Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
happy85

Net Spend

By happy85, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted (edited)

presumably we have to wait for the EFL window to close before several on here apologise to the poster who said we were currently 'skint' and would have a low nett spend

Edited by st albans fox
  • Thanks 1
  • Popular Post
Fox92

Fox92

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
3 hours ago, KingsX said:

 

Burnley: Spent £1m, Sold £0

 

Their poor supporters.  Not only do you have to watch post-WWII football, their idea of “squad reinforcement” is buying trusses for aging British players.

Those who have been to Turf Moor -- when you enter the stadium, does your vision suddenly turn to black & white?

I don't mind Turf Moor at all, in fact Burnley is probably one of my favourite away games. 

 

Dyche has done an incredible job there and basically overachieved. People take the piss but it's good to see rather than a club throwing money all over shop. I think Dyche is frustrated with funds, it seems to come out more now, but it must be difficult attracting players to Burnley anyway. Don't forget that part. Which is probably why a lot of ageing players end up there. If you offered a player the choice of Burnley/Villa/Leeds/Newcastle then Burnley would probably be the bottom of that list as a choice.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Guest Chocolate Teapot

Guest Chocolate Teapot

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

presumably we have to wait for the EFL window to close before several on here apologise to the poster who said we were currently 'skint' and would have a low nett spend

He said we wouldn't spend anything. Weve spent the best part of 55m with the potential for even more with Under.

Swiss_tony

Swiss_tony

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Owners pumping it in. 

i don't think  that's true, because that's what FFP was designed to stop, the sugar daddy buying the league.

Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted.

How is that even possible under FFP??

  • Like 1
ARM1968

ARM1968

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Swiss_tony said:

i don't think  that's true, because that's what FFP was designed to stop, the sugar daddy buying the league.

Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted.

How is that even possible under FFP??

Fuch Fair Play?

Sol thewall Bamba

Sol thewall Bamba

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Swiss_tony said:

i don't think  that's true, because that's what FFP was designed to stop, the sugar daddy buying the league.

Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted.

How is that even possible under FFP??

FFP went out the window after Man City's ban gone overturned. Just look at what Chelsea did this summer.

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Abrasive fox said:

He said we wouldn't spend anything. Weve spent the best part of 55m with the potential for even more with Under.

Didn't he say we wouldn't spend anything much above what sales brought in????   i didn't think he said we wouldn't spend anything irrelevant of sales

The Horse's Mouth

The Horse's Mouth

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Swiss_tony said:

i don't think  that's true, because that's what FFP was designed to stop, the sugar daddy buying the league.

Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted.

How is that even possible under FFP??

FFP is largely irrelevant in the prem because of how the TV revenue works 

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Swiss_tony said:

i don't think  that's true, because that's what FFP was designed to stop, the sugar daddy buying the league.

Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted.

How is that even possible under FFP??

 

7 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

FFP is largely irrelevant in the prem because of how the TV revenue works 

promoted clubs can generally spend way more than established clubs as their wage bills are much lower. after a few seasons, the wage bill will increase and then there is less to spend on transfer fees

  • Like 1
Guest Chocolate Teapot

Guest Chocolate Teapot

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Didn't he say we wouldn't spend anything much above what sales brought in????   i didn't think he said we wouldn't spend anything irrelevant of sales

Who are you referring to?

 

Fin said net spend would be flat and they'd all be free transfers from abroad.

 

That other muppet said we were skint because we owed so much in transfer fees and king power was going bust. 

 

As happens our net spend is pretty much flat to the last three years - I dont see how either were right?

davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Swiss_tony said:

i don't think  that's true, because that's what FFP was designed to stop, the sugar daddy buying the league.

Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted.

How is that even possible under FFP??

I don't know if it applies to the PL but......

 

David Conn

Thu 18 Jun 2020 18.52 BSTLast modified on Thu 18 Jun 2020 20.20 BST

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/18/uefa-agree-to-suspend-financial-fair-play-rules-due-to-pandemic

Owners of top clubs will temporarily be permitted by Uefa’s financial fair play rules to put more money into their clubs, to cover increased losses caused by football’s shutdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Uefa announced a series of “emergency measures” to acknowledge that clubs competing in the Champions League and Europa League, who must comply with FFP “break-even” limits, cannot do so this season because of drastic losses caused by the shutdown.

The principles accept that clubs can make losses greater than the permitted €30m over a rolling three-year period, and that owners can cover those losses. Uefa stressed, however, that it was still committed to encouraging good financial management by clubs, and the measures were aimed only at “neutralising the adverse effects of the pandemic”: lost ticket income while matches are played behind closed doors, and the potentially major loss of some TV, commercial and sponsorship income.

  • Like 1
Vestan Pance

Vestan Pance

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Swiss_tony said:

Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted.

How is that even possible under FFP??

Their owner cheated the system by using another company to buy Villa Park for £56m, thus making the losses much smaller. Although it would appear the upshot is Villa no longer own Villa Park and their supporters don't seem to care (much like other supporters who's owners have pulled the same stunt).

Edited by Vestan Pance
Spudulike

Spudulike

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Vestan Pance said:

Their owner cheated the system by using another company to buy Villa Park for £56m, thus making the losses much smaller. Although it would appear the upshot is Villa no longer own Villa Park and their supporters don't seem to care (much like other supporters who's owners have pulled the same stunt).

Do football clubs own their stadiums nowadays? Our's is owned by an overseas company, do we care? 

  • Like 1
Aleksz

Aleksz

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Abrasive fox said:

Who are you referring to?

 

Fin said net spend would be flat and they'd all be free transfers from abroad.

 

That other muppet said we were skint because we owed so much in transfer fees and king power was going bust. 

 

As happens our net spend is pretty much flat to the last three years - I dont see how either were right?

I’m pretty sure you also posted something similar to this at one point...

Guest Chocolate Teapot

Guest Chocolate Teapot

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Aleksz said:

I’m pretty sure you also posted something similar to this at one point...

Don't think I said any of that.

Vestan Pance

Vestan Pance

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Do football clubs own their stadiums nowadays? Our's is owned by an overseas company, do we care? 

I can't speak for everyone here, you'll have to start a poll. Anyway point missed.

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Abrasive fox said:

Who are you referring to?

 

Fin said net spend would be flat and they'd all be free transfers from abroad.

 

That other muppet said we were skint because we owed so much in transfer fees and king power was going bust. 

 

As happens our net spend is pretty much flat to the last three years - I dont see how either were right?

Can’t remember who it was - said he knew someone who had been told by a finance guy at the club that we would only spend a bit more than we took in.  
 

our nett spend past five years averages around 22 mill per annum  ??.

Edited by st albans fox
  • Like 1
Guest Chocolate Teapot

Guest Chocolate Teapot

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Can’t remember who it was - said he knew someone who had been told by a finance guy at the club that we would only spend a bit more than we took in.  
 

our nett spend past five years averages around 22 mill per annum  ??.

And its circa 10m this year? Not far. Was 10m last year.

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.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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