Jump to content
IGNORED

Summer window and FFP


HappyClapper

Recommended Posts

Genuinely interested in what people think. Those with a close eye on the finances @Davefevs @Mr Popodopolous and others have given figures showing we are sailing close to the wind FFP wise for next season but then things improve. Gould you would imagine is in contact with the EFL trying to get extra allowances and has already stated that we may get a 6 point deduction. We’ve made some cost savings so seem to be just about ok.

Rambling a bit, but my point is this. Is it worth spending in the summer (not outrageously) but enough to get some championship ready players in key positions and whatever league1/2 players we believe have a high ceiling. The market is likely to be depressed and we could potentially improve the squad considerably without a massive outlay. It would also show some ambition to our more talented players who we would like to stay and grow with us.

We might fall foul of FFP by a relatively small amount, and would a points deduction be worth it in the medium term. (I’m assuming it would only be 6 points at worst).

Seems to me that there might be a reasonable business case for it, but then I’m not a billionaire!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HC - Gould suggesting we will take a points deduction is a bit of posturing by him to curry favour with other clubs for greater civic allowances.  There won’t be enough clubs to support it.  The PP clubs, the low cost clubs don’t need extra covid allowances.  About 7/8 clubs do.  That’s not enough.

We are really going to have to take things deal by deal to understand what’s available to build next season’s squad.  As it stands we need to reduce costs to stay inside FFP next season.  As per my many posts there are several ways of doing that.

Firstly we need to see who gets re-contracted, both the OOC players and the ones with a year to go.  And take it from there.

But unless we generates £10m plus somewhere, we will be free transfers or Lg1/2 punts of the Tanner variety.

  • Like 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't afford the championship quality your probably thinking of on wages alone, if we sell our best young talent then we might be able to but that's like trading young hungry home grown championship quality for championship quality if we're lucky, not all transfer work out.

If we do sell to cover losses with our record on recruitment I would rather buy the best from league 1 with something to prove rather than trying to buy championship quality. This has to provide better value and surely we have enough "championship experienced" players - we need to fill the gaps.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pezo said:

We can't afford the championship quality your probably thinking of on wages alone, if we sell our best young talent then we might be able to but that's like trading young hungry home grown championship quality for championship quality if we're lucky, not all transfer work out.

If we do sell to cover losses with our record on recruitment I would rather buy the best from league 1 with something to prove rather than trying to buy championship quality. This has to provide better value and surely we have enough "championship experienced" players - we need to fill the gaps.

Totally agree, Imho, I’d rather keep our squad young with growth in it.  If we can get a Championship OOC player at the right wage and under 26 (I.e with longevity in them) then ok….but I don’t really want 29/30 year olds, not aag the expense of Semenyo, Massengo and Scott.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Potential financial positives - 

sell on income from sale of Webster, Kelly and brownhill.

sale of massengo for 10-20 mill should that be the decision due to contract.

reduction of wage bill via removal of palmer, wells as wage vs contribution is non-sustainable.

possible sale of kalas would significantly reduce wage bill and amortisation whilst keeping cundy who has impressed could replace him long term on significantly less wages with idehen and others as backup.

sale of players that aren’t fancied by Pearson like (imo) vyner would help with budgets.

if all of the above occurred, that could leave us looking pretty healthy as far as competing in the summer window is concerned without risking ffp sanctions

  • Haha 1
  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

HC - Gould suggesting we will take a points deduction is a bit of posturing by him to curry favour with other clubs for greater civic allowances.  There won’t be enough clubs to support it.  The PP clubs, the low cost clubs don’t need extra covid allowances.  About 7/8 clubs do.  That’s not enough.

We are really going to have to take things deal by deal to understand what’s available to build next season’s squad.  As it stands we need to reduce costs to stay inside FFP next season.  As per my many posts there are several ways of doing that.

Firstly we need to see who gets re-contracted, both the OOC players and the ones with a year to go.  And take it from there.

But unless we generates £10m plus somewhere, we will be free transfers or Lg1/2 punts of the Tanner variety.

Good reply Dave. I think I understand what we might need to do to stay within FFP next season (thanks to you and Mr Pops). I guess my real question is … Is it worth failing FFP in the short term (as long as we’re good enough to absorb the points deduction) to gain an advantage in the medium term?
 

Can we accelerate our team/squad building by making some sensible moves in the summer market that would likely make us very competitive in 23/24?

Would SL sanction it, if he thought it made sense?

We could take advantage of a depressed market.

I’m not talking about selling any of our assets, or paying big fees. The market below the Prem is depressed and I think we could build a good squad if we’re brave.

 

Edited by HappyClapper
  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BLRed said:

Potential financial positives - 

sell on income from sale of Webster, Kelly and brownhill.

sale of massengo for 10-20 mill should that be the decision due to contract.

reduction of wage bill via removal of palmer, wells as wage vs contribution is non-sustainable.

possible sale of kalas would significantly reduce wage bill and amortisation whilst keeping cundy who has impressed could replace him long term on significantly less wages with idehen and others as backup.

sale of players that aren’t fancied by Pearson like (imo) vyner would help with budgets.

if all of the above occurred, that could leave us looking pretty healthy as far as competing in the summer window is concerned without risking ffp sanctions

I don’t see us getting £10m+ for Massengo, if he goes at all.  Plus would owe AS Monaco some if that too.

Getting Palmer and Wells off wage bill won’t be easy.  Might end up still paying some of their wages.

Kalas, agreed.

Sell of other players, won’t be easy either.  Might end up still paying some of their wages.

Start lowering expectations ???

3 minutes ago, HappyClapper said:

Good reply Dave. I think I understand what we might need to do to stay within FFP next season (thanks to you and Mr Pops). I guess my real question is … Is it worth failing FFP in the short term (as long as we’re good enough to absorb the points deduction) to gain an advantage in the medium term?
 

Can we accelerate our team/squad building by making some sensible moves in the summer market that would likely make us very competitive in 23/24?

Would SL sanction it, if he thought it made sense?

We could take advantage of a depressed market.

 

Answer to bold bit: No, imho.

Why? No guarantees that spending money will earn you more points than what you get deducted.  Will we see another season with such poor points totals from other clubs?

Re second bit….the aim has to be to recruit to improve us, but frugally.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BLRed said:

Potential financial positives - 

sell on income from sale of Webster, Kelly and brownhill.

sale of massengo for 10-20 mill should that be the decision due to contract.

reduction of wage bill via removal of palmer, wells as wage vs contribution is non-sustainable.

possible sale of kalas would significantly reduce wage bill and amortisation whilst keeping cundy who has impressed could replace him long term on significantly less wages with idehen and others as backup.

sale of players that aren’t fancied by Pearson like (imo) vyner would help with budgets.

if all of the above occurred, that could leave us looking pretty healthy as far as competing in the summer window is concerned without risking ffp sanctions

Unfortunately i think your valuation of Massengo is about 70% above his actual worth

  • Like 5
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Davefevs said:

I don’t see us getting £10m+ for Massengo, if he goes at all.  Plus would owe AS Monaco some if that too.

Getting Palmer and Wells off wage bill won’t be easy.  Might end up still paying some of their wages.

Kalas, agreed.

Sell of other players, won’t be easy either.  Might end up still paying some of their wages.

Start lowering expectations ???

Answer to bold bit: No, imho.

Why? No guarantees that spending money will earn you more points than what you get deducted.  Will we see another season with such poor points totals from other clubs?

Re second bit….the aim has to be to recruit to improve us, but frugally.

The second bit follows the first. If you accept that you have to do what it takes to stay within FFP then the second is the logical follow on. No issues with that at all. Just wondering if we could recruit sufficiently to absorb 6 points. Your opinion seems to be that we might not be able to and it is too much of a risk. I totally get that. I just worry even more that we might not be able to recruit the players we need under our FFP limitations and we could be in a difficult position anyway. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, HappyClapper said:

The second bit follows the first. If you accept that you have to do what it takes to stay within FFP then the second is the logical follow on. No issues with that at all. Just wondering if we could recruit sufficiently to absorb 6 points. Your opinion seems to be that we might not be able to and it is too much of a risk. I totally get that. I just worry even more that we might not be able to recruit the players we need under our FFP limitations and we could be in a difficult position anyway. 
 

Yeah, only my view.  As you say, get it right with 3 or 4 nuggets and it might be worth enough points.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BLRed said:

Potential financial positives - 

sell on income from sale of Webster, Kelly and brownhill.

sale of massengo for 10-20 mill should that be the decision due to contract.

reduction of wage bill via removal of palmer, wells as wage vs contribution is non-sustainable.

possible sale of kalas would significantly reduce wage bill and amortisation whilst keeping cundy who has impressed could replace him long term on significantly less wages with idehen and others as backup.

sale of players that aren’t fancied by Pearson like (imo) vyner would help with budgets.

if all of the above occurred, that could leave us looking pretty healthy as far as competing in the summer window is concerned without risking ffp sanctions

We have to remember that there is a fair chance we wouldn't be able to move some players on i.e Wells and Palmer. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has it been decided fully how much loss can be written off due to Covid yet? We can't be the only club to have made a huge loss from 2020-2021, I read somewhere that Stoke lost a lot more than us?  Others must be similar to ourselves with no PP I would have thought  (Cardiff, Boro, Forest maybe?) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, fgrsimon said:

Has it been decided fully how much loss can be written off due to Covid yet? We can't be the only club to have made a huge loss from 2020-2021, I read somewhere that Stoke lost a lot more than us?  Others must be similar to ourselves with no PP I would have thought  (Cardiff, Boro, Forest maybe?) 

EFL announced £5m allowances, however several clubs are pushing for that to be increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think spending in the summer, without an unexpected Webster shaped windfall, is very unlikely to be huge.

FWIW:

- on the OOC I see us keeping Klose and Cundy, while moving the rest on (King into coaching). Baker retiring.

- I think we’ll see Wells move on, with us likely still funding some wages (he’d go with best wishes but he is too expensive for the role we have him playing).

- I think Massengo we overvalue, but if he won’t sign (as looks likely), I think he’ll go

- I get the logic of Kalas going. I’d rather keep with creative accounting but that may not be viable

- We’ll want rid of some - notably Palmer, Vyner. The latter easier to move on wage rise than the former, but in terms of Kasey, he now has to make the decision if he wants to be a footballer or not - as he will be yesterdays man very soon at this level, and he can either move for a longer contract and lower wages, or go into a league one bunfight after this deal expires

In the words of Russell Osman - This ain’t gonna be easy

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mr Chappers said:

Wow, £10-£20m for Massengo. That’s a bit of a stretch to say the least.

Hope we keep him. The development seems a bit slow but the quality is there. He is a great investment if the club can keep him for next season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed at people saying Wells will move on in the summer. Like it'll be easy. To who? Who is going to either pay us money or agree to take on the majority or all of his wages (if we give him away for free)? And in return, they get a striker who isn't value for money at the back end of his career and isn't regularly scoring (especially to justify the believed wage he's on). 

I cant imagine we'd let him go and continue to pay the majority of his salary otherwise we start to lose the benefit of getting him the books. 

I think some people need a reality check, badly or are going to be disapointed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Loco Rojo said:

I'm amazed at people saying Wells will move on in the summer. Like it'll be easy. To who? Who is going to either pay us money or agree to take on the majority or all of his wages (if we give him away for free)? And in return, they get a striker who isn't value for money at the back end of his career and isn't regularly scoring (especially to justify the believed wage he's on). 

I cant imagine we'd let him go and continue to pay the majority of his salary otherwise we start to lose the benefit of getting him the books. 

I think some people need a reality check, badly or are going to be disapointed. 

What is the 'believed wage' you mention? Figures please.

As far as 'Wells isn't scoring regularly'- that is somewhat disingenuous on the basis he isn't playing regularly, in fact yesterday was his longest contribution in a league game this year and he scored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Loco Rojo said:

I'm amazed at people saying Wells will move on in the summer. Like it'll be easy. To who? Who is going to either pay us money or agree to take on the majority or all of his wages (if we give him away for free)? And in return, they get a striker who isn't value for money at the back end of his career and isn't regularly scoring (especially to justify the believed wage he's on). 

I cant imagine we'd let him go and continue to pay the majority of his salary otherwise we start to lose the benefit of getting him the books. 

I think some people need a reality check, badly or are going to be disapointed. 

I think you have to remember with Wells that there was confirmed interest in January both in the Championship and MLS. So we know people want him, it’s just what the deal is.

I think the MLS is more likely than the Champ. And there is money there for players of Wells’ age currently. I don’t know what he’s on, but let’s say for arguments sake it’s £25k a week. If you let him go without a fee, and the receiving club pay (say) £20k a week, it’s a £2m transaction for them across a 2 year deal. Under designated player terms, that’s totally realistic. It can even be that we don’t have to make up the £5k with creative accounting.

I realise there is the FFP angle of writing off a player, but the question remains - if Wells isn’t going to play, and you can save £1m (plus our costs such as NI, pension etc) each year, it’s madness not to cut your losses.

I totally see it happening - and that is with a “reality check”. If you’d said Palmer, there’s a different conversation, but for a player we know was wanted not two months ago, I think you’ve misread what the potential transactions are here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Finley_Smith10 said:

feeling really bad about next season if we don’t sign some real quality 

Play like we did yesterday with the same players and organisation then shouldn't be an issue.

Scott, Semenyo and Kalas didn't play so did without them if they are to be sold.

There seems to be a constant "catastrophising" of our current squad ability, often used as an excuse for results IMO.

Very possible we could get a combined £10m for Kalas and  HNM for example

Send Palmer to someone and pay half his wages.

remove the OOC players.

But we need to be very, very careful where we spend the few funds that will be available. 

More Atkinsons and less Simpsons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Waconda said:

Play like we did yesterday with the same players and organisation then shouldn't be an issue.

I posted on twitter last night that what we need to try and work out is whether yesterday and last Saturday (for example) were above par performances, or whether that is the new baseline.  If that is the new baseline then Barnsley was well, well, well, below that.

In fact, my gut feel is that Blackburn is probably our “par”, our expected level, and that yesterday was a bit above, with Barnsley below.

Yesterday we didn’t have one outfield player playing below par, everyone earned their corn, and some had good games.  That hasn’t happened very often this season, every week there’s been a 4 or 5 /10, sometimes several.

Perversely we played better yesterday (imho), not much better than Blackburn and got 2 less points.  Blackburn felt more “away win smash and grab”, yesterday felt like we might’ve shaded the game.

I felt the opening 20 was sterile as both teams combated the wind, then we were easily on top til half time.  They dominated 45-70 (scored their pen), but we responded well and shaded the last 20.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I posted on twitter last night that what we need to try and work out is whether yesterday and last Saturday (for example) were above par performances, or whether that is the new baseline.  If that is the new baseline then Barnsley was well, well, well, below that.

In fact, my gut feel is that Blackburn is probably our “par”, our expected level, and that yesterday was a bit above, with Barnsley below.

Yesterday we didn’t have one outfield player playing below par, everyone earned their corn, and some had good games.  That hasn’t happened very often this season, every week there’s been a 4 or 5 /10, sometimes several.

Perversely we played better yesterday (imho), not much better than Blackburn and got 2 less points.  Blackburn felt more “away win smash and grab”, yesterday felt like we might’ve shaded the game.

I felt the opening 20 was sterile as both teams combated the wind, then we were easily on top til half time.  They dominated 45-70 (scored their pen), but we responded well and shaded the last 20.

Spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think spending in the summer, without an unexpected Webster shaped windfall, is very unlikely to be huge.

FWIW:

- on the OOC I see us keeping Klose and Cundy, while moving the rest on (King into coaching). Baker retiring.

- I think we’ll see Wells move on, with us likely still funding some wages (he’d go with best wishes but he is too expensive for the role we have him playing).

- I think Massengo we overvalue, but if he won’t sign (as looks likely), I think he’ll go

- I get the logic of Kalas going. I’d rather keep with creative accounting but that may not be viable

- We’ll want rid of some - notably Palmer, Vyner. The latter easier to move on wage rise than the former, but in terms of Kasey, he now has to make the decision if he wants to be a footballer or not - as he will be yesterdays man very soon at this level, and he can either move for a longer contract and lower wages, or go into a league one bunfight after this deal expires

In the words of Russell Osman - This ain’t gonna be easy

 

Nobody is mentioning Callum O'Dowda who is out of contract and probably on £15,000 per week. @Davefevs?

Do we think NP will leep him? Somehow I doubt it unless a significant salary drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Nobody is mentioning Callum O'Dowda who is out of contract and probably on £15,000 per week. @Davefevs?

Do we think NP will leep him? Somehow I doubt it unless a significant salary drop.

The stories are that contract discussions started but stalled as player and club are some way off each other’s view of a wage.

Personally, I’d like to see us with something new down our left side.  But seeing as we have very few players in that mid-range, if we could get him on a much lower wage than the alleged wage, then I can see the rationale.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

What is the 'believed wage' you mention? Figures please.

As far as 'Wells isn't scoring regularly'- that is somewhat disingenuous on the basis he isn't playing regularly, in fact yesterday was his longest contribution in a league game this year and he scored.

There have been many suggestions above £20k p/w over the time he's been here (which is why i wrote 'believed' - perhaps i should have said 'suggested' to appease you?).  Anyway, I doubt he's on less that that.  

I do agree, that not playing regularly doesn't help his situation but there have been examples over his time here where his performances haven't looked great when given the chance.  (I also accept that he may need the right players around him and be played in the right way to get the best out of him so im not suggesting he's a bad player).  Regardless though, it is what it is, and all of that has resulted in a player who is on a very high wage, for his age - and at a time when finances at football  clubs are under greater strain.  I can't see many (if any) clubs lining up over the summer to take him off our hands (and not as easily the tone of some posters suggest). 

Edited by Loco Rojo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...