Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

Interesting figure from Kieran Maguire about the gap in Derby's amortisation using the two methods- I mean it all has to be done in the end, but in those 3 seasons?

Albeit the Profit on Disposal would have to be reconciled to get the full figure. I suspect that it increases as well in these 3 seasons.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

 

As usual I will decline to hold my breath waiting for the EFL to do something about this. Given that sanctions for late accounts should have been in place from the outset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

 

I think it depends on the circumstances for the delay. If it's a consequence of the EFL's appeals for example...

11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting figure from Kieran Maguire about the gap in Derby's amortisation using the two methods- I mean it all has to be done in the end, but in those 3 seasons?

Albeit the Profit on Disposal would have to be reconciled to get the full figure. I suspect that it increases as well in these 3 seasons.

Presumably he's used the very basic amortisation method (over original contract), rather than one of the other accepted methods (taking account of contract extensions). My calculations estimate £30m for the old method (£15m lower than Kieran's guess).

As you point out, profit on players would also increase, notably Ince and Weimann.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crazy rumours of Reading signing a Uruguay International for 10m.

I thought there was an FFP tightrope- given the EFL blocked a move for Rodrigo Riquelme on loan, this would seem strange.

Loan with option also linked lower down though, but again 1m euros loan fee in this climate and with their underlying losses in 2018/19 accounts. Would the EFL authorise this given they seemed to be under some kind of 'Guidance'??

@chinapig Up to the clubs ultimately I suspect, so won't be holding my breath.

@AnotherDerbyFan I'll address your points later or tomorrow, but I would have thought that's fairly standard in football anyway- when we're talking Straight Line method. Amortise and then adjust for contract extensions- maybe it isn't though?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

@AnotherDerbyFan I'll address your points later or tomorrow, but I would have thought that's fairly standard in football anyway- when we're talking Straight Line method. Amortise and then adjust for contract extensions- maybe it isn't though?

I believe there are a few methods in use:

  1. All upfront (typically used in non-league I believe)
  2. The infamous Derby method - use of residual values
  3. Amortise over the original contract
  4. Make adjustments if a contract extension has been signed
  5. Impairment being an additional part to most club policies

Just from using figures from transfermarkt (plus filling in a couple of blanks), you can see the difference between the methods here:

image.png.34666485772632998ed05c58fd4d7ae4.png

KM has overstated the figures by about about £2.3m (2016), £2.7m (2017) and £4m (2018) compared with the 'acceptable' methods. My first instinct was he added on agents fees, however the actual figures for those seasons were £0.3m, £2.0m and £2.2m. So it can't be that. Most of our business is done in the summer. The accounts therefore give a good indication of what we spent by looking at the "post balance sheet events" section (which includes EFL levies and agents' fees)

Based on the accounts more accurate upfront figures would be:
2016 - £27.24m
2017 - £17.03m
2018 - £12.76m

Over that 3 year period, transfermarkt is only out by £200k (estimating winter signings at the transfermarkt values).

I made the assumption of summer sales not having an amortisation charge against them for the upcoming year? Even if I've got that wrong, KM is still £6m too high.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I believe there are a few methods in use:

  1. All upfront (typically used in non-league I believe)
  2. The infamous Derby method - use of residual values
  3. Amortise over the original contract
  4. Make adjustments if a contract extension has been signed
  5. Impairment being an additional part to most club policies

Just from using figures from transfermarkt (plus filling in a couple of blanks), you can see the difference between the methods here:

image.png.34666485772632998ed05c58fd4d7ae4.png

KM has overstated the figures by about about £2.3m (2016), £2.7m (2017) and £4m (2018) compared with the 'acceptable' methods. My first instinct was he added on agents fees, however the actual figures for those seasons were £0.3m, £2.0m and £2.2m. So it can't be that. Most of our business is done in the summer. The accounts therefore give a good indication of what we spent by looking at the "post balance sheet events" section (which includes EFL levies and agents' fees)

Based on the accounts more accurate upfront figures would be:
2016 - £27.24m
2017 - £17.03m
2018 - £12.76m

Over that 3 year period, transfermarkt is only out by £200k (estimating winter signings at the transfermarkt values).

I made the assumption of summer sales not having an amortisation charge against them for the upcoming year? Even if I've got that wrong, KM is still £6m too high.

I will certainly go with yours and look no further- in addition, to work it up to 2023/24 is outstanding!

Only one I might query would be Weimann, simply as it took place after June 2018- or was that in the 2017/18 accounts? Definitely would have bumped up the Ince profit, I expect- being sold after 1 year his RV might well have still been close to the full amount.

Some huge work done on it, very impressive. The difference in Amortisation to look at here I assume is between Derby and Extension?

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

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I will certainly go with yours and look no further- in addition, to work it up to 2023/24 is outstanding!

Only one I might query would be Weimann, simply as it took place after June 2018- or was that in the 2017/18 accounts? Definitely would have bumped up the Ince profit, I expect- being sold after 1 year his RV might well have still been close to the full amount.

Some huge work done on it, very impressive. The difference in Amortisation to look at here I assume is between Derby and Extension?

Based on a quick Google search, Weimann was on the 3rd of July. Based on a couple of our sales (such as Ince) which completed on similar dates, I belive his sale falls into the previous season.

It should be Derby vs Extension but figures won't be massively out if you use original instead.

I should point out, that I think the figures stated in the accounts include add-ons (I certainly hope so!). Total potential add-ons in 17/18 about £13m. I would therefore assume that our amortisation in following years should be lower than estiamte due to not paying out on promotion bonuses and appearance fees? That may explain why the Hearing Decison Document stated amortisation is £25.1m for 19/20 as we had to calculate a 'worst case scenario' - meaning paying out for promotion? It'll still be above £15m either way

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I should point out, that I think the figures stated in the accounts include add-ons (I certainly hope so!). Total potential add-ons in 17/18 about £13m. I would therefore assume that our amortisation in following years should be lower than estiamte due to not paying out on promotion bonuses and appearance fees? That may explain why the Hearing Decison Document stated amortisation is £25.1m for 19/20 as we had to calculate a 'worst case scenario' - meaning paying out for promotion? It'll still be above £15m either way

The original intangible cost figures in the accounts for new signings in the year won't include any add-ons potentially payable, only the original fee.  The figures in Note 20 of the accounts you refer to are not in the intangible cost figures in the accounts presented, they are known costs, but they may not occur in part or in full so are included as 'Contingent Liabilities'.

image.png.34666485772632998ed05c58fd4d7ae4.png

As to the numbers above the following intangible additions are shown in the accounts (in £ millions), these include the fees and levies, and any add-ons paid out in respect of previous year transactions.

2015/16 - 29.96

2016/17 - 21.15

2017/18 - 15.0

These are the figures which will need to be written off through amortisation, subject to any disposals of those players.  The difference to your figures appears to be significant, and at fisrt glance probably accounts for the difference that you have with Kieran Magurie.

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

It's like a miniature version of what the Glazer's did at Man Utd, isn't it?

That's obviously the way that the Americans approach all of these leveraged buyouts.

Probably a very clever way of making money, when not actually investing any of your own.

Edited by ncnsbcfc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I will certainly go with yours and look no further- in addition, to work it up to 2023/24 is outstanding!

Only one I might query would be Weimann, simply as it took place after June 2018- or was that in the 2017/18 accounts? Definitely would have bumped up the Ince profit, I expect- being sold after 1 year his RV might well have still been close to the full amount.

Some huge work done on it, very impressive. The difference in Amortisation to look at here I assume is between Derby and Extension?

@Mr Popodopolous

I've tried to find other Championship clubs 2019-20 results. 

Only a few clubs seem to have posted them so far.

Are we one of the few clubs that stick to the rule in this regard (posting results on time)?

Difficult to see where we are financially against our peers; when everything is based on 2018-19 results.

As others have said, some still haven't posted 18-19 figures; and there seems to be no comeback from auditors/EFL over that.

At least we've been up front with our position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

 

So I'm a Guardian journalist and I am bored so I will write a non-story and dress it up as something else.  I can't read and understand what is detailed on Companies House, but I use that as a source to justify my meaningless conclusions.

"That makes it difficult not to conclude that just to pay for ALK to take over, the club is now approximately £90m worse off, with interest to pay"

Or as an alternative the club is utilising it's cash resources by getting a far better rate of return than it was under the old management, so in fact the company is better off.  But that doesn't suit me as a Guardian journalist so I won't explain how that may have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ncnsbcfc said:

@Mr Popodopolous

I've tried to find other Championship clubs 2019-20 results. 

Only a few clubs seem to have posted them so far.

Are we one of the few clubs that stick to the rule in this regard (posting results on time)?

Difficult to see where we are financially against our peers; when everything is based on 2018-19 results.

As others have said, some still haven't posted 18-19 figures; and there seems to be no comeback from auditors/EFL over that.

At least we've been up front with our position.

We certainly have!

A few clubs have...Norwich, Hull, Birmingham (in Hong Kong consolidated), Wigan (disposed but as per £20m loss in Hong Kong consolidated). With respect to submission, clubs (like all such companies) get 9 months from the end of the Reporting Period- usually May or June, and Government gave all a 3 month extension but many took advantage so 12 months from Reporting Date.

The Football League themselves get results with respect to 2019/20 in advance of the public/Companies House, ball is started to be rolling with the Projected Accounts which are usually pretty accurate then it seems if there is a question mark they check in again but the Process is ongoing and can be revisited within the relevant 3 year period- possibly beyond, I certainly think there are bits about Aston Villa that would merit a second look if and when they return!

Ah yes, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday- with reference to the bolded bit. Haha, their auditors- let's just leave it at that! I can only assume that the Football League have some data for the two clubs in question, but in the case of Sheffield Wednesday I'm not so sure- their company structure is a hard one to unpick, I think clubs who don't submit in the right time frame, should have some kind of automatic transfer embargo, open ended and rolling yet open to review subject to conditions, in its scope.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We certainly have!

A few clubs have...Norwich, Hull, Birmingham (in Hong Kong consolidated), Wigan (disposed but as per £20m loss in Hong Kong consolidated). With respect to submission, clubs (like all such companies) get 9 months from the end of the Reporting Period- usually May or June, and Government gave all a 3 month extension but many took advantage so 12 months from Reporting Date.

The Football League themselves get results with respect to 2019/20 in advance of the public/Companies House, ball is started to be rolling with the Projected Accounts which are usually pretty accurate then it seems if there is a question mark they check in again but the Process is ongoing and can be revisited within the relevant 3 year period- possibly beyond, I certainly think there are bits about Aston Villa that would merit a second look if and when they return!

Ah yes, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday- with reference to the bolded bit. Haha, their auditors- let's just leave it at that! I can only assume that the Football League have some data for the two clubs in question, but in the case of Sheffield Wednesday I'm not so sure- their company structure is a hard one to unpick, I think clubs who don't submit in the right time frame, should have some kind of automatic transfer embargo, open ended and rolling yet open to review subject to conditions, in its scope.

Pearce was asked about the accounts on Radio Derby the other day. He said ours haven’t been filed due to the ongoing EFL P&S case, and depending on the outcome may have to make adjustments. It makes sense, but couldn't we submit the accounts as they are, then make adjustments (if required) in the following accounts?
Still doesn't explain Sheff Weds.

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

37 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Pearce was asked about the accounts on Radio Derby the other day. He said ours haven’t been filed due to the ongoing EFL P&S case, and depending on the outcome may have to make adjustments. It makes sense, but couldn't we submit the accounts as they are, then make adjustments (if required) in the following accounts?
Still doesn't explain Sheff Weds.

Yeah, I did wonder about that bit- and even if the club and Sevco accounts as a whole cannot be submitted for this reason, how about e.g. any of Club DCFC, Stadia DCFC or DCFC Academy Limited- Sevco 5112, Gellaw Newco 203 and the club might be waiting but why the others have not materialised is a bit of a puzzle- they're quite small companies so wouldn't take a huge amount of time to do and then adjust, if indeed any adjustments required for these.

Sheffield Wednesday is a great mystery- maybe the Instalments plan ie how Hillsborough sale was structured posing an issue. I'm still trying to work out if they have somehow pulled a loophole which sees them come out in summer 2021 for last season and 2018/19- SWFC/Sheffield Wednesday Holdings Limited, is based in Hong Kong. Not a listed company ie on HKSE so whether any accounts are published is unclear.

The situation as I understand it:

  1. 2017/18 Accounts- Company in control listed as that HK company.
  2. Sheffield 3 Limited purchased Hillsborough for £60m.
  3. Sheffield 5 Limited is the controlling company of Sheffield 3 Limited...but wait, there's more.

Part 2.

  1. Sheffield 4 Limited was in the first place the controlling company of Sheffield 3 Limited.
  2. On 28th June 2019- which was the day the Stadium sale was listed at Land Registry, the day the club accounts were signed too, we had the following message- appearing identically on both Sheffield 2 and Sheffield 4:

Both received for filing on 08/07/2019, as per CH, both had the date or period during which shares are allotted- 28th June 2019- there's that date again! Was as follows:

Quote

Non-cash Consideration

"SHARES ALLOTTED IN CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE ENTIRE SHARE CAPITAL OF SWFC HOLDINGS LIMITED".

It was transferred to both though- Sheffield 4 of course was wound up voluntarily.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12062155

It's all very murky but believe the consolidated results might lie within Sheffield 2 Limited- unclear if that's for 2019/20 onwards. If they do lie within that, then maybe the Hillsborough sale and leaseback might have been a subsidiary to subsidiary sale- cancel out the Profit on Hillsborough? Still some missing pieces of the jigsaw however! None of Sheffield Wednesday FC, Sheffield 2 Limited, Sheffield 3 Limited and Sheffield 5 Limited have yet released accounts- unclear which is and isn't within the group.

Maybe they were consolidated then unconsolidated- like a magic trick, now you see it- now you don't! Which wouldn't fly for P&S purposes if the Stadium is still a material part of operations etc.

Though SWFC Holdings Limited still listed as active over in Hong Kong... ? Club website and each of Sheffield 2 and Sheffield 3 just points to Chansiri being in charge but the creation and then sudden winding up of Sheffield 4 Limited...the confirmation statement for 2019 though shows it to be SWFC Holdings Limited and no update for 2020 means no change?

Talking of the Hong Kong company, the club accounts state "Sheffield Wednesday Holdings Limited" whereas the company accounts above state "SWFC Holdings Limited". Could be semantics, but then there doesn't seem to be a second company- can only find for SWFC Holdings Limited" rather than "Sheffield Wednesday Holdings Limited" so far!

Any ideas @Owl Visiting on the structure etc? Seems somewhat sketchy with a mix of all these subsidiaries, one possibly two Hong Kong based companies though I assume it's the same one but worded differently, and how separated out the Sheffield companies are from the overall group- if at all?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May as well go back into this. Couple of bits of football finance related stuff at this level.

Firstly- the FFP/P&S system is still in play albeit in its amended form. Matt Hughes in the Daily Mail Ahead of the Game last week says that for Reading and Stoke there could be trouble ahead!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9255691/AHEAD-GAME-Premier-Leagues-sporting-directors-form-WhatsApp-group.html

Found the snippet from the Stoke forum.

a7542693be956aeff0a82e8e6f0785b6.jpg

You called this quite well @Hxj

Last Summer after or during the Derby stuff you mentioned these two clubs- I thought Reading would be but I'm a bit surprised by Stoke given a) The numbers of loans out and b) Parachute Payments!

The second bit of news is Birmingham- they seem to be well and truly on the right track for FFP now. Selling big- but notably I heard that their wage bill is now £18-19m which is a fall of 50% from 2017/18 and their absurd £37.5m and Amortisation only £1-2m!

Forecast to only have £6.5m losses this season- bear in mind this is a non revenue season due to Covid but also includes the Profit on Bellingham- and on a secondary level, Harding, Spanish striker and midfielder sold to Millwall. Further, as the HK accounts suggested their losses last season were £18m- Credit where it's due! Maybe even to the EFL and their Business Plan!

They said that wages of £18-19m, usual Revenue in a non Covid season about £24m- that's a huge transformation off the pitch if true- now what isn't clear is if that is Playing Budget, or club wages- if it includes employer PAYE tax and pension or if that's before those contributions.

Still though, it's a huge improvement and credit where it is due.

I'd argue the Sheffield Wednesday case was a partial victory, partial loss. The individual charges fell away and the deduction halved for some weird reason but 6 points and doubtless oversight in the market. Shouldn't have been halved though.

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

On 18/02/2021 at 18:39, Mr Popodopolous said:

You called this quite well @Hxj

Last Summer after or during the Derby stuff you mentioned these two clubs- I thought Reading would be but I'm a bit surprised by Stoke given a) The numbers of loans out and b) Parachute Payments!

Thank you @Mr Popodopolous or maybe they just read my post and stole it!

The problem with Stoke is the £50 odd million they spent in 2017/18 on players in their first season back in the Championship.  The 'Something or Bust' sensation is a lesson to all the 'Spend - Spend - Spend' posters on here.  At the end of 2018/19 they had intangible player assets of £80 million with amortisation running at £25 million a year.  How successful have Afobe, Ince, Vokes etc been for Stoke?  The amount that they needed to write off their players for 2019/20 and onwards is more than the remaining value of their parachute payments.

As an aside the charge documents for Birmingham City provided some interesting details on how transfers are funded.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems Sheffield Wednesday have published their 2018/19 accounts. @Davefevs @downendcity @Hxj @Lrrr

Had a quick scan of Kieran Maguire's summary! £19m PROFIT, brought about by the Stadium Sale being rolled forward to the following season/year.

Also £6-7m in the form of a confidential payment. Presumably that'd be for Steve Bruce and co to Newcastle.

Chansiri said in one of his may rambling briefings first year rent free so I assume that zero rent for that season.

Not even looked at them properly yet but the big takeaway is Profit through Stadium Sale being rolled forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had a quick look. Basically SWFC Holdings is the controlling party, Sheffield 2 Limited controls that and Chansiri controls that.

What I still can't work out is, and remember the Sheffield Wednesday controlling Party at Companies House and confirmation statement too didn't state this, so I wonder if there is any chance that Sheffield 3 falls under SWFC Holdings which can eliminate on consolidation.

Sheffield 2, Sheffield 3 and Sheffield 5 Accounts- not out yet- maybe would show more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BTRFTG @chinapig @CyderInACan might also be interested in their latest financial dealings.

"Accidentally" putting the Stadium sale in the wrong year to begin with...feels like an FRC matter to me, potentially.

That aside, worth noting that the 2017/18 accounts were 14 months so adjusted for that purpose.

https://www.swfc.co.uk/news/2021/march/annual-accounts-published/

Seems like they're fine for FFP as it stands unfortunately but I'm not sure the EFL should accept this so readily given that their deduction was halved despite not getting it done in time- the tariff showed 12 points, let alone escalating losses etc.

 

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

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@BTRFTG @chinapig @CyderInACan might also be interested in their latest financial dealings.

"Accidentally" putting the Stadium sale in the wrong year to begin with...feels like an FRC matter to me, potentially.

That aside, worth noting that the 2017/18 accounts were 14 months so adjusted for that purpose.

https://www.swfc.co.uk/news/2021/march/annual-accounts-published/

Seems like they're fine for FFP as it stands unfortunately but I'm not sure the EFL should accept this so readily given that their deduction was halved despite not getting it done in time- the tariff showed 12 points, let alone escalating losses etc.

 

Not remotely surprising as, has been previously identified, the club didn't own the stadium on the claimed selling date.

Haven't bothered to look but in these accounts were they still claiming to gave banked all proceeds upfront cf what FRS requires? That itself is a con given there's no guarantee the monies will ever be paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Not remotely surprising as, has been previously identified, the club didn't own the stadium on the claimed selling date.

Haven't bothered to look but in these accounts were they still claiming to gave banked all proceeds upfront cf what FRS requires? That itself is a con given there's no guarantee the monies will ever be paid.

The correct Accounting Treatment then? I still wonder if the EFL will take a view...

Instalments- £7.5m now and £52.5m or maybe it's £7.5m, £7.5m banked with £45m still to come. Have read elsewhere that it is offsetting of loans already made by Chansiri.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The correct Accounting Treatment then? I still wonder if the EFL will take a view...

Instalments- £7.5m now and £52.5m or maybe it's £7.5m, £7.5m banked with £45m still to come. Have read elsewhere that it is offsetting of loans already made by Chansiri.

I haven't looked this time but in their original, qualified accounts, I think they claimed receipt of the total value of the stadium sale (sic)  for FFP purposes whilst at the time not having banking a penny. I'm assuming for FFP one isn't allowed to utilise monies that may, or may not, be advanced in future accounting periods? That would make a complete mockery of what's already a farce. Clubs could agree to transfer players with compulsory buy back to resolve any overspend in any reporting period.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nottingham Forest.

It's complicated as this and last season are averaged and halved. I expect their allowable costs are between £4-5m per season. I'll be fair, they do sell players on a regular basis- though some Academy product with minimal gametime- Appiah- to Almeria for £8m I think it was, is curious.

2017/18 Losses- £5,596,000 HOWEVER included £5m of Loan Write Off which doesn't count towards FFP. I'll assume Marinakis tops them up to the Upper rather than the Lower Loss Limits- so their FFP losses I expect £5,596,000 to £6,596,000 for that season.

2018/19 Losses- A whopping £25,115,000 and that was despite/inclusive of a Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations of £10,558,000.

2019/20 Losses- A smaller £15,947,000- albeit despite/inclusive of the £11,253,000 in Profit Disposal of Player Registrations. Unsure how to account for the Debt Write off as well- £5m again- could be from past owner or current? Let's assume it's excluded.

In summary, they're fine for 3 years to 2019 and 3 years to 2020. Maybe Income loss in 2019/20 attributable to Covid £3m?

If we then look at the picture going into this season ie the Combined average of this and last year as 'T' then...

Say it's £5m in Allowable Costs in a given year. 

T-2, 2017/18- P&S Loss=£5,596,000.

T-1, 2018/19- P&S Loss=£20,115,000.

Means they can lose an average- for P&S- of £13,298,000 over this and last season. In practice that's an Accounting Loss of say £18,298,000.

Last year it was £15,947,000- am assuming that £5m in Allowable Costs but also that the Debt Write Off excluded.

Therefore their P&S Loss for this season maybe £15m? Unsure which Costs specifically are excluded for Covid and this will affect all clubs but a loss of maybe £22m in Accounting terms and they are in breach.

Even if they don't breach this year, assuming that a) The rules don't materially change and b) The roll-up remains, their new starting point will be the £20,115,000 P&S loss in 2018/19. Tricky! Lamouchi sacking will cost as well...

Tbh still need to try and calculate precisely the combined average for this year but it looks like they're not heading towards calmer waters.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I haven't looked this time but in their original, qualified accounts, I think they claimed receipt of the total value of the stadium sale (sic)  for FFP purposes whilst at the time not having banking a penny. I'm assuming for FFP one isn't allowed to utilise monies that may, or may not, be advanced in future accounting periods? That would make a complete mockery of what's already a farce. Clubs could agree to transfer players with compulsory buy back to resolve any overspend in any reporting period.

As far as I can tell, it's payable in Instalments- Cash Flow whereas it hits the P&L in one hit.

Interested to know how the Compulsory buyback idea would work? Hits the Balance Sheet in Amortisation, ie Straight Line so I don't see how in that respect- but in theory depending on certain aspects...

I still look at their Corporate Structure and wonder if the Hillsborough sale and leaseback should be adjusted out- IF Sheffield 3 or Sheffield 5 Limited are part of the overall group, it cancels out at a Group level and is adjusted out of the results. Still some investigating for the EFL do do IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I still look at their Corporate Structure and wonder if the Hillsborough sale and leaseback should be adjusted out-

In theory any stadium sale, if correctly accounted for, should adjust out (if one has correctly reflected the value of the asset and disposed of it at the correct market valuation there is no profit, though we know what game folks make in valuing bespoke assets.)  Not sure what FFP says but swopping assets for income should not be reflected as a measure of financial prudence.

Given FFP exists wholly to keep the status quo at the very top of the tree and has had, demonstrably,  no impact on improving financial prudence, it should be scrapped forthwith.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WarksRobin said:

The plot thickens...

Derventio Holdings wanted to buy Wayne Rooney’s Derby County but Morris was only prepared to see them Derby County!

  • Flames 2
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...