The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 minutes ago, reddoh said:

it is quite sad that a team that turned themselves around and floated to the top and were a model club to base your team on have dived so badly but I guess changing manager and owner(s) is possibly not the best maybe @Miah Dennehy can enlighten us

Looking in from the outside.

My take is that on the pitch their decline began with Laudrup sacking- Monk tough he did well for a time, was tactically a significant break from latter stage Jackett but for the most part it began with Martinez, through to Laudrup, via a slightly more pragmatic/tactical (but still technically good) Sousa and between Sousa and Laudrup of course Rodgers. They had a brilliant model on and off the pitch.

Off the pitch, getting in the American investors did for them in that sense and investors as opposed to benefactors appears to be the key word. Throw in instability and it is quite the collapse.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[reddoh]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Looking in from the outside.

My take is that on the pitch their decline began with Laudrup sacking- Monk tough he did well for a time, was tactically a significant break from latter stage Jackett but for the most part it began with Martinez, through to Laudrup, via a slightly more pragmatic/tactical (but still technically good) Sousa.

Off the pitch, getting in the American investors did for them in that sense and investors as opposed to benefactors appears to be the key word. Throw in instability and it is quite the collapse.

I believe at some point in the past @RedM said their are some managers that can get you up, some that keep you up (the next was not her words) some that are oops, whilst I agreed with the post I also thought about it and I personally believe that to be successful in any league you actually have to get off the pitch right first and I am not talking about out of date pasties.

[Davefevs]

@Mr Popodopolous thought Norwich were in final season too?  They came down with Villa and one of the spreadsheets I got from your old posts says they get£15.1m this year. 

[RedM]

7 minutes ago, reddoh said:

I believe at some point in the past @RedM said their are some managers that can get you up, some that keep you up (the next was not her words) some that are oops, whilst I agreed with the post I also thought about it and I personally believe that to be successful in any league you actually have to get off the pitch right first and I am not talking about out of date pasties.

Can’t take the credit for that I don’t think, sounds too intelligent and thought out for me. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

25 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@Mr Popodopolous thought Norwich were in final season too?  They came down with Villa and one of the spreadsheets I got from your old posts says they get£15.1m this year. 

The rules seem to keep changing Dave!

I can't be certain on this, but so far as I've kept up to date with, those relegated after 1 season get the 2 years i.e. those who come straight down only get one and that would be from 2015/16- local Norwich media seemed to suggest last season was end of parachute payments for them i.e. final season when I looked into it. Also their site suggests they are zero this year.

https://www.canaries.co.uk/News/2018/october/norwich-city-annual-accounts/

Edited February 19, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Saw this online- good piece.

https://www.wsc.co.uk/stories/14196-editorial-championship-s-financial-chasm-driving-clubs-to-desperate-measures

[Davefevs]

worth Reading If only to check the starting letter of each paragraph

[Busterrimes]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

worth Reading If only to check the starting letter of each paragraph

It is the first letter of ever6 paragraph but he is right.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Not been on this thread for a little while.

Kieran Maguire's first letter of each paragraph acronyms- is it acronyms, is that right- absolute quality. One of the best aspects of football writing in 2018-19!

QPR lost £37m last season- however £20m of that was the FFP fine which of course excluded from calculations. They're still okay FFP wise and might even be next season, but big, big challenges for them moving forward. This is Year 4 of 4 of parachute payments but thereafter...knock £13-17m off (depending on calculations) but you add back on parachute payments. Reckon they won't be able to renew Rangel, Cameron, Wells or Hemed if they are to comply plus Freeman and Eze should attract interest- may have to sell at least one of those?

Cardiff lost £13-14m last season but their headline loss £38m- cost of promotion though came to £23m or so- that includes bonuses, fees due, possibly landmarks in fees based on it etc and is excluded for FFP purposes- I think they likely compiled over 3 years but there wasn't much in it. Certainly not quite on a shoestring, but notable nonetheless.

In theory by no later than 28th February 2019, the results for Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday and most notably Aston Villa are due out. These will be telling! Wolves results from last season too though I think they were fine- not by much but anything up to and including the limit would see them pass.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Those accounts that are due today- those big 3 plus assorted others.

Aston Villa? No sign yet. Nottingham Forest submitted theirs and being processed at Companies House. Interestingly Sheffield Wednesday have extended their accounting period for 2018 to July from May...so late April you'd think. Wigan we roughly know, not in FFP mess,  Wolves no sign yet- think they passed 3 year FFP but would have been close! 

Birmingham I saw on Twitter,  their parent company in Hong Kong posted 6 month results to end of December. Let's say half season but yeah 6 month losses of parent company somewhere between £13-17m, will look into it later. Real losses maybe a bit lower but not by a lot.

Failing FFP still it appears- THROW THE BOOK!! If they sell Adams and Jota that certainly would help...

Edited February 28, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Nottingham Forest headline loss £5,596,000 HOWEVER that includes a debt write off of £5m which under FFP does not count so add £5m to that.

I looked back at my own projections for their losses last season- and only around £2m out which I think given no publicly given wage figures for new signings not a bad effort. I had it about £12.4m for their losses last season inclusive of transfer profit, changes in amortisation etc- and the primary reason for that was I overestimated their transfer profit by about £2.4m.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Though they were relegated last season- perhaps linked to this, Barnsley's accounts make for interesting reading.

Barnsley were nowhere near FFP- nowhere near. Actually before player trading made an Operating Profit of £398,000- excellent by Championship standards...yet they made hay when the sun shone financially and sold Bree,  Hourihane and Winnall in January 2017 when they were on the edge of the playoffs. Profit on transfers of £12,449,746- £100 on interest was profit of £12,848,354 in 2016/17.  Mawson had been sold in August and they got a sell on for Stones so I believe they didn't need to sell Bree, Hourihane or Winnall when they were near top 6.

2017/18- A miniscule loss (by Championship standards) of £1,403,156, interest payments £100 too. Obviously player trading/profit took that loss down again, £176,331. They sold Roberts but also lost Messrs Scowen and Marley Watkins (yes I know).

Now there is a club who made quite a few unnecessary sales! Assumed they were selling them to balance the books but seemed according to their accounts pretty well unnecessary- ended up losing a good side and going down!

Lesson in there for us!

Edited March 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Though they were relegated last season- perhaps linked to this, Barnsley's accounts make for interesting reading.

Barnsley were nowhere near FFP- nowhere near. Actually before player trading made an Operating Profit of £398,000- excellent by Championship standards...yet they made hay when the sun shone financially and sold Bree,  Hourihane and Winnall in January 2017 when they were on the edge of the playoffs. Profit on transfers of £12,449,746- £100 on interest was profit of £12,848,354 in 2016/17.  Mawson had been sold in August and they got a sell on for Stones so I believe they didn't need to sell Bree, Hourihane or Winnall when they were near top 6.

2017/18- A miniscule loss (by Championship standards) of £1,403,156, interest payments £100 too. Obviously player trading/profit took that loss down again, £176,331. They sold Roberts but also lost Messrs Scowen and Marley Watkins (yes I know).

Now there is a club who made quite a few unnecessary sales! Assumed they were selling them to balance the books but seemed according to their accounts pretty well unnecessary- ended up losing a good side and going down!

Lesson in there for us!

Is it possible they are working to the £5m unbacked losses FFP model, so playing safe.  They also used to submit less detailed accounts too, not sure if that has any bearing in their size and backing?

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Is it possible they are working to the £5m unbacked losses FFP model, so playing safe.  They also used to submit less detailed accounts too, not sure if that has any bearing in their size and backing?

Yeah that's possible and the less detailed accounts too, helps signify a smaller company. When they had already made an operating profit though- plus the cash from Mawson sale and Stones sell on- it still looking in from outside admittedly, looks like it wasn't necessary. I'm all for understanding the wishes of a club to be as profitable as possible, but that just seemed odd- clearing balance sheet maybe for takeover.

Essentially, I'd have sold them even with the small operating profit if midtable and going neither up nor down- but not if on the edge of playoffs and playing well- that's my outsiders view. Probably would have made a few million in profit due to Stones sell on and Mawson sale in any case.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[View from the Dolman]

Thread on Villa's accounts (which only tell part of the picture...)

 

[Davefevs]

24 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Thread on Villa's accounts (which only tell part of the picture...)

 

£61m in wages in Recon’s accounts   

[Bristol Rob]

51 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Thread on Villa's accounts (which only tell part of the picture...)

 

So effectively, before players wages, they are already beyond the FFP threshold?

[Lanterne Rouge]

It looks like they`re well and truly in the shit then? Surely no amount of creative accounting can make this look alright can it?

It`s what happens when you stick everything on red. Those who criticise the way City do things need to take a long hard look at this.

[downendcity]

8 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

It looks like they`re well and truly in the shit then? Surely no amount of creative accounting can make this look alright can it?

It`s what happens when you stick everything on red. Those who criticise the way City do things need to take a long hard look at this.

You've reckoned without their newly appointed accountant.

 

[downendcity]

14 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

It looks like they`re well and truly in the shit then? Surely no amount of creative accounting can make this look alright can it?

It`s what happens when you stick everything on red. Those who criticise the way City do things need to take a long hard look at this.

This from Villa's forum today:

We cannot and will not go on like this.

I think some people are in for a shock in the summer when we have to build an entire new team with no money, no turnover and very few sellable assets.

I think Hogan is loaned out to get games and will probably start the main man next year.

I see no feasible way we can afford or attract Mings. Smith is going nowhere because he is cheap, will work with what he has been given and will be desperate to succeed regardless.

That is the honest truth. I think some people are living in an alternative reality with regards to the summer.

I expect cheap free journeymen. Clayton Donaldson's and the like.

Edit : not that I am against working on a budget now. Other teams do it and get out the league. How many times have we been outplayed by a side built on frees and flops molded into a team since we have been down here?

Sobering reading for any City fans who don;t think the FFP is a thing or that SL uses FFP as a convenient excuse for not spending his money.

Sounds like Villa fans are bracing themselves for the worst when their accounts are assessed by the EFL. Could be a major watershed moment if they bust the limits and are properly punished. 

[chinapig]

10 minutes ago, downendcity said:

This from Villa's forum today:

We cannot and will not go on like this.

I think some people are in for a shock in the summer when we have to build an entire new team with no money, no turnover and very few sellable assets.

I think Hogan is loaned out to get games and will probably start the main man next year.

I see no feasible way we can afford or attract Mings. Smith is going nowhere because he is cheap, will work with what he has been given and will be desperate to succeed regardless.

That is the honest truth. I think some people are living in an alternative reality with regards to the summer.

I expect cheap free journeymen. Clayton Donaldson's and the like.

Edit : not that I am against working on a budget now. Other teams do it and get out the league. How many times have we been outplayed by a side built on frees and flops molded into a team since we have been down here?

Sobering reading for any City fans who don;t think the FFP is a thing or that SL uses FFP as a convenient excuse for not spending his money.

Sounds like Villa fans are bracing themselves for the worst when their accounts are assessed by the EFL. Could be a major watershed moment if they bust the limits and are properly punished. 

Your last 3 words are the key ones.The EFL keep kicking the can down the road as far as Brum are concerned. How much more reluctant will they be to grasp the nettle when it comes to Villa?

[Lanterne Rouge]

20 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Your last 3 words are the key ones.The EFL keep kicking the can down the road as far as Brum are concerned. How much more reluctant will they be to grasp the nettle when it comes to Villa?

Which is what most of us are convinced they will be. FFP just becomes a sham without meaningful sanctions but I think we all fear what will (or won`t) happen.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

Your last 3 words are the key ones.The EFL keep kicking the can down the road as far as Brum are concerned. How much more reluctant will they be to grasp the nettle when it comes to Villa?

 

1 hour ago, Red Right Hand said:

Which is what most of us are convinced they will be. FFP just becomes a sham without meaningful sanctions but I think we all fear what will (or won`t) happen.

I know this has been mentioned before ( probably within this thread) but should the EFL duck the issue, then the crunch/pressure could come from the other clubs.

If you are a club that has compromised it's situation in order to ensure you comply with FFP, how will you feel if you see a "big" club getting away with what is effectively a rap on the knuckles, rather than the meaningful penalties that were being bandied around when the changes were announced? I would hope ( perhaps naively) that those other clubs will take action against the EFL, demanding appropriate action against defaulting clubs.

There is one other consideration, using Villa as an example. We have all talked about points deduction as being the major penalty/deterrent, but what if, by the time the FFP decision is made,Villa are well out of the play off race but completely safe from any worry about relegation but they have bust FFP limits out of the park? Villa would have been expecting the worst, but if they are given a points deduction it might only scupper their remote play off hopes, and at worst  put them on the periphery of the relegation fight. They could see that as a right result, as once penalised,  then I think I'm right in saying they start with a clean slate and this year's loss is ignored going forward.

If so, then as long as their owner has the finance available they could go relatively hell for leather to change and improve their squad and be competitive the following season. I know the EFL could combine a points deductions with a substantial fine and/or a transfer embargo, but would they have the means to carry a points deduction forward to the following season, as this would then be a meaningful penalty and would avoid a club being penalised but not really ( i that makes sense)?

  

[Mr Popodopolous]

Juju Well,  we won't get the full picture until Recon Group UK Limited's results are released but it looks bad for Aston Villa.

Haven't had the chance to analyse the figures in full yet but pretty sure for the 3 years to last season, they passed. This season however, failed and likely big time at that e.g. 2016/17-present.

A key reason they would have passed last season is PL loss limit £35m plus allowed costs in a season whereas our league is £13m plus allowed costs in a season. 

@downendcity

There is no great clarity on this, but according to a respected blogger Al majir on all things Birmingham financial, once punished the obligation on the club for the remainder of the period is £13m losses (plus allowable costs) each remaining season of it.

The difficulty here comes is that 16/17 is a 3 year FFP period but if it's rolling as I think then they would- and just say they lose £40m this season.

That would mean reducing losses by £27m in a year while £13-14m in parachute payments goes! Huge adjustment...same the next season too.  Selling Grealish would solve year 1 but would be tough for a while.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Wonder if Brum has been put back to March to wait for projected accounts for several clubs, so that they can dish out consistent penalties?

[downendcity]

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Wonder if Brum has been put back to March to wait for projected accounts for several clubs, so that they can dish out consistent penalties?

I've wondered if this is  the case Dave.

Dealing with one club on isolation could make a rod for their own back. Hit Brum really hard creates a precedent and what if; say, Villa announce eye watering losses? If they give the same penalty as Brum; then Birmingham would be up arms. Treat Villa more severely; say an even more swinging points pebalty; it could put them in danger of relegation and you would probably then see Villa getting lawyers Involved.

I thought one of the reasons for using projected year 3 figures was so that they would all be available at the same time - irrespective of club's actual financial year end. 

Perhaps the reason for The ELF addressing Brum now is that they have been managing their finances under the eye of the EFL since their embargo.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Well Wolves financial results are out.

The headline loss for last season is £55.15m which makes it sound like they have smashed FFP. HOWEVER treat with caution due to promotion bonuses which in Cardiff's case e.g. once factoring in clauses due to other clubs as well which are exempt, ran to £23m, no disclosure of those for Wolves yet, they need to be knocked off as and when. Plus don't know how much their new regime invested in infrastructure, youth etc over the 3 years- so it's not certain they have broken it but not enough info to say for sure at this stage. Summed up in one word however? Eye-watering!

In layman's terms, if their promotion bonuses and costs no less than £16m plus the often touted £6m per year spent on infrastructure, academy etc over this 3 year period then they would have took it very near the limit, perhaps up to- but not over. Would have to analyse the figures in full though later plus when (if) promotion bonuses arise ands are disclosed.

Right now though, with what we know for sure it looks like it may have been breached...but those excluded costs have to be taken into account. Shows how well sides like us and though they are a notch lower, Preston, Brentford and in last season's case Millwall- oh and Sheffield United- have done to compete for as long as we did in some ways. Once last seasons results in for all clubs we'll be able to see where we ranked in terms of wage bill (once promotion bonuses etc excluded)...

Edited March 5, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

The moment of truth for Aston Villa will be in the coming day or 2...

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10176070/filing-history

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05891280/filing-history

Think they are spun off into 4 companies- Aston Villa Limited and Recon Football which are useful but not decisive. The one to watch most for last season I'd say is Recon Group UK Limited and possibly (though not looked into it so much), Recon Sports Limited. These are the 2 above who have submitted and we'll know all probably sometime tomorrow?

With the takeover, who knows (or at this stage cares) what the right company will be in 2020 for their financial results this season?

Edited March 5, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[phantom]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Well Wolves financial results are out.

The headline loss for last season is £55.15m which makes it sound like they have smashed FFP. HOWEVER treat with caution due to promotion bonuses which in Cardiff's case e.g. once factoring in clauses due to other clubs as well which are exempt, ran to £23m, no disclosure of those for Wolves yet, they need to be knocked off as and when. Plus don't know how much their new regime invested in infrastructure, youth etc over the 3 years- so it's not certain they have broken it but not enough info to say for sure at this stage. Summed up in one word however? Eye-watering!

In layman's terms, if their promotion bonuses and costs no less than £16m plus the often touted £6m per year spent on infrastructure, academy etc over this 3 year period then they would have took it very near the limit, perhaps up to- but not over. Would have to analyse the figures in full though later plus when (if) promotion bonuses arise ands are disclosed.

Right now though, with what we know for sure it looks like it may have been breached...but those excluded costs have to be taken into account. Shows how well sides like us and though they are a notch lower, Preston, Brentford and in last season's case Millwall- oh and Sheffield United- have done to compete for as long as we did in some ways. Once last seasons results in for all clubs we'll be able to see where we ranked in terms of wage bill (once promotion bonuses etc excluded)...

Some crazy figures here 

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, phantom said:

Some crazy figures here 

You're not wrong! Promotion bonuses of say £20m (not an unreasonable guess for players of that calibre, owners of that wealth) would be excluded though, profit on transfers would offset too. Plus all their more routine excluded costs- one estimate was £18m of excluded costs in the previous 3 seasons.

Most clubs do list 'cost of promotion'- i.e. bonuses or payments due to clubs in the event of promotion which otherwise would not have been due- somewhere in their accounts though, yet nothing yet- so I do wonder...

The Championship Operating losses are just nuts- shows how quickly wages in general, and at times fees have risen at this level- while TV revenue has been left trailing...

The only way to solve it in the long term would be an annual breakeven requirement from operational revenue plus profit on sales whatever that maybe, but I am sure no club would vote for that- plus it would necessitate wages plummeting across the board at this level and the EFL wouldn't like it either because it would reduce the quality of product over time. This emoji sums up the chances of that happening! 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Wow, my guess on Wolves promotion bonuses seems to have been spot on.

Quote

However the £55m figure is believed to be inflated by around £20m on promotion bonuses for staff and players, plus extra transfer fees owed as a result of promotion.

My latest calculations for what we therefore know...

• £55,149,000- 2018
• £20,830,000- 2017
• £7,561,000- 2016

TOTAL 3 year Loss- £68,418,000

Subtract £20m in promotion bonuses it would seem.

Total 3 year loss- £48,418,000.

Given what clubs like Wolves spend on infrastructure, academy etc in the main at this level, I think there is a fair chance the 3 year excluded spend would be at least £9,418,000- before we even factor in FOSUN taking over and the fact they would want to upgrade training facilities, revenue streams etc.

Looks like they passed it then- not by a huge amount but up to the limit would be enough.

Definite cutbacks this year would have been necessary had they fallen short, but Neves, Costa and Cavaleiro wouldn't have been short of takers and likely for good money at that. Had say Boly and Jota signed permanently they could have been sold on quickly, if option to buy they'd have been off the wage bill with no purchase obligations.

As I said this time a year ago- clever model indeed.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[City_pete1]

WOW... They are lucky the gamble paid off. FFP !?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47453599

Wolverhampton Wanderers lost more than £1m a week during their Championship-winning campaign last season.

Wolves recorded a pre-tax loss of £57.16m for the year ending 2017-18, more than double the £23.18m they lost in the previous 12 months.

However, the club were promoted to the Premier League as title winners in Nuno Espirito Santo's debut season as manager.

They also turned over £26.4m and had an increase of £1.3m in ticketing income.

In a statement on the West Midlands club's website, the pre-tax loss was attributed to increased expenditure on players, wages, and promotion bonuses.

Some of those signings include player of the season Ruben Neves and the loan acquisitions of Diogo Jota and Willy Boly.

"Wolves' owners are committed to continuously improving the club, from both a footballing and wider operational and strategic perspective," said the statement.

However, Wolves are showing no signs of a reduction in spending and the club have already spent £109m on players since being promoted to the top flight.

Edited March 5, 2019 by City_pete1

[1960maaan]

Am I right in thinking that they are free from penalties as they are in the Prem ? 
The EFL and the Prep being separate bodies , if the EFL try and put fines or whatever in place, there is no guarantee that the Prem would enforce them. 

[Davefevs]

So, Wolves 3 seasons:

15/16: £7.5m profit

16/17: £20.8m loss

17/18: £57.1m loss

Overall: £70.4m loss

Less allowable deductions:

Promotion Bonus: £21.6m > £48.4m loss

Academy, etc: £5m per year = £15m > £33.4m

So inside FFP by my reckoning....saved by 15/16’s profit!  They would’ve had to sell the Crown Jewels had they not gone up last season.

@Mr Popodopolous - does that look right?

[The Nest Egg]

It's not ideal but it's who we have to fight against now. Which is why when looking at how we are doing right now, nobody can deny that it's a hell of an achievement. We really are getting to that enviable position of being the lovable underdogs, who the neutrals root for.

[Davefevs]

Ha ha, you’ve answered it here....pretty joined up we are.

[BS4 on Tour...]

49 minutes ago, Newquay-Red said:

We really are getting to that enviable position of being the lovable underdogs, who the neutrals root for.

Nah, every other club loves da gas.....it’s true because the blue few said so....

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

So, Wolves 3 seasons:

15/16: £7.5m profit

16/17: £20.8m loss

17/18: £57.1m loss

Overall: £70.4m loss

Less allowable deductions:

Promotion Bonus: £21.6m > £48.4m loss

Academy, etc: £5m per year = £15m > £33.4m

So inside FFP by my reckoning....saved by 15/16’s profit!  They would’ve had to sell the Crown Jewels had they not gone up last season.

@Mr Popodopolous - does that look right?

That sounds very likely and I reckon spot on Dave.

Not followed it for a few hrs- was £21.6m confirmed?

It would have meant IMO bye bye Neves, Costa and Cavaleiro for one. No permanent for Boly, Jota and Afobe.

More importantly in a sense- would FOSUN, Mendes and Nuno kept faith? Have my doubts...

Edited March 5, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That sounds very likely and I reckon spot on Dave.

Not followed it for a few hrs- was £21.6m confirmed?

It would have meant IMO bye bye Neves, Costa and Cavaleiro for one. No permanent for Boly, Jota and Afobe.

More importantly in a sense- would FOSUN, Mendes and Nuno kept faith? Have my doubts...

No, just under “other costs”

[Mr Popodopolous]

At last, Aston Villa's full results out.

Pretty busy this morning but a couple of headline figures:

• Turnover- £68.8m
• Profit on Player Trading- £15.882,000
• Compensation for HS2- £3m. This is a once off cash gain.
• Amortisation- roughly the same at £23,793,000 up from £23,737,000

The Wage Bill rise is staggering though. Reduction in Parachute Payments no problem...Total wages once Social Security and Pension costs factored in £73,110,00!  If we're stripping out that aspect and looking at wages- admittedly club wages in isolation, still up to £65,122,000 from £53,490,000.

Headline loss after all that £36,069,000. Though once excluded costs taken into account it comes down of course. Estimate their revenue falls by £21-22m this year with final year of Parachute Payments and presumably no recurring HS2 Compensation. In other words? They need to if rules enforced stringently, reach compliance at a time when revenue drops £21m. Their accounts did suggest they spent £10m or so on Youth Development thoiuygh so they're fine for the 3 years to last season but this season? Big problems you'd think!

Oh yeah and in other news, Reading lost almost £21m. Thought they would be in trouble.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[phantom]

After yesterday's figures released by wolves, Reading show even worse figures just released (for every £100 income they spent £197)

[Loderingo]

30 minutes ago, phantom said:

After yesterday's figures released by wolves, Reading show even worse figures just released (for every £100 income they spent £197)

How can Reading have spent so much and yet be doing so badly?  Bear in mind, they finished 20th last season...

[downendcity]

5 minutes ago, Loderingo said:

How can Reading have spent so much and yet be doing so badly?  Bear in mind, they finished 20th last season...

There's plenty of owners and managers that can prove that is quite an easy thing to do.

It's spending little and doing well that is the toughie!

Edited March 6, 2019 by downendcity

[Mr Popodopolous]

The ones who will feel gutted looking at these results over 2 seasons and likely hamstrung sides will be Barnsley fans big time.

7th in Jan 2017, few points off the playoffs and no FFP breach. Already in transfer profit from Mawson sale and Stones sell-on clause. So what do they do? Why, sell Bree, Hourihane and Winnall of course!

@BobBobSuperBob called it right IMO when he suggested it maybe asset stripping a while ago.

I mean you could also argue as clubs who run a relatively tight ship Burton, or Rotherham but neither of them were challenging the top. Barnsley had hit on a great formula and had momentum- no vast need to sell 2 years ago but sell they did!

Edited March 6, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Decided to take a quick look at Aston Villa and some early analysis for this season.

Yes their wage bill will surely have come down- Johnstone, Terry, Samba, Snodgrass, Onomah and Grabban all gone. Plus Agbonlahor...Still, a renewal of loan for Tuzunabe, plus loans for Moreira (half a season until cancelled), (half a season until cancelled) Bolasie, El Ghazi, and Tammy. Plus half-season loans for Mings, Hause and Carroll hardly cheap! Probably cheaper but by how much...? Oh, plus Hogan and McCormack loaned out- but then McCormack loaned out last season, Bree also but he's not I think exactly on major wages.

Not even factored in any potential loan fees they have paid, let alone fees for permanent signings that we do know to be added to the amortisation column- I'll do that later. Then knock off £18-20m in parachute payments, £3m for Bodymoor Heath HS2 compensation- god knows what their losses this year will look like! 

They surely need the book thrown good and proper, until they comply- they make Birmingham's fiscal management look not so terrible when you consider they had the luxury (but not for much longer) of about an average of £29-30m per year in parachute payments. Yes they were on a sliding scale but that would be an average I reckon.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Remember Bolasie went back to Everton in January, but it's said Villa were paying the full 80k a week wages he's on.

Yep, that's £2m more over half a season or maybe £1.3m. Anyway I think their wage bill likely came down but not by much and by nowhere near enough.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

5 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

You or @Davefevs might find the tweets in this post worth looking at

https://www.villatalk.com/topic/18562-avfc-accounts-2018/?do=findComment&comment=2622421

Im not sure about the series of tweets, and will wait for Mr Pop to run his expert eye over them and give his considered opinion.

However, the forum post at the top of the page caught my eye:

The thing is the january buys dont really say anything, as we could be buying them hoping we will go up and avoid sanctions. Obviously we hope that this is not the case.

It could also mean that were ok in terms of FFP and they have a plan round it etc, if this is so i would love to know how as i cant see any other conclusion other than us failing from what we know so far.

There were suggestions from Purslow that FFP was reset when edens and sawiris came in.  I wonder if like last summer we showed the EFL a plan going forward for them to ok on how wè will comply or fund the losses etc. I believe that our possible case is different to the Blues in a sense that their board failed to come up with a plan the EFL agrees with numerous times going forward and then signed Pedersen whilst under an embargo.

Another fan thinking that promotion enables them to avoid any penalty. Similarly the poster believes that when the new owners came in somehow ffp was "reset" , implying that any club worries about ffp merely needs to change ownership. 

I also like the way he thinks that their situation is different from Birmingham's although showing the EFL a "plan" but still busting ffp limits exonerates the mighty Villa.

Another post mentions that their financial issues would be resolved if they get back to the prem,  "where they belong"! , 

 

 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Im not sure about the series of tweets, and will wait for Mr Pop to run his expert eye over them and give his considered opinion.

However, the forum post at the top of the page caught my eye:

The thing is the january buys dont really say anything, as we could be buying them hoping we will go up and avoid sanctions. Obviously we hope that this is not the case.

It could also mean that were ok in terms of FFP and they have a plan round it etc, if this is so i would love to know how as i cant see any other conclusion other than us failing from what we know so far.

There were suggestions from Purslow that FFP was reset when edens and sawiris came in.  I wonder if like last summer we showed the EFL a plan going forward for them to ok on how wè will comply or fund the losses etc. I believe that our possible case is different to the Blues in a sense that their board failed to come up with a plan the EFL agrees with numerous times going forward and then signed Pedersen whilst under an embargo.

Another fan thinking that promotion enables them to avoid any penalty. Similarly the poster believes that when the new owners came in somehow ffp was "reset" , implying that any club worries about ffp merely needs to change ownership. 

I also like the way he thinks that their situation is different from Birmingham's although showing the EFL a "plan" but still busting ffp limits exonerates the mighty Villa.

Another post mentions that their financial issues would be resolved if they get back to the prem,  "where they belong"! , 

 

 

Yes, a common mistake of not understanding the difference between cash flow and p&l / FFP.

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 hours ago, downendcity said:

Im not sure about the series of tweets, and will wait for Mr Pop to run his expert eye over them and give his considered opinion.

However, the forum post at the top of the page caught my eye:

The thing is the january buys dont really say anything, as we could be buying them hoping we will go up and avoid sanctions. Obviously we hope that this is not the case.

It could also mean that were ok in terms of FFP and they have a plan round it etc, if this is so i would love to know how as i cant see any other conclusion other than us failing from what we know so far.

There were suggestions from Purslow that FFP was reset when edens and sawiris came in.  I wonder if like last summer we showed the EFL a plan going forward for them to ok on how wè will comply or fund the losses etc. I believe that our possible case is different to the Blues in a sense that their board failed to come up with a plan the EFL agrees with numerous times going forward and then signed Pedersen whilst under an embargo.

Another fan thinking that promotion enables them to avoid any penalty. Similarly the poster believes that when the new owners came in somehow ffp was "reset" , implying that any club worries about ffp merely needs to change ownership. 

I also like the way he thinks that their situation is different from Birmingham's although showing the EFL a "plan" but still busting ffp limits exonerates the mighty Villa.

Another post mentions that their financial issues would be resolved if they get back to the prem,  "where they belong"! , 

 

 

First time I've ever been called an expert. 

Regards the Tweets, I've seen that account before- think the person behind it is pretty clued up and doesn't try and sugarcoat it at all. His projected likely losses I read when I took a look, I assumed quite likely for them this year as well. He's got the minutiae of the details but his forecasted revenue drops etc are within a couple of million of my big picture ones for them this season- but yeah if there is an Aston Villa fan to read with regards analysis of FFP he's the one!

As usual, on their site a number of Aston Villa fans less than astute on all matters FFP. A good Twitter account to read on it is Camilla Payme- @CamillaPayne7 - the person behind that account has some interesting takes but has gone a bit quiet on it lately- wonder why!

Edited March 7, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

First time I've ever been called an expert. 

Regards the Tweets, I've seen that account before- think the person behind it is pretty clued up and doesn't try and sugarcoat it at all. His projected likely losses I read when I took a look, I assumed quite likely for them this year as well.

As usual, on their site a number of Aston Villa fans less than astute on all matters FFP. A good Twitter account to read on it is Camilla Payme- @CamillaPayne7 - the person behind that account has some interesting takes but has gone a bit quiet on it lately- wonder why!

Relative to many of us you are an expert or at least more of an expert..

 

 

 

 

 

[phantom]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Relative to many of us you are an expert or at least more of an expert..

For me @Mr Popodopolous explains things in a more understandable language than the originally written documents

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, phantom said:

For me @Mr Popodopolous explains things in a more understandable language than the originally written documents

With a name like that it’s all Greek to me!!!! 

[CyderInACan]

Yeah you’d have assumed that @Mr Popodopolous would be better at money laundering than an analysis of FFP performance! 

[Lrrr]

20 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

You or @Davefevs might find the tweets in this post worth looking at

https://www.villatalk.com/topic/18562-avfc-accounts-2018/?do=findComment&comment=2622421

A tweet posted on there - 'Despite this Villa may be okay in terms of FFP as some costs are excluded. Have estimated that FFP losses for last two seasons are £25.1 million so maximum loss for 2018/19 is £13.9 million. Will be tough due to parachute payments falling but not impossible #AVFC'

Some players potentially there to pinch if they need the money then..?

[Bristol Rob]

26 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Yeah you’d have assumed that @Mr Popodopolous would be better at money laundering than an analysis of FFP performance! 

And if it goes tits, he can get a bailout.

[CyderInACan]

18 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

And if it goes tits, he can get a bailout.

And a service wash 

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 hours ago, hodge said:

A tweet posted on there - 'Despite this Villa may be okay in terms of FFP as some costs are excluded. Have estimated that FFP losses for last two seasons are £25.1 million so maximum loss for 2018/19 is £13.9 million. Will be tough due to parachute payments falling but not impossible #AVFC'

Some players potentially there to pinch if they need the money then..?

I've been trying to project their anticipated FFP adjusted losses for this season- includes a number of assumptions as it has to but it's fair to say they're big- still a work in progress.

Early and basic assumptions:

• Parachute Payments- down £18-19m
• The £3m from HS2 is a non-recurring income.
• Allowable costs, that'd even with the high youth expenditure, be the same as last season.
• Profit on Player Transfers seems to be down by £7-7.5m.
• Amortisation on said players reduced- but this is maybe offset or even exceeded by additional amortisation on new signings.
• This is the most open to question- Wage bill down £10m- but even an idiot like Tony Xia must have realised...plus their new owners/hierarchy appear more savvy.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

One thing that appears obvious when looking at Villa's situation is how parachute payments enable a relegated club to "fund" attempts to gain promotion straight back to the prem thereby gaining a massive advantage over many championship clubs.. I know this probably sounds like teaching granny to suck eggs, as you will all know that already.

However, the reason I mention this now, is that there has been an understandable concern that when it comes to a "big" club, like Villa, the EFL will duck out of hitting them really hard, especially when it comes to points deduction. 

My thinking is that any club relegated from the prem knows the implications of ffp in the football league, and even though it means some major re-adjustment ( wages in particular),  parachute payments give them additional money over 3 years to help manage that readjustment, so they don't have to hold a fire sale in the summer following relegation. With parachute payments I cannot see how any club cannot, in a 3 year period, bring their finances in line with the requirements of ffp, as every other club in the championship has to do.

If they choose to use parachute payments to maintain an expensive playing staff, but without the same level of income they enjoyed in the prem, then they know the potential consequences should they fail to gain promotion and then fall foul of ffp assessment, as looks to be the case with Villa.

The danger of letting Villa off lightly ( assuming they breach ffp of course) is that it creates a precedent for every other relegated club to use parachute payments to fund a 3 years assault on promotion on the basis that relegation and the ultimate loss of parachute payments will somehow be looked upon as a reason for the financial problems.

 

[CotswoldRed]

On 02/03/2019 at 18:12, Red Right Hand said:

Which is what most of us are convinced they will be. FFP just becomes a sham without meaningful sanctions but I think we all fear what will (or won`t) happen.

If the FA do nothing meaningful then SL surely has to be free to spend as he pleases, when he pleases. 

Without sanctions more clubs will see a green light to spend. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

An early estimate for Aston Villa's FFP losses this season- though doubtless I'll go back and revise over time.

AFTER exclusions, deductions etc, assuming these are much the same as last season?

*£41,351,500. That's the FFP adjusted loss, the accounting loss will be talking somewhere from mid £50's-low 60's in terms of millions for this season IMO.

*This assumes a wage bill reduction of £10m, no loan fees received as listed, no more than 1 loan fee paid as listed, and that their expenses factored in for FFP purposes the same as last year. Maybe add a total of £1-2m for Women's football, infrastructure and other areas not listed in accounts which may knock their losses down to only £39-40m.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[CotswoldRed]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

An early estimate for Aston Villa's FFP losses this season- though doubtless I'll go back and revise.

AFTER exclusions, deductions etc, assuming these are much the same as last season?

£41,351,500. That's the FFP adjusted loss, the accounting loss will be talking the mid 50 millions, if not low 60's what with profit on transfers offsetting this a little.

@CotswoldRed It's the EFL who control this aspect, not necessarily the FA.

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not fully up to speed. 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

One thing that appears obvious when looking at Villa's situation is how parachute payments enable a relegated club to "fund" attempts to gain promotion straight back to the prem thereby gaining a massive advantage over many championship clubs.. I know this probably sounds like teaching granny to suck eggs, as you will all know that already.

However, the reason I mention this now, is that there has been an understandable concern that when it comes to a "big" club, like Villa, the EFL will duck out of hitting them really hard, especially when it comes to points deduction. 

My thinking is that any club relegated from the prem knows the implications of ffp in the football league, and even though it means some major re-adjustment ( wages in particular),  parachute payments give them additional money over 3 years to help manage that readjustment, so they don't have to hold a fire sale in the summer following relegation. With parachute payments I cannot see how any club cannot, in a 3 year period, bring their finances in line with the requirements of ffp, as every other club in the championship has to do.

If they choose to use parachute payments to maintain an expensive playing staff, but without the same level of income they enjoyed in the prem, then they know the potential consequences should they fail to gain promotion and then fall foul of ffp assessment, as looks to be the case with Villa.

The danger of letting Villa off lightly ( assuming they breach ffp of course) is that it creates a precedent for every other relegated club to use parachute payments to fund a 3 years assault on promotion on the basis that relegation and the ultimate loss of parachute payments will somehow be looked upon as a reason for the financial problems.

 

Re Fire Sale on relegation....this is where clubs need to be smarter with their contracts in terms if adding relegation clauses, e.g 40% wage reduction.  The flip-side is recruiting players who’ll accept that clause in their contract.  I guess this is where we utilised that type of clause with Nathan Baker.  Very few if not any of us know his terms, but we speculate from stories that he was on approx £30-35k per week with Villa in the Prem and took a 40% cut on relegation, so £18-21k, which brought him into our “pond”.  In fairness to Sunderland re Rodwell, if you ignore that £70k was a stupid amount, they had a one year suspended clause....almost an incentive that they’d only apply the reduction if they failed to get promoted back.  I actually think this was quite sensible, but looks disastrous as not only did they not go back up, they got relegated again!!

But three years is plenty of time to sort out your budgets, move on players, etc.

1 hour ago, CotswoldRed said:

If the FA do nothing meaningful then SL surely has to be free to spend as he pleases, when he pleases. 

Without sanctions more clubs will see a green light to spend. 

That is what I think will mean they do punish the likes of Brum or Villa....if they don’t set a precedent, then it will be a free-for-all next season.

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

An early estimate for Aston Villa's FFP losses this season- though doubtless I'll go back and revise over time.

AFTER exclusions, deductions etc, assuming these are much the same as last season?

*£41,351,500. That's the FFP adjusted loss, the accounting loss will be talking somewhere from mid £50's-low 60's in terms of millions for this season IMO.

*This assumes a wage bill reduction of £10m, no loan fees received as listed, no more than 1 loan fee paid as listed, and that their expenses factored in for FFP purposes the same as last year. Maybe add a total of £1-2m for Women's football, infrastructure and other areas not listed in accounts which may knock their losses down to only £39-40m.

Would the above include loaning Hogan out for example?

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Re Fire Sale on relegation....this is where clubs need to be smarter with their contracts in terms if adding relegation clauses, e.g 40% wage reduction.  The flip-side is recruiting players who’ll accept that clause in their contract.  I guess this is where we utilised that type of clause with Nathan Baker.  Very few if not any of us know his terms, but we speculate from stories that he was on approx £30-35k per week with Villa in the Prem and took a 40% cut on relegation, so £18-21k, which brought him into our “pond”.  In fairness to Sunderland re Rodwell, if you ignore that £70k was a stupid amount, they had a one year suspended clause....almost an incentive that they’d only apply the reduction if they failed to get promoted back.  I actually think this was quite sensible, but looks disastrous as not only did they not go back up, they got relegated again!!

But three years is plenty of time to sort out your budgets, move on players, etc.

That is what I think will mean they do punish the likes of Brum or Villa....if they don’t set a precedent, then it will be a free-for-all next season.

Would the above include loaning Hogan out for example?

I'd say so yeah, because while a number of high earners left, those they signed wouldn't have been a pittance- £10m in wage reduction should include the loanees going and tbh every chance £10m is too generous of me, that Dave Jordan Twitter account suggested £5m, but I am working on an assumption that their old owner started at least paying it a bit of attention not least as he couldn't get cash out of China!

Edited March 8, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unless they got a loan fee for him which isn't disclosed anywhere yeah- £10m in wage reduction should include the loanees going and tbh every chance £10m is too generous of me, that Dave Jordan Twitter account suggested £5m, but I am working on an assumption that their old owner started at least paying it a bit of attention not least as he couldn't get cash out of China!

Ah, ok....wasn’t sure what you were including in wage reduction.

I think there’s a good chance Hogan’s loan fee was 7 figures.  But as you say, you’ve probably been generous elsewhere.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Ah, ok....wasn’t sure what you were including in wage reduction.

I think there’s a good chance Hogan’s loan fee was 7 figures.  But as you say, you’ve probably been generous elsewhere.

Maybe then, as I say some guesswork partially based on TransferMarkt which can list loan fees but not always- e.g. according to it El Ghazi's was £1.8m apparently.

A loan fee for Hogan of a seven figure fee would definitely make sense.

Either way though, a few million here and there probably wouldn't make a huge difference, as I believe them to be in a huge FFP mess- along with Birmingham and depending on what transpires, Sheffield Wednesday they must be punished and a big precedent set.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

I just hope it all comes out in the March meeting...and we see some some real tangible application of the FFP rules.  It would be good to see a few of the chasing pack put back in their place, after our recent results have given them a sniff!

[Drew Peacock]

Villa aren't going up, so a 14 point deduction would drop them to just above the relegation fight.  EFL seen to be strict, but really to no effect.

Punishment should be stay in the division if you are top two or relegation if you are anywhere else.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

Villa aren't going up, so a 14 point deduction would drop them to just above the relegation fight.  EFL seen to be strict, but really to no effect.

Punishment should be stay in the division if you are top two or relegation if you are anywhere else.

I guess they should position their punishments accordingly, e.g. there has been mention of applying points deductions to the current season and the next season too.

I do like the simplicity of your punishment....why not go the whole hog, and relegate them regardless....like they did to Swindon.

[downendcity]

34 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

Villa aren't going up, so a 14 point deduction would drop them to just above the relegation fight.  EFL seen to be strict, but really to no effect.

Punishment should be stay in the division if you are top two or relegation if you are anywhere else.

 

27 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I guess they should position their punishments accordingly, e.g. there has been mention of applying points deductions to the current season and the next season too.

I do like the simplicity of your punishment....why not go the whole hog, and relegate them regardless....like they did to Swindon.

The good thing about basing the third year on projected accounts means that the EFL can apply punishment in the same season. As I think everyone is now aware, this means that a points penalty can be applied that could/would prevent a team from gaining promotion.

However, the downside could be, as Drew P points out, that if Villa are going to fall short of promotion or play offs anyway, and if they bust ffp by miles, they would think it a right result if a points penalty just dropped them further down the table and with little chance of relegation, as they start the next season with ( I think) effectively a clean slate, as far as ffp is concerned - effectively no penalty at all.

In this respect Dave's suggestion is a logical one, i.e. to apply the points deduction the following season- although logic seems an alien principle to football administrators! There is a precedent of sorts already in place for this, regarding clubs going into administration. A club could chose to go into administration when they know relegation is either certain or odds on to happen, as they would then incur a points penalty in that season, which means the points deduction is no penalty at all. The league deters clubs from this course of action by being able to carry a points deduction to the following season.

The other option is to apply a combination of penalties. So, if as in the example above points penalty was no penalty, then perhaps they could combine a transfer embargo and even add in a financial penalty as well. It's not a question of picking on, say, Villa, because they are a big club that should learn their place, but because otherwise all the clubs , like us, that are trying to keep their financial house in order are effectively being further penalised when compared to the clubs that enjoy/have enjoyed the advantage of parachute payments, 

As for "going the whole hog" with relegation as the sanction, then I think this rally would stir a massive hornets nest with penalised clubs taking legal action to try and protect their league status. Far better to apply the ffp rules properly and apply the range of penalties now available fully and appropriately. I also think that they have to lay down a clear marker with the first set of results, and the penalties applied, if they are to make sure that clubs understand the need to comply and so.

 

 

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, downendcity said:

 

The good thing about basing the third year on projected accounts means that the EFL can apply punishment in the same season. As I think everyone is now aware, this means that a points penalty can be applied that could/would prevent a team from gaining promotion.

However, the downside could be, as Drew P points out, that if Villa are going to fall short of promotion or play offs anyway, and if they bust ffp by miles, they would think it a right result if a points penalty just dropped them further down the table and with little chance of relegation, as they start the next season with ( I think) effectively a clean slate, as far as ffp is concerned - effectively no penalty at all.

In this respect Dave's suggestion is a logical one, i.e. to apply the points deduction the following season- although logic seems an alien principle to football administrators! There is a precedent of sorts already in place for this, regarding clubs going into administration. A club could chose to go into administration when they know relegation is either certain or odds on to happen, as they would then incur a points penalty in that season, which means the points deduction is no penalty at all. The league deters clubs from this course of action by being able to carry a points deduction to the following season.

The other option is to apply a combination of penalties. So, if as in the example above points penalty was no penalty, then perhaps they could combine a transfer embargo and even add in a financial penalty as well. It's not a question of picking on, say, Villa, because they are a big club that should learn their place, but because otherwise all the clubs , like us, that are trying to keep their financial house in order are effectively being further penalised when compared to the clubs that enjoy/have enjoyed the advantage of parachute payments, 

As for "going the whole hog" with relegation as the sanction, then I think this rally would stir a massive hornets nest with penalised clubs taking legal action to try and protect their league status. Far better to apply the ffp rules properly and apply the range of penalties now available fully and appropriately. I also think that they have to lay down a clear marker with the first set of results, and the penalties applied, if they are to make sure that clubs understand the need to comply and so.

 

 

Think it might require an aggravated breach to apply to next season.

I guess they need to make the rules transparent, e.g.

upto £3m - 3points

upto £5m - 5points

upto £8m - 9points

upto £12m - 12points AND if in top 6, removal from Promotion or Playoff irrespective of where reduction of points places you.

On top of this, aggravated (to be defined), same points punishments as above but applied to next season.

So take Brum, Imagine they are £7m over in projected accounts, then 9 point deduction this season, but aggravated by Pedersen and failure to sell Adams...then 9 point deduction start of next season.

I’m sure there are flaws in the above, but sone visibility of the penalties would make sense.