[baggie96]

E&S's latest comments on the takeover along with Berahino bid. They are playing down on the takeover being imminent and the net worth of the potential buyer. You can form your own opinion on the validity of what they say.

http://www.expressandstar.com/sport/west-bromwich-albion-fc/2016/07/18/crystal-palace-coming-in-for-west-brom-star-saido-berahino/

That reporter is a bit naive IMO. Seems to take the clubs word

[baggie38]

Matt Wilson who writes for the Express and Star Is so out of the loop when it comes to goings on at the club. John Percy and Moxley are much better they have better contacts then local press. Sadly the days of Lepkowski are long gone. He is right the wealth Is over estimated in the press but that's easy to say considering most media outlets are reporting its the richest man in China. I've been informed its not him but they are wealthy and they will spend this summer to ensure we avoid relegation. To give you a idea of how close things are I've also been informed that they are the ones who gave approval for the club to push on and bid for Schlupp

[baggiejohn]

Matt Wilson who writes for the Express and Star Is so out of the loop when it comes to goings on at the club. John Percy and Moxley are much better they have better contacts then local press. Sadly the days of Lepkowski are long gone. He is right the wealth Is over estimated in the press but that's easy to say considering most media outlets are reporting its the richest man in China. I've been informed its not him but they are wealthy and they will spend this summer to ensure we avoid relegation. To give you a idea of how close things are I've also been informed that they are the ones who gave approval for the club to push on and bid for Schlupp

Hi baggie38,

Must say I'm surprised about Matt Wilson, I tend to find he tells it like it is, don't even bother reading the Mail. The bit in bold suggests, that the reason for the purchase is business based, as opposed to being a wealth person's plaything. So we're not going to become Man City overnight then? Are the WBA communications dept, "in the loop"?

[baggie38]

People need to remember there are fifa fair play rules which restrict spending somewhat. The days of been taken over like City were and signing Robinho the same evening are long gone I'm afraid   

[Adder]

Yes - was just about to say we need a rundown on what we would be able to spend without falling foul of FFP rules........Standaman tends to be good on this type of thing ?

[hardtobeat]

ffp only affects clubs when they fall into 1 of 2 categories i.e 1) They get relegated or 2) they qualify for Europe otherwise how could the likes of Bournemouth afford the likes of Ibe?

[tambag]

ffp only affects clubs when thy fall into 1 of 2 categories i.e 1) They get relegated or 2) they qualify for Europe otherwise how could the likes of Bournemouth afford the likes of Ibe?

By selling Ritchie for 13M to Newcastle.

[overseas baggie]

By selling Ritchie for 13M to Newcastle.

And they've also sold Elphick to Villa.

The wage bill is controlled under FFP as annual losses have to be restricted, but spending on transfer fees is fine provided that the shareholder puts funds in as capital, rather than loans, so that debts and losses are limited.  The difficulty is that spending big on transfer fees usually comes with a big wage bill, so the reality is that even with a mega-wealthy owner, we cannot just spend recklessly.

[Stormy78]

Can you not pretty much ignore FFP rules if the clubs income takes a massive jump upwards e.g. The Hawthorns gets sponsored/re branded for a stupid amount of cash which means the clubs annual income jumps considerably? I am not 100% what the rules are around such deals.

[Albionic]

Baggie 38 stating this I've also been informed that they are the ones who gave approval for the club to push on and bid for Schlupp
is the nearest thing I have seen to confirmation that something is happening!

Thanks for that 38 !

[Scooby Doo]

Having a ridiculously wealthy owner renders the FFP useless. They can invest in a number of areas at the club that could see us meet the numbers required to fall in line with the rules.

[hardtobeat]

By selling Ritchie for 13M to Newcastle.

they have been spending way over the odds comparable to size was just using Ibe as an example. they have spent twice as much as they have taken in this summer and thats not including things like Nathan Akes wages which they will have to pay in part plus his loan fee.Add to that last years spending Mings, Wilson, King etc

[baggie96]

The new owner will just get their company to sponsor things like stadium, training ground etc to generate money like Leicester have done

[Zebidee]

Hmmm could be right, as we not had any pitch/ground sponsor updates/renewals yet have we?
Maybe they are sorting everything behind the scenes.. Sponsorship for ground, how to raise the cash for players ect.. So that they can hit the ground running

[Albionic]

Oh my lord, what horrors could the shrine have inflicted upon it

The Lucky Jailin stadium !

the rice bowl?

[tuamigos]

Hmmm could be right, as we not had any pitch/ground sponsor updates/renewals yet have we?
Maybe they are sorting everything behind the scenes.. Sponsorship for ground, how to raise the cash for players ect.. So that they can hit the ground running

Maybe re-branding (naming) of the stadium? 

[MarkW]

ffp only affects clubs when they fall into 1 of 2 categories i.e 1) They get relegated or 2) they qualify for Europe otherwise how could the likes of Bournemouth afford the likes of Ibe?

I can't even begin to tell how wrong this is, so instead I'll just leave this link to the FFP rules:

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

Basically, if you're spending less than £60 million a year on wages, there's no limit to increasing until you go over that. That's probably why Bournemouth can increase their wage bill so much.

We are probably over that £60 million mark (don't have time to look up the figures but they're further back in the thread), so we can only increase it by £4 million a year

[royhan]

The ffp rule is totally unfair to clubs like us. The rich get richer while we are made to stagnate

[MarkW]

The ffp rule is totally unfair to clubs like us. The rich get richer while we are made to stagnate

Hence why we voted against it!!

[hardtobeat]

I can't even begin to tell how wrong this is, so instead I'll just leave this link to the FFP rules:

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

Basically, if you're spending less than £60 million a year on wages, there's no limit to increasing until you go over that. That's probably why Bournemouth can increase their wage bill so much.

We are probably over that £60 million mark (don't have time to look up the figures but they're further back in the thread), so we can only increase it by £4 million a year

so the 60 million player costs is that wages or fees?

[MarkW]

Wages only I believe.

[Hayward1984]

I'm definitely just speculating so please shoot me down if you know i'm wrong...

Friendly with Majorca away?  Is Robert Sarver (their new American owner) our man?

I realise there are rules around not owning two clubs - but there must be ways around it... The Pozzo Family for instance.

[baggiejohn]

Re FFP:


As I understand it, the FFP rules are essentially about debt. A club is not allowed to have an average debt of over, I think it's £105 million over a 3 year period. If capital is not injected, this reduces to £15 million over 3 seasons. If player costs are below a £60 million nett threshold then there is no restriction on adding to them providing it doesn't go beyond £64 million nett.  Most clubs have the players as assets, & the transfer fee & wages are added together & the amortised over the period of the contract. For example if we paid a transfer fee of £12 million for player A, & paid him a wage of £60k per week on a 4 year contract. The contract would be worth £24 million, amortised at £6 million per year. I we had say 15 such players, the asset value would be £90 million, providing our income streams generated at least £30 million, the we'd be ok. If our income stream fell below £30 million for a sustained period then we'd have to sell some of our assets to get back to the £60 million target. It's designed to stop clubs mortgaging their future by spending shed loads of money they haven't got,
That's why it's so unfair on the smaller clubs, clubs with huge wealth can just throw money at it .

[Hunnington Baggie]

I'm definitely just speculating so please shoot me down if you know i'm wrong...

Friendly with Majorca away?  Is Robert Sarver (their new American owner) our man?

I realise there are rules around not owning two clubs - but there must be ways around it... The Pozzo Family for instance.

two clubs in the same country I believe, to reduce conflicting interest.

[halifax_baggie]

Re FFP:


As I understand it, the FFP rules are essentially about debt. A club is not allowed to have an average debt of over, I think it's £60 million over a 3 year period. Most clubs have the players as assets, & the transfer fee & wages are added together & the amortised over the period of the contract. For example if we paid a transfer fee of £12 million for player A, & paid him a wage of £60k per week on a 4 year contract. The contract would be worth £24 million, amortised at £6 million per year. I we had say 15 such players, the asset value would be £90 million, providing our income streams generated at least £30 million, the we'd be ok. If our income stream fell below £30 million for a sustained period then we'd have to sell some of our assets to get back to the £60 million target. It's designed to stop clubs mortgaging their future by spending shed loads of money they haven't got,
That's why it's so unfair on the smaller clubs, clubs with huge wealth can just throw money at it .

I guess there will be a number of newly rich clubs hampered by this policy and they will be lobbying to change it so that they can catch up, I hope we will be one of them