The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

I can in seriousness see where they're going with it, but at the same time the messenger is terrible.

I'd love it just love it etc.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The page admin appears to be either financially illiterate or just clueless and disingenuous.

Par for the course for them however.

Edited January 5 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Aston Villa pages whining about FFP is fairly delicious and breathtakingly hypocritical with 2019 in mind.

 

Aston Villa (worlds smallest) Violin FC

[Mr Popodopolous]

In respect of Stoke, still no sign of their Bet365 accounts. Almost a week late- tut tut.

In respect of Leicester, still wonder how they're aligned to tbis season. Loopholes such as Fixed Assets shut.

Chelsea their fans seem oddly bullish, I wonder if they are factoring in the fresh amortisation when talking about savings there and if they are factoring in that their Operating Loss in 2021-22 was £244m. Think they have a huge question to this season.

[AnAstonVillafan]

I have said this to you before, most Villa fans , in fact most fans in the Premier League do not understand FFP or P&S.

Most PL lower 14 clubs fans believe it's simply a way of stopping the top six from being challenged by outsiders. I have never thought this personally but I can see why people do.
Everton's punishment has brought that into sharp reality for many. Because a lot of fans never considered that it could affect them. Now they simply see City, United, Arsenal and Chelsea turnover players with huge net spends, but when Forest, Villa, West Ham or Everton do the same, some authority has an issue with it. It is seen as anti-competitive and stopping wealthy owners putting money into their clubs.
As for Villa fans in general we have demanded transfer activity as a fanbase every year for the whole 36 years I have supported them. We literally shouted for Chairman Doug Ellis to get out of the club if we didn't think he had spent enough money.

On Villa fan pages and groups right now fans are arguing with each other about how FFP may or may not affect transfer activity, and most of us have no or limited understanding of the restrictions.

Also, after ten years of utter shite, we find ourselves second in the Premier League. Many fans think transfer business is the only way to keep that challenge alive whilst competing in the European stage. I disagree with that thinking, but I am sure that the league is better if Brighton, West Ham, Newcastle or Aston Villa can upset the status quo and disrupt the old order.

There is nothing wrong with spending money. Its not a bad thing.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Okay thank you and tbh it is new to most PL fans as it's mainly been properly enforced at EFL level in recent times. Everton moderate restrictions was the first rumblings but nothing much else..there are UEFA ones I guess for clubs who qualify for Europe.

It is an impressive upsurge. All told I used to have quite warm views towards Aston Villa- when O'Neill and a lot of his side were English up at the top end I thought "that's punching above- impressive". It is still exceeding expectations but feels more slick now but maybe the gap is also bigger. 

Ah now the Man City stuff, they have finally been charged at long last but it seems to be moving at glacial pace, a sand timer. The Hearing is next Autumn.

Chelsea may have historic alleged breaches, still being investigated but could be charging towards failing the PL Upper Loss limit at the end of this season. Man United I wonder about their PL Upper Loss Limit compliance to this season.

Arsenal reportedly a bit restricted, even heard Tottenham and P&S but I've looked at their enormous deprecation for the stadium and I dunno whether the analysis is correct in that context.

All 4 appear to be presently compliant albeit I wonder a bit about the Lower UEFA limit for Newcastle and post this season Aston Villa maybe maybe not.

To be fair I actually in general find it a bit mind boggling that any PL perennial with all that money, undoubted good add-backs from strong infrastructure depreciation, a Cat 1 Academy and all those costs we can exempt and Community could seriously threaten the Upper Loss limit.

It is a great money pit much of the modern game.

I get it on one level but there can also be a satisfaction to getting up there with less or via clever recruitment. How sustainable Idk.

It can also come in quite handy for owners who don't want to spend. Mike Ashley was quite keen I imagine  Possibly Gold and Sullivan at times- Benham if he can keep Brentford at PL for a while longer on their likely cost base perhaps he will begin to repay his loans to himself.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Strictly speaking not an FFP issue but would you look at that, first year back Benham took back pushing £19m of his loans. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Or someone took it back, it's not certain looking at the wider Balance Sheet.

[AnAstonVillafan]

14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Okay thank you and tbh it is new to most PL fans as it's mainly been properly enforced at EFL level in recent times. Everton moderate restrictions was the first rumblings but nothing much else..there are UEFA ones I guess for clubs who qualify for Europe.

It is an impressive upsurge. All told I used to have quite warm views towards Aston Villa- when O'Neill and a lot of his side were English up at the top end I thought "that's punching above- impressive". It is still exceeding expectations but feels more slick now but maybe the gap is also bigger. 

Ah now the Man City stuff, they have finally been charged at long last but it seems to be moving at glacial pace, a sand timer. The Hearing is next Autumn.

Chelsea may have historic alleged breaches, still being investigated but could be charging towards failing the PL Upper Loss limit at the end of this season. Man United I wonder about their PL Upper Loss Limit compliance to this season.

Arsenal reportedly a bit restricted, even heard Tottenham and P&S but I've looked at their enormous deprecation for the stadium and I dunno whether the analysis is correct in that context.

All 4 appear to be presently compliant albeit I wonder a bit about the Lower UEFA limit for Newcastle and post this season Aston Villa maybe maybe not.

To be fair I actually in general find it a bit mind boggling that any PL perennial with all that money, undoubted good add-backs from strong infrastructure depreciation, a Cat 1 Academy and all those costs we can exempt and Community could seriously threaten the Upper Loss limit.

It is a great money pit much of the modern game.

I get it on one level but there can also be a satisfaction to getting up there with less or via clever recruitment. How sustainable Idk.

It can also come in quite handy for owners who don't want to spend. Mike Ashley was quite keen I imagine  Possibly Gold and Sullivan at times- Benham if he can keep Brentford at PL for a while longer on their likely cost base perhaps he will begin to repay his loans to himself.

I actually think the intention of FFP is a good and noble one but it is not enforced correctly. The gap between the PL and EFL is too large. I'm not sure how that can be fixed. Parachute Payments are a good thing but it needs a little tweak. Maybe reduce the figure or reduce the number of years.

Villa's recent success in mostly down to an astute, driven, coach.  We need to get to a position where The Emery's Klopp's Iraola's and De Zerbi's and McKenna's can do what they do best and improve teams on the training pitch rather than in he transfer market.

I'm also fascinated as to how Ipswich, Sunderland, Hull and Coventry seem to progress without Parachute Payments while Watford, Norwich, Stoke and Huddersfield struggle with them although I understand that Huddersfield's old owner paid off loans owed to himself.

Man City ? Terrible. But nothing will happen to them, the Abu Dhabi's will not be put in any jeopardy and the Government will see to that.

[Mr Popodopolous]

28 minutes ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

I actually think the intention of FFP is a good and noble one but it is not enforced correctly. The gap between the PL and EFL is too large. I'm not sure how that can be fixed. Parachute Payments are a good thing but it needs a little tweak. Maybe reduce the figure or reduce the number of years.

Villa's recent success in mostly down to an astute, driven, coach.  We need to get to a position where The Emery's Klopp's Iraola's and De Zerbi's and McKenna's can do what they do best and improve teams on the training pitch rather than in he transfer market.

I'm also fascinated as to how Ipswich, Sunderland, Hull and Coventry seem to progress without Parachute Payments while Watford, Norwich, Stoke and Huddersfield struggle with them although I understand that Huddersfield's old owner paid off loans owed to himself.

Man City ? Terrible. But nothing will happen to them, the Abu Dhabi's will not be put in any jeopardy and the Government will see to that.

 

Agree with much of that tbh but more could be done on the Parachute gap. Perhaps Pool Parachute and Solidarity given they are both PL distributions and weight by division as the EFL do currently for T.V. and would have to come in line with more real time, perhaps even forward looking regulation to preserve solvency.

Which to be fair, is what the EFL executive want, whether the clubs want it..well that's anyone's guess.

Those 4 are different cases. Ipswich seem to have made a blistering start and harnessed momentum with a decent but not amazing squad. Injuries have been low which helps with continuity.

Sunderland big club, better run now- although lacking a focal point up front (last year they had Stewart when fit, plus Simms for half a season, Geldhardt on loan replacing him) and sacking Mowbray aside, can rise again.

Hull were in and out of PL and Parachute system but Allams ran an extremely tight, parsimonious ship. Fair bit of headroom and KLP sale for £20m assisted greatly. Reckon they have 18 months to get up before FFP could bite.

Coventry have spent this year but Mark Robins has in difficult circs across multiple grounds taken them back up through the divisions, impressive.

Stoke now 3rd year post Parachutes but certainly spent a lot owing to inherited position and tbh 2018-19. Norwich could run aground if they don't go up, their self-financing model..An aggregated £50m in pre-tax losses across 2 seasons, PL and then Year 1 post relegation Year 1 Parachute is a drastic departure. Watford seem an unpredictable side but yeah underachieving. Huddersfield as you say linked to owners.

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more bit to add, @AnAstonVillafan

PSG. I'm convinced they've got off lightly in 2021-22, rules changed very very handily.

Thereafter did they fall within a reset breakeven amount..doubtful!

This year yes some major sales but they spent €300m in fees this summer. Have tried to crunch some numbers but even if compliant to this, there was book value on remaining sales and the starting point was a €375.4m loss before tax in 2021-22, €401.4m before transfer profits.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Stoke snippet of Bet365 accounts.

 

Remember is late March 2022 to late March 2023 give of take..their administrative expenses seem rather low. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Some West Bromwich Albion takes on FFP are bizarre.

For a start, Fixed Asset Profits or Losses are excluded from P&S numbers these days.

Secondly I'm quite sure is not excluded from P&S.

Some of this chain of messages is barely intelligible, certainly in an FFP sense.

[Mr Popodopolous]

[Mr Popodopolous]

In layman's, due to the fiddle even if a Fair Market Value fiddle done by clubs between 2018 and 2021, clubs can do this all they like but it no longer counts towards FFP even an actual disposal. Let alone a sale and leaseback.

Actually it was available from June, July 2016 but club a only really did it or looked at it in Spring 2018.

It also makes a lot of sense because if expenditure on Fixed Assets and Depreciation of Fixed Assets is rightly excluded from losses, why should a sale profit be included.

Cash flow fine, why not.

In layman's..

Your FFP loss doing into a summer is £49m after allowables, £10m above the limit and you're forecast to lose £15m the next year too and the year after that.

Say..

-£12m, -£16m, -£21m=-£49m.

You look to sell Fixed Assets of x for a profit of say £15m. Book Value £15m, sale Value £30m thereby profit £15m.

This becomes in the accounts..

-£12m, -£16m, -£6m=-£34m. Saved!

Next year, -£16m, -£6m, -£15m plus rent of say £1.2m makes it -£16.2m for Year 3.

-£38.4m, tight but compliant!

-£6m, -£16.2m and-£16.2m..again tight but compliant!!

Except FFP now once more expressly excluded that, back to fail and the underlying small fails in the subsequent 2 years. Maybe no rent to offset, reset of the -£21m to £13m but the profit is literally adjusted out of, expressly excluded from the calculations.

Edited January 8 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

On 05/01/2024 at 20:47, AnAstonVillafan said:

Man City ? Terrible. But nothing will happen to them, the Abu Dhabi's will not be put in any jeopardy and the Government will see to that.

 

not to mention most of the deception points require a crazy amount of evidence to back up, they don't have the evidence to make them stack up to the higher level the panel will require. it's already fell through with uefa, can it going exactly the same way, man city either win or end up with a fine so the bpl can say they did something.

always seemed to me that when the goverment decided they wanted to get into regulation of the sport that this was done straight away because of the governments special relationship with the state

i've no doubt they have broke ffp. but have no doubt they have probs covered their asses legally, the court it was with for uefa was much easier to win

On 08/01/2024 at 12:14, Mr Popodopolous said:

Stoke snippet of Bet365 accounts.

 

Remember is late March 2022 to late March 2023 give of take..their administrative expenses seem rather low. 

they probs forgot to claim 50m this year due to covid :laugh:

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.sportbible.com/football/june-30th-financial-fair-play-deadline-football-explained-158389-20230630

With this in mind, from summer 2023 I just don't see a sensible FFP argument for Brennan Johnson sale to be rowed back into 2022-23.

Accounts end June 30th, it seems to be some sort of FFP deadline across the board and Nottingham Forest sold on 1st September 2023.

It could be a mitigating factor to reduce a punishment but I don't see any good reason if Nottingham Forest are reliant on it, for inclusion in the prior accounting period.

It would give them more headroom moving forward if in 2023-24 too.

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more bit.

If West Bromwich Albion are taken over, Percy said it was imperative that they were in November, there could be scope for an unusual boost to Profit and Loss.

Basically it depends but there was £7,054,000 impaired in the 2021-22 in bad debts or doubtful debt, this was the amount due from the owner back to the club. Lai or his business borrowed.

Could new owners reverse this and I assume that if it added to their FFP loss in 2021-22, the inverse the reversal would offset a part of the likely large losses this or next year.

Edited January 9 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

We still haven’t submitted our accounts to CH.

[Mr Popodopolous]

That's disappointing given we clearly have the numbers and have submitted the consolidated on our site.

Of more interest of course is the disaggregation into Ashton Gate Limited and Bristol City Football Club Limited. Divide by 13 and x 12 will account for some but by no means all.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Leicester FFP. Some extrapolations, I often revise my extrapolations.

What we know

2021-22

-£92.4m pre tax loss

Less probably £25m in FFP.

£1.36m in Covid losses. Not my estimate but that of the club in their own accounts.

Less £17,000 in loss on Disposal of Fixed Assets.

Transfer Profit will be up, Interest payments probably down but European and TV revenue alone down £20-30m probably all-in.

Sacking Rodgers adds some cost. Not a huge amount but some. Smith obviously would've been on lower wages, Maresca too.

You could quite plausibly be looking at a pre tax loss of £40-50m for last season.

13 months accounts too, extra costs as we know but maybe a bit more income too. Who knows.

I'm being quite conservative with some of my estimates.

Estimated fee minus

2022-23

Fofana- £70m fee less remaining Book Value £19.09m less 15% sell on to St Etienne (Leicester signed him for £30m and sold him for £70m so lop off another £6m say). £44.91m gain on Disposal.

Maddison- £40m fee less £3.6m remaining book value of £3.6m less 15% sell on to Norwich if the profit on the £24m Leicester got him for, another £2.4m.

Kasper Schmeichel went for £1m I think, fully amortised no sell on.

£79.91m or thereabouts.

This is the thing Leicester seem to have been pretty honest to date but the numbers make me wonder.

We also cannot deny the notable sales and departures both in quality of player and quantity of profit on Disposal.

2023-24

Barnes- £39m- Pure profit.

Castagne- £15m, less remaining Book Value £8.8m. No sell on clause therefore profit on Disposal £8.2m.

Hirst- £1.5m, probably pure profit. No sell on? Let's say not.

Krkstansen loan fee, reported £0.86m.

Could you say Iversen and Soumare £1.5-2m between them, any other offers?

£52.06-52.56m aggregated maybe.

Some of my estimates ate generous and conservative. A peak income fall will probably be £100m minimum ie from 2021-22 to now.

2021-22 to 2022-23 £30-40m? You subtract European revenue and then price money as a gap between finishing 8th and then 18th.

A 50% fall in wages across the board would help but that is towards the Upper end IMO.

That fall even maybe includes Faes, Souttar joining. Then Coady, Winks, Mavdidi Cannon and assorted others on loan.

Perhaps 50% just is too high given the additions.

Edited January 10 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Other insight, other offers most welcome. I'm struggling to align them to £83m plus Allowables.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Oh yes forgot Luke Thomas another £1m in loan fee. Sheffield United, that is receivable.

Loan fees paid out, reports suggested Doyle, Akgun and Fatawu came to a cumulative £1.5-2m.

Maybe one for Tete in 2022-23 too.

Edited January 10 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting here.

Found the PL P&S/PSR form and it seems not to exclude costs of Promotion or Promotion Bonuses.

If Nottingham Forest fall foul and Promotion Bonuses are a factor or deemed too high..how many others would retrospectively fall could post the 3 year rule?? A lot I expect!

There is nothing about Promotion Bonuses or costs.

It also makes me wonder with the fast track system if a club could call foul of T and be referred ie literally the existing season. T means right now basically.

Maybe thst is why Wolves were so desperate in the summer..they're fine now btw.

There is also nothing in the brief PL P&S section about Profit on Disposal of Fixed Assets. Whereas as we know at our level..

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting here.

Found the PL P&S/PSR form and it seems not to exclude costs of Promotion or Promotion Bonuses.

If Nottingham Forest fall foul and Promotion Bonuses are a factor or deemed too high..how many others would retrospectively fall could post the 3 year rule?? A lot I expect!

There is nothing about Promotion Bonuses or costs.

It also makes me wonder with the fast track system if a club could call foul of T and be referred ie literally the existing season. T means right now basically.

Maybe thst is why Wolves were so desperate in the summer..they're fine now btw.

There is also nothing in the brief PL P&S section about Profit on Disposal of Fixed Assets. Whereas as we know at our level..

Excluding Promotion bonuses haven’t been in any set of rules for ages from memory.  Although Kieran Maguire once referenced some unpublished document that showed they could be exempt.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Davefevs said:

Excluding Promotion bonuses haven’t been in any set of rules for ages from memory.  Although Kieran Maguire once referenced some unpublished document that showed they could be exempt.

 

Thanks. They should really be exempt, perhaps analysed closely for trying to game the system but if realistically stated they are only triggered in the event of Promotion.

I'm not fully sure how Nottingham Forest fail if fully exempt, my bigger issue was to the 2021-22 season tbh. Maybe the wage bill sky rocketed last year but then TV revenue alone up £100m probably.

Downward Covid adjustments or challenge to the 2021-22 £12m in isolation bit perhaps.

If they aren't exempt Fulham and Bournemouth should be back under the microscope, to this and last season. Aston Villa would also have failed, Wolves probably, Leeds I expect but the Covid issue blurs matters.

[Mr Popodopolous]

A valid moan or clutching?

Fwiw, Simon Jordan seems to think Nottingham Forest in particular and all the clubs in general will be fine with FFP but this post- valid or clutching? I'd go for the latter,  Nottingham Forest could always have extended their Reporting Period for one.

[Davefevs]

31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A valid moan or clutching?

Fwiw, Simon Jordan seems to think Nottingham Forest in particular and all the clubs in general will be fine with FFP but this post- valid or clutching? I'd go for the latter,  Nottingham Forest could always have extended their Reporting Period for one.

Haha, blame FFP for something that is Forest’s decision!

I suspect City’s move to 30th June was linked in part to football contract end dates….and keeping things tidy.

[Hxj]

31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A valid moan or clutching?

It's because it is the simplest end date.

As I understand it, there is (or was) a degree of flexibility around transfers out and replacement transfers in that happened either side of an accounting date. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Haha, blame FFP for something that is Forest’s decision!

I suspect City’s move to 30th June was linked in part to football contract end dates….and keeping things tidy.

Agreed. Seems to me as if and I still am not wholly convinced the Upper Loss limit has been missed and if Nottingham Forest, why are Bournemouth and Fulham not in a similar boat, but if they are reliant on the Johnson defence..It feels tenuous.

I expect so too.

2 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It's because it is the simplest end date.

Agreed.

3 minutes ago, Hxj said:

As I understand it, there is (or was) a degree of flexibility around transfers out and replacement transfers in that happened either side of an accounting date. 

If there was a binding agreement with Tottenham even if no price set or some minimum price then maybe, but generally surely a deadline must be firm or it can badly dilute matters moving forward.

The Sheffield Wednesday case feels one example,but the Che Adams case another.

[Mr Popodopolous]

In among the Stoke stuff I couldn't be bothered but scanned the Bet365 accounts again.

They themselves lost £72.597m in the last financial year?? Pre tax.

They have accumulated Profit of £2.5bn minimum so don't get out the begging bowls yet, nor do I expect it to be a trend rather than blip plus there are probably some once off or paper losses but it is still a surprise.

[View from the Dolman]

On 09/01/2024 at 19:09, Davefevs said:

We still haven’t submitted our accounts to CH.

Accounts for a number of the network of companies have now been submitted...

• BRISTOL CITY WOMEN FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
• BRISTOL FLYERS LIMITED
• BRISTOL SPORT LIMITED
• ESTEBAN INVESTMENTS LIMITED

[Mr Popodopolous]

I will continue with my Leicester enquiries. I've asked Kieran Maguire to have a look but nothing yet.

As of 2021-22, there were some of the following key figures- we've already seen the £92.4m loss, the Profit on Disposal etc.

2021-22- Player Related

As we can see, £72.2m in Player Amortisation and Impairment of £2.593m.

Remaining Book Value at the end of 2021-22 £162.380m.

I assume a loan fee of Lookman, that won't be repeated. €5m was cited, £4.3m which removes some £4.305m of amortisation and £12593m in Impairment. Nobody else of significant Book Value left.

Otoh inbound..

Faes- £15m/5

Souttar- £15m/5.5

Kristansen- £12m/5.5

£42m in Book Additions.

5 years, 5.5 years, 5.5 years.

You add £3m, £1.36m, £1.09m to the amortisation cost.

Reports suggested a loan fee for Tete. One site said €1m (£0.861m), another said £3m loan fee. Idk.

Point is the amortisation measured on a 12 month basis seems similar. Possibly even the amortisation gap less Impairment.

I made an estimate of a £10m wage bill fall but is that a bit optimistic? Could genuinely be in the £5-10m range.

Revenue fall, £30m and maybe even £40m in TV and Prize alone when we consider European revenue disappearing plus 10 places down in Prize money.

There were 7 less games at the KP albeit there will be some cost savings there too.

Suppose Concerts, Trade Shows etc will have risen post Covid but there can come with costs too.

Compensation from Everton or even the PL could be but there has been nothing about a Settlement in the media, let alone an award.

[Mr Popodopolous]

One major thing I had forgotten too.

Along with a lot of clubs, Leicester were taking out a claim vs their insurer(s), Allianz especially were mentioned.

This could be a factor albeit one report after some digging said set to be heard in 2025 for clubs and their accounts for this season are set to run until end of June 2024.

We have a few Leicester fans on here- what am I missing here. Insurance, Everton compensation?

I'm trying to square the likely circle, being quite generous with certain estimates, believe your Academy expenditure £15m per season as well as the known FFP exclusions and still I can't square it.

Edited January 11 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

£35m + £35m + £13m=£83m

+ (Estimated) £25m + £25m + £25m=£75m.

£1.4m in Club stated Covid losses for 2021-22.

£158m in likely usual and £1.4m for club stated Covid giving a  possible maximum gross loss of £159.4m.

Minus

2021-22..-£92.4m

Despite European revenue,8th place finish and £9m in Profit on Disposal of Players.

Leaving £67m in 2 years inclusive of allowables.

[ExiledAjax]

Assorted group accounts have been uploaded to CH overnight.

10 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:

Accounts for a number of the network of companies have now been submitted...

• BRISTOL CITY WOMEN FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
• BRISTOL FLYERS LIMITED
• BRISTOL SPORT LIMITED
• ESTEBAN INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Ashton Gate is up as well now.

I assume BCFC Ltd will come later today.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Could be a bluff, could be a negotiating ploy or similar but interesting comment by Maresca. Could be dated.

Still think they could be close if not over limits to this year.

Edited January 11 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Newcastle must be quite close as well.

https://theathletic.com/5195041/2024/01/11/newcastle-ffp-accounts-losses/

Whether their accounts have been published IDK but they lost £73m last season.

The Mike Ashley headroom has gone now.

By which I mean his parsimonious ways gave space for rich investors to make a push but from 2021-22...January 2022, Saudi spending.

Revenues have risen too, of course they have but so have losses.

After this season Covid losses and the Mike Ashley austerity will be out of the reckoning entirely.

Edited January 11 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

On 10/01/2024 at 11:58, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting here.

Found the PL P&S/PSR form and it seems not to exclude costs of Promotion or Promotion Bonuses.

If Nottingham Forest fall foul and Promotion Bonuses are a factor or deemed too high..how many others would retrospectively fall could post the 3 year rule?? A lot I expect!

There is nothing about Promotion Bonuses or costs.

It also makes me wonder with the fast track system if a club could call foul of T and be referred ie literally the existing season. T means right now basically.

Maybe thst is why Wolves were so desperate in the summer..they're fine now btw.

There is also nothing in the brief PL P&S section about Profit on Disposal of Fixed Assets. Whereas as we know at our level..

wouldn't bonuses just be classed as wages? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Rob26 said:

wouldn't bonuses just be classed as wages? 

Hard to say. Kieran Maguire has always said they're excluded from FFP returns ie Promotion Bonuses not regular Bonuses but there seem to be conflicting reports.

Without an exclusion, Nottingham Forest fail and I think Bournemouth, Fulham, going back Aston Villa, and maybe Leeds.and Wolves all breach.

Possible there are others too. I know under the one year rule they were definitely excluded.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Cardiff would've failed in 2018 without too, Fulham probably would've failed more than once.

Surely an excluded item.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I shouldn't laugh but some of the proposed FFP remedies elsewhere.

WBA..

*Sell the training ground to new owners and then lease it back.

Rule changed in 2021. 

Some seem to think there is a 2nd bonus in the offing which is that the rent would be excluded as Academy costs. That badly misaligns to the objectives and I don't see anything that would exclude it. Anyway the Profit on Disposal would be irrelevant for FFP. The rules expressly adjust it out.

*Interest payable on Academy excluded. Based on what?? Maybe if developed recently and borrowing expressly for that purpose but their payable Interest was £80-90k in 2021-22, barely material. Pre MSD but I doubt that is an excluded item.

They could be onto something with repayment of written off debts the owner or similar owe them but that could depend on the exact terms of the write off, accounting treatment etc.

By my Projections they could be easily making a £25-30m pre tax loss this year even pre impact of loan interest..higher than that is also plausible. Category One Academy is useful.

Some Birmingham fans moaning about lack of signings. Generally £50m pre tax aggregated losses across the prior 2 seasons hamstring a club!

I make their FFP losses across the 2 seasons £37.5m or thereabouts. Based on the Covid base 2021-22 number and the likely Allowables.

Daftest suggestion I've seen there is the sacking of Eustace they should try and classify as an exceptional cost of takeover.

Restructuring or integration of business, I can see an on paper case but it absolutely doesn't align to FFP regs.

Edited January 11 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://theathletic.com/5194769/2024/01/11/ffp-premier-league-deadline-breaches-punishments/

More PL specific but there things can filter down a bit.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Ooh it mentions Fulham and Aston Villa as possibles..I thought Bournemouth would be candidates too but.

[phantom]

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ooh it mentions Fulham and Aston Villa as possibles..I thought Bournemouth would be candidates too but.

What does it say?

It's behind a paywall

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, phantom said:

What does it say?

It's behind a paywall

Could be for the UEFA regs which along with PL are applicable there, the whole 70% of income one..while the Grealish £100m remains pertinent I'd be surprised of they are threatening £105m plus allowables.

Just surprised about Bournemouth seemingly bring great and clear of it though..they haven't even made a substantial sale for 2 years. Younger players on lower wages maybe who knows...Not been shy of spending before.

[Mr Popodopolous]

This is also wrong.

https://www.themag.co.uk/2023/03/financial-fair-play-and-how-it-works-for-premier-league-clubs/

Yes you do get a £10m asset but the author has misinterpreted the explanation badly at least in part.

As soon as you add the amortisation begins..it does bolster your assets but save for Amortisation, Impairment, Profit, Loss or Breakeven on Disposal it doesn't impact FFP.

If you had a revaluation policy maybe but that could be kicking the can down the road too.

In any event the standard amortisation policy for Player purchase is straight line including that of Newcastle as of 2022-23...they unlike the overwhelming majority of clubs set out a 4-5 year amortisation of Player Schedule too.

Edited January 12 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Fulham fan page says they're relatively parsimonious, can someone tell them..

 

-£45m..PL 4th and final year at that time Parachutes included. Promotion Bonuses too.

-£20m PL

-£48m...first Covid year, perhaps a bit of deferred revenue plus Promotion Bonuses. Year 1 of Parachute Payments.

-£93m...PL. Probably included £20m in standard Covid and a controversial Player Impairment of an equal amount.

-£57m..1st year Parachute Payments, probably included a couple of million from remaining Covid issues, and Promotion Bonuses of course.

Where does the claim of relative parsimony come from though, it's mind boggling.

[Mr Popodopolous]

That aside, Bournemouth are the ones that get me a bit..the fact they aren't even on the radar is a bit of a surprise all things considered.

[Maltshoveller]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That aside, Bournemouth are the ones that get me a bit..the fact they aren't even on the radar is a bit of a surprise all things considered.

Didnt they get done a few years back when they first went up to the prem

blew FFP out of the water. Made man city look like saints and got a joke of a fine for it (£4m i think)

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

Didnt they get done a few years back when they first went up to the prem

blew FFP out of the water. Made man city look like saints and got a joke of a fine for it (£4m i think)

Indeed they did. Some Bournemouth fan on Twitter recently proclaimed it was 'Levelling the playing field'.

Albeit their overspend was much lower than QPR and possibly lower than Leicester.

My thinking is they don't have major add-backs have less revenue than Fulham and Nottingham Forest outside of T.V. money.

-£60m pre tax 2019-20

£17m profit pre tax 2020-21

Starting point average there-£21.5m

Loss of £55.5m in 2021-22.

Again pre tax, pre allowables etc.

Upper Loss limit £72m plus allowables and Covid.

Last pre Covid PL season saw them lose £32m before tax.

I'm a tad confused as to how and why isn't more analysis. Less Prize money than Fulham too which impacts on revenue.

Edited January 12 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Given there are new FFP rules coming by next season or after.. I don't have a huge amount of sympathy with this.

 

Some clubs have perhaps even gambling on next year TV money and or scrambling up before the mooted 70% rule arises.

We have worked hard to get into a position to be compliant with rules of both types at all times..Birmingham, maybe Blackburn, Coventry maybe, Hull, Stoke, Millwall and Preston probably too high for turnover. Cardiff?? Swansea.

Probably more too.

Edited January 12 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

What do we think @Hxj @downendcity @Davefevs @chinapig @ExiledAjax

To me the onus is on the clubs somewhat, Special Pleading all told.

[Davefevs]

My view…if you’re in the PL, keep your house in order / within limits.

If you get relegated, I can see why some notion of moratorium on previously agreed contracts has merits for say a reason or two.

But that’s about it until all contract have a relegation release fee / wage reduction.

[chinapig]

19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What do we think @Hxj @downendcity @Davefevs @chinapig @ExiledAjax

To me the onus is on the clubs somewhat, Special Pleading all told.

I'm repeating myself perhaps but this is just another person who doesn't seem to know that the regs, old and new, were approved by the clubs.

The reason some clubs and supporters are panicking now is that they didn't think the rules would ever be applied. The Everton case and the prospect of the independent regulator seems to have concentrated minds.

Let them squirm I say!

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

My view…if you’re in the PL, keep your house in order / within limits.

If you get relegated, I can see why some notion of moratorium on previously agreed contracts has merits for say a reason or two.

But that’s about it until all contract have a relegation release fee / wage reduction.

My idea would perhaps be to average two bits..if wage following a reduction clause post relegation exceeds a 70% averaged baseline put down to 70% for a year or 2, if at or 70% or remains there.

Clubs who fail to prepare prepare to fail but there is a financial chasm between the 2 divisions That has to be factored in.

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm repeating myself perhaps but this is just another person who doesn't seem to know that the regs, old and new, were approved by the clubs.

The reason some clubs and supporters are panicking now is that they didn't think the rules would ever be applied. The Everton case and the prospect of the independent regulator seems to have concentrated minds.

Let them squirm I say!

 

For info, Tim Keech works for Market Insight, the team that provide a recruitment consultancy service to clubs like Swansea (in the past), Plymouth (currently) and others.  Jay Socik (Luton) was with Markets.

In this case I think Tim’s Everton allegiance is clouding his judgement.

[chinapig]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

For info, Tim Keech works for Market Insight, the team that provide a recruitment consultancy service to clubs like Swansea (in the past), Plymouth (currently) and others.  Jay Socik (Luton) was with Markets.

In this case I think Tim’s Everton allegiance is clouding his judgement.

Thanks Dave. It seems to me that this just makes his comments even more egregious since he ought to know better. Especially if he is involved with Plymouth, one of the best run clubs around. Perhaps they ought to be giving him advice instead of vice versa.

[Mr Popodopolous]

In respect of my past views on Stoke.

They are now fully compliant IMO. My issues are for the most part the Covid writeoffs relating to the transfer market which should if anything impact on the period ending 2021-22 or 2020-21.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Which should be investigated in full, as it should for all clubs who used transfer related issues given the Everton precedent of sorts.

Edited January 12 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

On 10/01/2024 at 16:56, Davefevs said:

Haha, blame FFP for something that is Forest’s decision!

Bailey Wright has just been handed a 3 match suspension for this. 

[downendcity]

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What do we think @Hxj @downendcity @Davefevs @chinapig @ExiledAjax

To me the onus is on the clubs somewhat, Special Pleading all told.

Heard a little bit of a discussion about FFP on Talksport this afternoon. I think it was on the back of Arsenal having to sell if they want to bring in a new transfer. They went on to speculate on whether financial rules should be scrapped and if owners had the money then they should be allowed to spend it. There was also the suggestion that the present financial rules enabled the "elite" clubs to maintain their position.

Whenever I hear this type of discussion it always feels as though those involved feel that FFP ( or the premier league derivation P&S) was designed to create a level playing field. However, the idea of ffp was originally introduced by UEFA around 2010 to make clubs live more within their means. 

It was introduced into the EFL in 2010/11 and the prem a couple of years later - during which time Pompey had become the first premier league club to go into admin, and 2 more admins later  ( the last to avoid liquidation) saw them do a Bristol City by getting to the 3rd division ( 4th division in old money) The trail of financial destruction this caused to the club's suppliers caused outrage at the time, especially as their highly paid premier league players were classed as preferred creditors. IIRC the club had something like £100m debt when it all went tits up and again, IIRC, their then owner basically stopped funding the club. No way was Benjani going to get them out of that hole!

Fast forward to post 2017(?) and we saw history repeating itself, as Mel Morris, who had been lauded a hero by Derby fans ( he's a lifelong Derby fan, so would never leave the club in the lurch, they said) for  having the EFL's pants down over the "sale" of Pride Park as a clever way of getting around ffp, also pulled the plug on Derby's financial backing with only administration and a nick of time sale saving the club from going out of business.

So the original financial rules were not about creating a level playing field, but more about protecting clubs from themselves- or more accurately from owners who would be prepared to risk the club's future in chasing the dream of top flight football. Judging by the Derby case and Everton's shambolic financial situation, and the Hans Christian Anderson accounting we've seen employed by numerous clubs to manipulate their accounts into a compliant form, football's regulators  just don;t seem able to enforce their own rules properly, so it would seem that something has to change.

The questing now being raised is whether that form of ffp is appropriate - or indeed fair on wealthy owners who have the financial resource that could benefit their club but are not allowed to spend it. One issue, of which we are only too aware , is the massive gulf between a club like ours, and those in the premier league, or those still benefitting from having been in the prem by way of parachute payments. Even within the prem there is a massive gulf between the wealth of clubs like Man City and Newcastle, both effectively being owned by nation states, and the likes of Luton, Sheff U and Burnley.

If competition is the aim, then financial rules that equalise what clubs can spend would seem the way to go. It's interesting that there are an increasing number of American owners, as I think I'm right in saying that the NFL operates in just such a way. However, would Man City and Newcastle's owners be happy to see their biggest advantage , i.e wealth, being neutered?

Perhaps some sort of hybrid financial rules are need, that balance the need to ensure that clubs are solvent and financially viable in the longer term, but with a degree of flexibility that allows clubs with greater financial resources to use more of that, but that limits that so that there is not too much  of  a gulf between the haves and the have nots.

FWIW I can easily see that any attempts to change financial  rules to help level the playing field will only hasten the creation of a super league. We've seen the lengths that Man City have (allegedly) gone to circumvent financial rules and enable their owners to utilise their financial advantage.

 

 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'll get into the wider debate but Leicester again. Great post that btw @downendcity

 

I think Leicester may have a P&S issue to the existing season.

[downendcity]

25 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Heard a little bit of a discussion about FFP on Talksport this afternoon. I think it was on the back of Arsenal having to sell if they want to bring in a new transfer. They went on to speculate on whether financial rules should be scrapped and if owners had the money then they should be allowed to spend it. There was also the suggestion that the present financial rules enabled the "elite" clubs to maintain their position.

Whenever I hear this type of discussion it always feels as though those involved feel that FFP ( or the premier league derivation P&S) was designed to create a level playing field. However, the idea of ffp was originally introduced by UEFA around 2010 to make clubs live more within their means. 

It was introduced into the EFL in 2010/11 and the prem a couple of years later - during which time Pompey had become the first premier league club to go into admin, and 2 more admins later  ( the last to avoid liquidation) saw them do a Bristol City by getting to the 3rd division ( 4th division in old money) The trail of financial destruction this caused to the club's suppliers caused outrage at the time, especially as their highly paid premier league players were classed as preferred creditors. IIRC the club had something like £100m debt when it all went tits up and again, IIRC, their then owner basically stopped funding the club. No way was Benjani going to get them out of that hole!

Fast forward to post 2017(?) and we saw history repeating itself, as Mel Morris, who had been lauded a hero by Derby fans ( he's a lifelong Derby fan, so would never leave the club in the lurch, they said) for  having the EFL's pants down over the "sale" of Pride Park as a clever way of getting around ffp, also pulled the plug on Derby's financial backing with only administration and a nick of time sale saving the club from going out of business.

So the original financial rules were not about creating a level playing field, but more about protecting clubs from themselves- or more accurately from owners who would be prepared to risk the club's future in chasing the dream of top flight football. Judging by the Derby case and Everton's shambolic financial situation, and the Hans Christian Anderson accounting we've seen employed by numerous clubs to manipulate their accounts into a compliant form, football's regulators  just don;t seem able to enforce their own rules properly, so it would seem that something has to change.

The questing now being raised is whether that form of ffp is appropriate - or indeed fair on wealthy owners who have the financial resource that could benefit their club but are not allowed to spend it. One issue, of which we are only too aware , is the massive gulf between a club like ours, and those in the premier league, or those still benefitting from having been in the prem by way of parachute payments. Even within the prem there is a massive gulf between the wealth of clubs like Man City and Newcastle, both effectively being owned by nation states, and the likes of Luton, Sheff U and Burnley.

If competition is the aim, then financial rules that equalise what clubs can spend would seem the way to go. It's interesting that there are an increasing number of American owners, as I think I'm right in saying that the NFL operates in just such a way. However, would Man City and Newcastle's owners be happy to see their biggest advantage , i.e wealth, being neutered?

Perhaps some sort of hybrid financial rules are need, that balance the need to ensure that clubs are solvent and financially viable in the longer term, but with a degree of flexibility that allows clubs with greater financial resources to use more of that, but that limits that so that there is not too much  of  a gulf between the haves and the have nots.

FWIW I can easily see that any attempts to change financial  rules to help level the playing field will only hasten the creation of a super league. We've seen the lengths that Man City have (allegedly) gone to circumvent financial rules and enable their owners to utilise their financial advantage.

 

P.S. When I see the level of losses premier league clubs are racking up, despite the riches on offer in the top flight, I really start to wonder just why clubs are almost prepared to bankrupt themselves to get there!

I really worry that football is now unsustainable and will eat itself to death unless something changes. The seemingly inexorable rise in players wages that take the wage bill beyond many clubs total income is ludicrous, but just like the Emperor's new clothes, it seems that no one has the balls to stand up and say "this is madness".

Perhaps it needs a Super League, so that the most wealthy owners can take their play things away from everyone else , make their own rules, negotiate huge TV deals, pay players £1m per week, take proper fans out of the equation and bask in the glory that they can then buy. 

That would leave the rest of us to provide employment for the rest of the player pool, on wages that clubs can afford, perhaps then reasonable ticket pricing and without the need for an owner with enough resource to fill a £30m black hole every week. The great thing is that new scenario would not change everything. Fans can still moan about the owner and his son, team selection, whether the coach so go 3 at the back  and  fish puns on OTIB. It might just not cost as much!

Perhaps it's just my age and being able to remember when football seemed much simpler, and more enjoyable? Or perhaps my age just makes me indulge in more wishful thinking. I don't know, but it's time to put the kettle on for a cup of cocoa and a custard cream before bedtime.

Good night all.

 

 

Edited January 12 by downendcity

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What do we think @Hxj @downendcity @Davefevs @chinapig @ExiledAjax

To me the onus is on the clubs somewhat, Special Pleading all told.

My previously stated view is that Derby and Everton have created the Epiphany moments for the EFL and the Premier League.

The problem with limits is that they become targets.  And once those targets were not considered serious they became irrelevant.

There are similarities on a behavioural basis with the 'Dieselgate' issues.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

Heard a little bit of a discussion about FFP on Talksport this afternoon. I think it was on the back of Arsenal having to sell if they want to bring in a new transfer. They went on to speculate on whether financial rules should be scrapped and if owners had the money then they should be allowed to spend it. There was also the suggestion that the present financial rules enabled the "elite" clubs to maintain their position.

Whenever I hear this type of discussion it always feels as though those involved feel that FFP ( or the premier league derivation P&S) was designed to create a level playing field. However, the idea of ffp was originally introduced by UEFA around 2010 to make clubs live more within their means. 

It was introduced into the EFL in 2010/11 and the prem a couple of years later - during which time Pompey had become the first premier league club to go into admin, and 2 more admins later  ( the last to avoid liquidation) saw them do a Bristol City by getting to the 3rd division ( 4th division in old money) The trail of financial destruction this caused to the club's suppliers caused outrage at the time, especially as their highly paid premier league players were classed as preferred creditors. IIRC the club had something like £100m debt when it all went tits up and again, IIRC, their then owner basically stopped funding the club. No way was Benjani going to get them out of that hole!

Fast forward to post 2017(?) and we saw history repeating itself, as Mel Morris, who had been lauded a hero by Derby fans ( he's a lifelong Derby fan, so would never leave the club in the lurch, they said) for  having the EFL's pants down over the "sale" of Pride Park as a clever way of getting around ffp, also pulled the plug on Derby's financial backing with only administration and a nick of time sale saving the club from going out of business.

So the original financial rules were not about creating a level playing field, but more about protecting clubs from themselves- or more accurately from owners who would be prepared to risk the club's future in chasing the dream of top flight football. Judging by the Derby case and Everton's shambolic financial situation, and the Hans Christian Anderson accounting we've seen employed by numerous clubs to manipulate their accounts into a compliant form, football's regulators  just don;t seem able to enforce their own rules properly, so it would seem that something has to change.

The questing now being raised is whether that form of ffp is appropriate - or indeed fair on wealthy owners who have the financial resource that could benefit their club but are not allowed to spend it. One issue, of which we are only too aware , is the massive gulf between a club like ours, and those in the premier league, or those still benefitting from having been in the prem by way of parachute payments. Even within the prem there is a massive gulf between the wealth of clubs like Man City and Newcastle, both effectively being owned by nation states, and the likes of Luton, Sheff U and Burnley.

If competition is the aim, then financial rules that equalise what clubs can spend would seem the way to go. It's interesting that there are an increasing number of American owners, as I think I'm right in saying that the NFL operates in just such a way. However, would Man City and Newcastle's owners be happy to see their biggest advantage , i.e wealth, being neutered?

Perhaps some sort of hybrid financial rules are need, that balance the need to ensure that clubs are solvent and financially viable in the longer term, but with a degree of flexibility that allows clubs with greater financial resources to use more of that, but that limits that so that there is not too much  of  a gulf between the haves and the have nots.

FWIW I can easily see that any attempts to change financial  rules to help level the playing field will only hasten the creation of a super league. We've seen the lengths that Man City have (allegedly) gone to circumvent financial rules and enable their owners to utilise their financial advantage.

 

 

 

 

Agree with the bulk of this. All of it pretty much.

Things are getting much better. Nobody at the EFL spotted the Fixed Asset loophole until it was too late. Covid ones I believe are being reviewed or should be in certain areas..I'd query Fulham, Nottingham Forest and Stoke for a start and Everton with some of their arguments didn't find favour.

Imagine a counterfactual in which there is no Fixed Asset profits possible..Aston Villa would have run aground in 2018-19, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday in 2017-18 and beyond, Reading in 2017-18 or 2018-19..and the overspending being caught early may have left these clubs in less of a existential hole. Birmingham would've failed 2018-19 again and once more perhaps beyond, Blackburn to a few million possibly avoided an FFP breach.

It could have changed the dynamics at top

Stoke benefited to the tune of £16m in FFP terms in addition to Covid stuff from their one.

Likewise if Man United have sought to argue £40m expressly in Covid losses for 2021-22, that's suspect to me.

US owners will want tougher financial regs I assume yeah, irony in some ways given the sheer capitalism of USA but then again regulation of how they do their sports..

There are also checks on Associated and Related Parties now...Sheffield Wednesday e.g. used shell sponsors and may still do but they were deemed to be at a fair rate so the EFL were understood to be okay with it. About £1-1.5m per year all-in if memory serves.

The gulf at multiple levels is enormous yeah.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

My previously stated view is that Derby and Everton have created the Epiphany moments for the EFL and the Premier League.

The problem with limits is that they become targets.  And once those targets were not considered serious they became irrelevant.

There are similarities on a behavioural basis with the 'Dieselgate' issues.

Agreed.

Yeah a target to hit,to aim at and maybe sneak past with bits of clever accounting (not piss taking just a little clever).

I mean Sheffield Wednesday and Birmfkhahm fell foul before at our level but Derby with the sheer scale and complexity..yeah. They seemed to have been the first to utilise the stadium loophole but definitely not the last.

Interesting, shall look at one up.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just to look again at the whole Leicester thing..

£162,380,000 in unamortised Book Value.

Faes £15m

Souttar £15m

Kristansen £12m

£3m, £1.36m, £1.09m added respectively. Probably remains £70m accounting for the odd departure and lack of loan fee v removal of Lookman.

Who goes and how much..I assume Leicester amortise straight line and new contracts adjust the amortisation accordingly.

Fofana- £3.81m

Maddison- £3.6m

Both sold.

The released assuming Book Value etc. Annual Cost.

Soyuncu- £3.6-3.8m depending on exact fee.

Evans- £0.233m

Bertrand- joined on a free, £0/0.

Amartey- Perhaps £0.2m

Tielemans- £8-10m

Mendy- Maybe didn't have much left..signed a 4 year deal and then extended not long before end. £0.1m maybe?

Perez- £7.5m

Somewhere between £27.043-29.243m

Less the further £1.36m for Souttar,  £1.09 for Kristansen.

Then less..

Hermansen £5m

Coady £7.5m

Winks £7.5-10m

Mavdidi £6.9m

Cannon £7.5m

£34.4-36.9m added back. £8.88-9.71m. Plus the aforementioned £2.45m.

Probably amortisation in the £50-55m range.

I mentioned loan fees too. Tete inbound in 2022-23 less Lookman and then the loanees this year less Tete. They're all accounted for over 1 year.

Edited January 13 by Mr Popodopolous

[RollsRoyce]

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agree with the bulk of this. All of it pretty much.

Things are getting much better. Nobody at the EFL spotted the Fixed Asset loophole until it was too late. Covid ones I believe are being reviewed or should be in certain areas..I'd query Fulham, Nottingham Forest and Stoke for a start and Everton with some of their arguments didn't find favour.

Imagine a counterfactual in which there is no Fixed Asset profits possible..Aston Villa would have run aground in 2018-19, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday in 2017-18 and beyond, Reading in 2017-18 or 2018-19..and the overspending being caught early may have left these clubs in less of a existential hole. Birmingham would've failed 2018-19 again and once more perhaps beyond, Blackburn to a few million possibly avoided an FFP breach.

It could have changed the dynamics at top

Stoke benefited to the tune of £16m in FFP terms in addition to Covid stuff from their one.

Likewise if Man United have sought to argue £40m expressly in Covid losses for 2021-22, that's suspect to me.

US owners will want tougher financial regs I assume yeah, irony in some ways given the sheer capitalism of USA but then again regulation of how they do their sports..

There are also checks on Associated and Related Parties now...Sheffield Wednesday e.g. used shell sponsors and may still do but they were deemed to be at a fair rate so the EFL were understood to be okay with it. About £1-1.5m per year all-in if memory serves.

The gulf at multiple levels is enormous yeah.

As you rightly state, it is the loopholes causing the issues. Take the Man City use of sponsorship, the initial Chelsea signings on 8 year deals to amortise deals over a longer period (now capped at 5 years). The Derby example of the revaluation of players each year. Which brings us to stadium revenue. `Essentially the expectation is that income comes from 3 streams, tv/media income, matchday revenue and sponsor/commercial. The area being looked at right now is stadium revenue. For example, which would relate to us, why should the football club benefit from using a stadium for rugby? If you have a hotel attached to a stadium, is that football revenue? Why should holding exhibitions in a stadium count as football revenue? Loopholes are where they all fight it out. It is one for lawyers and accountants. 

For a club like ours, non PP , the tv deal is what? Around £10m a season. Ticket sales and other commercial revenue for our gates? Another £10M . I would guess Us, Cardiff, Coventry with similar attendances will be around £20M in income (I will go check now) from those sources. So where does the stadium company get their turnover from? Rugby ? Concerts? weddings? Why should that count for football FFP? Little guidance in this area. 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, RollsRoyce said:

As you rightly state, it is the loopholes causing the issues. Take the Man City use of sponsorship, the initial Chelsea signings on 8 year deals to amortise deals over a longer period (now capped at 5 years). The Derby example of the revaluation of players each year. Which brings us to stadium revenue. `Essentially the expectation is that income comes from 3 streams, tv/media income, matchday revenue and sponsor/commercial. The area being looked at right now is stadium revenue. For example, which would relate to us, why should the football club benefit from using a stadium for rugby? If you have a hotel attached to a stadium, is that football revenue? Why should holding exhibitions in a stadium count as football revenue? Loopholes are where they all fight it out. It is one for lawyers and accountants. 

For a club like ours, non PP , the tv deal is what? Around £10m a season. Ticket sales and other commercial revenue for our gates? Another £10M . I would guess Us, Cardiff, Coventry with similar attendances will be around £20M in income (I will go check now) from those sources. So where does the stadium company get their turnover from? Rugby ? Concerts? weddings? Why should that count for football FFP? Little guidance in this area. 

 

 

Commercial Revenue on the footprint is fine, Property revenue not so much but we're so much more than a Football Stadium as we leverage it very well.

A loophole is e.g. Stadium sale profit, Man City case something else entirely.

All AGL Revenue save for the Ground Rent and Service Charge not least as it consolidates out at the Group level is applicable for us.

It wasn't so much a Revaluation policy as an amortisation one. How you write off the cost over time. Revaluation is something else.