Jump to content

Mr Popodopolous

OTIB Supporter
  • Posts

    26,417
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

59,616 profile views

Mr Popodopolous's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Dedicated
  • Very Popular
  • First Post

Recent Badges

8.3k

Reputation

  1. Depends what we mean by sign players I guess. Any alteration of the regs should be a big no, but free transfers within wage and other EFL limits or an emergency loan maybe.
  2. While I'm at it, my calculations- amortisation bill cut by £4m but am unsure on the wage cut- one article suggested £6m but has anyone got any more accurate figures? Think Bristol Post said 20%, £6m something like that.
  3. Good question- nothing specific that I can see in the AGL accounts or the club accounts- or the BCFC Holdings accounts for it. Maybe it would appear in 2021/22 because they finally stopped doing vaccinations down there in late July IIRC.
  4. How would this work then? Would this mean a loss of £18m instead of £13m- and Covid losses for quite a few clubs would significantly exceed this. It's all very wooly isn't it. I can trace back the original starting point of the number to articles in the Telegraph and then in the column Ahead of the Game.
  5. Still £5m appears to be the magic number in terms of Covid allowances too, although it remains subject to internal debate. https://www.footballinsider247.com/west-brom-may-force-efl-law-change-as-5m-hangs-in-balance-maguire/ Quick rough calculations for us if it's indeed £5m makes our FFP losses- remember 2019/20 and 2020/21 averaged into one- with that in mind I make it £16-16.5m for us. Perhaps £17m at a push. The key of course is what were Derby and Reading allowed to exclude once FFP losses calculated in their settlement agreements- both absolute numbers wise and categories. If it was only £5m in the two seasons then precedent set?
  6. Below for those who are interested are explanations of the Embargo types etc. https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/embargoes-faqs/
  7. There is nothing new to report as such but a couple of thoughts did occur if we do fall foul. Using Derby and Reading as a precedent, we might fall into a) Some kind of embargo situation and b) Wage limits. Derby Had FFP and a myriad of other issues. As such they were under some very strong limits indeed, which were 4 signings on a wage not exceeding £4,500 per week. Jagielka and Baldock were emergency signings permitted owing to long term injuries to Bielik and an apparent *ahem* season ending injury to Kazim-Richards No transfer fee, no loan fee, no permanent contract exceeding 12 months or no loan contract exceeding 6 months- that's for inbound transfers. As for the squad size and criteria, this was Professional Standing. Professional Standing from memory was one appearance be it start or sub in a relevant competition. Maximum 23, Derby had 19 hence the 4 signings limit. Unsure how contract extensions were treated but possibly they also fell under EFL jurisdiction to some extent. The EFL eg cancelled one for Jack Marriott last season, I assume it was linked to his wage on an extended contract exceeding embargo limits or similar. Reading This was purely linked to FFP. Squad limited to 24 but the criteria were a bit looser- eg they were permitted 6 signings on £8.5k per week per signing. Presumably the expenditure on permitted signings will have been linked to headroom. They were, are under the established players rule. This was 24 players but with looser criteria than the Derby one. Obviously no transfer fees, no loan fees, no contracts for new signings exceeding 12 months. Unsure how contract extensions work under this.. Of the two Reading would be preferable but neither leave us in a great place if we slide into these restrictions this summer. Unsure how to square the circle of remaining headroom allocated to a new signings allowance vs a projected breach during the existing season that might need fixing.
  8. Regarding the distribution differences, it does seem that O'Leary is better at it but also how much of that coincides with different style of play, change of instruction? Reckon the two cross over. Bentley in general, a fantastic shot stopper but never been so convinced that the defence has been that confident with him behind it. I remember when he was dropped about 2 years ago just before lockdown 1, we seemed more stable in draws with Millwall and Fulham when Maenpaa was in goal. As for the current team, well O'Leary the man in possession until he loses form or Bentley really shines in training hence he should retain his place. We are conceding quite a few goals however! 20 shots on target, 12 goals in 4 League games albeit 2 were penalties.
  9. Better with him in the side than without. More dangerous too. From his return to present he has started to offer some much needed end product ie goals and assists to go with his attributes and promise. Think the timing of his recall from Newport 3 years ago stalled his progress but fortunately we are now seeing some strong signs.
  10. A refreshed Chris Martin is certainly an asset. Took the two goals well and strong out of possession. I don't think earlier in the season when we were hitting it up to him we were helping ourselves, or him either.
  11. @Derby_Ram To clarify my post the other day about accounts, phone has been going flat quickly so unable to reply as hoped. 1) Derby would have had the ability to offer submission of accounts even for internal EFL Disciplinary purposes using their amortisation method and using straight line. I would hazard a guess that had they been compliant with both methods they would have rushed them out. Perhaps even into the public domain as well? 2) Do we know what the EFL received and when they received it prior to finally receiving numbers in August? As all clubs are obliged to submit the prior seasons accounts and the current seasons accounts and FFP numbers at the start of March. I'm not 100% convinced that Derby did this in 2021 and as we know, no accounts=impossible to fail FFP. I have some sympathy with Couhig from this perspective. 3) When I go on about the accounts in January latterly this is a different aspect. The Agreed Decision states that the June Order(s) remain in play albeit deadlines moved. From memory it stipulates: a) The full restated accounts for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18. b) The (seen for the first time albeit restated) accounts for 2018/19 and 2019/20. By 4pm on 31st January. Of course it may have been done already or be on track for that in which case it's a non issue.
  12. Wouldn't be so sure. Nixon is running a story that suggests a rich American tied to one of the bidders is putting up £7m, Rich Riley.
  13. This is a fair point. If you look at Birmingham, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday and even Aston Villa you will see a corresponding rent payment which is ultimately charged to Profit and Loss. No accounts for Derby for 3 years but looking at the other clubs possibly except Birmingham due to IFRS and the parent being in Hong Kong, rent is on a straight line basis. The company who 'purchased' Pride Park is Gellaw Newco 202. The 'company' who controls them is Gellaw Newco 204, obviously all under Mel Morris ultimately. Neither show rent.
  14. Gellaw Newco 202 and 204 sit outside the football group. Had it been or remained within the same group, then the profit would have not been a factor for FFP. Whether it's real or paper, there needs to be something for this season and beyond. Possibly all of the transactions were paper but where profits/'profits' count towards FFP, so must the rent.
×
×
  • Create New...