Rate the Window

[White Riot]

7/10 for me.

We have needed to recruit a left back and a number 10 for years and still haven't managed it. If we'd gone for Chair from QPR earlier we would have got him.

Sam Byram ain't a left back end of, same as Struijk, Hjelde and Shackleton aren't. I believe that if we'd gone out to fill those positions seriously we'd have succeeded.

So we'll get rinsed again on our left side, and lack the creativity we need from a playmaker.

We've brought some decent players in: Darlow, Rodon, Spence, Ampadu, Kamara, Gruev, Piroe and Anthony.

But let's not kid ourselves that Jaidon is a replacement for Sini, he's nowhere near that standard.

Time will tell whether these players are good enough and have the heart for the fight, the w**kers who've left didn't have that fight in them.

Radz and co need hung, drawn and quartered on the centre circle at ER for the player contracts they agreed to.

Decent window, but could have been much better.

Sini leaving at the death is a real kick in the knackers.

Let's push on and get promoted this season

[weasel]

OK so can those wiser than me (yes, yes I know that's most of you) explain how those 'loans out' will work at the end of the loan period?
Strikes me there are very few on that list we will want back. So how do we 'monetize' those loan deals?

From what I make of FFP it is all about the value of the player, how long their contract is and how many years are left.

To make an example easy. Let's say we paid £25m for Aaronsen and he signed on a five year deal.
If we'd sold him this summer then we'd have needed to sell him for £20m to have broken even FFP wise (as his value is based on £5m per year for each year of his contract as such 4 years left mulitplied by £5m). Clearly no one would pay £20m so if we'd have sold him this summer for £15m then we are down £5m on FFP which would mean we'd have had to raise £5m elsewhere to simply break even - as such loaning him out actually works out well for us given that he likely wasn't part of our plans and selling him, despite bringing money in, would actually have made it harder for us to sign anyone as would be down on FFP.

Next summer Aaronsen's value for us in terms of FFP is reduced to £15m (3 years left on his contract * £5m). As such it is far more likely that if we sell him we can get nearer to the £15m and as such might break even with FFP (despite making a £10m loss). If he had a stinker of a year and value continued to plummet then the sensible option FFP wise rather than actually making sense from a business point of view would be to loan him out again so that the following year we'd be able to sell him for £10m to break even against FFP.

It is the absurdity of why loaning players out this season makes great sense against FFP but no sense from a business sense of view. If we'd sold all the players who went out on loan and say raised £70m but their FFP value was £100m then we'd have been screwed as we would be showing a £30m FFP loss and as such despite having raised £70m we basically wouldn't have been able to buy anyone.

The sale of Adams saw us around £8m up against FFP so it meant not only could we spend the money we got from his sale but also the extra money meaning we could spend the full £23m we received. We might even have been able to spend £31m as we received £23m and were also around £8m up against FFP.

This probably means that we have complied with FFP. Likely the Rodrigo sale also hit us against FFP as selling him for £3m was less than his FFP value, probably around £4m down on FFP for that. As such when we signed Ampadu we were probably running close to the amount we could lose against FFP (basically £13m per year on average) as we would have been around £6m down from transfers ffpwise at that point (if we say Ampadu signed for £8m on a 4 year deal then he sets us back £2m per year FFP wise) and also likely going to be down ffpwise on wages despite shifting a load from the wagebill. This is why we were then unable to buy any more players until Adams was sold (the attempted signing of Aarons coming at a point where everything had looked done in terms of Adams moving to Chelsea for a fee).

I hope that makes some sort of sense. As I see it FFP is ridiculous and a very easy way for clubs like Chelsea to skirt around it. I'm not surprised to see clubs like Chelsea, Man City, Man U etc selling their youth players to each other. Take Cole Palmer moving from City to Chelsea. If the sale is for £40m then City have wiped £40m off against FFP as he came through the academy. Chelsea if they sign him on an 8 year deal it only costs them £5m per year in FFP terms. Chelsea selling Mount to Man U for £60m sees them £60m up against FFP. So despite Chelsea making an actual profit of £20m for those 2 deals they are actually £55m up in FFP terms.

[Jaydog]

Can’t help thinking of Playschool.
Of course round was best.

[GreennWhite]

8 out of 10 for me in this window. Just a few shorts weeks ago we had a weak and very small squad. Now we have got in decent players ** and have back up in most positions. I'm sure Farke would have loved to got in a LB but it wasn't to be in this window.
For people to say we took far too long to do things is just nonsense, only people at the club know exactly what was going on and people suggesting they weren't doing anything is just being petty.

** As for the players we got in....people are already picking holes in some of them, calling them underwhelming and so on. We are not in the Premier league anymore, we wont be getting top international players coming to us. Give these new guys a chance and lets see what Farke can do with them. If they turn out to be useless then we can have a genuine reason to complain, but not a stupid complaint because the player coming in wasn't the one that some fans thought we should have had.
Its almost as if some fans say well that wasn't the player i suggested we buy, so he isn't any good, and isn't a good fit for the team.

[malcolmw]

From what I make of FFP it is all about the value of the player, how long their contract is and how many years are left.

To make an example easy. Let's say we paid £25m for Aaronsen and he signed on a five year deal.
If we'd sold him this summer then we'd have needed to sell him for £20m to have broken even FFP wise (as his value is based on £5m per year for each year of his contract as such 4 years left mulitplied by £5m). Clearly no one would pay £20m so if we'd have sold him this summer for £15m then we are down £5m on FFP which would mean we'd have had to raise £5m elsewhere to simply break even - as such loaning him out actually works out well for us given that he likely wasn't part of our plans and selling him, despite bringing money in, would actually have made it harder for us to sign anyone as would be down on FFP.

Next summer Aaronsen's value for us in terms of FFP is reduced to £15m (3 years left on his contract * £5m). As such it is far more likely that if we sell him we can get nearer to the £15m and as such might break even with FFP (despite making a £10m loss). If he had a stinker of a year and value continued to plummet then the sensible option FFP wise rather than actually making sense from a business point of view would be to loan him out again so that the following year we'd be able to sell him for £10m to break even against FFP.

It is the absurdity of why loaning players out this season makes great sense against FFP but no sense from a business sense of view. If we'd sold all the players who went out on loan and say raised £70m but their FFP value was £100m then we'd have been screwed as we would be showing a £30m FFP loss and as such despite having raised £70m we basically wouldn't have been able to buy anyone.

The sale of Adams saw us around £8m up against FFP so it meant not only could we spend the money we got from his sale but also the extra money meaning we could spend the full £23m we received. We might even have been able to spend £31m as we received £23m and were also around £8m up against FFP.

This probably means that we have complied with FFP. Likely the Rodrigo sale also hit us against FFP as selling him for £3m was less than his FFP value, probably around £4m down on FFP for that. As such when we signed Ampadu we were probably running close to the amount we could lose against FFP (basically £13m per year on average) as we would have been around £6m down from transfers ffpwise at that point (if we say Ampadu signed for £8m on a 4 year deal then he sets us back £2m per year FFP wise) and also likely going to be down ffpwise on wages despite shifting a load from the wagebill. This is why we were then unable to buy any more players until Adams was sold (the attempted signing of Aarons coming at a point where everything had looked done in terms of Adams moving to Chelsea for a fee).

I hope that makes some sort of sense. As I see it FFP is ridiculous and a very easy way for clubs like Chelsea to skirt around it. I'm not surprised to see clubs like Chelsea, Man City, Man U etc selling their youth players to each other. Take Cole Palmer moving from City to Chelsea. If the sale is for £40m then City have wiped £40m off against FFP as he came through the academy. Chelsea if they sign him on an 8 year deal it only costs them £5m per year in FFP terms. Chelsea selling Mount to Man U for £60m sees them £60m up against FFP. So despite Chelsea making an actual profit of £20m for those 2 deals they are actually £55m up in FFP terms.

Thanks for that Weasel. What it also confirms is that FFP was designed by a team of accountants and lawyers.
I get the need for financial rules. It would likely be cheaper to simply audit each team every season.

[Duncanmckenzie]

Net spend £4 million and we’ve ended up with some pretty ordinary players expected better to be honest defo won’t get promoted then all the loan players come back bit of a mess.

[weasel]

Thanks for that Weasel. What it also confirms is that FFP was designed by a team of accountants and lawyers.
I get the need for financial rules. It would likely be cheaper to simply audit each team every season.

Indeed. Would make it far fairer to have a more straightforward way of doing it that was less open to abuse. Chelsea buying all these players on long contracts are simply showing it for the farce it is. Say they spent £1bn on 10 players all worht £100m each - but every player signed an 8 year contract they are then only £125m down for the year. Next year they sell one of those players for £100m and there you go they are then just £12.5m down against FFP for that season (£125m for the year minus the £100m receieved and minus the £12.5m yearly ffp of the player they sold).

[malcolmw]

Indeed. Would make it far fairer to have a more straightforward way of doing it that was less open to abuse. Chelsea buying all these players on long contracts are simply showing it for the farce it is. Say they spent £1bn on 10 players all worht £100m each - but every player signed an 8 year contract they are then only £125m down for the year. Next year they sell one of those players for £100m and there you go they are then just £12.5m down against FFP for that season (£125m for the year minus the £100m receieved and minus the £12.5m yearly ffp of the player they sold).

Yes, it's like the law of averages - if I stand with one foot in a bucket of ice water and the other in a bucket of boiling water, on average I'm okay.
The FA has the resources - including that of governmental agencies. Simply audit or near-audit every team every season as we do other businesses.

[The Subhuman]

Sorry, thought this was rate the widow ..... as you were

[Overman]

5/10

I have some concerns in terms of quantity over quality. Let's just see how it pans out.

[Musicman1965]

Its a 6/10 for me. Its a long Championship Season and there just isn't enough quality in key positions.
No LB to cover for Byram
Our bench is thin for defenders, if Rodon gets injured, there is no one of his quality to cover.
No Back up Striker.
The rest I am happy with our midfield needs to gel, unfortunate Sini going but we all had a feeling he
would move out on loan or be sold outright.

[weasel]

Sorry, thought this was rate the widow ..... as you were

Apologies I hope this is better



I give this a 7. Very practical but I am not keen on the colour.

[weasel]

Your turn

[weasel]

Yes, it's like the law of averages - if I stand with one foot in a bucket of ice water and the other in a bucket of boiling water, on average I'm okay.
The FA has the resources - including that of governmental agencies. Simply audit or near-audit every team every season as we do other businesses.

I think that sums it up perfectly - you'd lose both feet but the FA would find you fit to run.

[Jaydog]

Your turn

Sensational brickwork

[The Subhuman]

Your turn

You're outside Jaydog's again aren't you ?

[weasel]

You're outside Jaydog's again aren't you ?

And will keep it that way, wouldn't want to be inisde Jaydog's

[weasel]

Sorry, thought this was rate the widow ..... as you were

Apologies again for misreading this first time.



I would give this grieving lady a 7, maybe an 8 if she's up for burying a stiff one.

[Madron]

Apologies I hope this is better



I give this a 7. Very practical but I am not keen on the colour.

The lintel doesn't look right- not supported by any brickwork by the look of it- looks odd.

[The Subhuman]

The lintel doesn't look right- not supported by any brickwork by the look of it- looks odd.

Nice spot...