Harry Kane

[ws01]

My post is the brutal reality of the world you exist in. Just as you feed off lesser clubs so do we. Don’t be offended, I paid your club a compliment and even thanked you. Kyle Walker thanks you from behind all his PL titles. I’m sure Carrick, Berbatov, and Sheringham thank you too. I can imagine Bale wakes up everyday looks at his CL winners medals and is grateful for Levy’s willingness to take the money and run. Luka Modric? He thanks you too ...

Accepting your place in football’s ecosystem is liberating. Trust me. Trust us. We’ve been there.

.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Can we get it established if the Sane money is indeed on this years books or was it last year? @Prestwich_Blue

We are at risk of Dipper net spenditus here

The Sané money, and (more importantly) the profit on sale, will be in the 2020/21 financial year, which ended in June. But that doesn't really matter because of the way FFP works, with figures aggregated over 3 years.

Also people don't really understand how the whole financing of transfers works.

In a normal year, City would generate around £125m of spare cash from our normal operations. I cant be certain, as we don't publish a separate cash flow statement for the club, only for CFG. But a basic calculation means it will be around that figure. Then incoming transfer fees are added to that cash pot, most of which will be used for paying for transfers in.

There's more that needs to be taken into account on top of that. We may show a book profit on players we sell. If we take Leroy as an example, he cost us £40m (to use a round number) and let's say we sold him for the same amount. But as he'd been here 4 years, we'd have shown £32m amortisation, making his book value only £8m. That means we can book a profit of £32m on his sale. That's not cash but it can be added to the pot as it will cover £32m of amortisation and wages for an incoming player or players. I know we laugh about the Coutinho money, but that's how it works.

And then there's the amortisation and wages saved by him not being here, which is £8m plus whatever a year's wages was for him. Let's say that was £7m, which means we've got £15m extra to play with in that year. That alone covers a years amortisation for a £50m player on £100k a week.

People ask why we bother with an academy when we seem to sell most of the player. But while we sell them relatively cheaply, and they aren't on big wages, it's all profit so selling a couple of decent academy lads, like Harrison & Angelino, brings in £20m profit and that's a full year's amortisation on Grealish. Do similar every year with a few Academy players and that's the Grealish fee fully covered.

I've said this before but in the summer of 2017, when the media went on and on about us spending something like £200m gross and £120m net, our player costs (wages + amortisation) only increased by £8m that year. That's because of wages and amortisation off the books for players we sold or loaned out. That's why net spend is a completely useless comparison.

 

[bluesince76]

Pay the money.

It is simple. He sits on his ass until the end of August. Maybe you pay what Levy wants. Maybe you don't.

At the end of August if you have paid the money you have a good player who cost an eye-watering amount of money and who is not match fit (BTW I am sure you already know this. He is a very slow starter / returner from injury) or we have a good player who didn't cost us a penny but is not match fit and will need to apologise and get on with it.

Either way we win.

Everyone knows Kane doesn't score in August, so you're right, better we wait until late on until we pay it. Better for Levy, too, as he can then pay the banks whilst claiming it was our fault we left it late meaning he couldn't buy anyone. But you reducing your debt is a win right - Arsenal used to claim that trophy each year as well.

As for Kane apologising, that'll depend on whether he believes there was a gentleman's agreement that he could leave if you didn't match his ambitions. Maybe he'll feel that you appointing a coach who's proven he can get teams to comfortably mid-table without spending a lot is the boost to his career he wanted.

Not sure why either of us really want him though, since he's now just a 'good' player...

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I am not changing my vote

I can't remember which way I voted.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

The Sané money, and (more importantly) the profit on sale, will be in the 2020/21 financial year, which ended in June. But that doesn't really matter because of the way FFP works, with figures aggregated over 3 years.

Also people don't really understand how the whole financing of transfers works.

In a normal year, City would generate around £125m of spare cash from our normal operations. I cant be certain, as we don't publish a separate cash flow statement for the club, only for CFG. But a basic calculation means it will be around that figure. Then incoming transfer fees are added to that cash pot, most of which will be used for paying for transfers in.

There's more that needs to be taken into account. We may show a book profit on players we sell. If we take Leroy as an example, he cost us £40m (to use a round number) and let's say we sold him for the same amount. But as he'd been here 4 years, we'd have shown £32m amortisation, making his book value only £8m. That means we can book a profit of £32m on his sale. That's not cash but it can be added to the pot as it will cover £32m of amortisation and wages for an incoming player or players. I know we laugh about the Coutinho money, but that's how it works.

And then there's the amortisation and wages saved by him not being here, which is £8m plus whatever a years wages was for him. Let's say that was £7m, which means we've got £15m extra to play with in that year. That alone covers a years amortisation for a £50m player on £100k a week.

People ask why we bother with an academy when we seem to sell most of the player. But while we sell them relatively cheaply, and they aren't on big wages, it's all profit so selling a couple of decent academy lads, like Harrison & Angelino, brings in £20m profit and that's a full year's amortisation on Grealish.

I've said this before but in the summer of 2017, when the media went on and on about us spending something like £200m gross and £120m net, our player costs (wages + amortisation) only increased by £8m that year. That's because of wages and amortisation off the books for players we sold or loaned out. That's why net spend is a completely useless comparison.

Preach on, PB!

 

[remember arthur mann]

I can't remember which way I voted.

Brexit I think.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Preach on, PB!

I am the Billy Graham of football finances.

 

[mrbelfry]

Oh the money will get paid and the player will get bought. But winning? That's not something your club really does. Take it from a supporter base that has been there. You're a service company for the country's best clubs. A little bit like Dortmund in Germany or Lille in France.

Thank you for the service you provide btw. It's always good to have a club who will develop talent over years, never really threaten for the major honours, and always be ready and willing to sell when real money comes knocking.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Pay the money.

It is simple. He sits on his ass until the end of August. Maybe you pay what Levy wants. Maybe you don't.

At the end of August if you have paid the money you have a good player who cost an eye-watering amount of money and who is not match fit (BTW I am sure you already know this. He is a very slow starter / returner from injury) or we have a good player who didn't cost us a penny but is not match fit and will need to apologise and get on with it.

Either way we win.

There’s slow starter at spurs, which might be different to slow starter at City, with the likes of KDB, Foden, Sterling, Mahrez, Gundogan etc feeding him. Also it wouldn’t bother me at all if spurs play hardball. The thought of you having a valuable asset (who will be worth a A LOT fucking less every year from now on) in your dressing room and demotivated, while you have a decent but not great manager trying to get a tune out of him and the rest of your squad, while you play in the europa conference and struggle to pay off your debt, well it couldn’t happen to a better club.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I am the Billy Graham of football finances.

The Messiah !