[Albion] Usual story……

[Baldseagull]

Our losses will include a lot of costs that don’t count towards P&S: Infrastructure depreciation, academy costs, women’s team losses, AITC etc. Clubs are also allowed to discount the losses caused by Covid, which for the Albion would be about 25m, I think.

As for the Ben White 50m, that will all be accounted for in this season’s accounts. It doesn’t matter when the actual cash arrives in the bank as far as the books are concerned.

Seeing as we’ve also sold or not renewed contracts of Ali J, Propper, Ryan and Izquierdo, the player amortisation costs probably won’t have gone up much, even with this seasons new signings. I’d say we have a fair amount of wriggle room as far as P&S is concerned. This doesnt mean free money however, and I don’t enjoy seeing people comment on social media or here as if Tony Bloom is obligated to continually put his hand deep in his own pockets.

For what it’s worth I support the strategy of buying players that aren’t oven-ready and loaning them out in the hope that some will kick on. The USG acquisition is another potential source and proving ground for PL quality talent. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that their transfers over the last couple of year have (apparently) been data-driven rather than splashing out.

I am not suggesting we are potless, just that the fee and wage required for Darwin Nunez (£35M fee and £4M wage?) could have taken us up to the edge of it, and the club maybe were expecting/needing to sell a player to make it work within the budget. Apart from the total losses allowed there was at one time a limit on how much you could increase your wage bill from season to season without also increasing revenue other than broadcast revenue, however, I am not sure this is still in place. Do you know where you saw the discount for covid losses? I have been looking for that info and not found it anywhere.

 

[zefarelly]

Normally, losses must be below £105M over 3 seasons, the seasons are the last 2 and the current season projected, I can't be arsed to check it out again, but losses over the last 2 seasons were something over £85M.
Ben White fee is not all in the bank as far as I know, I think only £30M came in immediately, Cucurella, Mwepu, Mitoma, Sima will have taken the best part of £50M to acquire, the White money is all spent, but a few other fees coming in.

My reckoning is that we were expecting an offer too good to refuse for Bissouma, so brought in Mwepu, if we had expected to keep Biss, we might have gone heavier on a striker and not brought in Mwepu, or stuck at a low offer to try and get him. I am pretty sure the club had agreed a deal for Nunez in principal, but could not make it fit within the budget. You seem sure that Bloom could have just stuck his hand in his pocket and increased the budget, but I am not, I believe the PL rules are placing a constraint on what we can spend.

Without knowing, or even having the slightest intention of fact checking, because lifes too short, that must be bollocks or everyone else would have shit strikers. . . . . Spend and win, its the PL way. Burnley have 2 strikers better than ours . . . They both played for us at a lower level, we're ****ing shit up front.

THe clubs management of procuring/maintaining a genuine PL goal scoring threat has been an embarrassment since we got promoted.

 

[Baldseagull]

Without knowing, or even having the slightest intention of fact checking, because lifes too short, that must be bollocks or everyone else would have shit strikers. . . . . Spend and win, its the PL way. Burnley have 2 strikers better than ours . . . They both played for us at a lower level, we're ****ing shit up front.

THe clubs management of procuring/maintaining a genuine PL goal scoring threat has been an embarrassment since we got promoted.

Did you notice Chelsea have a transfer embargo a couple of seasons ago? That was due to an overspend. There is a limit for everyone, for most clubs that limit is higher than Brightons, but not Burnley, if you want to swap squads with them though, you need your head read.

 

[nwgull]

I am not suggesting we are potless, just that the fee and wage required for Darwin Nunez (£35M fee and £4M wage?) could have taken us up to the edge of it, and the club maybe were expecting/needing to sell a player to make it work within the budget. Apart from the total losses allowed there was at one time a limit on how much you could increase your wage bill from season to season without also increasing revenue other than broadcast revenue, however, I am not sure this is still in place. Do you know where you saw the discount for covid losses? I have been looking for that info and not found it anywhere.

Here you go. It’s mostly behind a paywall but the details about being able to write off losses from Covid are in the first couple of paras: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-financial-rules-due-to-coronavirus-ssjkknrk6

As for Nunez, I don’t think that sort of fee/wage would take us close to limits, particularly with the 50m from White coming in. However, it’s probably a case of the recruiting staff, or ultimately Tony Bloom, deciding he’s not worth it and that Benfica are taking the proverbial. 6 goals in 28 appearances last season for Benfica doesn't exactly justify a 15m increase in value on the 20m they’d paid the season before. He does seem to have had a slightly better start to this season though.

 

[drew]

Numerous.

So many chances in the box that were crying out for a poacher, or natural goal scorer, particularly in the first half.

Crying out for someone just to shoot!!

 

[El Presidente]

I am not suggesting we are potless, just that the fee and wage required for Darwin Nunez (£35M fee and £4M wage?) could have taken us up to the edge of it, and the club maybe were expecting/needing to sell a player to make it work within the budget. Apart from the total losses allowed there was at one time a limit on how much you could increase your wage bill from season to season without also increasing revenue other than broadcast revenue, however, I am not sure this is still in place. Do you know where you saw the discount for covid losses? I have been looking for that info and not found it anywhere.

Premier League owners abolished that rule in 2019

 

[pastafarian]

Did we actually make any chances for a striker to put away?

We do actually yes, (in my opinion of course)
we just dont have a striker to put them away

Edit: just re read what you wrote " did"........then no
Do we make chances (in general).......yes.......but we dont have a proven striker to put those chances away

 

[Weststander]

Did you notice Chelsea have a transfer embargo a couple of seasons ago? That was due to an overspend. There is a limit for everyone, for most clubs that limit is higher than Brightons, but not Burnley, if you want to swap squads with them though, you need your head read.

BBC at the time:

“Chelsea were given a transfer ban after 150 rule breaches involving 69 academy players over several seasons, says a judgement published by Fifa.

New details of the case came to light after being published on a Fifa legal website on Thursday.

It shows how Chelsea claimed many academy players were only trialists and did not play in organised matches.

But one player described in this way took part in 75 games between September 2013 and February 2016.

Chelsea have lodged an appeal against the punishment, which also included a £460,000 fine and came after an investigation into the Premier League club's signing of foreign under-18 players, at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

It is understood that the transfer ban was as a result of 27 breaches of Fifa rules, with others considered administrative or procedural.

The case came to light after claims Burkina Faso forward Bertrand Traore - who moved to London from his homeland - played for the Blues for several years before being registered in 2014.

Fifa bans the transfer of under-18s to different countries unless they meet strict criteria, such as the parents moving to the country for non-footballing reasons.

The rules were introduced to help protect children from exploitation and trafficking.

Fifa said: "The committee has no doubt that the PLGP matches referred to in the appealed decision were organised under the auspices of the Football Association."

It added: "According to the explanations provided by [head of youth development] Mr Neil Bath, a trial for overseas players would consist of three to four visits that can last up to three weeks each if they occurred during school holidays.

"Therefore, it could take up to 12 weeks for a player to finalise a trial with Chelsea."

Fifa said "several players" spent "considerably" more time with Chelsea than this and took part in "organised football without being registered" for the Stamford Bridge club.

"The committee firmly believes that this type of conduct cannot be tolerated," the governing body added”.

 

[Baldseagull]

BBC at the time:

“Chelsea were given a transfer ban after 150 rule breaches involving 69 academy players over several seasons, says a judgement published by Fifa.

New details of the case came to light after being published on a Fifa legal website on Thursday.

It shows how Chelsea claimed many academy players were only trialists and did not play in organised matches.

But one player described in this way took part in 75 games between September 2013 and February 2016.

Chelsea have lodged an appeal against the punishment, which also included a £460,000 fine and came after an investigation into the Premier League club's signing of foreign under-18 players, at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

It is understood that the transfer ban was as a result of 27 breaches of Fifa rules, with others considered administrative or procedural.

The case came to light after claims Burkina Faso forward Bertrand Traore - who moved to London from his homeland - played for the Blues for several years before being registered in 2014.

Fifa bans the transfer of under-18s to different countries unless they meet strict criteria, such as the parents moving to the country for non-footballing reasons.

The rules were introduced to help protect children from exploitation and trafficking.

Fifa said: "The committee has no doubt that the PLGP matches referred to in the appealed decision were organised under the auspices of the Football Association."

It added: "According to the explanations provided by [head of youth development] Mr Neil Bath, a trial for overseas players would consist of three to four visits that can last up to three weeks each if they occurred during school holidays.

"Therefore, it could take up to 12 weeks for a player to finalise a trial with Chelsea."

Fifa said "several players" spent "considerably" more time with Chelsea than this and took part in "organised football without being registered" for the Stamford Bridge club.

"The committee firmly believes that this type of conduct cannot be tolerated," the governing body added”.

I stand corrected.

 

[GT49er]

How do Palace, West Ham and Leeds get to spend so much more than us even without selling a player for £50m?

Aaron Wan-Bissaka ..................................

 

[zefarelly]

FFP rules are a good idea in theory, but nothing a creative accountant can't work with.

Obviously it's not that simple, but the sale of BW merely confirms that we can afford a decent striker. For some reason the club have chosen to expand and strengthen in every area but up front, where we've arguably gone backwards.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

How do Palace, West Ham and Leeds get to spend so much more than us even without selling a player for £50m?

I assume you are talking about wages here, because all 3 of those clubs have a lower net spend than us on transfers over the past 5 years.

 

[deslynhamsmoustache1]

FFP rules are a good idea in theory, but nothing a creative accountant can't work with.

Obviously it's not that simple, but the sale of BW merely confirms that we can afford a decent striker. For some reason the club have chosen to expand and strengthen in every area but up front, where we've arguably gone backwards.

We can but hope that the reason we find ourselves in this situation is that a deal for Nunez to come in January was preliminary agreed this summer. Its all I've got.

 

[FamilyGuy]

Did we actually make any chances for a striker to put away?

Genuine question; did Maupey actually touch the ball after he came on?

 

[nwgull]

I assume you are talking about wages here, because all 3 of those clubs have a lower net spend than us on transfers over the past 5 years.

Doesn't surprise me with Palace and Leeds, although would've guessed West Ham would have a higher net spend. I'm assuming that that doesn't include this current season, as our net spend so far must be negative or at least very close to 0. In fact I'd imagine that last season's net spend was fairly low as well seeing as that would've included incoming fees for Knockaert and Mooy in the 2020 summer window.

 

[Swansman]

The salary caps recently introduced in Spain are brilliant and should be followed by all leagues.

Sure it leads to a few clubs saying "but.. but now we can only have 20 extremely good players instead of 23" but maybe that really isnt the end of the world.

 

[Swansman]

Genuine question; did Maupey actually touch the ball after he came on?

He touched the ball twice according to statistics. Both of them passing it to a team mate.

No memory of it.

Hmm. Actually it might have been two kickoffs...

Unfortunately GP ****ed the balance in the team with that sub leaving those up front little to work with.

 

[nwgull]

The salary caps recently introduced in Spain are brilliant and should be followed by all leagues.

Sure it leads to a few clubs saying "but.. but now we can only have 20 extremely good players instead of 23" but maybe that really isnt the end of the world.

Are the salary caps a percentage of income, or is it the same limit for all?

 

[Swansman]

Are the salary caps a percentage of income, or is it the same limit for all?

Several factors - revenue, costs and debt all plays a part. Barcelona got only the 7th highest salary cap in the league despite their massive incomes, due to their mountain of debt.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Support ✔
Stadium ✔
Training centre ✔
Recruitment ✔
Owner ✔
Board ✔
Backroom staff ✔
Manager ✔
GK ✔
Defence ✔
Midfield ✔
Forwards.....................

Put that way, the single unticked box would appear to be either gross negligence or deliberate policy