Boubakary Soumare

[Sean2000]

On 09/08/2022 at 22:09, hackneyfox said:

Well that’s a new take on it, many think we’re at 105% so where is your info coming from?

The 105% is only because of COVID - losses of match day revenue, loss of some broadcast income and the way they've merged two years accounts together. Wages last year were £192m with £226m revenue (broadcast plus match day) along with player sales profits of £44m (these are not in year - they are against the book value of the players and amortised). That means, for FFP purposes we're 192/(226+44) = 71.1%. Of course, that's last year. This year will not be the same but unlikely to be substantially different.

 

That's why we don't need to sell Maddison or Fofana (but would if crazy bids came in), but why we can't sign anyone until we move out players to create a place in the 25 man squad. So we want to move squad players like Choudhury, Perez, Vestegaard even though they have little value - not the stars. Now Schmeichel and Choudhury have gone we'll see a couple of players come in. And I suspect it'll be one out one in after that.

[hackneyfox]

Thanks for the reply and interesting reading but you’re the only person to have put forward numbers like this so I’m a bit sceptical.

Can anyone else back this up or counter it?

[HankMarvin]

47 minutes ago, Sean2000 said:

The 105% is only because of COVID - losses of match day revenue, loss of some broadcast income and the way they've merged two years accounts together. Wages last year were £192m with £226m revenue (broadcast plus match day) along with player sales profits of £44m (these are not in year - they are against the book value of the players and amortised). That means, for FFP purposes we're 192/(226+44) = 71.1%. Of course, that's last year. This year will not be the same but unlikely to be substantially different.

 

That's why we don't need to sell Maddison or Fofana (but would if crazy bids came in), but why we can't sign anyone until we move out players to create a place in the 25 man squad. So we want to move squad players like Choudhury, Perez, Vestegaard even though they have little value - not the stars. Now Schmeichel and Choudhury have gone we'll see a couple of players come in. And I suspect it'll be one out one in after that.

OUT Choudary, Kasper, Lookman,  (Jakupović was he in the squad last season?)

 

IN Iversen, Praet, Smithies

Edited 11 August 2022 by HankMarvin

[moore_94]

16 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

Thanks for the reply and interesting reading but you’re the only person to have put forward numbers like this so I’m a bit sceptical.

Can anyone else back this up or counter it?

I believe this is where it would come from - our accounts that were published in April 2021

 

Our revenue for 19/20 was declared as £150m, but our wages were £157m - however as you can see below £30m+ of revenue was deferred into the following financial year

 

If we hadn't deferred anything it would have been around 86%

 

I think 

 

 

Edited 11 August 2022 by moore_94

[Ric Flair]

20 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

I believe this is where it would come from - our accounts that were published in April 2021

 

Our revenue for 19/20 was declared as £150m, but our wages were £157m - however as you can see below £30m+ of revenue was deferred into the following financial year

 

If we hadn't deferred anything it would have been around 86%

 

I think 

 

 

But 86% is too much because we have one of the highest player amortisation in the league apparently ( hope I'm wrong) + agent fees would take us way over 90%.

[moore_94]

19 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

But 86% is too much because we have one of the highest player amortisation in the league apparently ( hope I'm wrong) + agent fees would take us way over 90%.

I think it is going to be hard for anyone on here to accurately look at what % we come out with

 

Club accounts are published with the financial year being June 1st through to 31st May, but UEFA FFP is going be judged on calendar year (January to December)

Edited 11 August 2022 by moore_94

[Shane]

26 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

But 86% is too much because we have one of the highest player amortisation in the league apparently ( hope I'm wrong) + agent fees would take us way over 90%.

We really need to start utilising the academy to help save money.

 

If Soumare follows Choudhury out the door then surely there will be room for Braybrooke in the first team squad. Maybe we could give him a couple sub appearances to bed him in. 

 

We could replace Perez with Alves, maybe next summer. 
 

 

Edited 11 August 2022 by Shane

[Bayfox]

52 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

OUT Choudary, Kasper, Lookman,  (Jakupović was he in the squad last season?)

 

IN Iversen, Praet, Smithies

Had to name forfana this time as well. 

 

We really needed 5 or 6 to leave just to free up a couple of spaces for fresh blood. We left Mendy out last summer and that's before praet, Hurst and Wright came back from loan spells. The club seem keen not to have players earning wages sat in the stands. So surely have to find loans at minimum for the last 2 again. 

[sacreblueits442]

2 hours ago, Sean2000 said:

The 105% is only because of COVID - losses of match day revenue, loss of some broadcast income and the way they've merged two years accounts together. Wages last year were £192m with £226m revenue (broadcast plus match day) along with player sales profits of £44m (these are not in year - they are against the book value of the players and amortised). That means, for FFP purposes we're 192/(226+44) = 71.1%. Of course, that's last year. This year will not be the same but unlikely to be substantially different.

 

That's why we don't need to sell Maddison or Fofana (but would if crazy bids came in), but why we can't sign anyone until we move out players to create a place in the 25 man squad. So we want to move squad players like Choudhury, Perez, Vestegaard even though they have little value - not the stars. Now Schmeichel and Choudhury have gone we'll see a couple of players come in. And I suspect it'll be one out one in after that.

....going by your analysis, if we were to bring in an RW for £30m and his salary agreed at £60k per week, how would that affect the situation!!!

If you take say for instance Perez out of the current list and substitute him with the new RW, what would be the effect on the squad and our situation?

[lcfc043]

Hopefully we can get at least £15m for him 

[sacreblueits442]

2 hours ago, moore_94 said:

I believe this is where it would come from - our accounts that were published in April 2021

 

Our revenue for 19/20 was declared as £150m, but our wages were £157m - however as you can see below £30m+ of revenue was deferred into the following financial year

 

If we hadn't deferred anything it would have been around 86%

 

I think 

 

 

....so without the adjustment, it is 105%!!!

Going by these figures there seems to be a large rise in administrative personnel being 12.81%, can we justify the reasons for this?

[st albans fox]

6 hours ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....so without the adjustment, it is 105%!!!

Going by these figures there seems to be a large rise in administrative personnel being 12.81%, can we justify the reasons for this?

That’s the extra cost of accountants working out the ffp numbers ….

[coolhandfox]

6 hours ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....so without the adjustment, it is 105%!!!

Going by these figures there seems to be a large rise in administrative personnel being 12.81%, can we justify the reasons for this?

They don't count against FFP.

 

Only footballers and coaches count, administrative staff don't.

 

We have around 300 non footballing staff, which is probably around 8m of the wage bill.

Edited 12 August 2022 by coolhandfox

[An Away Move]

8 hours ago, Shane said:

We really need to start utilising the academy to help save money.

 

If Soumare follows Choudhury out the door then surely there will be room for Braybrooke in the first team squad. Maybe we could give him a couple sub appearances to bed him in. 

 

We could replace Perez with Alves, maybe next summer. 
 

 

I watched some highlights of Alves from a recent game and am now convinced he’s good enough for the first team now. I actually rate Perez very highly in terms of skill on the ball and for his work out of possession but Alves is no less skilled, rapid, and more versatile. He can play as 10 and down the wing. 

[smudger63]

16 hours ago, Dusty said:

Wilf brings height tho. However, if we stick to 3atb then maybe we could fit Mendy in instead.  

If the manager just let Wilf do what he's superb at, which is making  tackles and interceptions, and breaking up the play, he would be fine.   He was being seen as one of the best holding midfielders in the league, and linked to some big clubs not so long ago.  Rodgers has tried to make him into a passing midfielder who can play through the lines, and Wilf just struggles with that, it's not his game. His strength has always been to win the ball and play it simple, and if you want to get the best out of him, then that's what he should be allowed to get back to doing.

[coolhandfox]

9 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

But 86% is too much because we have one of the highest player amortisation in the league apparently ( hope I'm wrong) + agent fees would take us way over 90%.

We are 8th for 20/21 (72m) behind the big 6 and Everton.

 

 

 

 

Edited 12 August 2022 by coolhandfox

[Claridge]

Wouldn’t king power just increase the money paid to sponsor the stadium to avoid ffp

[coolhandfox]

2 minutes ago, Claridge said:

Wouldn’t king power just increase the money paid to sponsor the stadium to avoid ffp

The governing bodies are much more wise to that now after Man City used that tactic.

 

They will not get away with massive increases, they would have to prove they are fair deal and represent the market value.

[Sean2000]

7 hours ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....going by your analysis, if we were to bring in an RW for £30m and his salary agreed at £60k per week, how would that affect the situation!!!

If you take say for instance Perez out of the current list and substitute him with the new RW, what would be the effect on the squad and our situation?

Well, 60k a week is £3m a year. The £30m fee we paid is spread over the length of the player's contract (which is why the higher the fee, the longer the contract). So assume a 5 year contract, that's £6m a year. £9m a year is 3.33% of our revenue.

 

If you get rid of Perez who is reportedly on £80 a week you save £4m in wages. He signed a 4 year contract for a fee of £30m which has 1 year left so he's in the books at a value of £7.5m. if you can get £7.5m for him you break even on him. But in your scenario, anything above a £5m fee allows us to be better off because of the wage savings.

 

However, who's gonna pay Perez £80k a week? No one is my bet so it won't happen unless we subsidise his wages elsewhere. And that of course eats into our numbers, reducing what we can spend you your RW! Hence why we've not moved players on.

[Ginger_Filbert]

1 minute ago, Sean2000 said:

Well, 60k a week is £3m a year. The £30m fee we paid is spread over the length of the player's contract (which is why the higher the fee, the longer the contract). So assume a 5 year contract, that's £6m a year. £9m a year is 3.33% of our revenue.

 

If you get rid of Perez who is reportedly on £80 a week you save £4m in wages. He signed a 4 year contract for a fee of £30m which has 1 year left so he's in the books at a value of £7.5m. if you can get £7.5m for him you break even on him. But in your scenario, anything above a £5m fee allows us to be better off because of the wage savings.

 

However, who's gonna pay Perez £80k a week? No one is my bet so it won't happen unless we subsidise his wages elsewhere. And that of course eats into our numbers, reducing what we can spend you your RW! Hence why we've not moved players on.

Still too much. 

[Sean2000]

9 hours ago, moore_94 said:

I believe this is where it would come from - our accounts that were published in April 2021

 

Our revenue for 19/20 was declared as £150m, but our wages were £157m - however as you can see below £30m+ of revenue was deferred into the following financial year

 

If we hadn't deferred anything it would have been around 86%

 

I think 

 

 

Correct. These numbers are 2020 so both two years out of date and impacted by COVID - so essentially irrelevant.  I've gone on the projected numbers for last year which are a bit of a guess but also out of date (just less so 🤣). The numbers above don't include player transfer fees which are amortised over the life of the initial contract. 

[Dusty]

29 minutes ago, smudger63 said:

If the manager just let Wilf do what he's superb at, which is making  tackles and interceptions, and breaking up the play, he would be fine.   He was being seen as one of the best holding midfielders in the league, and linked to some big clubs not so long ago.  Rodgers has tried to make him into a passing midfielder who can play through the lines, and Wilf just struggles with that, it's not his game. His strength has always been to win the ball and play it simple, and if you want to get the best out of him, then that's what he should be allowed to get back to doing.

Are you suggesting we don’t pass it to wilf and essentially play with 9 outfield players when we have the ball? And as far as I can see, it still is his primary job to win the ball and he’s been far less effective at it recently, which has nothing to do with being asked to pass. 
 

Wilf might have been “linked” with a few big clubs over the years, but we’ve never heard of any bid. He wouldn’t get into any of the sides in the ‘big 6’, and he wouldn’t get into West Ham’s team or Brighton’s, villa would probably prefer Kamara. So I’m not sure how that makes him a good player. 
 

This idea of we should forget any system and just play the way wilf wants is ridiculous. He can be a good player, but at the moment he’s a target for other teams to win the ball back. 

[smudger63]

1 hour ago, Dusty said:

Are you suggesting we don’t pass it to wilf and essentially play with 9 outfield players when we have the ball? And as far as I can see, it still is his primary job to win the ball and he’s been far less effective at it recently, which has nothing to do with being asked to pass. 
 

Wilf might have been “linked” with a few big clubs over the years, but we’ve never heard of any bid. He wouldn’t get into any of the sides in the ‘big 6’, and he wouldn’t get into West Ham’s team or Brighton’s, villa would probably prefer Kamara. So I’m not sure how that makes him a good player. 
 

This idea of we should forget any system and just play the way wilf wants is ridiculous. He can be a good player, but at the moment he’s a target for other teams to win the ball back. 

He wouldn't get into any of the big sides now because his game has regressed under Rodgers, because he's being asked to do something he's not comfortable doing. Am I suggesting that we don't pass to wilf? Of course not, that's a ridiculous thing to say. I'm saying that when we do pass to Wilf he's allowed to play it simple instead of trying to play a pass to break the lines, which more often than not is intercepted because he's not good at that type of pass. Last week, he gave the ball away numerous times attempting that pass, and it can leave us vulnerable, because he's giving it away in a dangerous area for us to give the ball away. Clearly you don't rate Ndidi, and that's fine, it's about opinions, you have yours and i have mine, i do rate him very highly, when he is allowed to do what he's best at and not told to do something he isn't comfortable with doing.

[Claridge]

1 hour ago, coolhandfox said:

The governing bodies are much more wise to that now after Man City used that tactic.

 

They will not get away with massive increases, they would have to prove they are fair deal and represent the market value.

Yes, but they pay one of the lowest amounts. FFP fine/deduction would massively affect us, their brand and the value of the club,not sure they would risk that

[sacreblueits442]

1 hour ago, Claridge said:

Wouldn’t king power just increase the money paid to sponsor the stadium to avoid ffp

...not allowed if I  recall!!!

It would be the same as directly financing the team. It has to be a Company outside of the King Power umbrella.