The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Hxj said:

That's because the regulations allow it - they had 18 players of the correct standing at the beginning of the season and are allowed 24.

 

That's because the regulations allow it - any club can loan a player to any other club for zero consideration, or anything they like.

 

Because negotiations are ongoing - there will have to be an announcement within the next month or so.  Bear in mind that firstly we are omly 5 weeks from the end of the accounting period and that an agreed decision requires 14 days notice of the offer from the EFL, plus a signoff from an independent person, someone who would qualify as a DC chair.

Yeah fair enough, suppose I'm a bit impatient- I'll wait a while and hopefully news will emerge in due course, may try and extrapolate Reading's P&S (using my original formula) to 2021 in the meantime.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 30/08/2021 at 15:56, Mr Popodopolous said:

Looking at this prompted me to have (another) look at Reading's finances- not done this enough of late!

It's possible that they have the best possible outcome out of a pretty bad bunch, by Club results 2017/18, Consolidated thereafter. This enabled the sale and resale and leaseback of the Stadium. Least bad might be a better term!

2017/18 Results

Reading FC- and estimated Allowances based on a variety of sources.

Loss

£20,952,868

This was inclusive of a £6,518,222 Profit on the 'Disposal' of the Stadium to Renhe Sports Management Limited (more on whom later). By which I mean they lost approaching £21m despite the Sale and Leaseback.

They also seem not to bother adding such Transactions to the Land Registry either- nothing registered for most if not all, though I think this one might have been for a bit 2-3 years after the event (late June 2018). That's possibly beside the point though. Might be exemptions if sold aboard/to a foreign owner or company whatever.

Allowances:

• Depreciation- Listed as £1,702,369
• Women's Football- Says they made a loss of £841,577- so let's go with that.
• Community Trust/Spending etc- Dunno if I should go with Total Resources Expended or Expenditure on Raising Funds, or on Charitable Activities- Restricted, Unrestricted or Total. Anyway the quickest answer is probably Total Expenditure- £1,197,394.
• Category 1 Academy- Safe bet between £2.5-3m per season?

Doesn't seem to list Impairment of Goodwill or other Intangible Assets or Amortisation on the Club Accounts- they could always dip into the Consolidated and use those as the basis from 2017/18, but that's a loss which is £9m higher...

...Okay then, it's the EFL under their management at the time- let's add real cake and eat it territory shall we...£1,619,666 in Amortisation of Goodwill for the season.

Best case scenario is therefore for 2017/18, an FFP loss of £12,519,862- out of £39m.

2018/19 Results

Renhe Sports Management Limited- this is the company that is the top UK based company in the Group, since Reading's takeover 4 or 5 years ago. Consolidated basically.

Loss

£11,753,640

Allowances:

• Depreciation- Listed as £689,619
• Women's Football- Says they made a loss of £1,208,750- so let's go with that.
• Community Trust/Spending etc- Dunno if I should go with Total Resources Expended or Expenditure on Raising Funds, or on Charitable Activities- Restricted, Unrestricted or Total. Anyway the quickest answer is probably Total Expenditure- £1,252,779.
• Category 1 Academy- Safe bet between £2.5-3m per season?
• Amortisation of Goodwill- £1,619,666.
• Also mentions £500k of Impairment under Fixed Asset Investments- not sure how that's treated for FFP?

People might wonder how their losses fell drastically when their expenditure did not. Wonder no more!

I say 'sold', probably mostly if not entirely offset against loans but they cover the cash losses too, the owners- equity etc.

1. Stadium resold, this time for £37.5m- that's a boost to the profit and no mistake...£11m rise in a year eh!? I say sold, it was to the owner's Chinese/HK company.
2. The old Training Ground. Another company of the owner.
3. Residential land- same overseas company who got the ground. Could be the land around the Stadium as was.
4. Sone Aluko...£3m loan fee to the owner's Chinese club- oddly this was put through not Profit on Transfers and not even in the Consolidated but only the Club, as its own category- "Loan Fees Receivable". These are usually included in Profit on Transfer etc- was classed as Turnover but maybe that's an irrelevant consideration.

Best case scenario is therefore for 2018/19, an FFP loss of £3,488,826.

More significantly though, the underlying loss is enormous- the Accounts suggest that this was despite and including a Profit on Disposal of Tangible Assets totalling £29,929,818 plus the aforementioned £3m on the Aluko loan- seems strange that the Consolidated Accounts don't make a separate category for the £3m loan fee...you can find it by scrolling down to the RPT Notes but it's not exactly clear and obvious.

2019/20 Results

Renhe Sports Management Limited

Loss

£45,032,971

Allowances:

• Depreciation- Listed as £497,367
• Women's Football- Says they made a loss of £1,174,279- so let's go with that.
• Community Trust/Spending etc- Dunno if I should go with Total Resources Expended or Expenditure on Raising Funds, or on Charitable Activities- Restricted, Unrestricted or Total. Anyway the quickest answer is probably Total Expenditure- £1,236,491.
• Category 1 Academy- Safe bet between £2.5-3m per season?
• Amortisation of Goodwill- £1,619,666.
• They don't quantify Covid losses to June 2020 but £2-3m? Let's split the difference maybe and go with £2.5m, once factoring in likely cost savings vs Revenue loss, use of furlough etc.

A possible best case scenario is therefore for 2019/20, an FFP loss of £35,051,168.

Remember however, it halves for Covid so it might look a bit like...and this is a rough calculation at this stage.

FFP loss before taking the other half of the combined average to 2020/21 might be £33,511,272 and counting.

They must have exceeded to 2021 and be facing a further battle to comply to 2022...surely??

I'm going on best case scenario in parts ie including Goodwill in 2018 vs the fact it was only in the Consolidated and not Club Accounts or pushing Academy Expenditure up to the higher end and perhaps the Covid losses too.

Here we go.

Part 2. I am and have been pretty generous- perhaps erroneously so- with my interpretations in places, ie a Stadium Profit from Club to Holding then Holding to other company in successive seasons, inclusion of the Goodwill even though it's only in Renhe rather than Reading FC for 2017/18.

Renhe Sports Management Limited

Starting point is a £35,051,168 FFP loss in the season just gone- and remember I'm assuming that the Academy Spend=£3m per season, that the Covid losses in 2019/20 were £3m.

Sadly there is no way of quantifying for sure without the actual data but can only go on searches online with guesstimates of wage savings for individuals who left. Transfer Profit remains about the same but Meyler was paid off in 2019/20 so that we can lop off- Accounts says that cost £1,186,500.

Bowen left, possible years salary payoff or remaining on the payroll too.

Possible savings:

1. Remaining Amortisation on Barrow- think he went for £1.5m, final year of deal so that means that it's about the same as 2019/20. Say £10-15k per week in wages as well.
2. I read somewhere that Marc McNulty's weekly wages were £45k per week?? Seems fanciful though, would Dundee United cover the full whack in a Pandemic season for that? Or 10 months worth anyway, I dunno- say £1-2m.
3. Mannone was finally released- fee around £2m, 3 year deal- so say £667k per year in Amortisation and I've read £17k per week in wages. £884,000 there.
4. Read that Popa was on £15k per week- £780k per year, released Summer 2020. Is less than clear where he was in 2019/20 though. Joined on a free, left on a free so no Amortisation as such.
5. Blackett listed as £12k per week at Reading. £624,000 per year therefore. Joined for £1.62m according to one source, hence £405k per year in Amortisation.
6. Adam left on a free, joined on a free- £15-20k per week perhaps?
7. Osho and Obita as Academy Products have zero book value but they did have wages- £1,200 and £12,000 per week respectively according to a quick search.
8. McCleary- one site said £21,000 per week.
9. Gunter- much the same, another site said £22,000 per week.

Further possibles:

1. Pele- £31,000 per week on loan.
2. Ejaria- Loan wages listed as £7,800 per week.
3. Miazga- One site suggested £12,750 per week, maybe that was the contribution of Reading.
4. Masika- was there for 5 months, suggested £8,500 per week.
5. Boye- No idea. One site suggests £8k per week.
6. Virginia- Suggested he is on £10k per week, who knows how much Reading paid.

Total theoretical cost reductions and savings:

£14,702,600

I am possibly at the high end with some of the wages- Barrow, Adam to name 2.

However there are a few factors to consider as well...

New loanees added

• Gibson- One site suggests £5k per week.
• Semedo- One site suggests £4,500 per week.
• Esteves- One site suggests £2,600 per week??

Ejaria was in the region of £3m though Reading seem to suggest no fees paid in Post balance Sheet. £3m/4=£750k in Amortisation to be added plus another site suggests that his permanent deal=£14k per week.

Oh and Aruna joined end of Jan- 20 weeks wages, whereas his weekly wage stated at £5,000 per week...another possible £160,000 to add back.

Total theoretical costs to add back to the subtraction- plus the unknown such as Paunovic and Bowen:

£2,267,200

Seems remarkable that they should or could theoretically have cut costs by £12m and then surged to playoff contenders from bouncing around the bottom and lower midtable for 3 seasons.

All the same and despite this, I believe that they have breached ie exceeded the Upper Loss Limit in other words, the question is by how much- and there are some fairly generous interpretations in there such as Club and then Consolidated, enabling inclusion x 2 of Stadium Profit, inclusion of Goodwill in Club for 2017/18 to offset even though only in Renhe.

Ah plus the significant Covid costs of course, but then I imagine that they will cancel each other out- ie not even considering them much, but if say £10m hit in Revenue to Covid, add it on and cancel out.

Is an utter farce though, that even with my generous interpretation in 2017/18 and all those assets sold- Stadium and then Stadium again, old Training Ground, land around the Stadium and the 'privilege' of Aluko- £3m kerching, for a year/season, that a club should be anywhere near breaching the Upper Limits??

Edited September 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Some of the comments by Mel Morris are quite interesting about the wider FFP landscape.

1. He references the Marriott extension annulment and refers to another club who could not extend a player that they could have made millions on- both kill the P&S. I assume he means Richards at Reading, who went to Bayern on a free.
2. Suggests that all but two clubs who got promoted failed P&S in the year of their promotion?? I'm unsure about that, is he perhaps looking at the headline figure and not excluding Promotion Bonuses- Promotion Bonuses are excluded because they are not costs that would otherwise be incurred in the event of non-promotion.

Either way if that is close to true, it really makes a mockery- Point 2 I mean- of the "Projected Accounts" Regs, submitted in March etc.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

On 02/09/2021 at 17:46, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah fair enough, suppose I'm a bit impatient- I'll wait a while and hopefully news

John Percy

@JPercyTelegraph

·

49m

#ReadingFC set for heavy deduction of up to 9 points after breaching financial rules. Like Derby, Reading are in talks with the EFL over an "agreed decision" as per regulation 85.

 

That should make your day!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Birmingham City's results for 2020/21 are due tomorrow- at the Hong Kong end.

Probably look properly Friday, don't anticipate any P&S issues given Bellingham and Adams profit plus varied other moderate sales but it will give an early indicator as to what kind of revenue % hit we can expect when ours are out either later this year or early in 2022.

You can actually release accounts fairly quickly for the season just gone- it's just that clubs choose not to often, until a good chunk if not all of their 9 months are up and maybe a bit longer.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Regarding Sheffield Wednesday, feels like there are some blurred lines.

Their new top company is Sheffield 2 Limited of course and it took me a while to work out but it seems that their accounting period for that not that it is stated clearly, is from incorporation date to end of reporting period although it should cover the 2019/20 season, it perhaps covers a bit of 2018/19- as IIRC it was founded at CH on June 21st 2019.

There's a few bits that I wonder about...

Sheffield Wednesday- 2019/20- August 1st 2019-July 31st 2020.

About £15m in Profit on players/employees in those 2 seasons- I assume that the Confidential settlement payment could be the Bruce money, although surely that could come under profit on disposal of players/employees. This is the August 1st 2019-July 31st 2020 period and the same for the season before.

Although the cash flow has it down as follows...

Proceeds from disposal of players/employees.

Sheffield 2 Limited headline bit- made up to 31st July 2020

I hope that the EFL have noticed a risk of double counting. Because that incorporates a bit of the 2018/19 reporting period ie the final month and 10 days or so...clearly we disregard impairment of goodwill but it looks to me that yes there is a bit of extra income and expense by dint of the reporting periods not overlapping and one or two other bits to be reconciled, but they must not be allowed to double count that profit because it appears that there could be a risk of it- hope the EFL make the relevant adjustments for P&S.

Cash Flow for the relevant period

Where are those proceeds of intangibles coming from? Why the approaching £9.5m gap- is it a risk of accounting for bits of it twice, certainly seems to be only player registrations shown as disposed of in the relevant section.

As a curious aside, the accounts appeared to be signed off after the due date.

Well may have been from the 28th June 2019, anyway.

 

Like I say signed off/approved on 10th September 2021, when the accounts were due on 31st July 2021.

On a side note, those Sheffield 3 Limited accounts are overdue. Relevant as that is the company which 'purchased' Hillsborough and still no sign of the clearing of the loan or partial payment to New Avenue Projects secured against Hillsborough- maybe it's been done and just not updated.  If it rolls over, does it update?

Edited September 29, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I said I would look at Birmingham and now I will. Had a quick look the other day.

They made a profit in 2020/21, albeit mainly through the sale of Bellingham. The overall BSH made a loss but the segmented results saw a profit- less clear is the basis for the claim by their now former CEO that the wage bill was slashed. £18m was one estimate I read, but again less than sure...

I might add they got their results out on time, in a mere 3 months- it can be done. It's quite hard to follow their results financially in the consolidated format. It's  in HK$...

Their income seemed to be only 60% or thereabouts of what it was in 2019/20. The bottom line is that they seem to have made a profit and when you add in Covid allowances it's a bigger profit, then added in is P&S allowances it gets better still.

As we can see, that's mostly Bellingham- cutting the amortisation cost also helps from a profit and loss POV albeit irrelevant cash wise in terms of ongoing costs. (Although less amortisation=less fees paid which can also help with cash in the long run potentially).

We can also see that the segmented results show a clear profit.

Revenue appears to be down in terms of HK$ for the football club about HK$76,971,000. Assume that a good chunk of that would be attributable to Covid.

The bit about Other Income- and it's related to the football club- confuses me. Is it added to the revenue from external customers or included within.

Nothing dodgy or substantial about it, merely unsure how to account for it.

The bit about wage bill for the club having plummeted- well anyway they seem like they should be fine with FFP for a couple of years but have to wonder about that claim that I mentioned earlier in the post.

Gone up a bit, if anything. Bear in mind though that is for the entire group but last time ie 2019/20, the wage bill of the club was a good chunk of the entire group wage bill.

https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2021/0930/2021093002012.pdf

Better analysis than mine too below. Not really mentioned FFP though his one but about the accounts more widely.

https://almajir.net/2021/10/04/bsh-accounts-analysis-end-of-year-june-2021/

Edited October 4, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Hull made a loss of £8.5m albeit in League One and in a Covid season.

Some fans must have left ST cash in the club as I wasn't aware that they were open for games or at least not enough to make some revenue- anyway they have plenty of issues but FFP appears not to be one. The fans and ownership are at loggerheads, have been for some time- and there was talk of a possible takeover for Hull a while back. The club also seem to be repaying the ownership their loans or some of them at least!

Their total wage bill was stated as £8,443,408 last year and £17,751,492 in 2019/20. Total club wage bill, inclusive of tax and all employment costs.

Amortisation also plummeted- from £7,819,444 in 2019/20 to £2,085,214 in 2020/21.

There seems to be headroom if a) They get a new owner b) If they get an investor or c) If the current ownership have a change of heart and decide that they want to start spending again.

Possible too that the club are now paying rent to their ownership for some or more than some of their fixed assets, but I've not really looked at that in depth.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

On 29/09/2021 at 17:50, Mr Popodopolous said:

Where are those proceeds of intangibles coming from?

This is the group cash flow, so includes proceeds for the football club as well as the parent.  A rough reconcilliation of the £16 million could be:

Football Club 2019 accounts  £3.5 million

Football Club 2021 accounts  £6.7 million

'Brucie Bonus'                          £6.5 million

Total                                        £16.7 million

On 29/09/2021 at 17:50, Mr Popodopolous said:

Relevant as that is the company which 'purchased' Hillsborough and still no sign of the clearing of the loan

The football club accounts show the receipt of two tranches of £7.5 million in deferred consideration for the stadium sale.

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 hours ago, Hxj said:

This is the group cash flow, so includes proceeds for the football club as well as the parent.  A rough reconcilliation of the £16 million could be:

Football Club 2019 accounts  £3.5 million

Football Club 2021 accounts  £6.7 million

'Brucie Bonus'                          £6.5 million

Total                                        £16.7 million

Yeah, kinda agree once I looked into it a bit further I saw it as parts of 2019 and the 2019/20 accounts into one...the main thing I guess is that the EFL don't allow double counting to slip by for P&S as I assume that the new reporting entity will be Sheffield 2 Limited for P&S- although simpler still would be if the club was used in this instance for P&S at least until 2019/20.

8 hours ago, Hxj said:

The football club accounts show the receipt of two tranches of £7.5 million in deferred consideration for the stadium sale.

Ah think we might be cross purposes- the loan I mean is the charge against Hillsborough, Sheffield 3 Limited- Chansiri though seems to be paying up in 8 instalments and that's the first 2 so far, the deferred consideration as you say.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ah think we might be cross purposes

Ah yes - but as the debt on the stadium is from a third party then to me it doesn't really matter in the same way.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Hxj said:

Ah yes - but as the debt on the stadium is from a third party then to me it doesn't really matter in the same way.

If Chansiri doesn't pay it or roll over, he loses ownership surely? I assume that scenario won't happen btw. From a P&S angle it seems of little significance anyway.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

As long as the lender is paid  the amounts due under the loan agreement then they won't care.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

Saw this on my Twitter feed.

Reading and FFP, small update.

https://star-reading.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/STAR-STRUCTURED-DIALOGUE-MEETING-4.pdf

1. Points deduction- still being negotiated, the term significant comes up in conjunction with this. The club do accept that rules were broken and having to change course as a result which possibly helps their cause- likely that they've been quite cooperative as well. Mentions something about an EFL statement relatively soon.
2. They believe that they will be fine this season but that next could pose an issue.
3. Obviously limitations on wages that they can offer. No block on contract extensions but unclear if that vs wages on offer for them or say taking up a year option could clash.
4. Said that they sold some land from Bearwood for housing to create funds.
5. They have said in their view that Parachute Payments now too high, create too big a gap etc.

Point 4, bit of devil in the detail. Sold when? It is/was classed as a tangible fixed asset in the most recent accounts and if it was post June 30th 2021 then it needs excluding from P&S. Not from a cashflow POV but certainly the Profit and Loss account.

The fact that their owner owns all of their fixed assets, in a part of the country where land value is at a premium that could be great for him if he ever turns, gets bored- or has to liquidate relatively quickly for his other business interests (if he has any).

Could even take out loans on them, and default if he wanted a relatively swift out. If he defaulted the assets revert to lender and he could get the cash? Caveat there is in that scenario he no longer cares about Reading or his UK business interests.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Norwich

They'll probably be back next season- like a lift. Dunno if it's just headline or full results out yet.

£21m profit last season, although what tipped the balance between profit and loss was the sale of Buendia between the end of the season and the end of June 2021, ie their Reporting Period.

https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/buendia-sale-crucial-to-ncfc-profit-8441064

In other words, FFP wise etc they'll remain in a strong strong position when they inevitably come back down this season. Upper loss limit- subject to equity- of £72m. (2 x PL, 2 x Championship).

Covid losses wise, from the beginning of the outbreak probably to the balance sheet date or end of that reporting period, they are claiming £30m.

The profit on disposal bit is also a bit misleading- without seeing the full accounts it is hard to say.

Edit- found it. £59.552m.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Blackburn

Appear to have 'sold' the training ground and just in time as well- a week before the EFL regs on profit on disposal of fixed assets being included in FFP results changed.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19676622.blackburn-rovers-training-ground-sold-16-6m-new-venkys-company/

£16.6m is the sale price although the Net Book Value isn't broken down by asset- hard to say what the profit is because the Tangible Fixed Assets- are stated as a pair, not individually.

Some Blackburn fans think it's a convenient excuse in order to transfer some valuable land to Venkys.

Stoke were mooted to have considered selling the Stadium too, although the Land Registry has not updated since June 2nd.

 That £30m Impairment also needs careful scrutiny.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

39 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Blackburn

Appear to have 'sold' the training ground and just in time as well- a week before the EFL regs on profit on disposal of fixed assets being included in FFP results changed.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19676622.blackburn-rovers-training-ground-sold-16-6m-new-venkys-company/

£16.6m is the sale price although the Net Book Value isn't broken down by asset- hard to say what the profit is because the Tangible Fixed Assets- are stated as a pair, not individually.

Stoke were mooted to have considered selling the Stadium too, although the Land Registry has not updated since June 2nd.

 That £30m Impairment also needs careful scrutiny.

So another bogus 'sale' then.

If Steve had listened to my advice years ago he would have nailed Scotty's laundry basket to the floor, making it a 'fixed' asset and sold it to one of his companies for £30m.

I got Mel Morris' valuers to confirm the figure and Shaun Harvey had already given me the nod but would Steve listen? Would he ****.

Edited October 27, 2021 by chinapig

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, chinapig said:

So another bogus 'sale' then.

If Steve had listened to my advice years ago he would have nailed Scotty's laundry basket to the floor, making it a 'fixed' asset and sold it to one of his companies for £30m.

I got Mel Morris' valuers to confirm the figure and Shaun Harvey had already given me the nod but would Steve listen? Would he ****.

Depends on what the profit is I guess but on the face of it yes. Could be a cash flow issue but given that they stated FFP...

My mistake- BRFCST applied to have it listed as one in 2017, but it was rejected.

£16.6m is far lower. Who knows what the book value is...£16.6m-Cost/Carrying Value whatever=Profit or otherwise. Benefit might well be pretty limited and not least given the fact that 2019/20 and 2020/21 are a combined average.

There are some Blackburn fans though who think that this move is for the benefit not of the club and FFP necessarily, but Venkys or individuals employed by the club. Only time will tell but entirely possible that it's a paper transaction only.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Birmingham:

a club probably around the size of ours (bit smaller) have losses of £33.5m offset by £26m of player profit.

Good barometer for us where player profit was £2.8m.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I looked at the segments of when the figures were first released at the end of September and it reckoned a small profit for the club- those are consolidated with Birmingham and the other parts of the BSH.

Haven't looked at these in depth, in the more detailed results. Will try and find the link.

When you say a bit smaller are you talking historically, off the pitch or just financially? Because finances aside, I certainly make Birmingham a bigger club historically by a number of metrics.

Here we are- 170 pages! Certainly haven't looked myself...

https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2021/1028/2021102800480.pdf

Edited October 28, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

35 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I looked at the segments of when the figures were first released at the end of September and it reckoned a small profit for the club- those are consolidated with Birmingham and the other parts of the BSH.

Haven't looked at these in depth, in the more detailed results. Will try and find the link.

When you say a bit smaller are you talking historically, off the pitch or just financially? Because finances aside, I certainly make Birmingham a bigger club historically by a number of metrics.

Here we are- 170 pages! Certainly haven't looked myself...

https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2021/1028/2021102800480.pdf

Financially.  

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had a little thought on Blackburn though I'm perhaps clutching a bit. @Hxj you might have an idea.

The EFL regulations on Fiixed Asset sales state effective from 2021/22 and the accounting reference period that covers it.

Blackburn Rovers and Athletic was the entity that sold it then the direct parent seems to be Venkys London Limited. Therefore the assets included in that will be likely to be included in the higher entity on the balance sheet.

Blackburn 12 month accounts run until June 30th, however the Venkys London Limited seem to run until March 31st.

Given the wording of that regulation could the EFL challenge the inclusion of the Training Ground sale and leaseback given that the immediate parent of Blackburn runs from April 1st-March 31st? Therefore the reference period of Venkys London Limited includes the bulk of 2021/22.

Clutching- just a tad! 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Ska Junkie]

On 28/10/2021 at 15:23, Davefevs said:

Birmingham:

a club probably around the size of ours (bit smaller) have losses of £33.5m offset by £26m of player profit.

Good barometer for us where player profit was £2.8m.

Not too many Jude Bellingham deals around to be fair Fevs. No club can rely on that sort of deal.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

Not too many Jude Bellingham deals around to be fair Fevs. No club can rely on that sort of deal.

Agreed. We could be a couple of million better off than Birmingham albeit before Player Sale Profits- which is where they surged ahead of us. Their segmented fias per the BSH accounts looked like it might have been as follows- all in HK$.

https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2021/0930/2021093002012.pdf

Edited November 1, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

One thing I forgot to add- or that should be one person I forgot to tag.

@Coppello you might know a bit about this kinda thing- the Blackburn thing, is there any theoretical possibility that a technicality could trip them up here given that the immediate parent of the club runs to a different period to the club itself? Of course the simplest solution is that they align the Venkys London Limited to a 15 month period to take up to 30th June 2021 and then all bases pretty much are covered- but if not...?

Backdating as we know is not allowed and that would be a reasonable charge if it appeared in the accounts to 31st March 2021...and if it appears in the accounts to 31st March 2022, that surely falls within the reference period bit.

The EFL FFP regulation change (dunno if the PL did likewise).

Quote

1.1.2      Adjusted Earnings Before Tax means Earnings Before Tax adjusted to exclude:

Quote

(b)           with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22, profit/loss on disposal of any tangible fixed asset.

Just wonder if there could be grounds for a challenge on relatively obscure/technical grounds- not so much about a fail, more about the inclusion and adjustment of the results to then and the periods that cover it. Nothing much more than a technicality but technicalities can count!

Edited November 1, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

11 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

Not too many Jude Bellingham deals around to be fair Fevs. No club can rely on that sort of deal.

The point I was making is that we can expect losses of £30m+, I.e. sane as Brum w/o Bellingham.

[Hxj]

21 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Given the wording of that regulation could the EFL challenge the inclusion of the Training Ground sale and leaseback given that the immediate parent of Blackburn runs from April 1st-March 31st? Therefore the reference period of Venkys London Limited includes the bulk of 2021/22.

No - Accounting period used is either the formal company/group accounts to a date ending in the required period (May to July) or specially prepared accounts to a date ending in that period if the company/group has a different accounting period. 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

No - Accounting period used is either the formal company/group accounts to a date ending in the required period (May to July) or specially prepared accounts to a date ending in that period if the company/group has a different accounting period. 

Thanks. No grounds then?

The Blackburn one is quite odd though because as I say, the parent runs April 1st-March 31st and the club itself runs between July 1st-June 30th. It will be included then as expected if all boxes ticked.

I guess for simplicity purposes it'd be the Blackburn as opposed to Venkys London Limited accounts that would be the relevant ones for FFP.

Did say I was clutching a bit though.

[GreedyHarry]

On 27/10/2021 at 18:48, Mr Popodopolous said:

Depends on what the profit is I guess but on the face of it yes. Could be a cash flow issue but given that they stated FFP...

My mistake- BRFCST applied to have it listed as one in 2017, but it was rejected.

£16.6m is far lower. Who knows what the book value is...£16.6m-Cost/Carrying Value whatever=Profit or otherwise. Benefit might well be pretty limited and not least given the fact that 2019/20 and 2020/21 are a combined average.

There are some Blackburn fans though who think that this move is for the benefit not of the club and FFP necessarily, but Venkys or individuals employed by the club. Only time will tell but entirely possible that it's a paper transaction only.

My boss is a Blackburn fan and he thinks it’s been sold purely to ease cash flow. No corroboration of that but if he is representative of Blackburn’s fan base then they are not supportive of it. Not supportive at all.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 02/11/2021 at 07:56, GreedyHarry said:

My boss is a Blackburn fan and he thinks it’s been sold purely to ease cash flow. No corroboration of that but if he is representative of Blackburn’s fan base then they are not supportive of it. Not supportive at all.

Thanks. I got the impression that Venkys are still rather distrusted up there. They've made a right mess of things to put it politely but perhaps have stabilised aspects now? They do keep the club afloat however despite all of their unusual actions.

There have been reports that it helped to an extent with FFP but FFP can also tie into cash flow- see the cash losses requirement- so it could be both in a sense- the 2021 accounts should reveal all either way.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Now that Derby and Reading are sorted- at least for the moment, Business Plan etc. Blackburn look theoretically possible but less of a major priority so we'll put them down a notch.

Stoke

I started some calculations a while back but will use Swiss Ramble for now. Credit to Swiss Ramble. Basically by my calculations, Upper Loss Limit to 2021 was £55.5m by dint of PL relegation, one PL season and 3 Championship=£55.5m.

£23m + £8m + Half of £43m=£52.5m in used losses so far.

By my calculations before FFP etc, they cannot exceed an FFP loss of £6m in 2020/21 in order to remain compliant. That's in addition when looking at it from an accounting POV, the estimated £7m in allowable costs that they have in a typical season and whatever the Covid costs are...although the Impairment has slashed the amortisation charge and I hope is still under rigorous and ongoing investigation...Year 3 vs Year 2 of Parachute Payments also sees a drop although some of Year 2 will be deferred into Year 3 by dint of Covid. In short, they need to cut that loss by £37m to remain compliant and even if they do, into this season it's down to the £39m and the end of Parachute Payments...quite a lot of departures though albeit helped by that Impairment.

Surely there is a real chance that Stoke have failed FFP to 2021...although having said that, they are not on the Embargo list unlike Derby or Reading.

Edited November 24, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

I’d say Stoke likely to be in a bit of bother, a) when they announce 20/21’s accounts and b) 21/22 projections.  You’d imagine they’d already submitted 3 year projections anyway as they must’ve already been on EFL radar from 19/20’s position.

The might well be on for a points deduction when submissions go in.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I’d say Stoke likely to be in a bit of bother, a) when they announce 20/21’s accounts and b) 21/22 projections.  You’d imagine they’d already submitted 3 year projections anyway as they must’ve already been on EFL radar from 19/20’s position.

The might well be on for a points deduction when submissions go in.

Stoke fans don't seem all that worried or more to the point it isn't now a huge topic of conversation from a quick search but you might well be right.

Although there is a big difference between that and a certain club who had a reasonable portion of fans who actively gloated they had the EFL on strings, their owner had the EFL on strings and the like- never seen any kind of fan reaction like that at our level or for so long FFS. Their accounts- Stoke's are usually out around November/December but not technically due until end of Feb 2022.

My little point on that club though, Derby- never seen the like! 

Edited November 24, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

Just to point out that SR's tweet contains errors:

Firstly there is no limit for 2019/20 as no test (this is only implied).

Secondly SR's loss limits are incorrect.  The £55.5 million mentioned by @Mr Popodopolous is the correct one.

Edited November 25, 2021 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

Bit of Stoke, one or two interesting posts on their forum.

The numbers that we have in the public domain don't look wildly comfortable FFP wise let's say...I wonder the stadium has been sold as well as the Impairment trick? Land Registry seemed not to have updated since early June 2021...To caveat, Stoke are not on the Embargo list so in theory...would be strange if they were falling foul but but not under embargo?

I would hope fwiw that the Impairment is still under active investigation, using real data and comparable evidence etc. As in "Signed off okay...for now, not forever". See also Derby and Sheffield Wednesday.

However it doesn't sound like it's an FFP settlement?

Interesting to see how this will play out. I seem to recall that Percy stated something about a sale and leaseback in late May 2021- but as we know such transactions cannot be backdated and anything after the reporting period would/should be excluded from P&S calcs.

Here we go, the evening of 27th May 2021- Stoke's (as far as public domain goes) Reporting Period runs to 31st May 2021...as we know from the SWFC case, backdating is not permitted and as we know from the change of regs, as I said the profit would be excluded if sold in this season.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/05/27/stoke-city-could-forced-sell-stadium-avoid-breaching-financial/

Edited November 30, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

@Mr PopodopolousBlackburn’s accounts.  I guess this us why they had to sell Armstrong and their training ground.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 18/12/2021 at 11:53, Davefevs said:

@Mr PopodopolousBlackburn’s accounts.  I guess this us why they had to sell Armstrong and their training ground.

 

Thanks Dave. Had a bit of a look in depth and will look at Kieran's analysis too- the fact that their turnover isn't far off what it was in 2019/20 is interesting- they either did a bit like what Derby eg did and the cash stayed in the club and they got to go for free in 2021/22 as with some of their season ticket holders or a lot of fans voluntarily kept it in the club. Them and Millwall didn't see their turnover have a huge hit but then I don't suppose they have huge commercial revenue eg so how much of a marker we can draw for our accounts is unclear- April 1st 2020-March 31st 2021 as well in this instance which is a bit unusual.

I've always thought that Blackburn were walking rather than crossing the line FFP, ie losses on a 3 year rolling period right up to but not necessarily over limits. What interests me here is that the EFL regs from 2021/22 don't just disallow profit on fixed assets from FFP for the season 2021/22 but the accounting reference period that covers it- to me accounts that run for VLL from April 1st 2021 to March 31st 2022- is that not an accounting reference period that covers 2021/22? Still unconvinced they exceed, more like very close without the training ground sale and leaseback given a Category A Academy, Infrastructure Depreciation and what appears to be a decent Community spend, Blackburn Rovers Community Trust- perhaps it was also to give them some headroom to try to extend the following either for on the pitch gain or to protect assets in the event its needed...

As it stands...contracts that expire summer 2022

1. Kaminski
2. Nyambe
3. Lenihan
4. Rothwell
5. Brereton-Diaz

To lose most let alone all of them on frees or pre-contracts- or significantly below value would be disastrous for them IMO. Possibly Kaminski and Brereton-Diaz have options but in theory those two- well all 5 but thinking those two might also be of some interest in Europe, can speak to clubs outside of England from January I believe for pre-contracts if they don't move quickly. Brereton-Diaz has already attracted rumoured interest from Sevilla- pre-contract- and Rothwell was linked with Rangers on a free.,

Edited December 20, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

On 20/12/2021 at 20:14, Mr Popodopolous said:

What interests me here is that the EFL regs from 2021/22 don't just disallow profit on fixed assets from FFP for the season 2021/22 but the accounting reference period that covers it- to me accounts that run for VLL from April 1st 2021 to March 31st 2022- is that not an accounting reference period that covers 2021/22?

Nope.

Where the accounting period for the football cub (or football group) doesn't end in the period from 31 May to 31 July separate accounts need to be drawn up to a date in that period, which will be the relevant accounts for FFP purposes.

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Nope.

Where the accounting period for the football cub (or football group) doesn't end in the period from 31 May to 31 July separate accounts need to be drawn up to a date in that period, which will be the relevant accounts for FFP purposes.

Yep

[Mr Popodopolous]

52 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Nope.

Where the accounting period for the football cub (or football group) doesn't end in the period from 31 May to 31 July separate accounts need to be drawn up to a date in that period, which will be the relevant accounts for FFP purposes.

 

41 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep

Thanks both.

It can go through as fine then, subject to fair value? Bit of wishful thinking on my part although Blackburn is oddly aligned as the club itself, their accounting period goes to 30th June, whereas VLL goes to 31st March.

Therefore it should appear in 2020/21 Blackburn accounts but VLL, the accounts to 31st March 2022. 

[Davefevs]

Cash flow issues resolved for Swansea.

Macquarie Bank seem to have a high risk appetite….it’s always them!!!

[NcnsBcfc]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Cash flow issues resolved for Swansea.

Macquarie Bank seem to have a high risk appetite….it’s always them!!!

Doesn't it say Swansea have to repay £275m in 2023  on the form?

I hope someone saw that typo before signing the agreement

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Doesn't it say Swansea have to repay £275m in 2023  on the form?

I hope someone saw that typo before signing the agreement

That is one big oversight.

@ExiledAjax what’s the legal position on two many digits between the commas!

[ExiledAjax]

38 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That is one big oversight.

@ExiledAjax what’s the legal position on two many digits between the commas!

That the trainee who proof-read the loan agreement gets a bollocking.

I'd say it's a pretty obvious typo...I mean what is likely to be meant by £2,7500,000? Is it actually a written representation of £27,500,000? Or is it a typo? Spurs will say that they'll pay £2,750,000 as intended (and as is likely recorded in emails and other pre-contract docs) (although there will be an entire agreement clause that renders those pre-contract chats indicative only. If Swansea would like to argue that in fact the typo is the position of the first , rather than the presence of an extra 0 and thereby try and force Spurs to pay £27.5m then they will have to sue for it in court. I'd imagine the court will say "There is an extra 0. Please go away."

I guess you might look at case law around similar typos in prices of goods that have appeared on line. In general, to my memory, those have broadly decided that such typos - ie where amazon lists a TV for £10.30 instead of £1,030.00 - don't bind the seller to accept the lower offer. There might be some nuance to that whcih I don't remember. 

44 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Doesn't it say Swansea have to repay £275m in 2023  on the form?

I hope someone saw that typo before signing the agreement

£27.5m surely?

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Cash flow issues resolved for Swansea.

Macquarie Bank seem to have a high risk appetite….it’s always them!!!

Yes, I remembered this article from last year:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/11/premier-league-clubs-australian-bank-macquarie-loans-tv-earnings

[Davefevs]

33 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

That the trainee who proof-read the loan agreement gets a bollocking.

I'd say it's a pretty obvious typo...I mean what is likely to be meant by £2,7500,000? Is it actually a written representation of £27,500,000? Or is it a typo? Spurs will say that they'll pay £2,750,000 as intended (and as is likely recorded in emails and other pre-contract docs) (although there will be an entire agreement clause that renders those pre-contract chats indicative only. If Swansea would like to argue that in fact the typo is the position of the first , rather than the presence of an extra 0 and thereby try and force Spurs to pay £27.5m then they will have to sue for it in court. I'd imagine the court will say "There is an extra 0. Please go away."

I guess you might look at case law around similar typos in prices of goods that have appeared on line. In general, to my memory, those have broadly decided that such typos - ie where amazon lists a TV for £10.30 instead of £1,030.00 - don't bind the seller to accept the lower offer. There might be some nuance to that whcih I don't remember. 

£27.5m surely?

Offer, Acceptance and Consideration is about the only thing I remember from the Banking Foundation Course I did, oh, and Bolton vs Stone (cricket ball and fence).  Most websites have things like Errors and Omissions Excepted to protect the seller from putting up a stupid price.  Some do still sell at that price for goodwill / lack of bad press.

[NcnsBcfc]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

That the trainee who proof-read the loan agreement gets a bollocking.

I'd say it's a pretty obvious typo...I mean what is likely to be meant by £2,7500,000? Is it actually a written representation of £27,500,000? Or is it a typo? Spurs will say that they'll pay £2,750,000 as intended (and as is likely recorded in emails and other pre-contract docs) (although there will be an entire agreement clause that renders those pre-contract chats indicative only. If Swansea would like to argue that in fact the typo is the position of the first , rather than the presence of an extra 0 and thereby try and force Spurs to pay £27.5m then they will have to sue for it in court. I'd imagine the court will say "There is an extra 0. Please go away."

I guess you might look at case law around similar typos in prices of goods that have appeared on line. In general, to my memory, those have broadly decided that such typos - ie where amazon lists a TV for £10.30 instead of £1,030.00 - don't bind the seller to accept the lower offer. There might be some nuance to that whcih I don't remember. 

£27.5m surely?

Quite right, it's obviously catching.

[Hxj]

4 hours ago, NcnsBcfc said:

don't bind the seller to accept the lower offer.

Legally a seller can only accept or reject an offer from a buyer, a buyer cannot force a seller to sell at a price even if advertised.  So if a buyer offers £100 for goods advertised for sale at £10, the seller is perfectly within their rights to reject the offer. Technically the advertised price is a 'Invitation to Treat', in other words an invitation to make an offer.

 

6 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

If Swansea would like to argue that in fact the typo is the position of the first , rather than the presence of an extra 0 and thereby try and force Spurs to pay £27.5m then they will have to sue for it in court.

The charge relates to funds lent to Swansea, so Swansea would be on the hook for the additional payment to the bank not Spurs.  If there was not a similar issue with the Transfer Contract Swansea would need to rely on the goodwill of the bank, failing that the courts.  If the same error appears in the Loan Agreement and the Charge the bank could sue for the full amount.  Whilst that may seem odd if the contract makes sense as it is, a court could be reluctant to intervene.

Which is why contracts are drawn up by lawyers so the lawyers can be sued when mistakes are made.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Hxj

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Technically the advertised price is a 'Invitation to Treat', in other words an invitation to make an offer.

It’s all coming back to me now!

[Hxj]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It’s all coming back to me now!

With luck it will fade away again soon!

[Hxj]

It looks as if it is all beginning to fall apart at Derby.  Is this the beginning of the end?

As per Derbyshire Live:

Joint administrator, Carl Jackson, said: "The joint administrators continue to have positive and fruitful discussions and negotiations with interested parties but these are complex and require input and decisions from other stakeholders.

"Despite our best intentions, it is now unlikely any announcement will be made pre-Christmas as to the preferred bidder.

And by Kirchner:

"It’s not necessarily that… very very complex situation the admins were dealt. I do have issues with the delays and inability to keep deadlines. The only one to really blame for this situation is Mel Morris. Proper f...k job." 

and:

"Only getting worse as player contracts expire… club becomes much less valuable without the proper moves in January. This is done in December or going to be nearly impossible to find a buyer."

"Which means it becomes worth less than HMRC and football creditors are owed (both fixed percentages under EFL rules) and then becomes nearly impossible for someone to buy as they will start so far under water"

Edited December 23, 2021 by Hxj

[Davefevs]

Did Kirchner really say that!!!

[Hxj]

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Did Kirchner really say that!!!

Yep - and he put all the letters in too!

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Yep - and he put all the letters in too!

Not looking good is it

[Hxj]

27 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Not looking good is it

No - looking like it will all fall apart pretty quickly after Christmas.

[Davefevs]

Cheeky bid for Buchanan - I’m sure he will have plenty of suitors. Although he’s currently injured.

[Davefevs]

 

[RedEd73]

Kirchner has pulled out

 

[weepywall]

11 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Cheeky bid for Buchanan - I’m sure he will have plenty of suitors. Although he’s currently injured.

Currently injured ? Just our sort of signing

[Mr Popodopolous]

Said on the accounts thread that I'd do a quick comparison of a few clubs. Credit to SwissRamble for the figures- two or three clubs that I am wondering about- two of them once their 2018/19 figures drop off. Yet two of these clubs are strongly committed to FFP and one of these even launched his legal campaign vs the EFL and Derby in pursuit of upholding the rules so I struggle to see that they breach- otoh their figures are in a similar range to us, based on what we know etc. The level of EFL intervention will be interesting to see.

Middlesbrough FC

Nottingham Forest FC

The former, I don't think they fail to 2021 or 2022 but could be in a similar boat to us...remember that £24m will be halved but also added to whatever after Covid costs was lost last season- Parachute Payments, the final season of these was 2018/19.

The latter if they exceeded an FFP loss of £13m in 2020/21 stood to fail FFP to the combined average of 2020 and 2021 but also remember they sold Cash that season for a decent fee which can help. Even if they kept that below £39m though, they have a starting point to 2022 that was markedly worse than that to 2021- a £20m loss!! Otoh Brennan Johnson is linked with the PL, sell him and they can continue to stay above FFP, Worrall is also often linked- again sell him and that helps a lot- Brereton sell on clause as well if Blackburn sell him.

Stoke CIty FC

Stoke are a pretty interesting one for sure...and definitely should be on a list whereby the EFL are closely monitoring them, more than most.

By dint of 1 season in PL and 3 in the Championship, their Upper Loss Limit to 2021 will be £55.5m in FFP terms. Their estimated FFP loss in the first 3 years of that would be £52.5m- thereby if their FFP loss exceeds £6m in 2020/21, they surely have failed? Give or take some rounding up or down.

Because of the way Covid fell, it won't be a straight line between Parachute Payments typically in Year 2 and 3, given how these are paid- but all the same we'd expect 2020/21 to be lower than 2019/20 even if not quite as low as usual.

Impairment if fully accepted, clears a chunk of amortisation off moving forward but even if they succeed to 2020/21, it still leaves a combination of Parachute Payments ending in Year 3 combined with the Upper Loss Limit dropping to £39m...£8m + whatever the combined average for the last 2 seasons was- could leave a £13m FFP target or less this season...that is minus Parachute Payments and with probably a lower Profit on disposal of Players than 2018/19 ie the year they dropped.

For a bit of context

Middlesbrough FC

Made a combined FFP loss of £15m in 2018/19 and 2019/20 despite a 2nd and final year of Parachute Payments in 2018/19 and combined transfer profits of around £36.7m across the two seasons. Granted amortisation and wages will have dropped off since as well...hired and fired Woodgate, Warnock and Wilder since.

Nottingham Forest FC

Made a combined FFP loss of £33m in 2018/19 and 2019/20 despite a combined transfer profits of around £23.8m across those two seasons- so Cash's sale, welcome though it is would just be a repeat to an extent of the prior 2 seasons? Also  sacked Lamouchi and hired and fired Hughton in that time before hiring Cooper.

Stoke City FC

In 2018/19 and 2019/20, had that combined FFP loss of £51m despite Year 1 and a fair bit of Year 2 of Parachute Payments plus a Profit on disposal of players of around £21.3m- although hiring and firing Rowett, Jones and O'Neill will be costs that haven't been repeated since. Lambert's departure just about fell into 2017/18 so won't be a factor as such- easier to hire and fire on PL cash and loss limits!

You do though have to add then halve whatever the figure is for 2019/20 and 2020/21 to get it in full at this stage...

Edited December 28, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Nice contextual piece Mr P….I see Boro as similar to us in many ways, and no way Gibson let’s them fail FFP either….would be hypocritical of him.  Same with SL.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting line from Reading, albeit not today- just seen.

http://sportwitness.co.uk/reading-player-set-leave-club-january-ffp-forcing-contract-termination/

Goalie Rafael- signed in more expansive times, sounds like they have January targets as part of their Business Plan- perhaps 6 would become 12 in the spring if they don't hit these. This is how it should have been done with Birmingham in 2018/19.

As for Stoke. Their fans still appear to be reasonably calm, a few even bullish FFP wise.

https://oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/302642/ffp-again

Edited December 30, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

This year is their final year of PPs.  Must have some serious cash flow issues.

Not likely to be FFP issues yet, but when they show their latest accounts we will see direction of travel.

[Bodiesaffer]

Is there enough relief for clubs, with the world being sort on cash and covid issues?

[Hxj]

51 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Must have some serious cash flow issues.

They assigned their 'central funds distributions' for 2020/21 for £30 million odd cash up front.  Then Covid hit - so no income and no central distributions.  Cash would have got very tight.

That said, I believe that it was Hoyle who lent the club the cash up front in the first place so everything he says or does needs to be looked at in that context.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

Brentford.

£8m loss last season but that was inclusive of a £44m profit on transfers.

£41m wage bill but inclusive of a £12m Promotion Bonus.

In theory they could have kept Benrahma and Watkins and remained FFP compliant.

Not a Parachute Payment in sight!!

Wasn't our BCFC Holdings wage bill about £34m last season?

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wasn't our BCFC Holdings wage bill about £34m last season?

£33.3m close enough

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 16/01/2022 at 10:36, Bodiesaffer said:

Is there enough relief for clubs, with the world being sort on cash and covid issues?

Do you mean FFP or in general?

FFP relief, well some amendments anyway.

1) Losses directly attributable to Covid 19 are excluded, however these are in accordance with guidance from the EFL Board. Devil and detail springs to mind??

Saw a couple of reports that suggested only £5m in matchday revenue would be the one but that's madly low.

2) One we definitely know about. The profit or loss in 2019/20 and 2020/21 are added together and then halved. Thereby reducing the impact and making a 3 year cycle a sort of 4 year cycle.

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw a couple of reports that suggested only £5m in matchday revenue would be the one but that's madly low.

That’s not what’s in the EFL guidelines though, so not sure where that came from.

I can only assume that in a normal year there are some costs to creating that revenue, and that they must be taken into account, e.g. revenue down, but some costs also down.

Heres a yearly summary of the revenue streams (Holdings):

Shading:

red - down from 18/19

green - up from 18/19

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

That’s not what’s in the EFL guidelines though, so not sure where that came from.

I can only assume that in a normal year there are some costs to creating that revenue, and that they must be taken into account, e.g. revenue down, but some costs also down.

Heres a yearly summary of the revenue streams (Holdings):

Shading:

red - down from 18/19

green - up from 18/19

Yeah don't disagree with this- think our Covid losses over the 2 years can realistically run into 8 figures but the media snippets were worrying all the same.