Mr Popodopolous Posted July 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 Pretty sure we wouldn't be one. Nor would Leeds or Norwich IMO. Once we factor in allowable losses, I'd say we're avoiding FFP trouble currently, relatively comfortably too- definitely if this for 16/17 is accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 Sheffield Utd? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-44768207 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderMB Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 If it were us, I think it would be the catalyst that turns the fans against Lansdown for good. You can't run a club on sustainability and then get ****** over by FFP. I'd be shocked if it was us, though. There are plenty of clubs spending more than us, and many of them aren't light years ahead of us in terms of fans, facilities, etc. There would have to be something seriously wrong for us to get caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrick's Marvels Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 45 minutes ago, EnderMB said: If it were us, I think it would be the catalyst that turns the fans against Lansdown for good. You can't run a club on sustainability and then get ****** over by FFP. I'd be shocked if it was us, though. There are plenty of clubs spending more than us, and many of them aren't light years ahead of us in terms of fans, facilities, etc. There would have to be something seriously wrong for us to get caught. He trained as an accountant, so I too would be shocked if we can't get this right! He's demonstrated limited understanding of football over the years but the same can't be said for £sd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 2 hours ago, Furious Custard said: The EFL FFP rules are very clear and every club should already know if they have fouled them or not. Seeing as we have already signed players and registered them i think we can assume to be in the clear. I think we may have been close if not over the spending limits at some point had we not signed the new bumper deal with Dunder and lancer scott graciously stepped down. Even with the cup run tv money. Perhaps Birmingham ran to close to the line and didn' factor in the various managers they have been through this last season. As a courtesy to those who are suffering, could you lose the Croatia shirt from your avatar ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious Custard Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 4 hours ago, Major Isewater said: As a courtesy to those who are suffering, could you lose the Croatia shirt from your avatar ? Sorry hadn't noticed that before. All sorted now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderMB Posted July 13, 2018 Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 A lot of people are suggesting Leeds, but they're still spending like there's no tomorrow. They're not allegedly in for Fraser Forster AND Abel Hernandez, both of which have Premier League wage demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted July 13, 2018 Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 So we are none the wiser then! And as at now, no clubs are under a transfer embargo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 19 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said: So we are none the wiser then! And as at now, no clubs are under a transfer embargo. Has Birmingham's been lifted then?? As I understand it, there's nothing to stop them bidding for players- or even signing them even under an embargo, they just wouldn't be able to be registered. Which ironically unless they get big sales out, or big wage reductions could extend the problem. 24 minutes ago, EnderMB said: A lot of people are suggesting Leeds, but they're still spending like there's no tomorrow. They're not allegedly in for Fraser Forster AND Abel Hernandez, both of which have Premier League wage demands. Leeds though...as of 16/17 actually made a small profit of £1m, primarily due to player sales. Given £39m can be lost over 3 years, I'd say they are in one of the strongest financial positions in the division (outside the relegated clubs of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted July 13, 2018 Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 @Mr Popodopolous yes, Leeds, huge club and all that myth, have a small wage budget in comparison to their alleged size. Their issue is the debt they are servicing, which means they’ve not been able to invest in the squad like they’d like to. They have a decision to make. Carry on mid-table / flirt with play-offs or go for it risk doing a Villa. If they sign someone like Vydra, we might assume they are going for it. I don’t think they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 Fact they get commercial revenue to the levels they do still suggests a certain prestige remains surely @Davefevs - actually the highest in the Championship that year I believe. Huge club, definitely not but definitely on paper one of the biggest at this level (IMO). Says at the bottom of that Net Debt £21.2m which seems remarkably low given their situation... I think they might go for it...but not this coming season, but the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderMB Posted July 13, 2018 Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I think they might go for it...but not this coming season, but the next. I'm not so sure. Rumour has it that they're in for Christopher Samba as well, and he doesn't come cheap! In the past week, they seem to have been linked with dozens of players that could probably play a division higher. Either they're a big target for agents to drive prices for other clubs up, or Leeds are going to go for it this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, EnderMB said: I'm not so sure. Rumour has it that they're in for Christopher Samba as well, and he doesn't come cheap! In the past week, they seem to have been linked with dozens of players that could probably play a division higher. Either they're a big target for agents to drive prices for other clubs up, or Leeds are going to go for it this year. FFP wise they could certainly do that unless the interest on their debt is holding them back massively, but they might be better off with one more year of consolidation then go for it I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 Been doing some calculations/guesses this season for varied clubs who maybe slipping into it. (By which I mean 17/18). Whether we can gain an edge etc. Quick question which someone may or may not know. A player when purchased is amortised- when said player sold (Say purchased 2 million 4 year deal,.sold after year for 2 million). That's a paper/book profit of 1.5 million. However does the original cost of amortisation remain on the books (500k per year) or does it (as I suspect) get wiped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Been doing some calculations/guesses this season for varied clubs who maybe slipping into it. (By which I mean 17/18). Whether we can gain an edge etc. Quick question which someone may or may not know. A player when purchased is amortised- when said player sold (Say purchased 2 million 4 year deal,.sold after year for 2 million). That's a paper/book profit of 1.5 million. However does the original cost of amortisation remain on the books (500k per year) or does it (as I suspect) get wiped? Once the player is sold it won’t appear again. £500k in year 1’s P&L £1.5m Transfer profit in year 2’s. Obviously wages should be included too, but for simplicity that’s it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Davefevs said: Once the player is sold it won’t appear again. £500k in year 1’s P&L £1.5m Transfer profit in year 2’s. Obviously wages should be included too, but for simplicity that’s it. Thanks Dave. Reason I was suddenlyinterested was today I read we're in for Krul, and so are Reading. It's my personal view that Reading between 15/16 and season just gone may well have breached which puts us at an advantage for this. Wages with new players, can only guess on really or get closest estimates- so yeah for simplicity purposes I am disregarding these save for most recent available (16/17) figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Davefevs said: Once the player is sold it won’t appear again. £500k in year 1’s P&L £1.5m Transfer profit in year 2’s. Obviously wages should be included too, but for simplicity that’s it. Just curious, is it on a straight-line basis? You could make an argument that save for players nearing retirement, you only really see the value drop within the last 12 months. For Matty Taylor, never until sold/released Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 47 minutes ago, 29AR said: Just curious, is it on a straight-line basis? You could make an argument that save for players nearing retirement, you only really see the value drop within the last 12 months. For Matty Taylor, never until sold/released Yes, straightline over the terms of the contract they sign. Matty Taylor signed a 2 1/2 year deal, say he’s on £10k per week. His overall cost was £300k + £1.3m in wages, so £1.6m total, amortising over those 2 1/2 years. So his contract at the start of this season is worth about £650k (£120k of the fee, £530k of wages). If we sold him for £1m, then we no longer have to pay the £530k of wages, so we see a transfer profit of £880k in the books. Not sure what happens if Matty signs a 3 year extension this summer? I imagine the £120k left of his fee is then split might be spread £40k per year, and whatever wage he agrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Yes, straightline over the terms of the contract they sign. Matty Taylor signed a 2 1/2 year deal, say he’s on £10k per week. His overall cost was £300k + £1.3m in wages, so £1.6m total, amortising over those 2 1/2 years. So his contract at the start of this season is worth about £650k (£120k of the fee, £530k of wages). If we sold him for £1m, then we no longer have to pay the £530k of wages, so we see a transfer profit of £880k in the books. Not sure what happens if Matty signs a 3 year extension this summer? I imagine the £120k left of his fee is then split might be spread £40k per year, and whatever wage she agrees. I believe, might be wrong but yeah if he agreed a new 3 year deal in that scenario then I believe the remaining fee would indeed be split over the new length of the deal. So yeah as you say the remaining 120k over 3 years plus wages of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.