Markthehorn Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: -3 for breach. -3 for circumstances and scale. +2 for exceptional co-operation. They will appeal. They kind of have to appeal really. Any appeal would be heard after the season has finished apparently! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 2 minutes ago, Markthehorn said: Any appeal would be heard after the season has finished apparently! Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Share Posted March 18 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Markthehorn said: Any appeal would be heard after the season has finished apparently! A few days, but it isn't unprecedented. See EFL v Derby and the Interchangeable Fixture Lists, EFL v Wigan (Administration) 2020 or EFL v Macclesfield (also 2020) pertaining to a Suspended Deduction. Edited March 18 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Share Posted March 18 8 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: -3 for breach. -3 for circumstances and scale. +2 for exceptional co-operation. They will appeal. They kind of have to appeal really. -4 strikes me as light subject to the 2nd -3 and +2 back. Given the size of the EFL deductions..hmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: -4 strikes me as light subject to the 2nd -3 and +2 back. Given the size of the EFL deductions..hmm. The award does plenty of comparison to EFL cases and of course to Everton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Share Posted March 18 Just now, ExiledAjax said: The award does plenty of comparison to EFL cases and of course to Everton. The Written Reasons will be of interest, whenever they appear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 I love Paddy Power's social media, always good for a joke and a dig. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said: -4 strikes me as light subject to the 2nd -3 and +2 back. Given the size of the EFL deductions..hmm. That's because the Premier League is the best most lenient league in the world! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Share Posted March 18 (edited) 24 minutes ago, downendcity said: That's because the Premier League is the best most lenient league in the world! Yeah, still looking at the Written Reasons. 4 points for an apparent £34.5m Overspend is very lenient I must say! The Football League are/historically have been quite draconian too. Edited March 18 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markthehorn Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said: Indeed. BBC say any appeal will be rushed through potentially. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68594865 8 April (approximate) - 'Directions hearing' to set a date for an appeal hearing, which will last between one and three days and conclude no later than 24 May. It is likely to be much earlier in Forest's case 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Share Posted March 18 (edited) The EFL maybe should be going back and looking at Stoke and possibly others in both divisions but Stoke made some massive add-backs for Covid, some categories of which were dodgy to say the least. Edited March 18 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: The ERL.should be going back and looking at Stoke and possibly others in both divisions but Stoke made some massive add-backs for Covid, some categories of which were dodgy to say the least. To save you looking, here’s what they claimed. I recall mentioning this to Richard Gould a day or two after these came out, ie that Forest had detailed their Covid add-backs in their accounts, his reply was “have they now, that’s interesting” Looks like the £9.678m “gap” is the forecast (£12.178m) mins the £2.5m allowance. So maybe they were stricter with the add-backs than I thought. Or maybe Forest took the piss. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Share Posted March 18 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Davefevs said: To save you looking, here’s what they claimed. I recall mentioning this to Richard Gould a day or two after these came out, ie that Forest had detailed their Covid add-backs in their accounts, his reply was “have they now, that’s interesting” Looks like the £9.678m “gap” is the forecast (£12.178m) mins the £2.5m allowance. So maybe they were stricter with the add-backs than I thought. Or maybe Forest took the piss. I reckon Nottingham Forest took the piss for sure and Stoke took the piss moreso. Albeit Stoke and their piss taking was mainly in 2019-20 and 2020-21. Dunno quite how it should or would be treated. Plus they didn't go up. Stoke stand out like an absolute sore thumb. The weird thing was it seemed to be accepted at the time and then analysed later...so Nottingham Forest were technically complaint with it in March 2022. Edited March 18 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Share Posted March 18 The Accounts of Nottingham Forest sound a mess and or all over the place though, FFP aside. Surely that is double counting if they're going on about a £20m Cost of Promotion yet Promotion Bonuses not excluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IdliketoRogerMoore Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Not sure how true this is but it does show how far behind we are behind the premier relegated clubs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Share Posted March 18 I don't especially trust Capology and such sites. Albeit the top 3 will be the top 3 in position but not necessarily total amount. I reckon we are between 10th-14th for Football Wage Bills in the division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exAtyeoMax Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 19 Author Share Posted March 19 Here is one that I don't get. Nottingham Forest in brwscy and perhaps lucky to get -4 given the size of the overspend! However Promotion Bonuses it seems are not exempt contrary to popular belief. Period ending 2022 Fulham Pre Tax Losses 2018-19 -£20m (PL) 2019-20 -£48m (Championship, Promoted). Covid Year also. 2020-21 -£93m (PL, main Covid Year). (Combined Average owing to Covid -£70.5m). 2021-22 -£57.5m (Promoted, back to normal save for the now established £2.5m cap). Even if they pass that period however?? -£70.5m and -£57.5m into this season and Promotion Bonuses not included. Upper Loss limit £72m plus Allowables and Covid-19. The challenge is to work backwards from A) £148m to £72m and exclude at least one set of Promotion Bonuses. B) Failing that £128m plus whatever last year to £72m again exclusive of Promotion Bonuses. Bournemouth 2018-19 -£32m (PL) 2019-20 -£60m (PL, relegated, first chunk of Covid). 2020-21 £17m Profit (Year 1 Parachute Payments, main Covid Year) (Combined Average owing to Covid-£21.5m). 2021-22 -£55.5m (Promoted, no notable Covid, Year 2 Parachute Payments). The challenge is to exclude Promotion Bonuses and work backwards from £109m to £72m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 19 Author Share Posted March 19 (edited) Then if you go backwards far enough, Aston Villa to 2019 but unsure about 2021, Wolves probably fail, Leeds may not definitely fail. Maybe Fulham twice or even thrice. Edited March 19 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 19 Author Share Posted March 19 Surely then if Promotion Bonuses aren't excludable, then settling a debt for a former owner also isn't... There is nothing in the PL Handbook or on the PSR Form about it. 2017-18 -£36.069m 2018-19 -£68.884m 2019-20 -£99.452m 2020-21 -£37.318m (Average -£68.385m). Total before Adjustments but after Averaging. -£173.338m. At the very least they fail to 2019..unless EFL Regs exclude and PL include?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 19 Author Share Posted March 19 (edited) Leicester charges could be on their way. https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13089224/leicester-facing-potential-points-deduction-for-alleged-breach-of-premier-leagues-profit-and-sustainability-rules I still maintain that the Forecast should somewhat feed into the real-time situation. This appears to be 2-3 articles merged into 1. Rules 2.2-2.9 Leicester won their case but what of Rules 2, 2.1 and beyond 2.9? Edited March 19 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lim5642 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 Seemed most appropriate place to post - apologies if not. Saw posted on reddit earlier 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 Sheffield United lost just the £31,453,129 pre tax in their Promotion season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 I think their bigger issue was Cash Flow, there were reports through last season and an Embargo at one point. Having said that had they stayed down FFP to this year would've been interesting. The Profitable PL years would've dropped off, the Upper Loss limit of £61m/£72m down to £39m and Parachute Payments Year 2 to 3 can be a £20-25m drop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Sheffield United lost just the £31,453,129 pre tax in their Promotion season. Wos reckon? £19.995m promotion bonus / costs? Edited March 20 by Davefevs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 6 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Wos reckon? £19.995m promotion bonus / costs? Some reports last year said £8m, feels unlikely that the baseline wage bill is before Promotion Bonuses drops £10-15m in a year. Seen £10-15m suggested too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Some reports last year said £8m, feels unlikely that the baseline wage bill is before Promotion Bonuses drops £10-15m in a year. Seen £10-15m suggested too. I was referring to the line item - admin expenses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Davefevs said: I was referring to the line item - admin expenses? Ah yes, thanks. I'll go look again. There were £13.75m the year before a non Promotion year. On their forum they some suggest £10-15m. Often Promotion Bonuses can be included in Total Remuneration otherwise it means Nottingham Forest had a total wage bill in 2021-22 excluding Promotion Bonuses of £57m e.g.. Maybe they did who knows but more likely £37m or so. Edited March 20 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 Parry anticipates P&S/FFP to remain as they are next year. https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/24195925.independent-regulator-affect-championship-sides/?ref=suit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 Quelle surprise, Evertonian reckons existing sanctions should be suspended or similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 On 14/03/2024 at 19:00, Sandhurst Red said: It's getting even worse for Reading - even more than Wycombe buying their training ground today. I know a few folk connected to the club and they had auditors there today, looking for any assets. They are even considering dismantling part of the ground and selling off seats and rails as assets. That's how bad it has got. Many locally think they will not be around in 3 weeks time. The inevitable is going to happen. And to think Dai Young is worth an apparent £17 Billion.... this is just spiteful to the EFL, who I must add should be held accountable for this and allowing him the opportunity to even do it. The bloke was rejected once with Hull and then swindled his way into Reading. Reading are an awful club in may respects, with an awful matchday experience, and some of the most plastic fans you could find - they have simply vanished as a fanbase since they left the Prem. That said, their most loyal fans don't deserve this. It outline so much of what is wrong with modern football. Not defending some of what has, and is happening at BS3, but those that crucify the Lansdown's would do well to see what happens when you don't have that support and then sell to the wrong person. other consortium members were why the hull bid got rejected from the premier league, it wasn't down to young. if he's not got prior convictions or cases lodged against him and has significant cash in the bank, along with a decent business plan is mostly what they are looking for, and also why most people get rejected or rather never complete the final steps to get approved as they can't prove the funds. I dont think you can blame the efl for what has happened at reading, it could happen at any club if the owners decide to cut off funding and they run at a negative cash flow. they have no control other than sanctions after they have bought the club unfortunatley and there is no way to change that as most club owners would object to having the additional liabilities put against their assets (which no doubt would make them worth less in some instances). On 18/03/2024 at 14:24, Mr Popodopolous said: Percy says they're considering an Appeal. 4 points seems light given the turning down of bids for Brennan Johnson but until the Written Reasons are out and the table is updated it is hard to say really. I think the BJ sale dates its what has reduced the points down to 4 tbh, while your still in breach of ffp on the period before by delaying the sale, it does not make financial sense to sell him for much less than they did sell him for while clubs were trying it on due to the accounts deadline they had to meet. when your ruling on these cases and the reasoning behind is the financial health of clubs etc, they seem to have been clever and used the rules own purpose against them. plus I think they may have given a penalty that they wanted to avoid an appeal. to get rid of this situation every club should be forced to have their accounts start and end on the same date for the purposes of ffp or present ffp accounts for these periods. for me the perfect dates should be based on upto the last cup final, ie the last date of the season, then you would close out this stupid argument, and it would also be fairer for clubs too - as you wouldn't have to be in a position where you chose to breach or sell a prized player for a low ball offer to not breach. For me, immediately at the end of the season you should not be allowed a short period to do business at all to fix any breaches you have on the books from the season that has just closed out. It does not match the spirit of ffp and its intentions it encourages irresponsible owners to gamble with everything and hope they can find a sale to bail them out after the fact - we are seeing it with Leicester right now if the reports are correct. if owners want to gamble in the summer then make sales in january when it dont work then so be it it also gives poor value to the club selling the players as other clubs know they are behind on ffp, they either wait and hope they breach or pick the bones and offer much less than the players worth, clubs should not have to put themselves in that position. but deals in the short period after the season has ended needs closing out as a loophole because I think it just adds to the problem - and moving forward clubs should not be allowed to use the same argument forest has used and the only way you can do this is by only being allowed to include deals upto a certain date that match the actual season player or calanadar year which starts with a window anyways. i prefer to match it to a season as then we avoid a loopholey transition year or two where people blame the new dates for the breach if they can make out based on the old dates they would have been fine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/leicester-city-learn-premier-league-9178706 Quote Leicester City's hopes of avoiding breaching Premier League profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) have been handed a significant blow as a possible points deduction penalty looms. The Foxes are yet to publish their accounts for the 2022/23 season. For the two previous seasons combined, they made losses of £125.5m, meaning a profit of more than £20m would be required to avoid being over the threshold. Earlier this month, it was reported that City would be charged by the Premier League and could be faced with a 'hefty points deduction' for next season, should they return to the top flight. READ MORE: Leicester City learn play-off dates which weren't even a thought before now READ MORE: Nottingham Forest points deduction and what it means for Leicester City amid FFP worries Since the concerns over the finances started, it has emerged that Leicester face the prospect of having to sell players by June 30 to avoid being charged with breaching PSR. The start of July will mark the start of a new financial year meaning any sales after June 30 will not go towards the three-year cycle ending this year. However, any hopes of selling any of their international stars are set to be diminished. According to the Daily Mail, international managers are set to refuse access to their squad members during the Euro 2024 tournament in Germany. The report claims that FA sources have said that any agents will be permitted to meet with their players to discuss transfers. Players such as Danny Ward, Wout Faes and Jannik Vestergaard are all on course to travel to Germany for the tournament. However, should Leicester look to sell any of their international players before June 30, they may struggle to do so. However, the likes of Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall, Harry Souttar and Patson Daka could be sold to help balance the books without having to overcome that hurdle. Leicester need 20m to break even on ffp according to this. cracks me up that coz of euro 24 they wont be able to sell a lot of them in time due to being on international duty :laugh:, poor guys :laugh: i'm enjoying them slipping down the table as well tbh 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markthehorn Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Leicester been charged over FFP by the PL already ! https://twitter.com/SkySportsNews/status/1770875811949646240 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View from the Dolman Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 PL Statement: Quote The Premier League has today referred Leicester City FC to an independent Commission for an alleged breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSRs) and for failing to submit their audited financial accounts to the League. The alleged breach relates to the assessment period ending Season 2022/23, when the club was a member of the Premier League. Leicester City were relegated to the EFL Championship prior to the introduction of the Premier League’s new Standard Directions, which prescribe a timeline within which PSR cases should be heard. Therefore, the proceedings will be conducted in accordance with a timetable to be set by the independent Commission, and its final decision will be published on the Premier League’s website. https://www.premierleague.com/news/3938339 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 Hmm not submitting Accounts on top sounds like a big Aggravating factor to me!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 (edited) Does that mean they haven't submitted to the EFL either? Urban Spaceman stop crying foul and conspiracy on their forum. Edited March 21 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markthehorn Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Does that mean they haven't submitted to the EFL either? Urban Spaceman stop crying foul and conspiracy on their forum. Not sure but face a points deduction if they go up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Markthehorn said: Not sure but face a points deduction if they go up? Could face one if they stay down too! They are mooted to be over limits to this year or forecast to be. Edited March 21 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 @Markthehorn The EFL statement a few weeks ago said they were forecast to exceed the Upper Loss limit to this season. The £83m plus Allowables one. EFL would also be seeking a points deduction in those circs should it crystallise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said: @Markthehorn The EFL statement a few weeks ago said they were forecast to exceed the Upper Loss limit to this season. The £83m plus Allowables one. EFL would also be seeking a points deduction in those circs should it crystallise. I never knew there was an upper limit. I thought it was over a 3 year period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said: I never knew there was an upper limit. I thought it was over a 3 year period. There is an Upper Loss limit and it is over a 3 Year Period. E.g. PL- £35m x 3=£105m Championship- £13m x 3=£39m Side promoted after 2 Championship years. £13m x 2 and £35m=£61m Side with 2 PL years relegated £35m x 2 and £13m=£83m Plus all the Allowables etc. Leicester to last year were looking not to exceed £105m plus Allowables, to the present year it is £83m plus Allowables. Edited March 21 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 (edited) The CFRP can actually get cases done in 6 weeks so which body will hear it. That includes an Appeal. https://efl.com/governance/financial-regulation Could the PL hand it to the EFL and vice versa? *CFRU propose Agreed Decision. *Leicester will surely trjrct. *28 days max for a Hearing to be held. Edited March 21 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 Urban Spaceman seems a touchy paranoid clown on such matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 @Mr Popodopolous fair play. You've been calling them out for quite a while on this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 Cheers @W-S-M Seagull I'll be honest, I thought they complied to last season and that this year would be the huge crunch would be to the Period ending 2023-24 but they could get have a fall for both. Not submitting Accounts is Aggravated breach potentially IMO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 https://shewore.com/2024/03/22/fans-need-to-stop-blaming-psr-for-owners-running-clubs-poorly/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 (edited) Looks like Wigan learnt lessons..no wonder they hit the buffers again last year. Also says they had a wage bill of £23.24m?? Edited March 22 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 (edited) New Owner Loan Write Off of £4m or so, the true loss thus is £17m before add-backs for P&S purposes. 2nd biggest loss in their history, £19-20m was perhaps their biggest the year they went into Administration. Didn't release any UK Accounts but HK numbers suggest that was it for 2019-20. Hard to piece together for 2020-21 due to administration. Edited March 22 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 On 18/03/2024 at 15:15, 1960maaan said: I love Paddy Power's social media, always good for a joke and a dig. I'm sure Everton were way more in a breach than forrest tho, might not on the numbers they agreed on at the end of the case, but it looked to me that they let them off a massive amount of money on several dubious items they simply didn't challenge evertons value on - as they had more than enough on items that were undisputable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 (edited) 5 hours ago, Rob26 said: I'm sure Everton were way more in a breach than forrest tho, might not on the numbers they agreed on at the end of the case, but it looked to me that they let them off a massive amount of money on several dubious items they simply didn't challenge evertons value on - as they had more than enough on items that were undisputable. Everton getting down to a £124.5m was it from £284-285m pre tax in the Period is quite something really. 2018-19..-£111m down to -£58-59m in a non Covid year. That was a 13 month Period but surely the League didn't disregard a 13 month Period (see EFL v SWFC, they didn't when extended to 14 months). That were an odd precedent potentially. 2019-20 and 2020-21..The combined Covid Averaged year.. -£130m down to -£55m. More understandable. Saw a suggested-£41m in Covid x 2 so you knock £41m off the -£130m and then yes you can work downwards. Maybe there was some Player Impairment permitted too. 2021-22..-£44m down to -£10m. That first one seems well out of kilter though. Edited March 25 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Everton getting down to a £124.5m was it from £284-285m pre tax in the Period is quite something really. 2018-19..-£111m down to -£58-59m in a non Covid year. That was a 13 month Period but surely the League didn't disregard a 13 month Period (see EFL v SWFC, they didn't when extended to 14 months). That were an odd precedent potentially. 2019-20 and 2020-21..The combined Covid Averaged year.. -£130m down to -£55m. More understandable. Saw a suggested-£41m in Covid x 2 so you knock £41m off the -£130m and then yes you can work downwards. Maybe there was some Player Impairment permitted too. 2021-22..-£44m down to -£10m. That first one seems well out of kilter though. yeah I honest think the panel from the league wanted to send a point to them and make it so they wouldnt contest it and probs make it more manageable for following seasons. although I don't agree with being punished twice for the same year, I think fair treatment is if you had a big over spend in 1 year for example you should have that year one become 1/3rd of your 3 year allowance, if you done on same on the other years as well meaning year 2 and 3 mean the next new year then they should be treated the same, if one year is massive in profit from them trying to break out of it then you need to take a independant view on it, as if the last year had 200m+ FFP profit there then maybe you would have to reduce that also so they dont open themselves up to taking 10 points then being able to spend 2-3x as much as they should, but feel if your done for a year then you shouldn't be done for the year again if - especially if it is unavoidable without a unbelievable sale. thinking about it it may be hard to work out when to do what, as no doubt the clubs may want a better option if one year helps more than the other. i honestly wish all clubs would have to declare their numbers to ffp everytime a playing based contract is about to registered (extended/changed), if they are within FFP fine, if not the league should come back with a fee which covers all the payments and potential wages for the player that would fall outside of FFP. The money goes to a neutral account and can only be released on a drip as the costs come in, or the player is sold etc and part of the transfer you show how much more you need to pay and then get the balance back or it is available to get back. the game wins as people are buying players for what ever they want to pay (no doubt fees go up for these free spenders) teams down the ladder benefit when they get this money and the owners can invest in their business without consequence, i'd imagine more clubs would get money up front from these teams if they had to cover the money anyways. no one needs to cheat no more and do it abroad as well. the clubs they are saying would spend like crazy already spend like crazy as have the revenue. but if they wanted to spend and maybe get there at a cost they could. you just have to make all this money be in the form of donations not equity or debt. are you still allowed to donate in league one? is there any limits? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 (edited) One more thing, Bournemouth Accounts are out and these make for interesting reading! https://www.afcb.co.uk/news/club-news/club-release-annual-accounts-for-2023/ The Profit Before Tax wad about £44.8m but this was inclusive of an Exceptional Debt Writeoff of £71.8m on Takeover. If you exclude that..I wonder. How cannot be included? You must exclude Cost of Promotion ffp the exclusions too..because Nottingham Forest had it excluded. The Rolling Position for Bournemouth..pre tax and FFP. 2019-20..-£60m 2020-21..+£17m (Average -£21.5m). 2021-22..-£55.5m 2022-23..+£44.8m LESS £71.8m debt Write Off. Pre Tax Pre adjusted PSR position -£27m. -£104m. Down to £72m is the challenge, and I assim3 we rightly exclude Debt Writeoff and if Promotion Bonuses excluded for Nottingham Forest..hmm. Cat 3 until recently 2 Academy and modest infrastructure plus Women's side. They had another £80m or so net spend this season. Very few Transfer Profits again so far. Edited March 25 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 47 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Cat 3 until recently 2 Academy and modest infrastructure plus Women's side. Don’t forget £11m of Depreciation allowables this year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Don’t forget £11m of Depreciation allowables this year For Bournemouth? That is a rapid growth in Infrastructure, do you mean in 2022-23 or? I think most of that maybe Player Amortisation as it may have bundled in together Depreciation and Amortisation in the headline numbers but I'm happy to be corrected. Edited March 25 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: For Bournemouth? That is a rapid growth in Infrastructure, do you mean in 2022-23 or? Yep, it’s in the accounts…..or at least it would be if I read the right line. As you were Mr P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 (edited) 4 hours ago, Davefevs said: Yep, it’s in the accounts…..or at least it would be if I read the right line. As you were Mr P Thanks..am a little intrigued by Bournemouth all told Dave, it appears they are made of teflon. Naturally I have challenged the Bournemouth poster who posts about their Financials on their starting point and the Nottingham Forest precedent in respect of Promotion Bonuses, he thinks they are £22m within the 3 year FFP to last year which is eyebrow raising given relatively low Infrastructure add-backs etc and a -£104m position as starting point before Allowables etc. Given their lack of sales too and increasing Amortisation and wage cost (£86m added, £1-2m in Profit on Disposal) it does make little sense. Edited March 25 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 At PL level. Aside from the usual suspects. Aston Villa, Bournemouth and possibly Fulham- I'd love to see these fall foul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 (edited) Bournemouth Is it me or do Bournemouth pretty much just spend and spend and spend? Someone explain it to me..that is a big spike on squad valuation. A £27m Profit, not much disposed, £86m more added to the amount to be Amortised..an £83m Loss Limit to this year and no notable Profit yet again so far. Turning down bids for Kelly.. Edited March 25 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 At least Fulham sold Mitrovic e.g. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 27 Author Share Posted March 27 Seen a suggestion by Stefan Borson that the PL could retrospectively raise the FFP Threshold or clubs vote for it. That would be even more ridiculous than changing the Rules mid cycle as they might look to do. Plus how would it effect it down here? Rules are sort of but not entirely harmonised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 27 Author Share Posted March 27 (edited) Would also fly in the face of the purported intent to move closer to UEFA Rules- 90-80-70 and the UEFA Upper Loss limit is €60m in 3 seasons post adjustments- rising to €90m for good financial managment etc. Edited March 27 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 27 Author Share Posted March 27 (edited) Edit. Wrong thread. Edited March 27 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonD Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Seen a suggestion by Stefan Borson that the PL could retrospectively raise the FFP Threshold or clubs vote for it. That would be even more ridiculous than changing the Rules mid cycle as they might look to do. Plus how would it effect it down here? Rules are sort of but not entirely harmonised. Who? Regardless of the answer, I'd put that is the same category as those who say that the thresholds need to be increased in line with inflation. Totally missing the point! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 27 Author Share Posted March 27 (edited) 13 minutes ago, SimonD said: Who? Regardless of the answer, I'd put that is the same category as those who say that the thresholds need to be increased in line with inflation. Totally missing the point! He is on Twitter and he is called slbsn, ie that is the user name. He is a former Man City Financial Advisor and he regularly appears on White and Jordan. I do totally agree with you, it's just a prediction by him. However I'd say that wouldnt suit at minimum Brentford, Brighton, Liverpool, Tottemahn. Then maybe West Ham wouldn't like it and Wolves made major cuts to comply. I think his thinking is that a critical mass may either fail or be hamstrung so tip the limit to this year and make it higher. PL Rules stipulate minimum 14 clubs must vote for something to change it. I also suspect some or all of Burnley, Luton, Sheffield United would also disagree with it. Leeds and Southampton who knows, Leicester I expect would welcome it. Arsenal? I'd be looking to keep the status quo until summer 2025 at the earliest, anything else is a huge risk of moral hazard. Possibly even until summer 2026 ie to run until 2025-26. Edited March 27 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 27 Author Share Posted March 27 (edited) Let me get this straight, does this mean the Premier League may raise it and the League merely must apply the % rise? Does there need to be no mutual agreement here. Edited March 27 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 27 Author Share Posted March 27 What a load of shit some Bournemouth fans spout. Apparently their rise is "Roy of the Rovers" stuff. You'll like this @GrahamC think you've mentioned their Russian funded cheating before. Cheat FFP under a Russian, propped up in FFP Terms subsequently in no small part due to said cheating in 2015 ie Parachute and PL cash while still spending big under said Russian while latterly selling to a Yank who is richer. I'd love to know their mindset down there, they really do seem like pious hypocritical idiots. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonD Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: He is on Twitter and he is called slbsn, ie that is the user name. He is a former Man City Financial Advisor and he regularly appears on White and Jordan. I do totally agree with you, it's just a prediction by him. However I'd say that wouldnt suit at minimum Brentford, Brighton, Liverpool, Tottemahn. Then maybe West Ham wouldn't like it and Wolves made major cuts to comply. I think his thinking is that a critical mass may either fail or be hamstrung so tip the limit to this year and make it higher. PL Rules stipulate minimum 14 clubs must vote for something to change it. I also suspect some or all of Burnley, Luton, Sheffield United would also disagree with it. Leeds and Southampton who knows, Leicester I expect would welcome it. Arsenal? I'd be looking to keep the status quo until summer 2025 at the earliest, anything else is a huge risk of moral hazard. Possibly even until summer 2026 ie to run until 2025-26. I guess if 14 clubs were seriously concerned about breaching next season then it would be a shoo-in. If there aren't I can't see why they would vote for it as it would be allowing others to get away without making the same level of "sacrifice". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 27 Author Share Posted March 27 (edited) 38 minutes ago, SimonD said: I guess if 14 clubs were seriously concerned about breaching next season then it would be a shoo-in. If there aren't I can't see why they would vote for it as it would be allowing others to get away without making the same level of "sacrifice". Perfectly put. I struggle to see of they could carry a majority to change it- as well as the obvious of Chelsea, the potential Man United, Everton, Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa more than Newcastle and then the unknowns of Bournemouth and Fulham..I doubt any of Burnley, Luton, Sheffield United would vote to liberalise given their respective models, Leicester probably, Leeds and Southampton toss up. Edited March 27 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 27 Author Share Posted March 27 Why would Arsenal, Brentford, Brighton, Liverpool, Tottenham, West Ham vote to change a model that should benefit them. Man City too- that's 7. Any of Burnley, Luton, Sheffield United. The unknown of Wolves..one hand big losses, other hand major sales, restraint and lost Lopetegui due to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 (edited) 14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: He is on Twitter and he is called slbsn, ie that is the user name. He is a former Man City Financial Advisor and he regularly appears on White and Jordan. I do totally agree with you, it's just a prediction by him. However I'd say that wouldnt suit at minimum Brentford, Brighton, Liverpool, Tottemahn. Then maybe West Ham wouldn't like it and Wolves made major cuts to comply. I think his thinking is that a critical mass may either fail or be hamstrung so tip the limit to this year and make it higher. PL Rules stipulate minimum 14 clubs must vote for something to change it. I also suspect some or all of Burnley, Luton, Sheffield United would also disagree with it. Leeds and Southampton who knows, Leicester I expect would welcome it. Arsenal? I'd be looking to keep the status quo until summer 2025 at the earliest, anything else is a huge risk of moral hazard. Possibly even until summer 2026 ie to run until 2025-26. he's comes out with some good opinions if its who i'm thinking of, but I put this down as just some of the milage all the media and journos are trying to get out of these ffp cases on a daily basis, like they know they pump out headlines saying chelsea and city to be expelled from the league, then you click on it and see its someones opinion or they just say its a possibility, and you think ok so no real new news added for the 60th time in a row you have reported on the case football insider will do these reports more times than man city have been charged, and it will only take them another 2 weeks or so to hit 115 reports saying nothing new I reckon :laugh: Edited March 28 by Rob26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.