ensuring that our wage bill remains affordable in the longer term. 

[Natchfever]

On 07/06/2018 at 08:02, reddogkev said:

Just wondering, what will be our likely war chest this summer?  Are we in a position to invest, say £10million, or will we breach FFP?

And if we do sell a Flint, Bryan or Reid for several million - will it all go back to the transfer kitty?

I often dream of a fantasy summer where SL bankrolls signings and salaries to the tune of millions and millions, and other fans moan about City buying the league (this is just a fantasy)! I'd expect the board and SL to make a decent amount of money available to LJ, and feel £10 or £12 million shouldn't be too far off what we can splash.  Hope they get cracking early though, it will drive season ticket sales through the roof.

Will we break the transfer record we set with Famara last summer?

 

I hope SL continues with his backing, but he ought to be thinking whether he can trust those tasked with spending his money, and therefore telling them to work with what they have, although if the suggested exits happen, i'm sure he will allow that revenue to be spent

[reddogkev]

49 minutes ago, Chappers said:

Never understand the obsession with how much we spend, it's what we get for our money that's important, and ensuring that our wage bill remains affordable in the longer term. 

Really?  Transfer fees have always fascinated me, not just with City, but all clubs in general.  I still remember with awe when Man Utd spent £7million (with Keith Gillespie in there somewhere) on Andy Cole.  At the time I couldn't wrap my head around how a footballer could cost 7million, even a goal machine like Cole. 

I think it's the fantasy of seeing such ludicrous figures of money being spent as though it's perfectly normal that appeals to me.  I'm always blown away when City break their transfer record, I wonder if we'll do it again this summer.  Of course, the points you've raised are also quite important!

[JoeAman08]

6 hours ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Considering it looks like we’re spending close to £5m+ on Marriot without any confirmed departures, I think we can pretty safely say our budget (without departures) is more than £5m. 

Recent history tells us it will be anyway.

I get that but perhaps we are finally looking at quality over quantity. Bring in 1-2 top players and focus on what we already have here as we have spent quite a bit on a few players. Like I said with Magnússon sale seemingly done it would take our budget(in my eyes to around 8m). 

With Marriott it is probably the one position we have to strengthen with Bobby’s contract situation. So spend on him before we get any money. Then if anyone is sold we have those funds available over the next couple seasons. We’d be worse off for it but if Flint, Bryan and Reid left and all we brought in were Marriott and a keeper we’d still have enough to finish close to where we did this year with that scope for getting better and 20m in our pockets ready to go when we find that special player become available. 

[Phileas Fogg]

Just now, JoeAman08 said:

I get that but perhaps we are finally looking at quality over quantity. Bring in 1-2 top players and focus on what we already have here as we have spent quite a bit on a few players. Like I said with Magnússon sale seemingly done it would take our budget(in my eyes to around 8m). 

Maybe but that is just a guess. No one really knows. All we do know is that over the last few years we've had a decent amount of money to play with, more than 5m, so it stands to reason we probably do again if we're serious about progressing.

 

[JoeAman08]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

May well be only that in the end- but on paper I think we could spend £10m net personally and still remain FFP compliant. £10m over a season that is, so if we spent it in summer we'd have to have a quiet January or buy to sell- all IMO.

Possibly. I am not against that either but would rather spend 4-5m on two players than do what we have been doing with these 1-2m ones for the future. We have enough of those and think they get neglected because of it. Too many to nurture at once. I’d rather this summer we bring in a minimal amount and see what the squad we already have has got. Need to focus on the funds we have spent these last few seasons now

[pillred]

On ‎07‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 08:08, 123red1 said:

I think realistically without any outgoings, SL would probably happily invest 4-5m in the right players, because the ground does more functions earning more money now, we get around 6m a year from the EFL and we have some good revenues from last season and season ticket sales have been good. But I don't think it would be on big named players, it would more likely be on 2/3 players with strong selling on value.

With Flint, Bryan, Reid & Mags sold, I can see us recouping 15-20m from the sale of those four players and therefore I wouldn't be surprised to see us make 4/5 permanent signings, and a couple of high profile loans. I wouldn't be surprised if those went to see 1-2 circa £5m players and then a couple of younger types at 1-2m.

I can't see us going out and spending 10-12m on a player, as it would be very hard to make a profit on that sort of player unless you walked the league, and they were a key player and then they proved themselves in the prem, which realistically is too much a gamble. I think Fammy with an injury free season and 15-20 goals next year, at the age of 26, could easily be sold for 10-12m next summer. He's had a good first season interrupted by injury and this season is crucial to him, SL will want to see paying 5.3m for him was good business with a view to selling at a profit and a good season for him will secure this. If our recruitment team prove with Fammy we can spend 5-6m on a player and within 2/3 years sell at a profit, I don't think Lansdown would be reluctant to make similar signings of that ilk on a more regular basis. 

why sell fammy if he is doing well for us it's not inevitable that we sell him, for the money? it's not like we are desperate financially.

[JoeAman08]

2 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Maybe but that is just a guess. No one really knows. All we do know is that over the last few years we've had a decent amount of money to play with, more than 5m, so it stands to reason we probably do again if we're serious about progressing.

 

Yes it is definitely a guess on my part. We are just getting to that 3 year window with LJ though and we have spent big much of that time. I know Kodjia and a couple sell ons gave us a fair chunk but if you think back to the January when he first arrived we have spent loads on loans and fees. So yea I don’t know where exactly we are but we have progressed our spending quite drastically since LJs arrival and I am a bit skeptical as to what we can fairly spend. Not only have we shelled out bugger fees but I imagine our wage bill has possibly gone up 50% plus. Do we really bring in that much more now? Idk. I’d rather we had more than what I am guessing for sure. Just think we must be getting close to spending all we can under FFP without further sales

[JoeAman08]

4 minutes ago, pillred said:

why sell fammy if he is doing well for us it's not inevitable that we sell him, for the money? it's not like we are desperate financially.

This is the big question. Will we always sell one or two of our best every summer? We are still early in the new set up and possibly we will earn more from our academy being loaned out then sold to highest bidder in lower leagues but we are still years from that. Until then, do we sacrifice our ability to compete in the top end of the championship for the money? Need to sell for the model to work but look at Southampton. You can’t do it 4-5 years in a row and expect to keep uncovering new talent and compete at the same time

[Phileas Fogg]

3 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Yes it is definitely a guess on my part. We are just getting to that 3 year window with LJ though and we have spent big much of that time.

What's the significance of that?

3 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

I know Kodjia and a couple sell ons gave us a fair chunk but if you think back to the January when he first arrived we have spent loads on loans and fees. So yea I don’t know where exactly we are but we have progressed our spending quite drastically since LJs arrival and I am a bit skeptical as to what we can fairly spend. Not only have we shelled out bugger fees but I imagine our wage bill has possibly gone up 50% plus. Do we really bring in that much more now? Idk. I’d rather we had more than what I am guessing for sure. Just think we must be getting close to spending all we can under FFP without further sales

I just think recent history shows us we will spend a reasonable amount again. I feel like i'm repeating myself but if we're serious about progressing we'll have to because there are obviously weaknesses in the squad. Fees and wages will be high again.

[pillred]

15 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Yes it is definitely a guess on my part. We are just getting to that 3 year window with LJ though and we have spent big much of that time. I know Kodjia and a couple sell ons gave us a fair chunk but if you think back to the January when he first arrived we have spent loads on loans and fees. So yea I don’t know where exactly we are but we have progressed our spending quite drastically since LJs arrival and I am a bit skeptical as to what we can fairly spend. Not only have we shelled out bugger fees but I imagine our wage bill has possibly gone up 50% plus. Do we really bring in that much more now? Idk. I’d rather we had more than what I am guessing for sure. Just think we must be getting close to spending all we can under FFP without further sales

bugger fees, tell us more joe!!

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

May well be only that in the end- but on paper I think we could spend £10m net personally and still remain FFP compliant. £10m over a season that is, so if we spent it in summer we'd have to have a quiet January or buy to sell- all IMO.

Why that high Mr P?  

16/17’s accounts show an operating deficit / loss of £17m.  Bring that forward into 18/19 season and we know that match day income and ST sales won’t have gone up massively, whereas wages possibly will have increased, so they might cancel each other out.  That still leaves an operating deficit.  That £17m in 16/17 was offset by the sale of Kodjia, Williams, Agard, Freeman, Ayling and the add-ons from Bolassie and Adomah.

or are you saying that as 16/17 was only a £3.5m loss, we’ve got £10m to play with in 18/19 (the final year’s accounts that can roll in that small loss).  Assumes 17/18’s accounts have a loss near the £13m mark.

 

[CyderInACan]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Probably need to factor in the sell-on profit for Swindon, 10% rumoured???

Good point. May that have only been valid for the term of his initial contract though? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Why that high Mr P?  

16/17’s accounts show an operating deficit / loss of £17m.  Bring that forward into 18/19 season and we know that match day income and ST sales won’t have gone up massively, whereas wages possibly will have increased, so they might cancel each other out.  That still leaves an operating deficit.  That £17m in 16/17 was offset by the sale of Kodjia, Williams, Agard, Freeman, Ayling and the add-ons from Bolassie and Adomah.

or are you saying that as 16/17 was only a £3.5m loss, we’ve got £10m to play with in 18/19 (the final year’s accounts that can roll in that small loss).  Assumes 17/18’s accounts have a loss near the £13m mark.

 

It's the fact that 16/17 was a £3.5m loss that makes me think it might be viable to spend £10m net Dave.

O'Neil wasd a reasonably high earner I think- he's gone. Unsure how much Mags earned, maybe less than I thought- there would be an element of gamble to a £10m expenditure for sure, and it assumes that we don't sign the players in my scenario on big wages. If wages big, that £10m figure would necessarily reduce of course. If we go on purely base figures (i.e. tickets sold and published attendances as opposed to actual attendances), an increase in the League on average last season of 1,697.

Not saying such an increase would be comfortable in terms of spending, but that subject to wages it would be possible on paper. Simply because of the 16/17 profitability on transfers- maybe my figures are over-optimistic. Perhaps £7m more realistic/viable?

[JoeAman08]

25 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

What's the significance of that?

I just think recent history shows us we will spend a reasonable amount again. I feel like i'm repeating myself but if we're serious about progressing we'll have to because there are obviously weaknesses in the squad. Fees and wages will be high again.

The 3 year window in which FFP is looked at. There are weaknesses in the squad that money would solve. We agree on that. We just have different views on what the budget might be. We will see and I hope you are right

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It's the fact that 16/17 was a £3.5m loss that makes me think it might be viable to spend £10m net Dave.

O'Neil wasd a reasonably high earner I think- he's gone. Unsure how much Mags earned, maybe less than I thought- there would be an element of gamble to a £10m expenditure for sure, and it assumes that we don't sign the players in my scenario on big wages. If wages big, that £10m figure would necessarily reduce of course. If we go on purely base figures (i.e. tickets sold and published attendances as opposed to actual attendances), an increase in the League on average last season of 1,697.

Not saying such an increase would be comfortable in terms of spending, but that subject to wages it would be possible on paper. Simply because of the 16/17 profitability on transfers- maybe my figures are over-optimistic. Perhaps £7m more realistic/viable?

Ta.  I’ve no idea what budget will be available.  Even free transfers will cost us Agent and signing on fees.  Re that deficit....let’s just say SL is happy see us clock up a loss in 18/19 at the £13m mark, then....

If O’Neil was on £20k per week, then that’s £1m off that deficit.

If Steele was on £15k, then £0.75m off too.

If Golbourne on £10k, then another £0.5m.

Garita, lets not factor that in.

So, say £2.5m freed up from those 3/4.

1600 additional fans, let’s say £40 per visit (seat and pies), that’s about £1.5m.

So we’ve reduced our deficit by £4m from those two aspects.

We haven’t sold Magnússon yet....so that might never happen!  So i’m Not letting you have that!

Any contracts we re-negotiate this summer (imagine Reid and Bryan stay) will start eating into it.

Gonna be an interesting summer....expect it will be frantic.

[123red1]

56 minutes ago, pillred said:

why sell fammy if he is doing well for us it's not inevitable that we sell him, for the money? it's not like we are desperate financially.

I think if we want to progress, sadly we have to sell our best assets each year to progress. We have adopted the business model of buying in younger players and progress them and in order for this to be a good model, they also need to be sold as well. Fammy will be 26 this time next year and at his peak level for a price you get for him, if he improves and delivers again next year, he could be worth 10m or so and having paid 5m for him, it would be good business to sell. Two years ago we were buying players at 1-2m and producing them through our academy. Fammy is by far our biggest investment as a club and if it works, Lansdown will go again. He is already happy putting up 1-2m on players with sell on value as we've proven we can operate in this sphere. If we can prove we can do it on a 5m player as well, then it opens a lot more doors in the terms of signings we may make. 

[123red1]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

If O’Neil was on £20k per week, then that’s £1m off that deficit.

If Steele was on £15k, then £0.75m off too.

If Golbourne on £10k, then another £0.5m.

Garita, lets not factor that in.

So, say £2.5m freed up from those 3/4.

I think O'Neill was probably on a shade more than that, closer to 25K. Steele would not have been on 15K a week, the Greek leagues where he was playing as a €12,000 wage cap a week, so there is no way we gave him a £4000 pay rise to come and be an understudy keeper, I would imagine 6-8K a week. Golbourne again I'll be surprised, he went out on loan to a league one club who financially have been struggling, they wouldn't have been putting up the lions share of 10K a week that's for sure. I imagine he was on 5-7K and half his wages were being paid when out on loan. I would have thought Garita was still on 1-2K a week as he had a full time pro contract, which still adds up. 

[bengalcub]

Ahmed el mohamedey ? Not correct spelling but villa are letting him go 

30 can play all down the right hand side including right back . 

Loads of experience got to be worth going for wages permitting obviously ...

[Davefevs]

21 minutes ago, 123red1 said:

I think O'Neill was probably on a shade more than that, closer to 25K. Steele would not have been on 15K a week, the Greek leagues where he was playing as a €12,000 wage cap a week, so there is no way we gave him a £4000 pay rise to come and be an understudy keeper, I would imagine 6-8K a week. Golbourne again I'll be surprised, he went out on loan to a league one club who financially have been struggling, they wouldn't have been putting up the lions share of 10K a week that's for sure. I imagine he was on 5-7K and half his wages were being paid when out on loan. I would have thought Garita was still on 1-2K a week as he had a full time pro contract, which still adds up. 

So if you’re right, we’ve freed up less of the budget than hoped, which means less money for players.

Interesting clip.

 

[123red1]

50 minutes ago, bengalcub said:

Ahmed el mohamedey ? Not correct spelling but villa are letting him go 

30 can play all down the right hand side including right back . 

Loads of experience got to be worth going for wages permitting obviously ...

Ex Premier League player, expect he's on 30K a week plus. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Ta.  I’ve no idea what budget will be available.  Even free transfers will cost us Agent and signing on fees.  Re that deficit....let’s just say SL is happy see us clock up a loss in 18/19 at the £13m mark, then....

If O’Neil was on £20k per week, then that’s £1m off that deficit.

If Steele was on £15k, then £0.75m off too.

If Golbourne on £10k, then another £0.5m.

Garita, lets not factor that in.

So, say £2.5m freed up from those 3/4.

1600 additional fans, let’s say £40 per visit (seat and pies), that’s about £1.5m.

So we’ve reduced our deficit by £4m from those two aspects.

We haven’t sold Magnússon yet....so that might never happen!  So i’m Not letting you have that!

Any contracts we re-negotiate this summer (imagine Reid and Bryan stay) will start eating into it.

Gonna be an interesting summer....expect it will be frantic.

Tbh Dave, took it for granted that Mags was a done deal near enough but will factor him out of my calculations- maybe definitely will revise down from £10m to £7m.

Discounted Golbourne as assumed MK Dons would be paying his full wages when on loan there for a season- can add him. 

Agree on O'Neil, Steele too- plus Diony and Kent (half season), Leko (half season) and Woodrow (full season) will all be off the wage bill- the flipside is they may have pushed ours up quite heavily last season therefore reducing wriggle room in 18/19?

A loss and deficit, of £13m in 18/19- like I say (unless there's a bit of the rules I've missed)? £39m in 3 years, £3.5m in 16/17, let's assume a loss of £15m last season would mean we could lose £20.5m or preferably a bit under, unless I've got it wrong. Not advocating we lose that though, but to me our prudence in 16/17 (and luck with sell on clauses etc) means we could in theory absorb a decent loss in 18/19 through higher spending on transfers.

Good point about Bryan and Reid- hadn't thought of that, let's say £5k per week pay rise each, or maybe even £10k pw each? Maybe split the difference and say £7.5k each? That would eat into it a bit- my calculations involve a bit of rolling the dice tbh, but unlike Villa or Derby we have players of an age we can sell to help make up the shortfall if we stayed down.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Tbh Dave, took it for granted that Mags was a done deal near enough but will factor him out of my calculations- maybe definitely will revise down from £10m to £7m.

Discounted Golbourne as assumed MK Dons would be paying his full wages when on loan there for a season- can add him. 

Good point 

Agree on O'Neil, Steele too- plus Diony and Kent (half season), Leko (half season) and Woodrow (full season) will all be off the wage bill- the flipside is they may have pushed ours up quite heavily last season therefore reducing wriggle room in 18/19?

Another good point.

A loss and deficit, of £13m in 18/19- like I say (unless there's a bit of the rules I've missed)? £39m in 3 years, £3.5m in 16/17, let's assume a loss of £15m last season would mean we could lose £20.5m or preferably a bit under, unless I've got it wrong. Not advocating we lose that though, but to me our prudence in 16/17 (and luck with sell on clauses etc) means we could in theory absorb a decent loss in 18/19 through higher spending on transfers.

The only issue with going over £13m average each year is the pressure it puts on subsequent seasons in the rolling 3 years.

Good point about Bryan and Reid- hadn't thought of that, let's say £5k per week pay rise each, or maybe even £10k pw each? Maybe split the difference and say £7.5k each? That would eat into it a bit- my calculations involve a bit of rolling the dice tbh, but unlike Villa or Derby we have players of an age we can sell to help make up the shortfall if we stayed down.

Spending £7m net isn’t gonna break us financially - it’s nowhere near the overspending of other clubs.  But it will factor into FFP all the way through to the end of 20/21 season.

 

[BobBobSuperBob]

3 hours ago, 123red1 said:

Ex Premier League player, expect he's on 30K a week plus. 

And some ,I’d suggest 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

 

I do agree, it's about trade-offs to me in some ways.

If we spend well in 18/19 though say £7-10m net, they can be sold if we don't go up (assuming sell on value etc) or perhaps we will have the young players in place so we don't need to spend so much  or change so much in future windows. No guarantees though in football- which is part of what makes it great IMO!

[Davefevs]

30 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I do agree, it's about trade-offs to me in some ways.

If we spend well in 18/19 though say £7-10m net, they can be sold if we don't go up (assuming sell on value etc) or perhaps we will have the young players in place so we don't need to spend so much  or change so much in future windows. No guarantees though in football- which is part of what makes it great IMO!

Yep. You have the option to sell in January or early summer if things don’t go well