Who's said selling them this year, there's 2 young England internationals who's value is only gonna increase,the same as olise. doucoure and Andersen are not going to lose value either.

Where's this number of over 100 million on players wages come from ? I can share plenty of articles that show the club's wages from 55 to 70 mill. A wage bill of over 100 million is every player in a squad of 25 being on 80k a year, ill be surprised if we've got 4 players on that or more. The club can manipulate the books how they please, running the club at a loss for tax purposes. Fact is we have 4 owners worth a combined 6 billion, we get 160 million in tv money every year and we would struggle to name a squad of 25 with 1 lb and 2 strikers of which the manager doesn't even wanna pick 1, if our finances are that bad then the board are doing an even worse job than I thought.

Our squad is weak, Roy would struggle to name a first 11 and full bench without kids in it, look what happened last time we had one LB in souare. Defend the board all you want but they lack ambition.

From the club's own accounts. You can see the full accounts at Companies House. Here's the club's financial review for us fans: see p9 for figures

[Link]

Man u operate at a loss aswell, it means nothing. With the value of players we have at the club, plus the quality, our chances of relegation are slim, now is the time to take a calculated risk, even if the club don't want to and are happy with 12th again, we still shouldn't have this much lack of depth in the squad.

Edited by doombear (29 Aug 2023 10.46am)

Why do you insist on bringing player value into it ?

They are only of value if you sell them.

You are saying we should spend to add to those players.

And we still might.

You're very good at spending other people's money while ignoring the risks associated with that spend.

If it's wholesale spending that turns you on, I can recommend another London club that may be of interest !

Bringing it all back to the OP...

I agree that we currently have as good a core of players as we are likely to have, and take the point that if Palace were to 'go for it' by buying quality additions, now is the time.

By the way, let's overlook the fact that Palace have already spent about £80m on Guehi, Andersen, Edouard, Mateta, Olise and Hughes two summers ago, plus another £45m on Docoure, Ahamada and Richards last summer. Whilst that spending hamstrings us now, the point being made has to do with the opportunity in front of us as a result of that previous squad building.

Doombear has set out in detail what I think many of us (though plainly not all) presumed - we are not a club with clout in the market. Our income doesn't quite match our outgoings, hence the need to sell AWB and borrow a few quid from the Americans in recent years.

At the same time, we are not in crippling, terrifying debt. We are a bit like a person who doesn't have any savings and who dips into their overdraft most months; we aren't rich but the bills are getting paid. We can't go on a luxury cruise but we can see our mates at the pub most weekends. The question is not therefore 'Are we being too tight with our money' (plainly we are not), but rather 'Can (and should) we take out a second mortgage to try and live differently'?

It has been suggested that signing new players to elevate us to the next level will cost £100m. I'm not sure if that's transfer fees alone, or fees and wages combined, but either way, I think there is an interesting conversation there.

As I understand it FFP allows clubs to choose their own financial strategy, so long as the chickens all come home to roost in the end. It seems possible to mortgage yourselves up to the eyeballs in upfront spending (i.e. debt), in the hope of getting to the next level, but you will have to live with that decision.

Chelsea are an extreme example with their recent spending, but the better example for us is Wolves.

Wolves spent (fairly) lavishly in the Championship, and then again in their first two years in the Premier League. Since then they have broken even most years in transfer activity. In return for that initial outlay (around £100m a season, for two seasons) they finished 7th twice, qualifying for the Europa League once, going on to lose a covid-era modified quarter-final. Now they are so skint that their manager walked out on them in protest at the state of the squad. They didn't win the Europa League, or even get to have a big, glamour tie to remember. All that 'investment' and profit on individual player trading deals hasn't moved them any further forward as a club, just like it won't move Brighton further forward. They, just like Burnley, Fulham and even title-winning Leicester fell back to earth quickly, and with a bump that could take them right out of the league. This is because, outside of the Champions League, European football doesn't generate large sums of money. What you spend to get into it, you don't get back from being there. Wolves are still paying back that £200m they sunk into their team to get into Europe, and now they can't spend what they need to stay in the league.

Money aside, Europe is of course a possible route to once-in-a-lifetime glory. I know Fulham fans who still talk now about their run to the Europa League final under Roy, even though they lost the final. West Ham were thrilled to win the Europa Conference, and even though that's just a tin pot UEFA made up five minutes ago, perhaps it would be worth the financial cost for us if we could do the same? Who wouldn't want some European nights at Selhurst?

It comes at a cost though.

Burnley, Leicester and Fulham all found that Europe stretched their squads to the point that they suffered in the premier league. Each league placing is worth about £2m, and considering that West Ham made about £11m in prize money from winning the Europa Conference (they will have made some more money from TV rights, but also had to pay costs, expenses, player bonuses etc), if their poor league season was connected to the amount of game they had to play in Europe, winning that cup actually seems to have cost them money.

That's the big thing for me. If we jumped into massive debt to pay £100m for three top players now, and if it worked as well as it possibly could and we got into the Europa Conference, and even if we had a great run in the thing, none of it would change our position in the pecking order, because we wouldn't make money from it to sustain a higher standard of football living. That £100m would not be an investment at all, it would be the price of having that experience, or to be more accurate, the price of gambling on maybe having that experience.

Some, perhaps whilst sitting through yet another tedious home draw that inches us closer to the 40-point tally whilst dulling the heart, might feel that trying to live fast now and pick up the tab later is an appealing idea. Apparently there are Portsmouth fans who, as their club went into financial meltdown, debt, administration, fan ownership, League 2, and the real risk of closure still said it was worth it to have seen the team win the FA Cup. Perhaps there is something in that argument.

One thing is for sure though, I do not expect Steve Parish to think that way, and I reject the criticism of him on that front.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (29 Aug 2023 1.00pm)

Bringing it all back to the OP...

I agree that we currently have as good a core of players as we are likely to have, and take the point that if Palace were to 'go for it' by buying quality additions, now is the time.

By the way, let's overlook the fact that Palace have already spent about £80m on Guehi, Andersen, Edouard, Mateta, Olise and Hughes two summers ago, plus another £45m on Docoure, Ahamada and Richards last summer. Whilst that spending hamstrings us now, the point being made has to do with the opportunity in front of us as a result of that previous squad building.

Doombear has set out in detail what I think many of us (though plainly not all) presumed - we are not a club with clout in the market. Our income doesn't quite match our outgoings, hence the need to sell AWB and borrow a few quid from the Americans in recent years.

At the same time, we are not in crippling, terrifying debt. We are a bit like a person who doesn't have any savings and who dips into their overdraft most months; we aren't rich but the bills are getting paid. We can't go on a luxury cruise but we can see our mates at the pub most weekends. The question is not therefore 'Are we being too tight with our money' (plainly we are not), but rather 'Can (and should) we take out a second mortgage to try and live differently'?

It has been suggested that signing new players to elevate us to the next level will cost £100m. I'm not sure if that's transfer fees alone, or fees and wages combined, but either way, I think there is an interesting conversation there.

As I understand it FFP allows clubs to choose their own financial strategy, so long as the chickens all come home to roost in the end. It seems possible to mortgage yourselves up to the eyeballs in upfront spending (i.e. debt), in the hope of getting to the next level, but you will have to live with that decision.

Chelsea are an extreme example with their recent spending, but the better example for us is Wolves.

Wolves spent (fairly) lavishly in the Championship, and then again in their first two years in the Premier League. Since then they have broken even most years in transfer activity. In return for that initial outlay (around £100m a season, for two seasons) they finished 7th twice, qualifying for the Europa League once, going on to lose a covid-era modified quarter-final. Now they are so skint that their manager walked out on them in protest at the state of the squad. They didn't win the Europa League, or even get to have a big, glamour tie to remember. All that 'investment' and profit on individual player trading deals hasn't moved them any further forward as a club, just like it won't move Brighton further forward. They, just like Burnley, Fulham and even title-winning Leicester fell back to earth quickly, and with a bump that could take them right out of the league. This is because, outside of the Champions League, European football doesn't generate large sums of money. What you spend to get into it, you don't get back from being there. Wolves are still paying back that £200m they sunk into their team to get into Europe, and now they can't spend what they need to stay in the league.

Money aside, Europe is of course a possible route to once-in-a-lifetime glory. I know Fulham fans who still talk now about their run to the Europa League final under Roy, even though they lost the final. West Ham were thrilled to win the Europa Conference, and even though that's just a tin pot UEFA made up five minutes ago, perhaps it would be worth the financial cost for us if we could do the same? Who wouldn't want some European nights at Selhurst?

It comes at a cost though.

Burnley, Leicester and Fulham all found that Europe stretched their squads to the point that they suffered in the premier league. Each league placing is worth about £2m, and considering that West Ham made about £11m in prize money from winning the Europa Conference (they will have made some more money from TV rights, but also had to pay costs, expenses, player bonuses etc), if their poor league season was connected to the amount of game they had to play in Europe, winning that cup actually seems to have cost them money.

That's the big thing for me. If we jumped into massive debt to pay £100m for three top players now, and if it worked as well as it possibly could and we got into the Europa Conference, and even if we had a great run in the thing, none of it would change our position in the pecking order, because we wouldn't make money from it to sustain a higher standard of football living. That £100m would not be an investment at all, it would be the price of having that experience, or to be more accurate, the price of gambling on maybe having that experience.

Some, perhaps whilst sitting through yet another tedious home draw that inches us closer to the 40-point tally whilst dulling the heart, might feel that trying to live fast now and pick up the tab later is an appealing idea. Apparently there are Portsmouth fans who, as their club went into financial meltdown, debt, administration, fan ownership, League 2, and the real risk of closure still said it was worth it to have seen the team win the FA Cup. Perhaps there is something in that argument.

One thing is for sure though, I do not expect Steve Parish to think that way, and I reject the criticism of him on that front.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (29 Aug 2023 1.00pm)