The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, WarksRobin said:

Stoke just signed Gayle and O’Shea so can’t be struggling too much with FFP

Definition of "can't be struggling too much with ffp" = Frank Lampard's Derby County chasing promotion !

 

[ExiledAjax]

19 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Cheers Dave- look forward to your analysis too.

Yes- agree on Covid being a big thing. That's a better way of looking at it than me- could it also apply to claims deemed excessive- e.g. Stoke? ie Retrospectively/retroactively pushing back against £30m in Covid Impairment e.g. I don't quite buy still the idea of Covid Impairment or transfer add-backs for P&S purposes. That is good though, in our reporting- indeed a Telegraph article in March/April suggested that all clubs had put in revised numbers to the EFL.

Agreed.

My quick and easy revised Covid estimates then would be quite simply- the hit in revenue in the two seasons and £2.5m last season...question is would this be net of cost savings ie putting on games or...? Likely would leave us right close to the £39m to 2022/23 but not exceeding, maybe a bit lower- or maybe just I dunno £1-1.5m over something like that but nothing that can't be easily resolved.

It is.

FWIW my view and only my view on the correct categories:

• Gate Receipts
• Season ticket lost revenue/cost of refund
• Matchday revenue
• Matchday hospitality losses
• Corporate Revenue- ie all non matchday revenue on the footprint of the stadium.
• Costs associated with Covid-19 Protocols- ie testing, PPE, hand sanitiser and so on. Goes for the training ground and other facilities a club use as well as the ground and matchday itself.
• Losses or rebates in TV Revenue- especially applicable to PL or Parachute clubs.
• Cost or foregone savings associated with non utilisation of furlough scheme- some clubs did this, especially in 2019/20.

Sure there are some I have missed but that covers a range of issues I'd say.

Still have a serious problem with hypothetical player loss add-backs or indeed seeking to write off £30m in Player Impairment as a Covid Cost- that latter one sticks out like a sore thumb!

Thanks for putting in the work.

Have skim read and for me you're onto the right track. Key phrase is "directly attributable". Indirect losses won't be accounted for under covid.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, WarksRobin said:

Stoke just signed Gayle and O’Shea so can’t be struggling too much with FFP

 

4 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

Well they "think" they aren't but from memory their claims for COVID comp are way out of kilter with the figures in that EFL document. They might be one of the first in front of the dispute panel.

£56m or thereabouts in 2019/20 and 2020/21 alone!

Put another way, they listed revenue losses net of cost savings- fine- but the big bone of contention for me is the player impairment and the whole adding back for transfers that would have happened if not for Covid.

PS- they are also linked with Mawson (free) and signed Smallbone (loan) from Southampton.

As we can see...£56.903m but of that, £41,47m.

Which would you say are directly attributable vs indirect losses @ExiledAjax ? I'd say the Lost revenues and costs net of savings are the former, whereas the Impairment and Net impact of lost disposals caused by Covid are indirect. Obviously Stoke are arguing that all of it is directly attributable but I just am unsure I agree, especially in a P&S context.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

6 hours ago, WarksRobin said:

Stoke just signed Gayle and O’Shea so can’t be struggling too much with FFP

O’Shea has joined as a coach btw.

[ExiledAjax]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Which would you say are directly attributable vs indirect losses @ExiledAjax ? I'd say the Lost revenues and costs net of savings are the former, whereas the Impairment and Net impact of lost disposals caused by Covid are indirect. Obviously Stoke are arguing that all of it is directly attributable but I just am unsure I agree, especially in a P&S context.

Not my area of expertise so I stand to be corrected should "direct" or "indirect" have different interpretations in the world of accounting.

However, generally it's a pretty common sense interpretation that should be applied here. Yes lost gate receipts are obviously a direct item (although imo that should be mitigated and offset by any rise in streaming revenue). 

I'd agree that on the face of it lost impairment and projected lost transfer revenue is indirect. Those (projected and presumed) revenues rescue due to a flattening of the market caused by COVID. It's indirect because there's a step in-between COVID and the impact on the Club.

So I think, as we discussed at the time, that Stoke's gambit should fail.

 

[chinapig]

28 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Not my area of expertise so I stand to be corrected should "direct" or "indirect" have different interpretations in the world of accounting.

However, generally it's a pretty common sense interpretation that should be applied here. Yes lost gate receipts are obviously a direct item (although imo that should be mitigated and offset by any rise in streaming revenue). 

I'd agree that on the face of it lost impairment and projected lost transfer revenue is indirect. Those (projected and presumed) revenues rescue due to a flattening of the market caused by COVID. It's indirect because there's a step in-between COVID and the impact on the Club.

So I think, as we discussed at the time, that Stoke's gambit should fail.

 

At one point Richard Gould claimed we had lost £30m in transfer income. Absolute nonsense imo but I wonder if we nevertheless tried that on with the EFL?

[ExiledAjax]

42 minutes ago, chinapig said:

At one point Richard Gould claimed we had lost £30m in transfer income. Absolute nonsense imo but I wonder if we nevertheless tried that on with the EFL?

Someone will correct me if wrong but IMO that was "claimed" only in an interview or news piece. Suspect he floated it with the EFL, and based on their response and advice from the accountants it didn't become part of our final accounts - as it is with Stoke.

Said article:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-city-ceo-sends-message-6477092.amp

I agree it's bollocks as well.

Edited July 24, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 24/07/2022 at 16:35, ExiledAjax said:

Someone will correct me if wrong but IMO that was "claimed" only in an interview or news piece. Suspect he floated it with the EFL, and based on their response and advice from the accountants it didn't become part of our final accounts - as it is with Stoke.

Said article:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-city-ceo-sends-message-6477092.amp

I agree it's bollocks as well.

Do agree with your posts and @chinapig for that matter- only bit I would say is that it seemed unclear last time it was reported on...

In January the idea floated.

In March it was implied that the EFL were considering it, on the same day that Nottingham Forest posted large losses but had a chunk of their Covid losses attributed to this.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/exclusive-bristol-citys-ffp-reform-6753159

In June it was implied that the transfer add-back rule was still undecided but not yet agreed.

Quote

The EFL are also yet to confirm if transfer “add-backs” will be permitted in submissions with City’s argument being that Covid-19 and playing a season behind closed doors led to the collapse of the transfer market outside of the Premier League, therefore their business model of leaning towards transfer revenue was adversely affected from 2020 onwards. The league has already allowed such add-backs for lost ticket revenue of £5m and £2.5m but transfer income is a more subjective figure to calculate.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-city-points-deduction-finance-7219960

Certainly not hanging my hat on it but time will tell...I think for the rule utilised by anyone, well the rule itself is fairly bogus IMO.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

A very open statement from Huddersfield owner:

Even talks in advance about “budgeted losses” for the season, which is very transparent.

[ExiledAjax]

21 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

A very open statement from Huddersfield owner:

Even talks in advance about “budgeted losses” for the season, which is very transparent.

An excellent example of candid transparency and plainly understandable communication. Very good example for *cough* other clubs.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

An excellent example of candid transparency and plainly understandable communication. Very good example for *cough* other clubs.

You may recall I said something similar that it would be good if we knew what sustainable really meant.  Is it to live within £13m losses each year, and reduce by transfer profit, or is it to balance to £0m…or something completely different.

 

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You may recall I said something similar that it would be good if we knew what sustainable really meant.  Is it to live within £13m losses each year, and reduce by transfer profit, or is it to balance to £0m…or something completely different.

 

Under Ashton it meant being unsustainable. Perhaps Steve needs a dictionary?

[ExiledAjax]

36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You may recall I said something similar that it would be good if we knew what sustainable really meant.  Is it to live within £13m losses each year, and reduce by transfer profit, or is it to balance to £0m…or something completely different.

Plymouth Argyle, who produce an excellent summary report to accompany their annual accounts, define it as: "...we will generate sufficient income to cover our costs and therefore will not be reliant on our owner to inject money into the business to cover any losses." Source: https://www.pafc.co.uk/news/2021/february/2020-financial-report

So they are seeking to move towards the net zero balance of income and outgoings. They wish to not be reliant upon a sugar daddy. I note though that they do not say "...generate sufficient income, independent of player sales, to cover costs...", so they are still open to following the "Ashton" style route of buy low, sell high, and assume the market keeps trending upwards*. Based on Hoyle's latest statement Huddersfield are inclined to accept a level of loss that keeps them comfortably within the current FFP rules. But are not seeking to move towards that breakeven point. Here Hoyle expressly states that they can do this without player trading.

Two interesting test cases. Not directly comparable as the different positions within the pyramid mean that Plymouth and Huddersfield are (obviously to you) governed by different financial sustainability schemes, and have wildly different prizes on offer should either achieve promotion.

But the general approach to transparency and communication from both clubs is to be applauded.

Gould to his credit did not laugh me out of town when I suggested that Bristol City might present its next set of accounts in a similar fashion to Plymouth.

*I am not suggesting they will get it so wrong as we did.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Stoke seem to be complaining about the rules once more.

Now whether we agree with them or not-the rules that is, there must be equal treatment for all under the EFL's P&S regs. It's so important.

Stadium and Training Ground sale- £32m profit, £70-80m gross IIRC although tbh on the face of it a fair rent, plus far more flagrant was the £30m in Covid Impairment and £11m in Covid player sale add-backs across the two Covid seasons.

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/stoke-city-financial-fair-play-7418273

Given the Covid aggregate is added then halved, that's £20-21m but in the case of the Impairment, an elimination of a large cost moving forward from FFP...disgraceful. Either rework straight line up to time of disposal OR add back the Impairment to FFP for that year.

He raises some interesting points in fairness although the equity bit is odd- fairly sure equity covers Lower to Upper Limit.

He can complain about Parachute Payments although Stoke benefitted from that x 3 plus £83m in Year 1, £61m in Year 2 loss limit post relegation with owners wealthy enough to hit that and not even notice- they botched it so must adjust.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Stoke seem to be complaining about the rules once more.

Now whether we agree with them or not-the rules that is, there must be equal treatment for all under the EFL's P&S regs. It's so important.

Stadium and Training Ground sale- £32m profit, £70-80m gross IIRC although tbh on the face of it a fair rent, plus far more flagrant was the £30m in Covid Impairment and £11m in Covid player sale add-backs across the two Covid seasons.

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/stoke-city-financial-fair-play-7418273

Given the Covid aggregate is added then halved, that's £20-21m but in the case of the Impairment, an elimination of a large cost moving forward from FFP...disgraceful. Either rework straight line up to time of disposal OR add back the Impairment to FFP for that year.

He raises some interesting points in fairness although the equity bit is odd- fairly sure equity covers Lower to Upper Limit.

He can complain about Parachute Payments although Stoke benefitted from that x 3 plus £83m in Year 1, £61m in Year 2 loss limit post relegation with owners wealthy enough to hit that and not even notice- they botched it so must adjust.

I suspect Steve would agree with him but that would just benefit clubs who happen to have a filthy rich owner. So still not a level playing field.

Oddly, I don't recall him complaining about parachute payments when Stoke were getting them. Perhaps I missed it.

As to the UEFA proposals iirc they would no longer allow deductions for infrastructure, academy, women's team costs and so on so I wouldn't necessarily rely on those to save the day.

[Port Said Red]

Once again this isn't FFP or even Championship but an interesting insight into the complexity of businesses generally and Football clubs in particular.

If anyone found the Derby County structure stuff mind blowing, you may not thank me for posting this Private Eye article on the takeover of Chelsea FC, as Walter Scott said "'Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive'"

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Port Said Red

[chinapig]

26 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Once again this isn't FFP or even Championship but an interesting insight into the complexity of businesses generally and Football clubs in particular.

If anyone found the Derby County structure stuff mind blowing, you may not thank me for posting this Private Eye article on the takeover of Chelsea FC, as Walter Scott said "'Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive'"

 

 

Good old Private Eye covers stuff the main press won't touch because they grovel to the Premier League.

Still, I'm sure the Premier League thoroughly investigated the takeover before approving it. Much like Newcastle where they went so far as to thoroughly read a letter that said there was no connection between PIF and the Saudi state, honest guv, before caving in to government pressure approving the deal.

Thank heavens the English game is squeaky clean, not like those foreigners.

[Jerseybean]

Richard Gould on our situation: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-city-ceo-provides-ffp-7437927

 

[Kodjias Wrist]

Hmm so it is just a waiting game then for Uefa but if their proposals for this cash injection are accepted then we are essentially off the hook? 

With regards to our current finances what have we reduced our running costs to? I remember on one of our early televised games last season, a commentator said we had reduced the wage bill by 20%.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 09/08/2022 at 13:47, Kodjias Wrist said:

Hmm so it is just a waiting game then for Uefa but if their proposals for this cash injection are accepted then we are essentially off the hook? 

With regards to our current finances what have we reduced our running costs to? I remember on one of our early televised games last season, a commentator said we had reduced the wage bill by 20%.

Possibly- although is it also possibly the case that they will seek to punish either this season in real time ie next Spring or next season once they have the 3 years to 2023- and then reform? I hope not but as I recall in 2020 there were demands for ongoing/outstanding cases to be resolved before reform would be countenanced by the compliant majority. If we have a potential Projected Breach then that could be considered as an ongoing/outstanding case and these don't get abandoned do they?

On 09/08/2022 at 16:09, billywedlock said:

Sl said on Saturday our wage bill is under £20 m (I think he used "well under"  the EP has a transcript) . So more like 50% reduction. Impressive work. 

The £20m figure interests me- I did read what he said but is he including all in that- ie lock stock and barrel!

1. All players, academy players, 1st team management, 1st team coaches, women's players and coaches, academy coaches, non footballing staff, scouting, those who work at the HPC, non footballing staff ie marketing, HR, retail etc- plus of course matchday staff
2. All remuneration- ie basic wages, PAYE, NI, bonuses etc.

In other words, lock stock and barrel- and yes some of the above will be excluded for FFP/P&S but is our total BCFC Holdings fully remunerated bill truly £20m or even less? Put another way, if our total group wage bill is truly £20m (or less) I don't see how we exceed limits this season.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Barrieowl]

Some Wigan fan on a generic forum suggesting you've failed FFP....I called bollocks

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, Barrieowl said:

Some Wigan fan on a generic forum suggesting you've failed FFP....I called bollocks

No we haven’t….not for cycle ending 21/22.  We are certainly close on the projection for cycle 22/23….but as this season still has 8-9 months to run, there is lots that can happen, e.g. Semenyo leaves for £x million.  Kalas, Bentley, Dasilva and Massengo all sign extended deals (first three on post-covid wages).

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 hours ago, Barrieowl said:

Some Wigan fan on a generic forum suggesting you've failed FFP....I called bollocks

What Dave said- plus yes the in-season projections I think we might fail to 2022/23 but we still have time to rectify.

8-9 months of the season although with this future projection stuff, it is still possible that if not resolved by March- and this is for any club in the division who might- I would say an instant in-season points deduction is more possible now.

[Davefevs]

56 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What Dave said- plus yes the in-season projections I think we might fail to 2022/23 but we still have time to rectify.

8-9 months of the season although with this future projection stuff, it is still possible that if not resolved by March- and this is for any club in the division who might- I would say an instant in-season points deduction is more possible now.

The only thing about an in-season deduction this season is they’ve never done it before, and we are about to move to a new FFP model in 23/24.  City could argue they are working to stay within two models, as they prep for 23/24.  Would be very harsh if we are only just over the £39m.  If we were taking the piss and £10m+ over that’s different.

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The only thing about an in-season deduction this season is they’ve never done it before, and we are about to move to a new FFP model in 23/24.  City could argue they are working to stay within two models, as they prep for 23/24.  Would be very harsh if we are only just over the £39m.  If we were taking the piss and £10m+ over that’s different.

Agree tbh, this is fair- just trying to put all sides of the argument.

I'd be stunned if we were the test case/guinea pig and I trust we would exercise our right to an appeal at an LAP, to at least get us to the summer and reassess given the efforts we've made in the last 12 months or so.

[chinapig]

21 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The only thing about an in-season deduction this season is they’ve never done it before, and we are about to move to a new FFP model in 23/24.  City could argue they are working to stay within two models, as they prep for 23/24.  Would be very harsh if we are only just over the £39m.  If we were taking the piss and £10m+ over that’s different.

The extent to which the club is over the limit would determine the severity of the sanction I assume but unless the 72 clubs vote to suspend or nullify the current rules pending the coming changes I don't see how we could avoid sanctions altogether.

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The extent to which the club is over the limit would determine the severity of the sanction I assume but unless the 72 clubs vote to suspend or nullify the current rules pending the coming changes I don't see how we could avoid sanctions altogether.

Oh yeah for sure- if we are over we would be sanctioned- the question is should it land in Spring 2023 pertaining to the period ending in 2022/23 or next season for the period ending in 2022/23?

A third but probably remote possibility, is that we have already agreed a points deduction ahead of time that would kick in next Spring- to take it THIS season as we don't intend to sell certain players. Plea bargains lead to reduced or partially suspended subject to conditions sentences, with FFP too. Maybe the cost of keeping Scott and Semenyo, maybe others. I think we're not far over but maybe it'd be a 2-3 point deduction in Spring 2023 with a few more suspended if we breach future conditions- like with Reading.

Can be win-win..

1. We keep Scott and Semenyo
2. The EFL get their prized in-season deduction and a template/precedent is set.
3. Any losses in the prior 2 seasons are reset to £13m if in excess or stay below if not.
4. Business Plan sure but so many are out of contract in summer 2023...if still a Championship club there is now real room to breathe.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Oh yeah for sure- if we are over we would be sanctioned- the question is should it land in Spring 2023 pertaining to the period ending in 2022/23 or next season for the period ending in 2022/23?

A third but probably remote possibility, is that we have already agreed a points deduction ahead of time that would kick in next Spring- to take it THIS season as we don't intend to sell certain players. Plea bargains lead to reduced or partially suspended subject to conditions sentences, with FFP too.

Agreed, the position the EFL might take is far from clear. If like La Liga cost controls were imposed in advance it might work but the EFL is now caught between two stools.

Edited August 14, 2022 by chinapig

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Agreed, the position the EFL might take is far from clear. If like La Liga cost controls were imposed in advance it might work but the EFL is now caught between two stools.

True, we're stuck a bit- La Liga clubs who go into Europe are really stuck as they literally operate under two different systems- cost control vs the loss limits although I suppose if you stick to the former, the latter takes care of itself.

A left field way to go about it, and dunno if we've done this could be if we actually approached them and offered a points deduction based on precedent and sliding scale that we considered to be fair in Spring 2023 to take it with the Business Plan combined with principle of reset- probably would throw the EFL a little.

3-4 for overspend based on guesstimates.  A further 3 for not selling players in summer or Jan ie if we actively turn down offers.

Minus 1 for cooperation.

Maybe halving or knocking 1/3 of the remainder off for it being a settlement- or suspending the balance within the next year or 2 for any further breaches.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Congrats on 100 pages

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

True, we're stuck a bit- La Liga clubs who go into Europe are really stuck as they literally operate under two different systems- cost control vs the loss limits although I suppose if you stick to the former, the latter takes care of itself.

A left field way to go about it, and dunno if we've done this could be if we actually approached them and offered a points deduction based on precedent and sliding scale that we considered to be fair in Spring 2023 to take it with the Business Plan combined with principle of reset- probably would throw the EFL a little.

3-4 for overspend based on guesstimates.  A further 3 for not selling players in summer or Jan ie if we actively turn down offers.

Minus 1 for cooperation.

Maybe halving or knocking 1/3 of the remainder off for it being a settlement- or suspending the balance within the next year or 2 for any further breaches.

Points deductions are intended to be done on an agreed basis (Reading agreed theirs, Derby kept delaying theirs before realising they had no case, which made matters worse) so what you describe could be the case.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Points deductions are intended to be done on an agreed basis (Reading agreed theirs, Derby kept delaying theirs before realising they had no case, which made matters worse) so what you describe could be the case.

It would be on the embargo services website or in some minutes somewhere if anything had been agreed via an EFL board.…surely?

[Mr Popodopolous]

24 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Points deductions are intended to be done on an agreed basis (Reading agreed theirs, Derby kept delaying theirs before realising they had no case, which made matters worse) so what you describe could be the case.

Although unsure about Birmingham or indeed Sheffield Wednesday- the latter got halved at the LAP for some opaque reasoning however, possibly linked to the EFL handling things badly in 2018.

[chinapig]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It would be on the embargo services website or in some minutes somewhere if anything had been agreed via an EFL board.…surely?

You'd think so, which takes us back to the question of how the EFL can square the circle between the current, untested, regime and the one to come.

What seemed like a good idea at the time may now be bogged down. From what Gould says things are still being debated. A dilemma for the EFL.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Stoke

I look periodically at them and their position and have made some best guesses/estimates. I would say that their combined average loss after Covid and FFP allowances Covid period is £12m and maybe £6m in 2018/19.

Some key metrics from 2020/21 and this can form a bit of a basis for trying to work out 2021/22 and perhaps beyond...some of these are best guesses, some are media claims. Might try and make it more user friendly, better layout later- graph, spreadsheet whatever.

Quote

Turnover

£40,419,000

Other Operating Income- believed to be Business Interruption Insurance

£2.5m

Pre Tax Loss

£9,57m

Wage Bill

£50,206,000

Amortisation of Intangible Assets (Player Registrations)

£11,006,000

Impairment of Intangible Assets (Player Registrations)

£3.75m

Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations

£895k

Profit on Disposal of Fixed Assets- Bet365 Stadium and Training Ground

£32,946,000

Losses or add-backs attributed to Covid

£18,680,000

If all allowed to stand, that could be an FFP profit for the year of £18m.

Quote

Potential or estimated changes- for good and bad

Turnover- Parachutes to Solidarity in 2021/22

£25-30m... £10-15m

Other Operating Income- believed to be Business Interruption Insurance- surely not replicated?

 £2.5m

Wage Bill- Apparently halved since O'Neil took over in late 2019 though do we believe??

 £23m

Amortisation of Intangible Assets (Player Registrations)

I estimate £5-6m- so  £5-6m

Impairment of Intangible Assets (Player Registrations)

Have to assume not replicated so  £3.75m

Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations

Post Balance Sheet Event suggests £11,508,000-  £10,613,000

Profit on Disposal of Fixed Assets

£0- EFL removed it from the calculations from 2021/22 onwards.  £32,946,000

Losses or add-backs attributed to Covid

£2.5m limit for 2021/22 as voted on...therefore  £16,180,000

Rent- as per the SCH accounts, should be put through for FFP if nothing else

 £4,703,000

Estimated FFP exclusions

Still think £9m

I am taking some best estimates- e.g. I think their turnover will be closer to £30m than £25m, and that their amortisation closer to £5m rather than £6m. Plus am assuming that the EFL count and accept all of their add-backs etc.

If anyone wants to calculate the swings plus obviously add their own numbers and such, it'd save me a job!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Ohhh- and 1 bit I never noticed in their accounts before- dunno if pertains to 2020/21 or beyond.

As in would that be included in expenses for 2020/21 or beyond- I know it helps to frontload costs but for which specific year.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Thought I would have a quick extrapolation from the numbers and guesstimates I did the other day.

Stoke City Holdings- starting point, possible £18m FFP profit

Quote

Areas of improvement...2020/21 to 2021/22

Wage Bill

Down £23m

Amortisation of Player Regs

Down £6m

Once off Impairment Removed

Down £3.75m

Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations

Up £10,613,000

That is a swing to improvement of £43,363,000 which gives an FFP profit of a ludicrous £61,363,000.

Areas of swing back into the red...

Quote

Turnover

Down £10m (est)

Other Operating Income

Down £2.5m

Profit on Disposal of Tangible Fixed Assets

Down £32,946,000

Losses or add-backs attributed to Covid

Down £16,180,000- EFL limit for 2021/22 is £2.5m and assume they take the max.

Rent

To reflect the transaction for FFP purposes, up £4,703,000

Total downswing is £66,329,000

FFP loss inclusive of Covid allowance £4,966,000.

Unknowns. Are FFP exclusions still the same, and in which year does the onerous contract provision apply?

Big caveat too- this is assuming that their ridiculous Covid write-downs and add-backs are accepted in full and without question!

Edited August 15, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

Just to pass on the following update from Fair Game. I agree with everything:

There's been deathly silence on the much talked about ‘New Deal’ for football from the Premier League.

At a Premier League shareholder meeting last week they were due to approve a plan to scrap the current parachute payments and replace them with a merit-based system where the higher up clubs in the EFL finish the more money they receive.

To date there has been no announcement, which is a mixed blessing. The reported proposal is deeply flawed. The abolition of parachute payments would be welcomed, but the proposal fails to address the main cause of financial unsustainability - the endemic gambling culture that encourages clubs to spend more than they earn. Indeed the proposal will only serve to incentivise owners to spend more than the club can afford to finish higher up the table.

But regardless, no new proposal - flawed or otherwise - has materialised and quite frankly the time is up.

Repeatedly the football authorities have been warned by the Government that if they can't come to an agreement then the issue of financial flow would become part of the remit of a new independent regulator. At least three times the Government have set the authorities deadlines to reach a deal, and each time it has come and gone - the first in December and the latest just last month.

The fear has to be that the Premier League is waiting for a minute to midnight before presenting a deal that will not hold up to scrutiny nor offer a realistic solution to the problems the game faces. But with little time to find an alternative it will be pushed through.

That cannot be allowed to happen. This endless delaying and posturing has to end. Give the job of financial flow throughout the pyramid to an independent regulator that has the wider interests of the football ecosystem at its heart, not the 20 shareholders of the Premier League.
 
What we do know is the White Paper on introducing an Independent Regulator in football is now due in October. We hope it contains robust proposals on how to address the financial flow and hopefully bring in the much-heralded Sustainability Index.

We need your help to spread the message on social media. The dance is over. We need a commitment that the independent regulator will be in charge of football's financial flow. Call on your MP to ensure football's financial flow lies with an independent regulator.

[chinapig]

53 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

What we do know is the White Paper on introducing an Independent Regulator in football is now due in October. We hope it contains robust proposals on how to address the financial flow and hopefully bring in the much-heralded Sustainability Index.

I fear Prime Minister Truss regards regulation of any kind as, to use her favourite term, un-Conservative. Let's see if the White Paper appears or withers on the vine.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

I fear Prime Minister Truss regards regulation of any kind as, to use her favourite term, un-Conservative. Let's see if the White Paper appears or withers on the vine.

And I would, on the whole, concede that point to her. Regulation is traditionally not the concern of the Conservative party. 

But the counter is that the football market is broken. It's failed to regulate itself. A higher hand is needed to guide it.

Whether she can understand that, or cares about, is up to her.

I understand that to politicians this is, perhaps fairly, a niche issue when compared to climate change, war in Europe, national strikes, energy bills etc. However, none of her supporters will get a vote from me until they come out in support of enforced regulatory change in football. For me this is a ballot box issue.

[Davefevs]

It’s an interesting read isn’t it.

My main grumbling point is the lack of risk management.  Ah, but Covid was unprecedented…as a health matter, maybe, but the reason for lost revenue is irrelevant really.  Clubs had made no plans.  Did they learn nothing from On-Digital?

I think it was @billywedlockthat said we will go through a period of less transfers with a fee in the EFL.  There will still be fees received, but likely to be from PL rather than Champ to Champ.

Im not yet sure whether we will see longer contract terms or shorter ones….maybe we will see longer contracts for the early 20s players, but shorter for the 25+ as high wage commitment is a dangerous game in the uncertain Championship.

Clubs do need to stop relying on “transfer profit”, they should see it as a “bonus” and not plan for it.  I do feel RG and the likes of Forest and Stoke as taking the piss a bit with trying to get the EFL to accept a notion of “we made £x million in the last 5 years, that would extrapolate”, when saleable players in your squad might be very different.

Clubs will have to give Academy players a pathway to keep costs down, at least we are ahead of the game here.

For City, until we know the fate of Massengo, Kalas, Wells, Dasilva and Bentley’s contracts we leave ourselves a bit open to bids for Scott and Semenyo.

[ExiledAjax]

28 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Clubs do need to stop relying on “transfer profit”, they should see it as a “bonus” and not plan for it.  I do feel RG and the likes of Forest and Stoke as taking the piss a bit with trying to get the EFL to accept a notion of “we made £x million in the last 5 years, that would extrapolate”, when saleable players in your squad might be very different.

Yep, but we are 100% relying on the EFL allowing some of this. If they do not then we are in trouble.

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Yep, but we are 100% relying on the EFL allowing some of this. If they do not then we are in trouble.

Interesting EA, can you shed any further light? Appreciate that it may not be able especially if was from Club and Trust thing but assuming that it relates to the period ending in 2022/23?

As in, all okay for prior periods.

Nottingham Forest and Stoke, well if they can get away with it...

Edited August 19, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

@GrahamC

Interesting you should mention Almeria. They were in La Liga a few times...however a reason it is interesting in this context is two fold.

Jorge Mendes was once involved at Nottingham Forest, dunno if he still is- but he certainly was involved in Almeria at the same time, just did a bit of quick research.

Arvin Appiah- Nottingham Forest academy product- moved to Almeria for £8m in 2019 or 2020, Mendes link? Carvalho loan maybe followed a similar principle.

Apologies, that was meant for the Nottingham Forest thread!

Edited August 19, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

44 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@GrahamC

Interesting you should mention Almeria. They were in La Liga a few times...however a reason it is interesting in this context is two fold.

Jorge Mendes was once involved at Nottingham Forest, dunno if he still is- but he certainly was involved in Almeria at the same time, just did a bit of quick research.

Arvin Appiah- Nottingham Forest academy product- moved to Almeria for £8m in 2019 or 2020, Mendes link? Carvalho loan maybe followed a similar principle.

Apologies, that was meant for the Nottingham Forest thread!

Whether there’s anything underhand at all I’ve no idea, but even if transfers / fees are done at arms length, players can be moved around to help the financial position of one club short term to the detriment of another and then square the circle later.

We’ve seen other examples too, Watford, Udinese.

Not sure how you sort out, short of banning permanent transfers between clubs with same ownership.

[ExiledAjax]

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As in, all okay for prior periods.

I believe so yes.

[GrahamC]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@GrahamC

Interesting you should mention Almeria. They were in La Liga a few times...however a reason it is interesting in this context is two fold.

Jorge Mendes was once involved at Nottingham Forest, dunno if he still is- but he certainly was involved in Almeria at the same time, just did a bit of quick research.

Arvin Appiah- Nottingham Forest academy product- moved to Almeria for £8m in 2019 or 2020, Mendes link? Carvalho loan maybe followed a similar principle.

Apologies, that was meant for the Nottingham Forest thread!

Thanks, I’ve lost track but thought Mendes was behind the Chinese take over at Wolves, which obviously has resulted in an almost entirely Portuguese side there now.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Thanks, I’ve lost track but thought Mendes was behind the Chinese take over at Wolves, which obviously has resulted in an almost entirely Portuguese side there now.

Like with many super agents, think he has his fingers in a lot of pies. Unsure of the finer details.

For example, Joorbrachian certainly has or has had some kind of input into tranfers at Reading but I'd be surprised if they're the only club. He's been seen in the directors box there in the past for sure.

[chinapig]

21 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Thanks, I’ve lost track but thought Mendes was behind the Chinese take over at Wolves, which obviously has resulted in an almost entirely Portuguese side there now.

He is effectively their Director of Football and there is a financial connection between Wolves' owners and his agency. But it's just a coincidence that his clients often sign for them.

The Premier League investigated and found it was all hunky dory. Of course they did, just like they found there was no connection between Newcastle's owners and the Saudi state.

Thank heavens our game is squeaky clean unlike those shady foreigners eh?

[Davefevs]

6 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I believe so yes.

I’m projecting we are over the £39m (after excludables / allowables)…but not by a huge amount.  But really need to see 21/22 accounts to further correct projections.

[Mr Popodopolous]

47 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m projecting we are over the £39m (after excludables / allowables)…but not by a huge amount.  But really need to see 21/22 accounts to further correct projections.

Agreed on this Dave. While since I've looked properly but had a couple of workings as around £4m...but then I expect I am overshooting, veering on the side of excessive caution  as I sometimes do. *Couple of million maybe?

*Basis for my workings is headline loss minus the typical £5m per season in allowables then the £5m x 2 and £2.5m x 1 in Covid allowable as voted on in February. Clearly this can potentially rise.

I estimate on that basis fwiw that if we have a P&S loss exceeding £10m tops, perhaps £9-9.5m in 2022/23 then we fail.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rudolf Hucker]

On 19/08/2022 at 12:16, ExiledAjax said:

… none of her supporters will get a vote from me. Ever.

That’s better! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Stoke have 4 PL loanees in the starting 11 and a permanently signed Gayle on the bench.*

We seem not to have two pennies to rub together, is exact equal treatment being handed down from an FFP perspective.

*Harry Clarke also on loan from Arsenal, maybe injured or something. McCarron young player signed permanent from Leeds, not in the 18.

@ExiledAjax @Davefevs 

@chinapig

Yes yes I know teams still have time to balance the books, us included but something doesn't seem right with this. I hope Messrs Could and Lansdown will be raising matters with the EFL. Other clubs too.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yes yes I know teams still have time to balance the books, us included but something doesn't seem right with this. I hope Messrs Could and Lansdown will be raising matters with the EFL. Other clubs too.

I suspect we may be hoping that the EFL will treat both clubs generously. Weren't we partners in crime in claiming lost transfer revenue and asking for changes in the P&S regs?

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I suspect we may be hoping that the EFL will treat both clubs generously. Weren't we partners in crime in claiming lost transfer revenue and asking for changes in the P&S regs?

Perhaps and that's a good point as Lansdown did refer to Stoke as an example of a very well run club in an interview in February.

Yes we wanted x in Lost transfer revenue, Stoke wanted iirc £30m in 2019-20 for the Covid Impairment and £11m in 2020/21 for the lost transfer profits, savings- whatever net gain.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Ah Reading, a side under an EFL Business Plan who failed FFP.

Have Hendrick on loan, a young Nottingham Forest loanee and a probably young Porto loanee in CM.

Nottingham Forest loanee has just put them ahead v Middlesbrough.

Just double checked. The Porto loanee is young but not so young, 25. Definitely not a regular for Porto but played 32 times for La Liga Alaves last season as per Wiki. Albeit Alaves did finish bottom of La Liga and went down!

Edited August 20, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting snippet in Ahead of the Game by Matt Hughes this week.

PL seemingly are close to agreeing a funding package for the EFL but want the Championship to adopt their spending rules, ie the higher limits but their version of the revenue to football costs rule...90% in year 1, 80% in year 2 and settling finally, on 70% in Year 3.

[chinapig]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting snippet in Ahead of the Game by Matt Hughes this week.

PL seemingly are close to agreeing a funding package for the EFL but want the Championship to adopt their spending rules, ie the higher limits but their version of the revenue to football costs rule...90% in year 1, 80% in year 2 and settling finally, on 70% in Year 3.

Isn't that what UEFA have proposed?

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Isn't that what UEFA have proposed?

Yes, will have to re-read the column. Although as I recall there were some differences between the domestic one and the UEFA one- fixed asset sale profits the big one.

UEFA adjusted out from the off, whereas the EFL from 2016/17 to 2020/21, seemed to permit the inclusion in P&S calculations, possibly due to PL influence.

Would be interesting to know if the EFL would copy and paste the UEFA ones or if the domestic version would have some differences..perhaps driven by the PL.

They often demand some kind of harmonisation or favourable terms for their cash, the PL that is.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting snippet in Ahead of the Game by Matt Hughes this week.

PL seemingly are close to agreeing a funding package for the EFL but want the Championship to adopt their spending rules, ie the higher limits but their version of the revenue to football costs rule...90% in year 1, 80% in year 2 and settling finally, on 70% in Year 3.

Although I prefer this to FFP, it needs to be done with a change to PPs also.

Have to have something like a 12 month moratorium on contracts signed in the summer of the season before without a relegation reduction, to not be included in full in the first season after relegation.  You then get 12 months to go back up, move them on, or renegotiate their contract.  Something like that.  The PP (far lower amount please) then acts more like coverage of lost revenue but not for inclusion in the wage to revenue %.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Not City or Championship related- at the UEFA level.

https://www.insideworldfootball.com/2022/08/23/barca-psg-juve-top-list-clubs-facing-new-ffp-crackdown/

Seems some big hitters could be in trouble- this would be to the period ending 2020/21 which was the 4 year period of 2017/18, 2018/19 and then the combined average of 2021/22.

20 more are on a watch list for potential issues for the season just gone- including irony of ironies, Arsenal!

The final period of FFP will be the one ending in 2022/23- I assume sanctions and investigations will apply up to then and it's the new system thereafter- how ironic would it be if we were the final Championship club to fall foul of P&S in its current form. Then any club who might be set to breach in 2023/24 or even 2024/25...new system eh??

Am a little surprised at PSG in that I thought their issues would arise to the period ending 2021/22 or perhaps 2022/23 when a profitable year dropped off. They were reportedly looking to offload between 10-15 players but their progress has been mixed.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

I see both Forest and Watford trying it in today.

Watford sell a player for £16m and then loan him back. Hey, what’s the problem? The problem is their owner also owns Udinese.

Forest about to buy a player for £5m from relegated Bordeaux, then loan him to Olympiacos.  Hey, what’s the problem?  The problem is their owner also owns Olympiacos.

This needs to be stopped.

[GrahamC]

Just now, billywedlock said:

Guernsey FC are about to buy Chukwuemeka for £20 m and loan him to Bristol City for the next 5 years 

Think they should buy Semenyo & Scott for £38m & then loan them back to us.

That’s how it works, isn’t it?

Cheating bastards.

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I see both Forest and Watford trying it in today.

Watford sell a player for £16m and then loan him back. Hey, what’s the problem? The problem is their owner also owns Udinese.

Forest about to buy a player for £5m from relegated Bordeaux, then loan him to Olympiacos.  Hey, what’s the problem?  The problem is their owner also owns Olympiacos.

This needs to be stopped.

The Watford player has also featured in 4 games for them already & was suspended for the other.

This is just bollocks, it isn’t even sharing players around like Watford & Udinese do, he clearly was & remains Watford’s player but they get a load of money to offset FFP.

Cheating.

[SuperRed]

Chairman chief executive Scott Duxbury said of the deal: “This further protects the club at a time when balancing financial wellbeing and retaining a squad to compete at the top end of the Championship are our top priorities.

“Taking Rob’s (Edwards – head coach) guidance, we’ll review our options at the end of this season once divisional status is confirmed.”
 

Taking the piss! 

[Davefevs]

32 minutes ago, SuperRed said:

Chairman chief executive Scott Duxbury said of the deal: “This further protects the club at a time when balancing financial wellbeing and retaining a squad to compete at the top end of the Championship are our top priorities.

“Taking Rob’s (Edwards – head coach) guidance, we’ll review our options at the end of this season once divisional status is confirmed.”
 

Taking the piss! 

Blatant.

[Mr Popodopolous]

It is a massive pisstake- and though we are predominantly concerned about our level as a concept it distorts it all.

I would suggest e.g. that Udinese during Covid would not attract Pererya and Deulofeu on the open market- yet in summer 2020, that exact transfer played out.

The Nottingham Forest Bordeaux signing loaned to Olympiakos- I would suggest that is also to the benefit of Olympiakos...it works both ways, distorts at both ends and is cheating plain and simple. Usually Nottingham Forest and Olympiakos used to share around relatively low cost or free signings...often frees or whatever, but buying a player for several million then loaning to a sister club is a nonsense- this Watford one an 8 figure profit AND loaned back is as I said elsewhere the worst yet.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more detail on FFP. Been reading a little about it again.

While it is true that the loss limit will double, it is also true that excludable costs will no longer be counted as such.

ie, current rules see a £50m 3 year pre tax loss, but with £4m in allowables a year would be a £38m 3 year FFP figure, just within a £39m limit.

Whereas the new allowable element of it means that yes you'd be well within but not excluded...£28m within actually.

£50m pre-tax loss would be just that...but with £78m to aim at you're well within, especially with the 90>80>70% of football costs as a percentage if turnover that is coming in.

This is assuming that the EFL vote to double that limit, is in line with the UEFA levels. It can be designed to incentivise spending in youth, community etc.

[Mr Popodopolous]

May as well ask, @Hxj @Davefevs

Others too. @ExiledAjax legally how this may sit.

I labour this point a fair bit but surely we aren't the only ones at risk of breaching to 2023. Stoke for one, Reading for another although all deals require some kind of EFL approval.

Surely Stoke in particular need some significant scrutiny, £30m in Impairment and £11m in transfer add-backs, the former not excluded from 2019-20 but eliminated in its entirety from the FFP calculations- straight line it retrospectively over the term of contract or to the point of disposal for P&S purposes OR re-add it to the 2019-20 losses again for P&S.

The latter...again just don't include it in P&S, it's hypothetical so you may as well ask to include the playoff final windfall or the Cup run. Yes I know pet auditors may have signed off but they're not infallible, see Smith Cooper and the Delves.

Do the EFL need to go after them or indeed refer them to that new body that they've appointed. Financial unit?

Because I have this crazy feeling that we'll be the last side docked points under this old P&S system whereas Stoke for much higher losses and dodgy accounting will somehow get off the hook.

As in much bigger costs albeit bigger revenue and bigger pre tax losses but far bigger write offs and subsequent ability to exclude future amortisation sees them edge it.

Won't be a big or disastrous deduction If we get one but that's beside the point.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

May as well ask, @Hxj @Davefevs

Others too. @ExiledAjax legally how this may sit.

I labour this point a fair bit but surely we aren't the only ones at risk of breaching to 2023. Stoke for one, Reading for another although all deals require some kind of EFL approval.

Surely Stoke in particular need some significant scrutiny, £30m in Impairment and £11m in transfer add-backs, the former not excluded from 2019-20 but eliminated in its entirety from the FFP calculations- straight line it retrospectively over the term of contract or to the point of disposal for P&S purposes OR re-add it to the 2019-20 losses again for P&S.

The latter...again just don't include it in P&S, it's hypothetical so you may as well ask to include the playoff final windfall or the Cup run. Yes I know pet auditors may have signed off but they're not infallible, see Smith Cooper and the Delves.

Do the EFL need to go after them or indeed refer them to that new body that they've appointed. Financial unit?

Because I have this crazy feeling that we'll be the last side docked points under this old P&S system whereas Stoke for much higher losses and dodgy accounting will somehow get off the hook.

As in much bigger costs albeit bigger revenue and bigger pre tax losses but far bigger write offs and subsequent ability to exclude future amortisation sees them edge it.

Won't be a big or disastrous deduction If we get one but that's beside the point.

Pop, all I know is that it's in our interest for Stoke to succeed with their £30m impairment gamble.