Everton January 2022 Transfer Thread

[NeilA1878]

Ive explained this in detail a few times.

Heres how it works:

Player is signed for £18mil. No matter what the agreement on how this is paid between clubs, whether all immediate or staggered its irrelevant for FFP.

Lets say that player has signed a 5 year deal which means the £18mil ÷ 5 equates to £3.6mil a year dropping off his transfer fee and showing a decreasing 'book value'.

Now, i cant be bothered to calculate month to month but Digne extended his contract in Feb 2021. At that time he had played for the club from summer 2018 - early 2021.

Lets call it 2.5 seasons or £3.6mil × 2.5 = £9mil.

At that point he extended his contract so his book value became £9mil which is then spread over another 4 seasons (approx) which is £2.25mil a season.

If he leaves in Jan then thats £9mil - £2.25mil = £6.75mil.

So he has a book value for FFP purposes of £6.75mil.

If the club chose to sell Digne for £26.75mil then that becomes a £20mil profit based on the current FFP book value.

Again, workings are general not exact on the months / fees.

Then simply remove the boys wages from the wage bill and that also becomes an FFP saving....instantly.



Now, to sign players its different.

Take that £20mil profit weve made above. We can use that immediately as its a 'realised' FFP profit.

That means (using the same contract calculation as before) we could spend £100mil in January.

How is that possible? Over a 5 year contract with FFP we pay £20mil a year, so that totals £100mil over 5 years.

E.g we could sign 5 players for £20mil each = £100mil.

FFP year 1 = £20mil (Digne profit)
FFP year 2 = £20mil
FFP year 3 = £20mil
FFP year 4 = £20mil
FFP year 5 = £20mil

So, in theory we can use the entire £20mil this Jan to sign £100mil worth of players...but we need to pay another £80mil over another 4 years.

Is this stupid? Well, in theory no because we will have saved wages on out of contract players of Sigurdsson, Delph, Tosun and Kenny which probably covers £15-16mil a year. Player wages are probably covered by James/Digne leaving.

So we'd be in the red by £4-5mil for the next 4 seasons which is not a big deal and easily solved with a tiny sale or contract restructuring here and there.

Again, all figures are approximate etc etc

Thats making a big assumption that we dont need to further cut costs to remain with PL rules... and that the PL arent already in talks with us over spend, i.e. needing to agree to any transfer deals we make.

 

[Stephenlloyd]

Ive explained this in detail a few times.

Heres how it works:

Player is signed for £18mil. No matter what the agreement on how this is paid between clubs, whether all immediate or staggered its irrelevant for FFP.

Lets say that player has signed a 5 year deal which means the £18mil ÷ 5 equates to £3.6mil a year dropping off his transfer fee and showing a decreasing 'book value'.

Now, i cant be bothered to calculate month to month but Digne extended his contract in Feb 2021. At that time he had played for the club from summer 2018 - early 2021.

Lets call it 2.5 seasons or £3.6mil × 2.5 = £9mil.

At that point he extended his contract so his book value became £9mil which is then spread over another 4 seasons (approx) which is £2.25mil a season.

If he leaves in Jan then thats £9mil - £2.25mil = £6.75mil.

So he has a book value for FFP purposes of £6.75mil.

If the club chose to sell Digne for £26.75mil then that becomes a £20mil profit based on the current FFP book value.

Again, workings are general not exact on the months / fees.

Then simply remove the boys wages from the wage bill and that also becomes an FFP saving....instantly.



Now, to sign players its different.

Take that £20mil profit weve made above. We can use that immediately as its a 'realised' FFP profit.

That means (using the same contract calculation as before) we could spend £100mil in January.

How is that possible? Over a 5 year contract with FFP we pay £20mil a year, so that totals £100mil over 5 years.

E.g we could sign 5 players for £20mil each = £100mil.

FFP year 1 = £20mil (Digne profit)
FFP year 2 = £20mil
FFP year 3 = £20mil
FFP year 4 = £20mil
FFP year 5 = £20mil

So, in theory we can use the entire £20mil this Jan to sign £100mil worth of players...but we need to pay another £80mil over another 4 years.

Is this stupid? Well, in theory no because we will have saved wages on out of contract players of Sigurdsson, Delph, Tosun and Kenny which probably covers £15-16mil a year. Player wages are probably covered by James/Digne leaving.

So we'd be in the red by £4-5mil for the next 4 seasons which is not a big deal and easily solved with a tiny sale or contract restructuring here and there.

Again, all figures are approximate etc etc

It’s like last summer, the rumours of siggurdsson with a year left, getting a 12 month extension. And some fans up in arms. But his book value would have gone from 9 to 4.5 mil. And that 4.5 mil buys Patterson.

It’s sensible business to extend your most expensive signings. While Liverpool would always want to keep VVD, Alison, and Fabinho. By extending their contracts, probably saves them 20mil a season. Which probably allows them to go and buy a 50mil player

 

[BigDuncTributeBand]

Maitland Niles.

My God, if you’re actually advocating signing Maitland Niles at right back instead of Paterson you need to lay of the Christmas sherry. In terms of potential they’re not on the same planet.

Unbelievable.

 

[Gardocki]

Ive explained this in detail a few times.

Heres how it works:

Player is signed for £18mil. No matter what the agreement on how this is paid between clubs, whether all immediate or staggered its irrelevant for FFP.

Lets say that player has signed a 5 year deal which means the £18mil ÷ 5 equates to £3.6mil a year dropping off his transfer fee and showing a decreasing 'book value'.

Now, i cant be bothered to calculate month to month but Digne extended his contract in Feb 2021. At that time he had played for the club from summer 2018 - early 2021.

Lets call it 2.5 seasons or £3.6mil × 2.5 = £9mil.

At that point he extended his contract so his book value became £9mil which is then spread over another 4 seasons (approx) which is £2.25mil a season.

If he leaves in Jan then thats £9mil - £2.25mil = £6.75mil.

So he has a book value for FFP purposes of £6.75mil.

If the club chose to sell Digne for £26.75mil then that becomes a £20mil profit based on the current FFP book value.

Again, workings are general not exact on the months / fees.

Then simply remove the boys wages from the wage bill and that also becomes an FFP saving....instantly.



Now, to sign players its different.

Take that £20mil profit weve made above. We can use that immediately as its a 'realised' FFP profit.

That means (using the same contract calculation as before) we could spend £100mil in January.

How is that possible? Over a 5 year contract with FFP we pay £20mil a year, so that totals £100mil over 5 years.

E.g we could sign 5 players for £20mil each = £100mil.

FFP year 1 = £20mil (Digne profit)
FFP year 2 = £20mil
FFP year 3 = £20mil
FFP year 4 = £20mil
FFP year 5 = £20mil

So, in theory we can use the entire £20mil this Jan to sign £100mil worth of players...but we need to pay another £80mil over another 4 years.

Is this stupid? Well, in theory no because we will have saved wages on out of contract players of Sigurdsson, Delph, Tosun and Kenny which probably covers £15-16mil a year. Player wages are probably covered by James/Digne leaving.

So we'd be in the red by £4-5mil for the next 4 seasons which is not a big deal and easily solved with a tiny sale or contract restructuring here and there.

Again, all figures are approximate etc etc

The principle of annualised payments also needs to factor in signings we’ve made 2,3,4 years ago. If our books only show a purchase price of 4m (say) for Mykalenko, they also need to show 4m each(say) for Allan, Doucoure and Godfrey.

 

[windymiller]

Yes, correct.

Albeit four points against Arsenal and Chelsea with up to 12 players out isn't a bad start on that...

That wasn't the start, though.

 

[Bluestar]

I’m no expert on how the finances work, but I think it’s got nothing to do with what we pay Rangers. It’s how we put it through our yearly books. Siggurdsson costs 9mil a season on the books, 9x5 = 45mil. I’d like a bet that our agreement with Swansea on how we paid the 45mil was a bit different.

Selling a player the profit goes straight into the accounts, buying is different, it’s spread over the contract, that’s why Liverpool selling coutinho allowed them to buy a number of expensive players.

That makes no sense unless you receive all the money for a player sale in one payment. As with purchases, they may be paid in instalments, but they are probably not spread evenly over a contract.

The annual accounts have to reflect the annual financial position. The creditors position is acknowledged, but surely can’t in this years accounts.

 

[Zatara]

Thats making a big assumption that we dont need to further cut costs to remain with PL rules... and that the PL arent already in talks with us over spend, i.e. needing to agree to any transfer deals we make.

As I posted, figures/months etc arent exact.

Theres no assumptions on the clubs current FFP status, im highlighting how it is calculated on ins/outs.

in theory we could sell Richarlison for £100mil and be FFP positive of something like £80mil.

We then buy a replacement for £100mol on a 5 year deal and are positive £60mil FFP on those deals for this window.

The whole thing favours business.

It’s like last summer, the rumours of siggurdsson with a year left, getting a 12 month extension. And some fans up in arms. But his book value would have gone from 9 to 4.5 mil. And that 4.5 mil buys Patterson.

It’s sensible business to extend your most expensive signings. While Liverpool would always want to keep VVD, Alison, and Fabinho. By extending their contracts, probably saves them 20mil a season. Which probably allows them to go and buy a 50mil player

Exactly

 

[windymiller]

It has though

We haven't signed either player yet and everybody and his dog has accepted that all incoming transfers are now Benitez signings. We don't have a DoF or a chief scout any more, who's signings would they be?

You just seem like you want to be cross at the moment despite having your man in complete control. Benitez is winning, obviously not on the pitch, you don't seem to care about that, but in his battle to be in control of the club and yet you are still unhappy. What is it you want?

 

[davek]

So he’s going to a manger who hasn’t picked him for 2yrs, who already have a RB who cost them a fair bit already. That link was always going to come up

He likes him. He gave him his break at rangers. Villa are in better shape than us. Benitez likes FBs to defend a lot more than Gerrard does.

I think being linked to Patterson suits us, as I think the real target is AMN.

 

[davek]

You got a link for that plz as it doesn't seem to be on any of the Villa sites.

Transfer planned for Nathan Patterson after Gerrard's 'get real' blast

Rangers defender Nathan Patterson has been linked with a transfer to Aston Villa following Steven Gerrard's appointment as head coach

www.birminghammail.co.uk

 

[Zatara]

The principle of annualised payments also needs to factor in signings we’ve made 2,3,4 years ago. If our books only show a purchase price of 4m (say) for Mykalenko, they also need to show 4m each(say) for Allan, Doucoure and Godfrey.

Spot on. Its actually impossible for us to know what the 'real' FFP numbers look like.

That makes no sense unless you receive all the money for a player sale in one payment. As with purchases, they may be paid in instalments, but they are probably not spread evenly over a contract.

The annual accounts have to reflect the annual financial position. The creditors position is acknowledged, but surely can’t in this years accounts.

See my posts above. FFP is not as you suggest...it is not accounting as you know it

 

[NeilA1878]

That makes no sense unless you receive all the money for a player sale in one payment. As with purchases, they may be paid in instalments, but they are probably not spread evenly over a contract.

The annual accounts have to reflect the annual financial position. The creditors position is acknowledged, but surely can’t in this years accounts.

In FFP and PL rules they dont care about cashflow, at all. Or cash position, or debt... so you can receive it on the drip for 100 years but if you sell him a player for 4M profit it shows up as a one off income in the parts of the accounts that the PL care about. FFP and PL rules are completely separate from the financial health of a club!

 

[davek]

My God, if you’re actually advocating signing Maitland Niles at right back instead of Paterson you need to lay of the Christmas sherry. In terms of potential they’re not on the same planet.

Unbelievable.

PL player at top 6 club v SPL player who cant get a start for a pub team.

Let me think... ?

 

[DanEFC92]

PL player at top 6 club v SPL player who cant get a start for a pub team.

Let me think... ?

We've had plenty of tosh from top six sides.

 

[Hogwild]

Any more news about that Georgian guy?

Would have to assume that it is an either/or with him and Johnson*. Can't see us in for two wide players. They seem a bit similar so perhaps one is primary target and one is secondary and we will see which club deals the best.

20M for Johnson seems too steep to me. If we could get one of those two for 10-15 though with Patterson for 9 and Mykolenko for ~17 then it will have been an interesting window. Combine that with Gray for 1.7M and you have spent ~43M on 4 players that could start for years to come. All for the cost of 1 Voldemort. Odds of all 4 coming bad are low.

(*and yes I know we will most likely sign neither)