The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

Their losses are trending upwards though...yes I know Covid has played a part but before allowances for FFP and Covid, the following pattern is worth considering but again I doubt they breach. Pre tax of course is the initial starting point before allowances and so on.

First set

1. 2015/16- £4,417,000- LOSS
2. 2016/17- £2,856,000- LOSS
3. 2017/18- £1,933,000- PROFIT

Next set...

1. 2018/19- £14,326,000- LOSS
2. 2019/20- £10,109,000- LOSS
3. 2020/21- £17.529,000- LOSS

Could be one to watch in the coming years but maybe they will go and save a bit in the near future?

Edited February 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Should also add and nobody would have thought any less had they not done so but credit too- not necessarily an FFP note but it appears that they didn't utilise furlough!

You'd expect it from a PL club but that is quite impressive given their turnover etc.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Their losses are trending upwards though...yes I know Covid has played a part but before allowances for FFP and Covid, the following pattern is worth considering but again I doubt they breach. Pre tax of course is the initial starting point before allowances and so on.

First set

1. 2015/16- £4,417,000- LOSS
2. 2016/17- £2,856,000- LOSS
3. 2017/18- £1,933,000- PROFIT

Next set...

1. 2018/19- £14,326,000- LOSS
2. 2019/20- £10,109,000- LOSS
3. 2020/21- £17.529,000- LOSS

Could be one to watch in the coming years but maybe they will go and save a bit in the near future?

Whose accounts are those?

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Whose accounts are those?

Preston. Using the Preston North End Limited as the parent, think the ultimate parent is Deepdale PNE Holdings Limited which isn't out yet.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01621060

Edited February 24, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Saw a snippet on the Stoke forum- a prediction of £40m losses in 2020/21.

Based on a rough extrapolation, there were about 2.4 months perhaps in the period to May 31st 2020 lost to Covid- I could be more precise but their more conventional Covid costs/losses were put down as around £8m from memory. A rough extrapolation suggests £38-40m in 2020/21, a full 12 month period.

This would mean and this is independent of any further attempted Covid player write-downs, that Stoke are perhaps trying to claim as much as £78m in Covid costs over the 2 years when we add that £30m suggested Player Impairment back!

Obviously their annual costs still seem like £7m per season for FFP but...well if that's anything like accurate that and particularly the Player Impairment side cannot be allowed to rest- not when we consider how we to name one are scrimping and saving- their accounts are not out yet it's just an estimate but the basic sums might look a bit like...

£88m loss plus £40m loss=£128m

Minus £48m in regular Covid costs

Minus £30m in Covid Player Impairment- plus whatever they try and put into 2020/21- £10-15m maybe?

One estimate of that would be to take Covid claimed costs to £88-93m over the 2 seasons.

Minus £7m x 2 in FFP costs.

Would still leave a loss of £36m for FFP but as we all know, halved as 1 year=2...£18m. If there is a further £10-15m in there, it might lop £~5-7.5m off the combined aggregate/average.

Time will tell but a rough extrapolation of £8m in Year 1 does take it to £38-40m in Year 2 and the combined aggregate is easy to make an initial case for, based on how it's been laid out...the much bigger and more contentious issue is the £30m and maybe more last year of Covid Player Impairment!

Like I say, the first bits seem reasonable or debatable- the final bit is unique among clubs in 2019/20 at our level and indeed the clubs governed by P&S- possible exception with Everton in the PL.

Their accounts- along with Cardiff- okay Barnsley and Coventry too but no FFP issues there- are due out Monday! As are Birmingham's 6 months to the end of 2021.

Although, looking at Everton again it's still not certain that they have tried to exclude it from FFP- maybe it has been a Player Impairment to try and accelerate/front load the losses but still in the FFP calcs.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

As we know.

Barnsley, Cardiff, Coventry and Stoke are due this coming week. However! Possibly an interesting development in the case of the latter. Few might be interested- @Davefevs @AnotherDerbyFan  @NcnsBcfc @Hxj

Bit long and convoluted but anyway...

Some months ago, Bet365 reduced their Reporting Period to 2021- from 31st March 2021 to 30th March 2021. This ultimately sits above Stoke City Holdings but the latter is top co for FFP reporting but Bet365 includes within the numbers for Stoke.

Usually this would if running on the normal period mean that their- Bet365 accounts out at the end of 2021, start of 2022 but they have until 30th March 2022 to submit to CH. Possibly unrelated but..

Stoke City Property last year (owns the ground, training ground and maybe one or two other bits) extended its reporting Period from 31st March to 31st May 2021. To align with Stoke City FC Limited and Stoke City Holdings presumably.

Stoke City Limited doesn't own those two properties, Stoke City Property does- the club couldn't sell for FFP but the consolidator- Stoke City Holdings could.

Anyway to try and shorten a long story, it appears that the 3 Stoke companies- The Club, the Property company and the Consolidator, might have utilised a loophole, perhaps loophole 1 opened the door for the 2nd as it now says the due dates for accounts at CH which are Monday or have been Monday, now appear to be listed as 28th May 2022!

Not altogether sure which loophole it was but there are varying ways to delay disclosure in the public domain, think Kieran Maguire has referenced Mike Ashley's use in the past but an unusual development indeed..?

[Mr Popodopolous]

It could be a glitch in the CH system too of course..

..Or a cynic might wonder if it's an attempt to a) Scramble up via the playoffs before the EFL can assess in more detail and perhaps more significantly rival clubs can make their views known to the EFL. b) Can stall an an Embargo for late/nonsubmission of accounts to CH c) With that can negotiate with players with a bit more freedom owing to a not yet settled but technically not yet in breach position or d) Some mix of a)-c).

[Mr Popodopolous]

Plus, Reading's accounts out. We knew they were in breach anyway due to the ongoing suspended points etc.

£35.6m loss last season but do bear in mind that Renhe Sports Management might be the reporting entity...based on a (very) quick look and the fact that the average is combined I'm unsure how Reading got an overspend as high as £18m.

My assumption was that it was Reading FC in 2017/18 and Renhe Sports Management thereafter although this could be wrong.

Am assuming £5m per year in regular FFP allowances, maybe £6-8m in Covid costs given the revenue between years and of course the averaging...I just don't see a £57m adjusted P&S loss once all that done.

Possible some of my estimates are out of course.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[NcnsBcfc]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As we know.

Barnsley, Cardiff, Coventry and Stoke are due this coming week. However! Possibly an interesting development in the case of the latter. Few might be interested- @Davefevs @AnotherDerbyFan  @NcnsBcfc @Hxj

Bit long and convoluted but anyway...

Some months ago, Bet365 reduced their Reporting Period to 2021- from 31st March 2021 to 30th March 2021. This ultimately sits above Stoke City Holdings but the latter is top co for FFP reporting but Bet365 includes within the numbers for Stoke.

Usually this would if running on the normal period mean that their- Bet365 accounts out at the end of 2021, start of 2022 but they have until 30th March 2022 to submit to CH. Possibly unrelated but..

Stoke City Property last year (owns the ground, training ground and maybe one or two other bits) extended its reporting Period from 31st March to 31st May 2021. To align with Stoke City FC Limited and Stoke City Holdings presumably.

Stoke City Limited doesn't own those two properties, Stoke City Property does- the club couldn't sell for FFP but the consolidator- Stoke City Holdings could.

Anyway to try and shorten a long story, it appears that the 3 Stoke companies- The Club, the Property company and the Consolidator, might have utilised a loophole, perhaps loophole 1 opened the door for the 2nd as it now says the due dates for accounts at CH which are Monday or have been Monday, now appear to be listed as 28th May 2022!

Not altogether sure which loophole it was but there are varying ways to delay disclosure in the public domain, think Kieran Maguire has referenced Mike Ashley's use in the past but an unusual development indeed..?

Thanks @Mr Popodopolous

@Davefevs and i spoke about FFP after the FBC podcast the other day.

Unlike yourself, Dave; and possibly @Hxj i'm no accountant. But i think looking at FFP as a whole the fairest way is to increase the allowances over the 3 year period.

A PL club gets i believe about £90m over the 3 years of the PP upon relegation.

The championship is such an uncompetitive division because of these payments  in my opinion. The last team that arguably can say they got up to the PL the traditional way is perhaps Brentford (and Dave made the point, if they didn't go up last season, they would have had to change their approach).

The £39m threshold is far too low. In my view it should be closer to £60m. This would allow, some of the clubs to at least compete without the metaphorical one hand tied behind their back.

I don't think that is too large a figure, and would certainly still preclude certain teams trying unsuccessfully to buy themselves out of the division  like Fulham, Bournemouth, Villa, and others did.

When you see that as a club we are only allowed to lose £13m in a season (pro rata), and relegated clubs are going out and spending that on one player; you know that the EFL has been party to making this division an unpalatable one at times. 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Plus, Reading's accounts out. We knew they were in breach anyway due to the ongoing suspended points etc.

£35.6m loss last season but do bear in mind that Renhe Sports Management might be the reporting entity...based on a (very) quick look and the fact that the average is combined I'm unsure how Reading got an overspend as high as £18m.

My assumption was that it was Reading FC in 2017/18 and Renhe Sports Management thereafter although this could be wrong.

Am assuming £5m per year in regular FFP allowances, maybe £6-8m in Covid costs given the revenue between years and of course the averaging...I just don't see a £57m adjusted P&S loss once all that done.

Possible some of my estimates are out of course.

Just re-read the EFL decision.  The decision must’ve been based on actual accounts for 17/18, 18/19, 19/20 and projected for 20/21, hence the unaudited bit in the wording.  The “gross” losses for the 3 years were £30m, £12m, half of £45m (minus covid allowance) and now announced half of £35m (minus covid allowances).

Lets say they took their 2 x £5m allowances.

We are looking at £30m, £12m, half of £40m, half of £30m…..total £77m….therefore just have to remove 3 years of FFP excludables to get £57m “projected”.  I don’t think £6-7m x 3 (c£20m) is that out of the ordinary for a club with a Cat 1 academy.

So possibly, their latest accounts might mean no further sanction on the 6pts as it currently stands.

Of course the big question then becomes what we’re their projected accounts for this season 21/22, and how have they stuck to it?  Have they stuck to their £21m wage budget imposed?  They did get £8m for Olise.  Might squeeze in this season.  Can only assume EFL have been monitoring, as they allowed them to sign Ince, Hein on loan and Barker on a free…whilst Moore and Puskas left on loans, and Carroll and Rafael left permanently.

As it stands as an outsider looking in, it looks like the EFL have managed Reading well this season.  But we will see in any EFL response to the accounts just published or next season.

[Davefevs]

Thought I’d knock up the following for Reading….just to help explain the figures.

Will repeat for other clubs as and when.

[Davefevs]

Coventry showing how it can be done!

[Hxj]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Anyway to try and shorten a long story, it appears that the 3 Stoke companies- The Club, the Property company and the Consolidator, might have utilised a loophole, perhaps loophole 1 opened the door for the 2nd as it now says the due dates for accounts at CH which are Monday or have been Monday, now appear to be listed as 28th May 2022!

Not altogether sure which loophole it was but there are varying ways to delay disclosure in the public domain, think Kieran Maguire has referenced Mike Ashley's use in the past but an unusual development indeed..?

If you shorten the accounting period of a company, your filing date is the later of the original date and three months from the date that you tell Companies House of the change.  You have to tell them on or before the original filing date, so if you time it correctly you get another three months.

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 hours ago, Hxj said:

If you shorten the accounting period of a company, your filing date is the later of the original date and three months from the date that you tell Companies House of the change.  You have to tell them on or before the original filing date, so if you time it correctly you get another three months.

Thank you, that was the loophole that I was trying to remember. Although as per CH, Stoke don't appear to have reduced the Accounting Period, still says 31st May 2021.

Interesting to see if they take up that full 3 months- hope that the EFL are keeping a very close eye as £88m in losses albeit trying to frontload and then secondly exclude Impairment- minimum £30m- entirely...

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 hours ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Thanks @Mr Popodopolous

@Davefevs and i spoke about FFP after the FBC podcast the other day.

Unlike yourself, Dave; and possibly @Hxj i'm no accountant. But i think looking at FFP as a whole the fairest way is to increase the allowances over the 3 year period.

A PL club gets i believe about £90m over the 3 years of the PP upon relegation.

The championship is such an uncompetitive division because of these payments  in my opinion. The last team that arguably can say they got up to the PL the traditional way is perhaps Brentford (and Dave made the point, if they didn't go up last season, they would have had to change their approach).

The £39m threshold is far too low. In my view it should be closer to £60m. This would allow, some of the clubs to at least compete without the metaphorical one hand tied behind their back.

I don't think that is too large a figure, and would certainly still preclude certain teams trying unsuccessfully to buy themselves out of the division  like Fulham, Bournemouth, Villa, and others did.

When you see that as a club we are only allowed to lose £13m in a season (pro rata), and relegated clubs are going out and spending that on one player; you know that the EFL has been party to making this division an unpalatable one at times. 

When you say traditional way do you mean non parachute boosted? That aside yes the Parachute Payment issue creates a problem, although I would point out that West Brom after a strong start have slid into upper midtable and so far Bruce hasn't had a new manager bounce. Have a fairly thin squad too as did Bournemouth to an extent until their late January trolley dash.

I digress, that is a major advantage yes. A preferred solution of mine or at least one to explore in recent times has been to limit Parachute money in terms of counting towards FFP to the equivalent of Solidarity Payments only.

Not so much levelling up as levelling down, I suppose that might push the gap to the PL ever higher but clubs would then have a real onus to cut back and show restraint from Day One as FFP would loom larger in many cases which in turn should drive down wage inflation. 

I don't exactly know how it came into being but have read bits in recent years that it was linked to Solidarity Payments to the Football League the alignment of the two systems. Crucially the PL are supposed to enforce what the Football League want on newly promoted clubs who may have been in breach but I don't really see any evidence of this.

Higher losses could be good, unsure any club who has failed would have done so then although would clubs who pushed it with £39m have just upped their pushing it- but would go against the actual name of it..Profitability and Sustainability. Birch or Parry said that the current system is neither.

Just on the 2nd bit, surely forget the Profit for a minute, the portion that is Sustainable, a net breakeven or better cash flow section. By which I mean, always has to be breakeven at worst irrespective of the owner input, lack of cash is what does for Businesses often.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Update.

https://www.footballinsider247.com/west-brom-will-be-delighted-after-12-5m-confirmation-maguire/

Kieran Maguire says that it is now up to £5m per season for 2019/20, 2020/21 and £2.5m for this season.

Whether a side can spread it over the 2 seasons- eg they legitimately lost £3m in 2019/20 and 2020/21 was £7m=£10m or would it literally be...£3m of £5m=£3m, £5m cap, hit or exceeded=£5m therefore an £8m exclusion loss it is.

Better get reworking some spreadsheets tomorrow with the different scenarios...

Surely would knock on the head the idea of Stoke's £30m- and possibly rising- Covid Player Impairment claim.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Port Said Red]

12 hours ago, Hxj said:

If you shorten the accounting period of a company, your filing date is the later of the original date and three months from the date that you tell Companies House of the change.  You have to tell them on or before the original filing date, so if you time it correctly you get another three months.

The Company Sectretarial Administrator 'er indoors, has one company who use this loophole every year by shortenimg their period by one day. You can do it as many times as you like, but you can only extend the period once every 5 years.

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Just re-read the EFL decision.  The decision must’ve been based on actual accounts for 17/18, 18/19, 19/20 and projected for 20/21, hence the unaudited bit in the wording.  The “gross” losses for the 3 years were £30m, £12m, half of £45m (minus covid allowance) and now announced half of £35m (minus covid allowances).

Lets say they took their 2 x £5m allowances.

We are looking at £30m, £12m, half of £40m, half of £30m…..total £77m….therefore just have to remove 3 years of FFP excludables to get £57m “projected”.  I don’t think £6-7m x 3 (c£20m) is that out of the ordinary for a club with a Cat 1 academy.

So possibly, their latest accounts might mean no further sanction on the 6pts as it currently stands.

Of course the big question then becomes what we’re their projected accounts for this season 21/22, and how have they stuck to it?  Have they stuck to their £21m wage budget imposed?  They did get £8m for Olise.  Might squeeze in this season.  Can only assume EFL have been monitoring, as they allowed them to sign Ince, Hein on loan and Barker on a free…whilst Moore and Puskas left on loans, and Carroll and Rafael left permanently.

As it stands as an outsider looking in, it looks like the EFL have managed Reading well this season.  But we will see in any EFL response to the accounts just published or next season.

I think we might be looking at slightly different numbers although the unaudited bit yeah that is a sign of Projections. 

I was looking at Reading for 2017/18, then Renhe Sports Management thereafter- the latter gives an £11m or so accounting loss for 2018/19 owing to a difference in some Fixed Asset Sales.

As we recall in 2017/18, Reading seemed to 'sell' the Madjeski to Renhe then in 2018/19 it was the Stadium, the old Training Ground and some land all sold by Renhe- although the latter two were also in club accounts possibly, to external but all the same commonly owned companies. Now as far as I am concerned you can't include the Stadium Sale twice, if we exclude one of the two that might square the circle.

Also worth noting that in 2019/20, the Renhe Sports Management loss was IIRC £3m higher than the club one, if that pattern is repeated things start to align more.

They seem to be moving in the right direction as the wage bill dropped by £5.3m I think last season, the January activity will have helped although the 6 signings on loan will have offset that to an extent.

That Renhe vs Reading bit is what makes be move between a £13m on  one hand vs a £19m or £20m target for this season. Will be £13m or less target next year.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

This week could be an interesting one. This month in fact.

Due out this week

Cardiff, results for last season.

Birmingham and their 6 month results to the end of December 2021.

Perhaps due out- should be

Stoke, although there is some uncertainty as to whether it is this week or May 28th 2022. Bet365 could show it, that'd be the end of March 2022.

Due end of March or so

Middlesbrough and Nottingham Forest.

Blackburn and Derby too although Blackburn we have a fair idea about, and the June Order says Derby need to a) Submit to CH within the deadline if out of administration or b) Otherwise publish if still in.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

May as well have a small look.

In respect of Stoke, this EFL £5m and £5m..

Well, they sought to claim £38m in 2019/20 alone! 2020/21, we have no idea yet but can guess, but £8m in normal and £30m in Covid Impairment for 2019/20 in isolation.

£43m FFP loss- that's £88m- est. £7m in usual FFP, £30m in Covid Impairment and £8m in regular Covid costs, all broken down.

They'll have to pick and choose which costs they try to allocate but assuming £5m/£5m in regular Covid costs, that £3m needs to be added back and then that extra £30m needs to be a) Put through as a regular Impairment- transforming the FFP loss into a £76m one for 2019/20 or b) Reallocated back to the Intangible Asset Registrations..so that's £46m FFP loss and then amortised straight line up to the point of disposal- the latter feels a fairly complex exercise.

If added back to normal Impairment then I expect Stoke would look like this- this is after lopping off £7m per year in FFP costs:

2017/18- £23m- PL relegation/£35m limit.

2018/19- £8m/£13m limit

2019/20- £76m loss/£13m limit

Those are FFP and Covid adjusted losses not Accounting losses as such.

£29m adjusted Profit last season maybe?? Trying to calculate it is a mess due to the 2 year average with Covid and reallocation of the Impairment.

Perhaps recalculated another way..

FFP Upper Loss Tariff

£55.5m

£23m + £8m used in 2017/18 and 2018/19.

A further aggregated £49m of FFP losses allowed, averaged at £24.5m per season.

£73m in accounting losses once we add back £7m per year in FFP and £5m per year of Covid.

Of that £73m, and inclusive of FFP and Covid, the losses in 2019/20 once readjusted my way were £76m.

Yep £27m required profit feels accurate from that angle- when I say profit I mean adjusted for a) Covid and b) FFP, £15m in absolute terms.

How on earth do we go about reallocation over term until disposal given we don't know which players were Impaired.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Birmingham's Interim accounts are out. Can't post the link as on phone but will try it later.

One bit that I read and have had to read a few times is "Profit and Loss Sharing Arrangement".

£11-11.5m half season loss without it, maybe £2-3m with..how this works with FFP/P&S I'm unsure but the Football Club Segment appear to have been compensated to the tune of £8-9m under this on first glance.

Also Birmingham appear to have Rental income- can only assume it's from Coventry, early lease termination?? Back at the Ricoh now of course.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2022/0228/2022022801419.pdf

Found the link, if that £8-9m income/offset is allowed to stand as income for FFP, that is a very interesting development.

It's complex, linked to the external company who purchased the Stadium company, not looked into it for a while.

Should add, think they comply to 2021, 2022 and maybe 2023 in any event but that arrangement could have big ramifications.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I read it again, the Rental bit is fairly insignificant and may not be Football Club- or as per HK report Football Club Segment income in any event...

..The Profit and Loss Sharing bit however, that could be significant! Not so much a boost to turnover as a potentially major loss off setter.

In theory could boost their spending power or headroom at least by £8-9m if a one off..think of it as akin to Profit on Transfers, not turnover but enabling a club to spend more- can't be right though!

Edited February 28, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

HKD:GBP roughly 10:1

So £4m loss or £13m loss with support from Parent.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Ah yeah that's the BSH results as a group/consolidator, it's the segmented results I looked at.

Segmented show the club, the huge grey area is does the Profit and Loss Sharing count towards FFP. Certainly shouldn't.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ah yeah that's the BSH results as a group/consolidator, it's the segmented results I looked at.

Segmented show the club, the huge grey area is does the Profit and Loss Sharing count towards FFP. Certainly shouldn't.

Out of interest what about the 6 months to June 2021, where are they?

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Out of interest what about the 6 months to June 2021, where are they?

I think it works like this.

12 month accounts to June 30, come in at the end of September that year.

6 month accounts to the end of December, out at the end of February.

Will dig out the link to the docs uploaded etc soon.

[Davefevs]

19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think it works like this.

12 month accounts to June 30, come in at the end of September that year.

6 month accounts to the end of December, out at the end of February.

Will dig out the link to the docs uploaded etc soon.

Ah, being stoopid, I read it as December 2020, not 2021….so from a published accounts perspective they are the club with the most up to date accounts…albeit unaudited.

Would be good to see the 12 month ones to June 2021….that covers the equivalent 20-21 season I guess?

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Ah, being stoopid, I read it as December 2020, not 2021….so from a published accounts perspective they are the club with the most up to date accounts…albeit unaudited.

Would be good to see the 12 month ones to June 2021….that covers the equivalent 20-21 season I guess?

https://www1.hkexnews.hk/search/titlesearch.xhtml

There's a list...will pull out the last few 12 month and interim ones. Indeed they are the most up to date for FFP.

https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2022/0228/2022022801419.pdf

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

https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2021/0226/2021022601723.pdf

https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2020/0930/2020093001616.pdf

[Mr Popodopolous]

Aaaah, I think I see now having read it a few more times...

It isn't- or may well not be the club- who get the compensation, but the owners- BSH from the other company with whom there is a link. Still find it hard to reconcile a £2.9m loss in the 6 months to the end of December but if it's cancelling it out at net loss to the Parent then the gain shouldn't be reflected in the club accounts?

[Davefevs]

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://www1.hkexnews.hk/search/titlesearch.xhtml

There's a list...will pull out the last few 12 month and interim ones. Indeed they are the most up to date for FFP.

https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2022/0228/2022022801419.pdf

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

https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2021/0226/2021022601723.pdf

https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2020/0930/2020093001616.pdf

Legend
 

My quick and dirty summary of 21/22….£13m loss in first 6 months, reduced by £9m from group investment to £4m.  So expect another £13m in the second 6 months, therefore about £17m in total.  Something like that?

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Legend
 

My quick and dirty summary of 21/22….£13m loss in first 6 months, reduced by £9m from group investment to £4m.  So expect another £13m in the second 6 months, therefore about £17m in total.  Something like that?

Haha thanks..club structures these days eh, I dunno...

Something like that, although the Group Investment- well whether it counts within FFP is a whole different issue- and on closer inspection may go to the consolidated- ie the UBO of BSH, but not the club.

[NcnsBcfc]

On 25/02/2022 at 23:58, Davefevs said:

Coventry showing how it can be done!

Where's their playing budget in that Dave?

Is it the  £15.7m administrative expenses?

[NcnsBcfc]

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Haha thanks..club structures these days eh, I dunno...

Something like that, although the Group Investment- well whether it counts within FFP is a whole different issue- and on closer inspection may go to the consolidated- ie the UBO of BSH, but not the club.

So the saga continues over creative accounting by some clubs to stay with FFP.

As we were talking about before, the premise of potentially punishing a club that has been open & transparent about it's finances; whilst getting outmanouvered again by others leaves a bitter taste.

This Birmingham scenario is similar in my eyes to the Forest owner moving money/players between Olympiakos & Forest at higher than their actual worth to manipulate P&S.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Where's their playing budget in that Dave?

Is it the  £15.7m administrative expenses?

I don’t ever look at it as a “playing budget” per se, I just look simply at “what are the costs of the whole operation”.

So, I add:

• cost of sales
• admin expenses (which in Cov’s case will be wages and amortisation amongst other things)
• interest payable and others

Total circa £19m (compared to our £60m+).

[NcnsBcfc]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t ever look at it as a “playing budget” per se, I just look simply at “what are the costs of the whole operation”.

So, I add:

• cost of sales
• admin expenses (which in Cov’s case will be wages and amortisation amongst other things)
• interest payable and others

Total circa £19m (compared to our £60m+).

Jesus, this is what we were talking about on the phone.

Even with player sales, and a lower playing budget; the unspecified "operating costs" of Bristol City are like a giant millstone around our neck.

There must be a need within the club to address this issue. Either by once again creative accountancy; or by other means?

Do we have any idea what the approx £25m operating costs of City, that exclude the playing budget actually involve?

And of course why are they double, or even more; than reciprocal clubs in the same division?

What are the costs of repaying Lansdown's loan each season as well?

Edited March 1, 2022 by NcnsBcfc

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Jesus, this is what we were talking about on the phone.

Even with player sales, and a lower playing budget; the unspecified "operating costs" of Bristol City are like a giant millstone around our neck.

There must be a need within the club to address this issue. Either by once again creative accountancy; or by other means?

Do we have any idea what the approx £25m operating costs of City, that exclude the playing budget actually involve?

At its simplest level:

Football Club

Amortisation £12.358m

Depreciatiom £0.474m

Other Costs £10.431m (rent to Ashton Gate, services from Bristol Sport, etc, etc)

Total £53.516m costs from football out of £61.562m Holdings

And of course why are they double, or even more; than reciprocal clubs in the same division?

I reckon Nige has got rid of £12-13m of that cost in the summer, more to come too.

What are the costs of repaying Lansdown's loan each season as well?

Here’s Ashton Gate Ltd.  Cost of interest and depreciation is £3.8m

Comments above  

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, NcnsBcfc said:

So the saga continues over creative accounting by some clubs to stay with FFP.

As we were talking about before, the premise of potentially punishing a club that has been open & transparent about it's finances; whilst getting outmanouvered again by others leaves a bitter taste.

This Birmingham scenario is similar in my eyes to the Forest owner moving money/players between Olympiakos & Forest at higher than their actual worth to manipulate P&S.

I had a read back and I think I may have jumped the gun- the offset appears that it might go to the owners ie their chunk of the losses as opposed to the club itself- if that makes sense and it probably doesn't!

The structure from a loose look was complex enough in the first instance even before this...I dunno how to do a graphic on here, perhaps I might make one later and copy it over or similar but anyway...

Quote

Birmingham City FC PLC (Not actually a PLC here, a hangover from Gold and Sullivan if not before but they never bothered to change it).

Sits under

Birmingham City PLC

Until 2010, this was it unless there was a Gold and Sullivan parent that was a parent but ultimately unconnected but since 2010 this sat under...

Birmingham Sports Holdings based in Hong Kong or listed on the HKSE- also known as Birmingham International among other things. That said the Person of control appears to be directly the owner!

Birmingham Sports Holdings although not sure when it moved into this also includes a) A property company in Cambodia b) A lottery of some kind is mentioned- again Asia, not football and I believe that some other items exist too. That's it right? Nope- not since 2019 anyway! Based in Hong Kong, registered in the Cayman Islands- Birmingham Sports Holdings that is.

In 2019, Birmingham sold and leased back the ground- fair price, fair rent and that should be the end of it. Hence where Birmingham City Stadium Limited comes in.

Birmingham City Stadium Limited is separate to the Football Group- ie Club PLC, PLC and BSH- but still under the overall Birmingham Sports Holdings Group. Indeed seems to sit under there whereas Birmingham City PLC sits under the owner.

Is that it? Nope there is more!

In 2020 or 2021, 25% of the Birmingham City Stadium Limited company- the company who now owns St Andrews- was purchased by Oriental Rainbow Investments.

Think the Profit and Loss Sharing benefits a) Birmingham Sports Holdings and b) When applicable that company...the club nope! The club even pay for their own repairs I think, as well as the £1.25m in rent to Birmingham City Stadium Limited.

There's more to it still probably but I lose the will...

Some quick points...if possible with this structure! Hope it helps.

1. Birmingham City Stadium Limited- Still sits within Birmingham Sports Holdings at the HK level but not the UK level...
2. Obviously due to the- in my eyes unlike some other sale and leasebacks, reasonable looking transaction the two are as they have to be separate at the UK level. It's a subsidiary of BSH but not part of the FFP group- ie Birmingham City FC PLC and Birmingham City PLC.
3. This Profit and Loss Sharing arrangement- may well benefit the owners over in Hong Kong, not the club.
4. Not a favourable deal for the club- £1.25m rent per season on a £22.25m transaction is reasonable commercially speaking as well as having to pay own repairs.
5. FWIW, I think that the repairs- and possibly loss of revenue from having to shut stands during said repairs- should be exempt from FFP. May not be much but it seems a fair exemption to me. Infrastructure expenditure and loss of earnings due to it surely? Provided it is probably analysed and audited- by the EFL too- of course. Anymore than a couple of million to a few million and that would be suspect.

Now Nottingham Forest- different kettle of fish although a lot of the transactions look quite cost neutral- my big issue is the Carvalho one as it stands.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Okay accounts wise. We have Barnsley- or at least it appeared today and will be up tomorrow or Thursday I expect.

We have Blackpool!

Seems okay...about £7m loss over the 2 Covid seasons, both in League 1 at that! While their turnover will have risen on promotion, Costs too but I reckon just fine for P&S- and doing very well with their resources too, Bloomfield Road while not quite a fortress definitely difficult.

Will have increased of course...assume it doesn't include Promotion Bonuses but they did go up so maybe. Either way they must be one of the lowest budget in the League?

Then again, I never did expect them or Barnsley to have FFP issues- not now, not for some long time, until who knows when.

Cardiff- Theirs are due this week, not showing as overdue at CH so give it a few days probably...not showing as in yet.

Stoke the real interesting one- as I said before, they have it is confirmed managed to get it delayed by 3 months. I wonder why they would do that...?

 

 

Even the topco- Parent...

As @Hxj rightly said, push back the date by one day and 9 months can become 12...although it seems to be one forward in this case. Sits above and also what sits on the Bet365 Balance sheet is...maybe it won't this time around but certainly has!

If you scroll down far enough you can also see- e.g. Impairments perhaps but certainly if any assets have been disposed of! As they appear on the Bet365 one too.

Bet365 surely did great during Covid, all the online stuff with the football ongoing- why would they specifically delay their accounts.

[Davefevs]

Re the “footballing” part of Stoke / Bet365, aren’t they just aligning the end of year to 31st May across each company?  And then subsequently asking for an extension of 3 (9 to 12) months to get their accounts in order.

Re Bet365, that looks a bit shifty, granted.

Very bullish re their 19/20 impairment, saying in accordance with EFL guidance published…they may well have completely misinterpreted the guidance.  Appx5 rule 1.6, says revenues lost or exceptional costs.  The fact that player impairment (and amortisation) is mentioned earlier in the rules as not being exempt….and that impairment is part of the accounting policy where players are deemed to be no longer worth their current value, seems to be a leap of faith by Stoke.

Compare that to other clubs like Millwall, who don’t pay large fees and have little amortisation.  How might they feel if Stoke were allowed to count £30m of 19/20’s £43m impairment as £0?  I wonder what they put the other £13m down to (and what players form part of that)?

I do think impairment is better than RG’s suggestion, as at least it’s an accounting solution, but it hugely benefits clubs who’ve spent a shedload on transfers and not mitigated in any way.  I wouldn’t vote for it, even though it would help City.

Interesting to see how this plays out.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Yeah, agreed- think that might be happening in respect of Bet365- but they do publish the football financials, albeit not in detail but enough to form a picture- should have been out by end of December 2021 or so given that the Covid 3 month extension has now gone- but the shifting of Reporting Period date can move the due date.

I totally agree- Millwall and you can probably go lower still even, it just cannot align with the guidance as laid out...in accounting terms maybe but absolutely not the accounting terms in the context of the FFP regs. Might be that Stoke put X in their stated accounts and there are adjustments for FFP purposes- I laid out two possible ways, reclassify the Impairment to regular ie add it to the regular £13m in 2019/20 or reallocate straight line over the term to the point of disposal.

Gould's solution I dunno...no way of proving is there, Impairment yeah but accounted for correctly not excluded for FFP.

Might depend on weight of numbers- I said as soon as I saw it, it should be forensically examined and challenged if required- the fact that they of the 23 to release accounts for 2019/20 are the only ones to have done it feels quite telling- and it completely smashes the reported numbers allowed for Covid losses in any event.

I thought e.g. Reading might have done it- "We breached anyway, let's make it a big breach as we're over the £15m 12 point limit anyway, and reduce the pressure in later years"- as regular not Covid Impairment I mean. They slightly surprisingly in 2020/21 have not.

Different example, I thought Birmingham might have given reasonable headroom- to reduce the pressure on e.g. 2023/24 in a period in which the impact would be halved due to the aggregate and averaging bit- they appear not to have done for 2020/21, let alone 2019/20!

Edited March 2, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[martnewts]

On 26/02/2022 at 00:04, Hxj said:

If you shorten the accounting period of a company, your filing date is the later of the original date and three months from the date that you tell Companies House of the change.  You have to tell them on or before the original filing date, so if you time it correctly you get another three months.

It is also currently still possible to get a 3 month Covid filing deadline extension no questions asked simply by logging in to Companies House and requesting one although I dont think it is widely known it has saved my ass a few times recently!!

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, martnewts said:

It is also currently still possible to get a 3 month Covid filing deadline extension no questions asked simply by logging in to Companies House and requesting one although I dont think it is widely known it has saved my ass a few times recently!!

Very interesting that, thanks.

Honestly thought it was only applicable to last year and was business as usual now. Certainly not many clubs seem to have done so..might also square the circle of Stoke not reducing Reporting Period to get the extra 3 months.

[Davefevs]

Barnsley’s accounts out.  Nothing to see…

…apart from how to achieve a one-season playoff on a tinsy-winsy budget.  Back to Lg1 (again) a likely scenario this season though.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Barnsley did exceptionally well last season, with all that in mind.

4 weeks to 2 months in the summer were a major sliding doors moment for them in the short and perhaps the long term.

1) Ismael- Manager who transformed them, to West Brom.

2) Mowatt the talisman, went with.

That's bad enough but there is more.

Dane Murphy the CEO- to Nottingham Forest. Didn't see Mark Ashton getting headhunted by Forest.

Post playoffs their morale would have high and with financial headroom due to prudence- they were linked with Marcondes who would have been a very good addition IMO. Marcondes and Mowatt in their system? Very good! Had CEO, Mowatt and Ismael stayed Marcondes joining not so inconceivable I reckon.

Granted they lost Dike and smell others but a month or two in the summer really changed their trajectory.

They could yet stay up this season, crucially they still have Peterborough and Reading to play at Oakwell. Real 6 pointers with home advantage too.

2 games in hand on Derby, 1 on Reading. Home games v sides who are neither going up or down might help too- Blackpool, us and Stoke they would target most if not all of these as winnable.

Blackpool post Autumn seem good at home, competitive v everyone but sketchy on the road as an example. Bit like us in some ways!

Edited March 2, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Barnsley did exceptionally well last season, with all that in mind.

4 weeks to 2 months in the summer were a major sliding doors moment for them in the short and perhaps the long term.

1) Ismael- Manager who transformed them, to West Brom.

2) Mowatt the talisman, went with.

That's bad enough but there is more.

Dane Murphy the CEO- to Nottingham Forest. Didn't see Mark Ashton getting headhunted by Forest.

Post playoffs their morale would have high and with financial headroom due to prudence- they were linked with Marcondes who would have been a very good addition IMO. Marcondes and Mowatt in their system? Very good! Had CEO, Mowatt and Ismael stayed Marcondes joining not so inconceivable I reckon.

Granted they lost Dike and smell others but a month or two in the summer really changed their trajectory.

They could yet stay up this season, crucially they still have Peterborough and Reading to play at Oakwell. Real 6 pointers with home advantage too.

2 games in hand on Derby, 1 on Reading. Home games v sides who are neither going up or down might help too- Blackpool, us and Stoke they would target most if not all of these as winnable.

Blackpool post Autumn seem good at home, competitive v everyone but sketchy on the road as an example. Bit like us in some ways!

Yep, good summary…shows how a few players (sold, injured, whatever) can make a big difference, even if they don’t appear to be stellar players:

Mowatt and Dike (as you said)

Chaplin (to Ipswich)

Sollbauer (went home I think)

Anderson (injured)

Couple that with the impact of CEO going, who’d been part of good recruitment, makes Barnsley go back to being a potential yo-yo club again.

 

[Ska Junkie]

Reading the last few pages of this thread, is it just us that is going to fail miserably then? 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Ska Junkie said:

Reading the last few pages of this thread, is it just us that is going to fail miserably then? 

I said at the start of the season you’ve probably got 4 brackets of teams (think I said 3 brackets but hey-ho):

- the low cost / efficient / house in order teams - Coventry, Luton, Millwall, Preston, Barnsley, Blackpool, Peterborough, Hull, QPR, Blackburn -

- the PP clubs - Fulham, Bournemouth, Sheffield Utd, West Brom -

- the ex-PP clubs who haven’t gone mad - Swansea, Huddersfield - okay for now / next season too probably

- the cost juggernauts - City, Boro, Stoke (ex-PPs), Forest, Cardiff (ex-PPs), Reading (Pts), Derby (Pts), Birmingham

okay, not all the ones in the final category are in trouble, but they are the ones at risk if they don’t sort themselves out.  We’ve started to get our house in order.

But what can be seen is that it’s not a Championship wide issue, probably 6-8 clubs either already “caught” by FFP, or worried about being caught.

[chinapig]

Kieran Maguire reports that Forest have issued a billion shares - at a penny each. Turns out though that this was the owner converting £12m in loans to shares so not as odd as it sounded.

[Mr Popodopolous]

@Davefevs

Stoke appear to have sold both the stadium and the training ground, as I half expected! Bet365 accounts out although things not working well on my phone today...Kieran Maguire mentions a £55m loss but whether the Bet365 accounts align with the club ones is a different debate.

The stadium and training ground sales would have been between then and May 31 2021.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Quick skimread of Bet365. 

Phone worked for a bit seems it has risen by £30m in 3 seasons. Sale price £70.25m, if included at cost was £28m, prior valuation=£40m.

£30-42m profit on disposal then, sold to Bet365 Group. No mention of what the training ground went for from what I can see but the ground 25% more valuable than Villa Park are we sure??

[chinapig]

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Quick skimread of Bet365. 

Phone worked for a bit seems it has risen by £30m in 3 seasons. Sale price £70.25m, if included at cost was £28m, prior valuation=£40m.

£30-42m profit on disposal then, sold to Bet365 Group. No mention of what the training ground went for from what I can see but the ground 25% more valuable than Villa Park are we sure??

I thought stadium "sales" no longer counted towards FFP.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I thought stadium "sales" no longer counted towards FFP.

Neither do Fixed Assets verbatim!!

I'll explain or try to. Devil is in the detail here.

Stoke accounts as displayed on Bet365 show the losses that they do. However the Bet365 accounts were made up to 28th March 2021, whereas the Stoke accounts run to 31st May 2021.

The latter are not out yet but the Bet365 give some of the football segment/section. The stadium and training ground "sales"- transactions maybe a better word as they appear to have just been sold back to Bet365,  despite already sitting on the Balance Sheet although would have to look again.

These were listed as a Post Balance Sheet event but this would perhaps be a Bet365 not club one...if it was done up to or including May 31st 2021 then it's the right year at least.

Selling to the parent, hmm...then there are the questions of the valuation surge, the date- Land Registry showed nothing as of June 2nd 2021, checked a bit before and cannot be backdated for FFP and the rent moving forward- £3-4m per year for the ground alone? Again for FFP.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Forgot to add

1) Stoke's Upper Loss Limit to 2020/21 (£35m £13m £13m £13m)/4 x 3=£55.5m. To 2022 it's (£13m £13m £13m £13m) /4x3=£39m same to 2023 due to EFL FFP roll up.

2) Although I expect the transactions were done in time..nothing on Land Registry as of June 2nd 2021 when I checked in late 2021- seemed an odd kinda entry and the deadline was the end of May 2021. Less detail on Training Ground.

3) Player Impairment- but attributed to Covid, well that needs reallocation back to FFP for a start! £30m that year ie 2019/20 and maybe although not certain, £3.75m in 2020/21!

EFL need to go in hard tbh, this has potential to be the 2nd most egregious case yet- after Derby and their saga I'd say.

Edited March 3, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Cardiff lost £12m last year which is £23.4m over the 2 seasons. despite Parachute Payments. That's before Covid and FFP but averaged at £11.2m beforehand.

Yes Revenue will rebound but that Parachute to Solidarity fall will leave a £30m size hole.

This year, it's £55.5m Upper Loss, whereas to 2023- and beyond- it's £39m.

No Fixed Asset sales or Covid related Impairments which coming from Cardiff surprises me slightly all told!

Edited March 3, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Been in office all day, lots of catching up to do

[chinapig]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Been in office all day, lots of catching up to do

No tea for you until you've done your homework then Dave.

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 hours ago, chinapig said:

Kieran Maguire reports that Forest have issued a billion shares - at a penny each. Turns out though that this was the owner converting £12m in loans to shares so not as odd as it sounded.

Presumably just taking the loss limit to the Upper level- gap between lower, £5m accounting plus FFP costs in a year and upper as we know £13m accounting plus FFP costs- that gap needs filling by equity or equivalent.

[Davefevs]

Cardiff City (Holding)

Taking there last 4 years accounts.

Last season, well inside P&S, not forgetting their one season in PL means a larger allowance, £74m * 3/4 = £55.5m.

This season’s accounts will be fine too, as that big loss drops off, plus they still have the £35m PL allowance. (Profit and loss column not yet know til next year)

Suggests they will be fine for a couple of seasons…PPs their saving grace.

We can scratch them off being in P&S trouble for now.

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Davefevs

[Mr Popodopolous]

Nottingham Forest accounts are out. Similar to their 2020/21 but their Covid claimed add backs- hmmm...plus one or two other bits. Unlikely they fail to 2021.

1) Loan write offs in 2019/20 and 2020/21. £5m apiece, fairly sure that doesn't count towards FFP.

Covid Costs etc

£8m (I'm rounding again) for 2019/20 and the same again 2020/21...dunno about that!! I certainly think a sum total of £10m is okay.

Intriguingly, a forecast of £12m for this season!?Rounding down again but this 3 year suggestion is about £16m over and above the EFL limits recently agreed. Sum total to 2022, £28-29m.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Luton- as expected, no problems whatsoever.

The number of clubs who took Business Interruption insurance or similar is striking- I make that Blackburn, Luton and Preston- and though not checked for a while, possibly Barnsley and Birmingham?

Ah yes the Nottingham Forest bits, I posted on earlier but Kieran Maguire.

Add back in (I assume) Loans written off...in other words.

Aggregate Loss before Tax

£31,473,000

Impact of Loan Write Offs not included

£10,000,000

Minus

Est/read FFP allowances

£5m x 2

Covid Losses in line with EFL levels

Probably a 2 year aggregate of £10m is fair, not looked in depth.

Averaged P&S Loss over the 2 year period of £10,736,500. I always assumed their FFP allowances were £6m per year but SwissRamble in recent times has said £5m- but if it's £6m then knock a £1m off that averaged P&S loss ie £9,736,500.

Remember too that it is 13 month accounts, reverting back to 12 might improve it for 2021/22.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Cardiff City (Holding)

Taking there last 4 years accounts.

Last season, well inside P&S, not forgetting their one season in PL means a larger allowance, £74m * 3/4 = £55.5m.

This season’s accounts will be fine too, as that big loss drops off, plus they still have the £35m PL allowance. (Profit and loss column not yet know til next year)

Suggests they will be fine for a couple of seasons…PPs their saving grace.

We can scratch them off being in P&S trouble for now.

 

Although the TV Revenue will plummet- do largely agree with your analysis though, the stadium revaluation bit is intriguing...they can't use it now of course, given the Fixed Asset rule- too late basically if they decided it might be a good plan.

Promotion Bonuses- saw an estimate by Swiss Ramble that these were £23m in 2017/18 and I believe are excluded from FFP- so they seem well well within to 2021 and because of the PL starting point comfortably to this season and it's Profit or Loss before tax I thought so the PL starting point might be ...intriguing to see post Parachutes what it'll look like in the Projections to May 2023- that's my interest in them from an FFP perspective.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Thought I'd have a quick look. Stoke valued- and sold the Bet 365 at £70.25m- independently valued of course. 28th May 2021, via Stoke City Holdings and Property I expect- the consolidator for the club and Propco. This I assume is either a £42m profit of disposal or a £30m one- depends on what the carrying value at time of disposal is, was it the prior independent valuation or was it carried as if at cost?

Quite a rise isn't it! The past valuations, and this is all using DRC were as follows...

Stoke City independent valuation of the Bet365 (although it was of course the Britannia then)

2012

2015

2018

Increase of 75% in valuation in 3 short years?? Wow- is there gold in them thar Potteries!!

My base assumption is that it is Proceeds - Cost but I can't actually find an accounting policy for disposal of fixed assets unless I missed it.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Forgot about this bit...rationale or fig leaf?

Yeah, the rationale to transfer from Stoke City Property Limited- to purchase even though it already sat on the Bet365 balance sheet as of 2020...is to consolidate it all under one centrally managed and controlled entity- I believe the rationale fig leaf or one of them in 2018 for Derby County, was Mel Morris and his desire to develop the stadium into an entertainment venue, spoke passionately on Talksport he did- perhaps he still holds that desire, with or without Derby County? Who knows! There is probably an interview or transcript for the Talksport bit and it is referenced in the Independent Disciplinary Commission for Derby in August 2020. Unsure if the Training Ground sat on it because it wasn't listed separately on there.

Wonder what the profit on Claytonwood was- because anything substantial could be called into question by the accounts released last May for Stoke City Property.

"Not materially different from the net book value included in the financial statements"- yes couldn't be quantified but come on...major profit=a potential question? I accept that some kinda profit is plausible for the Training Ground but not materially different means it shouldn't be substantial or jump off the page?

They are also going to be redeveloping and doing work on the stadium and training ground I have read...but if it's all owned by the UBO, what is to stop them- and Infrastructure costs are excluded from FFP anyway.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Hmmmm...Will be interesting to see how this plays out!

Barnsley's owners are American or one of them is I believe and they can be quite open to litigation!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Also.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/barnsley-reading-report-to-efl-26404603

Sadly the financial reporting in the Mirror- the football financial reporting- is not what it should be.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/football/barnsley-could-threaten-legal-action-against-reading-if-they-are-relegated-3600399

I do think there is a certain level of misconception among the Barnsley fans though...if principle of reset kicks in then it's either...

a) A £13m P&S/FFP loss for this season- that in accounting terms is £13m + an est. £5m in allowable costs although seen some other significantly higher estimates and £2.5m in Covid losses- they sold Olise for £8m so I'm not so sure they fall foul.

Or

b) A £19-20m P&S/FFP loss for this season- that's £19-20m plus est. £5m in allowables and £2.5m in Covid losses- Olise sale should see them okay perhaps...

Depends if we use Renhe Sports Management- £11m accounting loss in 2018/19- or Reading FC- think a £30m accounting loss, as the basis. £5m est. allowables.

Principle of reset would reset down to £13m anything that exceeds it, but if the loss in the year falls below £13m, it remains at that.

Aggregate of the 2 preceding years would be a better basis but unsure the EFL do it like that.

Edited March 7, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

They also, or some of them also perhaps misunderstand that 2019/20 and 2020/21 were a combined average and that the EFL would have had the figures or projections well before the official accounts were out- what matters now is that they are abiding in real time to their conditions over this and next season- including Projected numbers vs allowance for 2021/22.

[Davefevs]

What are they claiming Reading have done wrong?  The loans of Rahman, Drinkwater etc?

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 hours ago, Davefevs said:

What are they claiming Reading have done wrong?  The loans of Rahman, Drinkwater etc?

Good question. Seems to be little detail tbh so I assume it's:

a) The failure to stick to their FFP allowance this season (£13m or £20m subject to how exactly the principle of reset was applied, club or parent etc).

b) The failure to stick to the budget- £21m on player wages from memory.

c) Sale targets for Jan 2022. Birmingham definitely had one in 2019, maybe Reading did in terms of sales and amortisation reduction.

How Barnsley would know the finer details is a different q. They can estimate on a) perhaps but that aside...

[Mr Popodopolous]

Little bit more- while they aren't Championship, you'd assume that it can follow a club down especially if they yo-yo..

Or is it more the case that 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 and 2020/21 average would be considered the benchmark for a club relegated in 2020/21?

If not then 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21, 2021/22 and maybe even the combined average of 2019/20 and 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 would still fall within Championship jurisdiction.

Sheffield Wednesday- their rent on Hillsborough might have been as high as £2.8m in 2019/20, although this is by no means certain.

Sheffield 2 2020 accounts

Aligns with

Sheffield Wednesday 2020 accounts

However, the rent free period- the year 1 rent free, and £1.5m in year 2 presumably, does not altogether align with what Sheffield 3 shows- perhaps it is no and then low rent, followed by a big bump and then the average drops back again?

They all run on slightly different periods too, ie the club in isolation is 12 months, but the Sheffield 2 and Sheffield 3 are from date of incorporation to end of July- perhaps 13 months and a week, 10 days something like that.

Sheffield 3 2020 accounts

Finally, a little more light is shed as well on a) The company who valued it at £60m and b) The valuation method!

We also know finally that it was done AFTER the 2017/18 reporting period but that Shaun Harvey seemed to permit it for reasons best known to himself- yes the written reasons showed that it was done after but planned before but confirmation is excellent- had to be completed by 31st July 2018 for inclusion in those accounts- what baffles me however is why after getting the valuation in mid August 2018, it took until mid to late June 2019 to finally complete the transaction!? It's not like there are numerous parties they had to deal with, and they had seemingly got some kind of green light from Harvey (he wasn't authorised to give the green light as it turned out but everyone thought otherwise in August 2018) so wouldn't you rush it through? Why on earth should it take 10 months for an RPT such as this.

Although all that said, Note 6 is rather interesting...

As long as rent- paper or cash- is still accounted for in the correct manner for FFP, I'm happy.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous