Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, WarksRobin said:

£10m loss last year despite a £25m profit on player trading (Webster, Pack and Brownhill) and £1.7m from match day income.

Next year looks really tricky if we don’t sell anyone for big money and with the loss of match day revenue.

I guess this explains why contract talks are on hold.

I don’t think it is that straightforward on accounts. We will be receiving money for webster and brownhill for the next few years for example. 20m for webster doesn’t go straight onto accounts. It is usually split up for the length of his new contract or some of it. Correct me if I am wrong though @Mr Popodopolous or @Davefevs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

I don’t think it is that straightforward on accounts. We will be receiving money for webster and brownhill for the next few years for example. 20m for webster doesn’t go straight onto accounts. It is usually split up for the length of his new contract or some of it. Correct me if I am wrong though @Mr Popodopolous or @Davefevs

Possibly, but I think this is the difference between income and cash positions. Effectively the transfer transaction is booked in one year even though the cash might be received over a period of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeAman08 said:

I don’t think it is that straightforward on accounts. We will be receiving money for webster and brownhill for the next few years for example. 20m for webster doesn’t go straight onto accounts. It is usually split up for the length of his new contract or some of it. Correct me if I am wrong though @Mr Popodopolous or @Davefevs

No, that’s cash flow.  From a pure P&L point of view, their sales are booked in full in these accounts.  Not forgetting in both cases we will have had to pay money to Preston and Ipswich too.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No, that’s cash flow.  From a pure P&L point of view, their sales are booked in full in these accounts.  Not forgetting in both cases we will have had to pay money to Preston and Ipswich too.

Thanks. How does that work then? It doesn’t seem likely Brighton gave us 20m cash for Webster up front did they? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Thanks. How does that work then? It doesn’t seem likely Brighton gave us 20m cash for Webster up front did they? 

The accounts reflect the full value of transfer fees agreed in the year.

Any unpaid fees receivable are shown in Debtors, see Note 16 to the accounts.  Any unpaid fees payable are shown in Creditors see Note 18 to the accounts.   These show that the club is owed £24 million in unpaid fees and owes £17 million in unpaid fees, so a net £7 million in cash is due.

Where the transfer agreement contains terms such as additions on appearances or promotions then the estimated value of these is included in contingent assets or liabilities, so do not effect the current financial performance, see notes 27 and 28.  Amount sdue from sell on clauses won't feature in the accounts until the player is sold on.

Edited by Hxj
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The accounts reflect the full value of transfer fees agreed in the year.

Any unpaid fees receivable are shown in Debtors, see Note 16 to the accounts.  Any unpaid fees payable are shown in Creditors see Note 18 to the accounts.   These show that the club is owed £24 million in unpaid fees and owes £17 million in unpaid fees, so a net £7 million in cash is due.

Where the transfer agreement contains terms such as additions on appearances or promotions then the estimated value of these is included in contingent assets or liabilities, so do not effect the current financial performance, see notes 27 and 28.  Amount sdue from sell on clauses won't feature in the accounts until the player is sold on.

That is outstanding. Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/01/2021 at 10:29, Olé said:

Net £20m profit on players required every year just to break even. FFS this isn't sustainable without incredible turnover of signings and young players, or Premier League football.

It's the Championship isn't it?

Feels worse than that- our net (forget factoring in FFP allowances and non-cash expenses for a sec)- £10m profit, £10m loss.

Profit on disposal- £38m and £25m- not rounded but that's £31.5m (subject to rounding- maybe more) per season to break even in a two year period! ? ?

I would also suggest that it could be done as:

a) A yoyo club albeit with bigger gates such as Barnsley and Rotherham have been- maybe Luton though they seem solid this year- could also sustain. Think of a bigger version of what Crewe used to be albeit with perhaps a less prolific academy at this time, some Cup runs- good housekeeping.

b) A top half League One- like us in the early-mid 2000's, albeit now with added off field revenue- and the aforementioned Cup run and good academy- this could sustain a club of our size.

Otherwise I totally agree- PL only it would appear. If we want to retain some degree of ambition.

a) and b) Only likely to work if we budget for this and factor in risk (by which I mean yoyoing) accordingly but definitely both possible.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting snippet on Bournemouth.

It's possible, that as I suspected, the EFL had words on relegation- not willing perhaps to put up with a risk of a repeat of 2015 going up with FFP breached.

image.thumb.png.bf0b7d21ecfa3c3693df2e557fc3adec.png

https://www.afcb.co.uk/news/supporter-liaison-updates/minutes-board-to-board-meeting-with-cherries-trust/

Thusfar, credit where it is due too- their disposal of players etc has far exceeded incomings, on relegation. Credit to club and maybe even the EFL. Business Plan of some description?

Given their past promotion and the manner in which it was achieved- great football and teamwork but also excessive spending (though not as excessive as various recent culprits/suspects but anyway), would they have actively wanted to have a season such as the below, transfer activity wise! ⬇️

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/afc-bournemouth/transfers/verein/989

I know the fees aren't precise but it represents very significant cutbacks. Part will be due to relegation, partly Covid- even so it does seem like the EFL have taken a tougher line.

Hefty amortisation falls off as well as profit on disposal, a number of those departing are among- or were- among their higher earners I suspect.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting snippet on Bournemouth.

It's possible, that as I suspected, the EFL had words on relegation- not willing perhaps to put up with a risk of a repeat of 2015 going up with FFP breached.

image.thumb.png.bf0b7d21ecfa3c3693df2e557fc3adec.png

https://www.afcb.co.uk/news/supporter-liaison-updates/minutes-board-to-board-meeting-with-cherries-trust/

Thusfar, credit where it is due too- their disposal of players etc has far exceeded incomings, on relegation. Credit to club and maybe even the EFL. Business Plan of some description?

Given their past promotion and the manner in which it was achieved- great football and teamwork but also excessive spending (though not as excessive as various recent culprits/suspects but anyway), would they have actively wanted to have a season such as the below, transfer activity wise! ⬇️

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/afc-bournemouth/transfers/verein/989

I know the fees aren't precise but it represents very significant cutbacks. Part will be due to relegation, partly Covid- even so it does seem like the EFL have taken a tougher line.

Hefty amortisation falls off as well as profit on disposal, a number of those departing are among- or were- among their higher earners I suspect.

One of my old bosses was brought in as a financial consultant / Director in the dark days at AFCB and said the whole club couldn’t get its head around that they were spending more money than they brought in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Davefevs said:

One of my old bosses was brought in as a financial consultant / Director in the dark days at AFCB and said the whole club couldn’t get its head around that they were spending more money than they brought in.

Interesting stuff- was this when they were down the bottom of League Two and Howe saved them? Sounds like it has been a bit of a cultural issue there...

On the other hand, at this moment in time and given their promotion season under Howe, the EFL seem to have imposed some degree of discipline potentially- reading between the lines it does suggest that IMO, for now anyway.

I suspect Reading are a club with a similar mindset to that, under current ownership anyway, maybe not the CEO thinking largely of the owner- and perhaps quite a lot of their fans because when I do read Hobnob Anyone, various posters have seemed in denial..

Stuff like "It's all an overhang, it's the old CEO's fault" "FFP is unfair" "We'll be fine now old CEO gone"- and yes their figures did look better for Renhe Sports Management but solely due to £29m in fixed asset disposal and £3m Aluko loan fee!

Hell, when they were released from a soft embargo probably due to one of those transactions probably due to one or more of the above 2018/19 transactions, they proceeded to sign Joao...and Puscas! ? Both players I'd happily have seen here, but could we have sensibly gone for one of them- I was quite keen on Joao in particular in summer 2019. Surely the EFL didn't expect them to make those moves in those circs?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting stuff- was this when they were down the bottom of League Two and Howe saved them? Sounds like it has been a bit of a cultural issue there...

On the other hand, at this moment in time and given their promotion season under Howe, the EFL seem to have imposed some degree of discipline potentially- reading between the lines it does suggest that IMO, for now anyway.

I suspect Reading are a club with a similar mindset to that, under current ownership anyway, maybe not the CEO thinking largely of the owner- and perhaps quite a lot of their fans because when I do read Hobnob Anyone, various posters have seemed in denial..

Stuff like "It's all an overhang, it's the old CEO's fault" "FFP is unfair" "We'll be fine now old CEO gone"- and yes their figures did look better for Renhe Sports Management but solely due to £29m in fixed asset disposal and £3m Aluko loan fee!

Hell, when they were released from a soft embargo probably due to one of those transactions probably due to one or more of the above 2018/19 transactions, they proceeded to sign Joao...and Puscas! ? Both players I'd happily have seen here, but could we have sensibly gone for one of them- I was quite keen on Joao in particular in summer 2019. Surely the EFL didn't expect them to make those moves in those circs?

Yes it was.  He became director in 2006.  I worked for him from 2004-2007, he was very senior, but he drank with my immediate boss, so I spent several lunch “hours” hearing bits and pieces. He wasn’t very popular with fans I can tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/01/2021 at 21:18, Davefevs said:

Yes it was.  He became director in 2006.  I worked for him from 2004-2007, he was very senior, but he drank with my immediate boss, so I spent several lunch “hours” hearing bits and pieces. He wasn’t very popular with fans I can tell you.

Bet he had some good stories to tell- not just inside a football club, but a football club financially imploding as it was and in a downward spiral off it!

Yep, those who tell people the spending needs to slow, stop-reverse- surely won't be!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now to have a look at Cardiff- you might also be interested @Psychopomp continuing start of the discussion on McCarthy thread- thought might stick it here so don't risk derailing.

Norwich is one comparison but they made £59.9m in Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations in the 2 seasons in which they also had Parachute Payments- had a quick look earlier. Another to look at might be Middlesbrough- tried to look earlier but their accounts weren't loading properly.

Norwich

Norwich in the PL onwards period impaired players to the tune of £3,791,000 in PL in 2015/16, and £9,373,000 in 2017/18! Both would count towards FFP losses but again, help moving forward. Also included is provision for Onerous contracts in 2017/18 of £12.2m- probably accelerates costs again- ie pay off now in one hit for unwanted players, that sort of thing.

Wow- £21,243,000 Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations during the PL season- 2015/16!

Middlesbrough

Middlesbrough made about £48.5m with respect to Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations in the 2 seasons ie 2017/18 and 2018/19- additions too with each of course but this gives significant headroom! These are two clubs I would expect, come what may, to meet or to aspire to meet FFP. Like Norwich they had two years of Parachute Payments but their cutbacks were fairly significant.

Impairment of £1,883,000 in 2018/19, and £3,952,000 in 2016/17. Also Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations during PL season of £11.27m!

Cardiff

Cardiff wrote down £11,579,000 in Player Registrations in 2018/19- this of course counts against FFP hence their profit would have been higher that season, but accelerates losses into the PL season and reduces book value, reduces future amortisation costs making profit easier etc.

What's unclear is how the Sala (RIP) fee is accounted for- maybe it isn't yet as it's still a matter of dispute, as yet unresolved.

Cardiff made about £2-3m in Profit on Disposal during the PL- lower wage bill of course, but have added as well as removed amortisation post relegation.

At this early stage, to me, Norwich and Middlesbrough's positions were looking a lot healthier with respect to FFP situation in Year 1 and onwards without Parachute Payments. I know Reid and Zohore sold but if we look at that Transfer Profit on Disposal...

It might yet pose an issue- for 2021/22 will be the first season since 2012/13 that Cardiff have had neither the benefit of PL cash or Parachute Payments, if they're still at this level- and they surely spent big at that time, but FFP was only being put into place, was no decisive factor yet in the Championship for 2012/13!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Now to have a look at Cardiff- you might also be interested @Psychopomp continuing start of the discussion on McCarthy thread- thought might stick it here so don't risk derailing.

Norwich is one comparison but they made £59.9m in Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations in the 2 seasons in which they also had Parachute Payments- had a quick look earlier. Another to look at might be Middlesbrough- tried to look earlier but their accounts weren't loading properly.

Norwich

Norwich in the PL onwards period impaired players to the tune of £3,791,000 in PL in 2015/16, and £9,373,000 in 2017/18! Both would count towards FFP losses but again, help moving forward. Also included is provision for Onerous contracts in 2017/18 of £12.2m- probably accelerates costs again- ie pay off now in one hit for unwanted players, that sort of thing.

Wow- £21,243,000 Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations during the PL season- 2015/16!

Middlesbrough

Middlesbrough made about £48.5m with respect to Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations in the 2 seasons ie 2017/18 and 2018/19- additions too with each of course but this gives significant headroom! These are two clubs I would expect, come what may, to meet or to aspire to meet FFP. Like Norwich they had two years of Parachute Payments but their cutbacks were fairly significant.

Impairment of £1,883,000 in 2018/19, and £3,952,000 in 2016/17. Also Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations during PL season of £11.27m!

Cardiff

Cardiff wrote down £11,579,000 in Player Registrations in 2018/19- this of course counts against FFP hence their profit would have been higher that season, but accelerates losses into the PL season and reduces book value, reduces future amortisation costs making profit easier etc.

What's unclear is how the Sala (RIP) fee is accounted for- maybe it isn't yet as it's still a matter of dispute, as yet unresolved.

Cardiff made about £2-3m in Profit on Disposal during the PL- lower wage bill of course, but have added as well as removed amortisation post relegation.

At this early stage, to me, Norwich and Middlesbrough's positions were looking a lot healthier with respect to FFP situation in Year 1 and onwards without Parachute Payments. I know Reid and Zohore sold but if we look at that Transfer Profit on Disposal...

It might yet pose an issue- for 2021/22 will be the first season since 2012/13 that Cardiff have had neither the benefit of PL cash or Parachute Payments, if they're still at this level- and they surely spent big at that time, but FFP was only being put into place, was no decisive factor yet in the Championship for 2012/13!

The Cardiff year of £2m profit includes the Sala fee from my brief reading of the accounts. Of course getting ti taken off will improve their FFP situation now. Seems to be that they really did keep wages low when going up and have balanced incoming and outging transfers since. Whilst like all it is cash poor right now, I do not see that they are in any meltdown with huge player contracts. Our wage bill is probably higher this year, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Psychopomp said:

The Cardiff year of £2m profit includes the Sala fee from my brief reading of the accounts. Of course getting ti taken off will improve their FFP situation now. Seems to be that they really did keep wages low when going up and have balanced incoming and outging transfers since. Whilst like all it is cash poor right now, I do not see that they are in any meltdown with huge player contracts. Our wage bill is probably higher this year, 

Thanks- had a quick look at them but missed this bit- looked online before I returned to this thread and indeed, under "Provisions" there is a total of £19.5m, or something like that- can only be Sala?

It will indeed- I mean they'll be fine, more than fine to this season- but there are unknown factors too- unsure it'd be a wage and cash problem, more an FFP one. The fact that Middlesbrough and Norwich- both of whom were surely aok- made such huge transfer profits is interesting. At best, TV money falls by £55m in Year 1 and maybe a further £10m in Year 2- ie this season.

How would the Provision be treated in FFP terms- I looked on the website and there doesn't seem to be any specific guidance- as in should we take the Sala Provision as included or excluded from Costs, £2.5m Profit (Before Tax) or excluded- the latter would mean £22m Profit (Before Tax).

The second big unknown, which none of us yet know or can know, is how next season will be rolled up- will it be back to the 3 years ie last, this and next season as a block or simply moving on 2017/18, 2018/19, and 2019/20 and 2020/21  as one on a year- now beginning with 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 as a block and then 2021/22 as the 3rd.

I've read £30m for wage bill on their forum- their accounts will of course be instructive for how they look going into 2021/22 if still at this level.

With respect to the FFP, if it's the rolled up continued that would mean that for Cardiff into 2021/22 would be one upper limit of £35m and one of £13m- assume they spend to the limit, equity wise etc- added up, divided by 4 and x 3! £74m/4 x 3=£52.5m plus allowable costs. If not, it'd be the usual £39m from 2019/20 to 2021/22.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks- had a quick look at them but missed this bit- looked online before I returned to this thread and indeed, under "Provisions" there is a total of £19.5m, or something like that- can only be Sala?

It will indeed- I mean they'll be fine, more than fine to this season- but there are unknown factors too- unsure it'd be a wage and cash problem, more an FFP one. The fact that Middlesbrough and Norwich- both of whom were surely aok- made such huge transfer profits is interesting. At best, TV money falls by £55m in Year 1 and maybe a further £10m in Year 2- ie this season.

How would the Provision be treated in FFP terms- I looked on the website and there doesn't seem to be any specific guidance- as in should we take the Sala Provision as included or excluded from Costs, £2.5m Profit (Before Tax) or excluded- the latter would mean £22m Profit (Before Tax).

The second big unknown, which none of us yet know or can know, is how next season will be rolled up- will it be back to the 3 years ie last, this and next season as a block or simply moving on 2017/18, 2018/19, and 2019/20 and 2020/21  as one on a year- now beginning with 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 as a block and then 2021/22 as the 3rd.

I've read £30m for wage bill on their forum- their accounts will of course be instructive for how they look going into 2021/22 if still at this level.

With respect to the FFP, if it's the rolled up continued that would mean that for Cardiff into 2021/22 would be one upper limit of £35m and one of £13m- assume they spend to the limit, equity wise etc- added up, divided by 4 and x 3! £74m/4 x 3=£52.5m plus allowable costs. If not, it'd be the usual £39m from 2019/20 to 2021/22.

The Sala fee was included in their transfer outgoings in the accounts. Im not suggesting they are in a great place , their debts are huge and they revalued the ground a couple of years ago to help .... But compared to most promoted teams they have got out lightly, unlike the last time they were promoted. They all only have tv income really, transfers have died off and the 8M gate revenue is zero. The accounts for this current season will show huge losses of 20 to 30 M for the majority of clubs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2021 at 13:43, Psychopomp said:

The Sala fee was included in their transfer outgoings in the accounts. Im not suggesting they are in a great place , their debts are huge and they revalued the ground a couple of years ago to help .... But compared to most promoted teams they have got out lightly, unlike the last time they were promoted. They all only have tv income really, transfers have died off and the 8M gate revenue is zero. The accounts for this current season will show huge losses of 20 to 30 M for the majority of clubs. 

Thanks for the response- still a lot of grey areas for them and all clubs.

Ground revaluation, unsure how much this counts towards FFP- the profit on disposal yeah, but revaluiation- only the extent from my last recollection of the rules, only the extent to which there was a Reversal of Impairment recognised would go in the Profit and Loss- that's for 2017/18.

The Sala thing is the real one of interest for me- Kieran Maguire said the liability was under Provisions when I looked back, if it's stuck in there it means it doesn't hit the amortisation but general cost- if it was included under relevant expenditure for FFP then the starting point would be the £2.5m profit- if it wasn't then that would be adjusted out of expenditure as an exceptional legal cost but there appears to be nothing definitive and I've looked a bit!

Their cash losses will be huge like a lot of clubs, Profit and Loss maybe a greyer area.

As for the Stadium Revaluation, my interpretation there is that only the amount as said that counted towards Reversal of Impairment might count here- so though the upward Revaluation was shown as £29,253,000 (Movement on Deferred Tax stated as £2,302,000- hence net revaluation shown £26,951,000)- the number that counts though will have to check if this has changed and was under the old regs, would be £5,487,000- that's what was shown in the 2017/18 Operating Loss breakdown.

Rather helpfully, on a general note- and I welcome the increased transparency- the EFL have put up a template of what clubs submit in March and how it looks. I've posted it before but still good to see- though in this instance, T-2 will be T-3, T-1 will be T-2 and T will represent an add up then average of T and T-1.

appendix-5---regs-image.png

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-5---financial-fair-play-regulations/

Based on Provisions for Liabilities and their Accounting Policy, sounds like it might not be included but again it's unclear. Perhaps it only kicks in, if they lose the Sala case- until then it's an unrealised loss, yet to crystalise or could be. Says £19.5m- maybe it includes Sala and one or two other issues, it doesn't specify what it's for in black and white.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

The provision should be in the FFP figures as it is in the accounts as a deduction and doesn’t fall within the list of necessary adjustments.

Thank you for the clarity- so £2.5m profit inclusive of that, then the FFP allowances in 2018/19 and that's the starting point?

Will be interesting to see Cardiff's overall position, because as I mentioned unlike Middlesbrough and Norwich, the player sale profits have not been so hefty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some possible good news on the horizon, hopefully anyway @Davefevs @Hxj @downendcity @chinapig @Coppello

Well overdue this. Gibson and Lansdown maybe can drive change here? Embargo or Points deduction best bet? Interested to know thoughts of @AnotherDerbyFan with respect to this too- I think that Good Governance in these scenarios does require stringent measures.

Maybe Transfer Embargo to begin with, escalating to a points deduction over time. Assume this means publish to Companies House or on website- EFL surely have some kind of idea or they should both be under a rolling Embargo and maybe more- if they don't submit to the EFL then maybe even suspend membership.

Well maybe not the last bit but the EFL or more likely the clubs, need to up the ante with this issue.

Quote

Rivals riled by Owls and Rams 

The EFL are facing calls to introduce sanctions for clubs who file their annual accounts late. Sheffield Wednesday and Derby are yet to publish their accounts for the 2018-19 season, which were due last July, to the irritation of clubs who comply with the regulations

The Owls and the Rams have been charged with breaching spending rules over the last few years and rivals are convinced the tardiness of their book-keeping is unlikely to be a coincidence. 

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks for the response- still a lot of grey areas for them and all clubs.

Ground revaluation, unsure how much this counts towards FFP- the profit on disposal yeah, but revaluiation- only the extent from my last recollection of the rules, only the extent to which there was a Reversal of Impairment recognised would go in the Profit and Loss- that's for 2017/18.

The Sala thing is the real one of interest for me- Kieran Maguire said the liability was under Provisions when I looked back, if it's stuck in there it means it doesn't hit the amortisation but general cost- if it was included under relevant expenditure for FFP then the starting point would be the £2.5m profit- if it wasn't then that would be adjusted out of expenditure as an exceptional legal cost but there appears to be nothing definitive and I've looked a bit!

Their cash losses will be huge like a lot of clubs, Profit and Loss maybe a greyer area.

As for the Stadium Revaluation, my interpretation there is that only the amount as said that counted towards Reversal of Impairment might count here- so though the upward Revaluation was shown as £29,253,000 (Movement on Deferred Tax stated as £2,302,000- hence net revaluation shown £26,951,000)- the number that counts though will have to check if this has changed and was under the old regs, would be £5,487,000- that's what was shown in the 2017/18 Operating Loss breakdown.

Rather helpfully, on a general note- and I welcome the increased transparency- the EFL have put up a template of what clubs submit in March and how it looks. I've posted it before but still good to see- though in this instance, T-2 will be T-3, T-1 will be T-2 and T will represent an add up then average of T and T-1.

appendix-5---regs-image.png

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-5---financial-fair-play-regulations/

Based on Provisions for Liabilities and their Accounting Policy, sounds like it might not be included but again it's unclear. Perhaps it only kicks in, if they lose the Sala case- until then it's an unrealised loss, yet to crystalise or could be. Says £19.5m- maybe it includes Sala and one or two other issues, it doesn't specify what it's for in black and white.

The Sala fe has been accounted for. It is in their accounts. The ground was interesting as it was undervalued, so the new valuation had an impact. Not sure why the Sala fee is in provisions, it is not ,it is in their transfer outlay numbers and in the accounts. It is an opportunity for them if they win win the case or insurance pays out.Overall , they will have a wage bill less than us, and an owner that has similar liabilities. They are far from the worst bunch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Psychopomp said:

The Sala fe has been accounted for. It is in their accounts. The ground was interesting as it was undervalued, so the new valuation had an impact. Not sure why the Sala fee is in provisions, it is not ,it is in their transfer outlay numbers and in the accounts. It is an opportunity for them if they win win the case or insurance pays out.Overall , they will have a wage bill less than us, and an owner that has similar liabilities. They are far from the worst bunch. 

Revaluation of Stadium- so did the whole of the £29m count then- may have been under old FFP regs, the bit about only counting with respect to the Reversal of Impairment- regardless they would have passed FFP anyway due to £23m promotion bonuses which of course are excluded.

Sala fee. Kieran Maguire seemed to think it was in Provisions- was it maybe in fact wholly amortised in 2018/19? If it was a Provision however, it seems to be quite widely reported in a range of sources.

Provisions for Bad Debt maybe. Can't see them amortising straight line- a fee for a disputed case? There IS a Provisions for £19.5m towards the end of the Cardiff City Holdings but maybe that's something else. Note 21 anyway.

Far from the worst but for example staying down, and then eg Harry Wilson signing on loan again on the package he was mooted to have been- when Parachute Payments down from £30-35m to £0- doubt it. Unsure they won't have to make playing side cutbacks of some sort.

Actually, forget my Insurance question- notice there was £16m of Insurance- still wonder about FFP treatment, recognition etc.

Regardless of Insurance, it's a Cash Issue surely- Amortisation, Impairment or Provisions? Lot of unknowns tbh- Swiss Ramble from a further search suggests that IF they win the case, their 2018/19 Accounts will be boosted by a Reversal of that Provision.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to a couple of brief predictions and guesstimates.

  1. Manga- Was in final year of contract I think, widely reported as sold for £3m. Let's say £3m Profit.
  2. Reid- Joined widely reported for £8.5m on a 4 year deal from us, report claims he was sold to Fulham for £10m- a profit of (roughly) £4,867,500
  3. Zohore- Sold for £8m, don't know how much he signed for but am going to assume full whack of Profit at £8m- he joined from some related club so can only assume an £8m Profit on Disposal.

That's £15,867,500 Profit on Disposal- with in Reid's case £1.0625m in Amortisation also eliminated in that season and the other 1/4 of his initial fee eliminated in each of the subsequent 2 seasons. Up by about £13m from 2018/19.

Am using the Holdings Accounts for my estimate on this bit.

Wages- DOWN to a NET total figure of £30m (cited on one of their forums) from £53,651,000- but having said that, unlike a lot of clubs they listed the Player Specific Wages in 2018/19- £42,519,000. Therefore unsure which figures to use as my starting point, ie down from £53m or £42m.

Additional Amortisation- ie new additions:

Bacuna joined in January so on paper is up about £345k per season- maybe needs some rounding but that's my starting point.

New players joining in 2019/20:

  1. Glatzel, Flint, Pack, Vassell and Vaulks- Combined total of £4.748m, fees divided by 3 year contract.
  2. Whyte- £495k. Was on a 4 year deal.

Maybe say £5-5.5m extra Cost of Amortisation, separate to Additions.

A number of the players released in summer 2019 will have saved on Amortisation but not by much from what I can see- could have been Impaired in some or all cases in 2018/19 too. We don't know who was Impaired in 2018/19 though, we can only guess- for all we know Reid might have been which rolls that into Pure Profit if he Impaired in full.

Cardiff made £102m from TV revenue etc in 2018/19.

Parachute Payments last season- they'll revert to Solidarity Payments next season if still at this level, anyway they appeared to have been in terms of total PL cash, £43m- some of that reduced due to Covid, always thought it was 55% of Central Awards but anyway CashFlow aside their 2019/20 accounts will be interesting.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...