The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

Nottingham Forest. No accounts yet but I wonder how their figures look in light of this £5m Covid cap.

Let's assume £2.5m per season spread evenly over the 2 seasons. Frankly £5m over 2 seasons is £5m over 2 seasons, regardless of how you slice it.

Remember too, loan write offs are excluded from P&S. After say 50% of Covid allowance but before usual allowables I make it £19.5-20m before 2020/21 arises. SwissRamble has detail! £6m a year in allowables maybe?

Middlesbrough. £35m or thereabouts in 2019/20 alone...SwissRamble estimated £4m in Covid Costs for the season alone, £7m in P&S.  £24m but then if you add £1.5m pro rata back in then their accounts look a bit more interesting though a £9m P&S profit in 2018/19 might make it okay to this season!!

That extra £2.5m for this season will be welcome for everyone (even Derby and Reading).

Cardiff fans are very bullish but surely Year 2 of Parachute Payments to Solidarity is a plummet of £30m in a season. With a £55.5m Upper Loss Limit to this year, I expect them to be fine but to next year this drops to £39m.

2018/19- £35m, PL

2019/20- £13m, Championship

2020/21- £13m, Championship

2021/22- £13m, Championship

£35m + £13m + £13m + £13m/4 x 3=£55.5m.

Then

2019/20- £13m, Championship

2020/21- £13m, Championship

2021/22- £13m, Championship

2022/23- £13m, Championship

£13m + £13m + £13m + £13m=£52m/4 x 3=£39m.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Can't speak for anyone else but save for those who have fallen foul to this season, I see a lot less chat on rival boards about the issue interestingly.

Now part of ths is my fault, I have banged on about it for some time

Fans aside however, what us striking is how little other clubs and execs are talking about it. 

We've speculated who may have a tight spot or breach next year but a few strong candidates for this appear not to acknowledge the risk publicly. .compare and contrast with Richard Gould and to an extent Jon Lansdown.

Gould especially has been openly speaking about the risk of points deductions. He's the only executive to do so this year however of those who may breach.

Oh yeah in our worked example, the Covid losses might read as:

£5m over 2 seasons- Automatic

Conservative- a further £5-7m in lost revenue.

Moderate- A further £8-10m in lost revenue

High end- A further £12-13m in lost revenue.

Baseline £5m, thereafter clubs can claim.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[NcnsBcfc]

On 17/02/2022 at 19:12, Mr Popodopolous said:

I might also add, on Stoke- plenty on us and I fear if we don't sell players then trouble is ahead.

I did some estimates on their Covid position- prior to Covid these remain IRL but subsequently with this news...

£88m LOSS

MINUS- £7M in allowable costs.

Minus- well it's £5m over 2 years, should we credit £5m to Year 1 and disregard Year 2 or spread it evenly over the term- let's say £2.5m.

Although you also disregard the £30m in Covid Impairment or can you add that back to the Profit and Loss??

One early and quick estimate is a rise to £48.5m in 2019/20 alone.

Upper Loss Limit seems to be £55.5m still...which added to £23m + £8m=needing no more than a £0.5m FFP loss in 2020/21. Might not have that quite right tbh...

How do we account for their £30m in claimed Covid amortisation Impairment, is the big question in light of these amendments.

Thanks @Mr Popodopolous.

I was going to ask about this concept of covid impairment.

Seems to me that a number of clubs that have published their results so far, have included large amounts under this form of proviso (Stoke and Derby spring to mind, but there will be others of course).

Stoke seem very bullish that this will get through, even after the EFL passed their own regulations update on the £5m impairment.

I'm confused as to how any club next year can be bought up on breaching FFP if others have just thrown caution to the wind, and come up with their own figures.

If that was the case, let's intergrate our own £20m loss into our own figures, and go along the Stoke et al lines.

Or am i missing something?

[Greedo]

HL taken a battering 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-22/hargreaves-sinks-most-on-record-as-pandemic-recovery-saps-demand

[Mr Popodopolous]

43 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Thanks @Mr Popodopolous.

I was going to ask about this concept of covid impairment.

Seems to me that a number of clubs that have published their results so far, have included large amounts under this form of proviso (Stoke and Derby spring to mind, but there will be others of course).

Stoke seem very bullish that this will get through, even after the EFL passed their own regulations update on the £5m impairment.

I'm confused as to how any club next year can be bought up on breaching FFP if others have just thrown caution to the wind, and come up with their own figures.

If that was the case, let's intergrate our own £20m loss into our own figures, and go along the Stoke et al lines.

Or am i missing something?

Those were Stoke's numbers for 2019/20 alone, £30m in Player Impairment!? On another thread, @AnotherDerbyFan says that as per Rick Parry the £5m is initial ie free to all, but that further loss claims can be put in and presumably assessed later. ie Everyone gets £5m in the 2 years and £2.5m this season, no questions asked- so that £5m cap seems fluid and that's fine for typical revenue hits- Gate receipts, season tickets, TV cash, if a club doesn't utilise furlough the cost of paying wages throughout and so on.

Derby have already been punished but haven't released any accounts publicly for never mind last year, but going on 3 years!? Last released April 2019, for account to June 2018- goes for club, parent, top co and all subsidiaries or similar.

Stoke however are a totally different kettle of fish. £7-8m in usual looking Covid costs which is fine but the £30m Player Impairment looks all wrong in light of the EFL vote last week.

It's possible that they will try and add more Covid Player Impairment to their 2020/21 accounts which are due at CH within a week or so- it's £30m and counting! They are the one and only club at our level (Everton in PL) to have done this in 2019/20.

I think being conservative our genuine 2 seasons revenue hit could be considered £10-12m, at the other end the most perhaps £18m. Stoke laid out their normal categories which seemed alright but it's the Covid Player Impairment I have a great issue with at this stage..

This approach seeks to exclude the amortisation from the FFP/P&S calculations entirely. If Impaired in the usual way it would turn a £43m P&S loss in 2019/2020 into a £73m one. Spreading it back across 2-3 years would be complex but perhaps a fairer reflection, they can put x in the accounts but as we've seen with Derby, the accounts can be reviewed and if required, revised for consistency from an FFP perspective.

I have long had a slight nagging feeling that club after club will have attempted a loophole or lucked out outrageously (Cardiff Sala write back if they win their case) and then we will be left carrying the can for an easy to verify fail), along with perhaps Reading and if it follows them down or they come up, maybe Sheffield Wednesday (again).

If what the Derby fan says is accurate and it's £5m plus application to include verifiable losses...how it might look for us additional loss application wise over the last 2 seasons before this.

£5-7m- Conservative

£8-10m- Moderate

£12-13m- Top end

This is regular revenue falls, not cynical nonsense such as Covid Player Impairment that Stoke are suggesting.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Mr Pops - worth listening to Kieran’s latest pod…out yesterday.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Thanks Dave.

Haven't listened to podcasts for a while but will make time today or tomorrow.

[NcnsBcfc]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Mr Pops - worth listening to Kieran’s latest pod…out yesterday.

What does he deal with on it @Davefevs?

[Davefevs]

Just now, NcnsBcfc said:

What does he deal with on it @Davefevs?

Bit about the new covid allowances, but also Derby, that they are whining without justification.

[NcnsBcfc]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Those were Stoke's numbers for 2019/20 alone, £30m in Player Impairment!? On another thread, @AnotherDerbyFan says that as per Rick Parry the £5m is initial ie free to all, but that further loss claims can be put in and presumably assessed later. ie Everyone gets £5m in the 2 years and £2.5m this season, no questions asked- so that £5m cap seems fluid and that's fine for typical revenue hits- Gate receipts, season tickets, TV cash, if a club doesn't utilise furlough the cost of paying wages throughout and so on.

Derby have already been punished but haven't released any accounts publicly for never mind last year, but going on 3 years!? Last released April 2019, for account to June 2018- goes for club, parent, top co and all subsidiaries or similar.

Stoke however are a totally different kettle of fish. £7-8m in usual looking Covid costs which is fine but the £30m Player Impairment looks all wrong in light of the EFL vote last week.

It's possible that they will try and add more Covid Player Impairment to their 2020/21 accounts which are due at CH within a week or so- it's £30m and counting! They are the one and only club at our level (Everton in PL) to have done this in 2019/20.

I think being conservative our genuine 2 seasons revenue hit could be considered £10-12m, at the other end the most perhaps £18m. Stoke laid out their normal categories which seemed alright but it's the Covid Player Impairment I have a great issue with at this stage..

This approach seeks to exclude the amortisation from the FFP/P&S calculations entirely. If Impaired in the usual way it would turn a £43m P&S loss in 2019/2020 into a £73m one. Spreading it back across 2-3 years would be complex but perhaps a fairer reflection, they can put x in the accounts but as we've seen with Derby, the accounts can be reviewed and if required, revised for consistency from an FFP perspective.

I have long had a slight nagging feeling that club after club will have attempted a loophole or lucked out outrageously (Cardiff Sala write back if they win their case) and then we will be left carrying the can for an easy to verify fail), along with perhaps Reading and if it follows them down or they come up, maybe Sheffield Wednesday (again).

If what the Derby fan says is accurate and it's £5m plus application to include verifiable losses...how it might look for us additional loss application wise over the last 2 seasons before this.

£5-7m- Conservative

£8-10m- Moderate

£12-13m- Top end

This is regular revenue falls, not cynical nonsense such as Covid Player Impairment that Stoke are suggesting.

This is the issue though. If a large number are going to try to pull a metaphorical fast one. I'm not sure how the EFL can apply a ruling; when so much is up in the air.

It's not like the Derby/Reading situations that are a lot more clear cut in a way.

[Davefevs]

Preston’s results in.

No FFP panic at Deepdale.  They even got a Business Interruption Insurance payout!

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had a quick look at it early- think Blackburn may have had that too, we'll see in the fullness of time but don't think many clubs did take it on!

Another interesting item when I looked a bit further down appears to be rental income, wonder what that relates to... as for FFP, reckon their allowable costs must be £2-3m per year? They are not really a club I've considered in depth because I've never had them down as likely to breach thusfar. Still don't.

Last time SwissRamble assessed them properly, he had P&S allowances at £2m per season. £2-3m unless any significant changes since seems okay.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Their losses are trending upwards though...yes I know Covid has played a part but before allowances for FFP and Covid, the following pattern is worth considering but again I doubt they breach. Pre tax of course is the initial starting point before allowances and so on.

First set

1. 2015/16- £4,417,000- LOSS
2. 2016/17- £2,856,000- LOSS
3. 2017/18- £1,933,000- PROFIT

Next set...

1. 2018/19- £14,326,000- LOSS
2. 2019/20- £10,109,000- LOSS
3. 2020/21- £17.529,000- LOSS

Could be one to watch in the coming years but maybe they will go and save a bit in the near future?

Edited February 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Should also add and nobody would have thought any less had they not done so but credit too- not necessarily an FFP note but it appears that they didn't utilise furlough!

You'd expect it from a PL club but that is quite impressive given their turnover etc.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Their losses are trending upwards though...yes I know Covid has played a part but before allowances for FFP and Covid, the following pattern is worth considering but again I doubt they breach. Pre tax of course is the initial starting point before allowances and so on.

First set

1. 2015/16- £4,417,000- LOSS
2. 2016/17- £2,856,000- LOSS
3. 2017/18- £1,933,000- PROFIT

Next set...

1. 2018/19- £14,326,000- LOSS
2. 2019/20- £10,109,000- LOSS
3. 2020/21- £17.529,000- LOSS

Could be one to watch in the coming years but maybe they will go and save a bit in the near future?

Whose accounts are those?

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Whose accounts are those?

Preston. Using the Preston North End Limited as the parent, think the ultimate parent is Deepdale PNE Holdings Limited which isn't out yet.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01621060

Edited February 24, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Saw a snippet on the Stoke forum- a prediction of £40m losses in 2020/21.

Based on a rough extrapolation, there were about 2.4 months perhaps in the period to May 31st 2020 lost to Covid- I could be more precise but their more conventional Covid costs/losses were put down as around £8m from memory. A rough extrapolation suggests £38-40m in 2020/21, a full 12 month period.

This would mean and this is independent of any further attempted Covid player write-downs, that Stoke are perhaps trying to claim as much as £78m in Covid costs over the 2 years when we add that £30m suggested Player Impairment back!

Obviously their annual costs still seem like £7m per season for FFP but...well if that's anything like accurate that and particularly the Player Impairment side cannot be allowed to rest- not when we consider how we to name one are scrimping and saving- their accounts are not out yet it's just an estimate but the basic sums might look a bit like...

£88m loss plus £40m loss=£128m

Minus £48m in regular Covid costs

Minus £30m in Covid Player Impairment- plus whatever they try and put into 2020/21- £10-15m maybe?

One estimate of that would be to take Covid claimed costs to £88-93m over the 2 seasons.

Minus £7m x 2 in FFP costs.

Would still leave a loss of £36m for FFP but as we all know, halved as 1 year=2...£18m. If there is a further £10-15m in there, it might lop £~5-7.5m off the combined aggregate/average.

Time will tell but a rough extrapolation of £8m in Year 1 does take it to £38-40m in Year 2 and the combined aggregate is easy to make an initial case for, based on how it's been laid out...the much bigger and more contentious issue is the £30m and maybe more last year of Covid Player Impairment!

Like I say, the first bits seem reasonable or debatable- the final bit is unique among clubs in 2019/20 at our level and indeed the clubs governed by P&S- possible exception with Everton in the PL.

Their accounts- along with Cardiff- okay Barnsley and Coventry too but no FFP issues there- are due out Monday! As are Birmingham's 6 months to the end of 2021.

Although, looking at Everton again it's still not certain that they have tried to exclude it from FFP- maybe it has been a Player Impairment to try and accelerate/front load the losses but still in the FFP calcs.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

As we know.

Barnsley, Cardiff, Coventry and Stoke are due this coming week. However! Possibly an interesting development in the case of the latter. Few might be interested- @Davefevs @AnotherDerbyFan  @NcnsBcfc @Hxj

Bit long and convoluted but anyway...

Some months ago, Bet365 reduced their Reporting Period to 2021- from 31st March 2021 to 30th March 2021. This ultimately sits above Stoke City Holdings but the latter is top co for FFP reporting but Bet365 includes within the numbers for Stoke.

Usually this would if running on the normal period mean that their- Bet365 accounts out at the end of 2021, start of 2022 but they have until 30th March 2022 to submit to CH. Possibly unrelated but..

Stoke City Property last year (owns the ground, training ground and maybe one or two other bits) extended its reporting Period from 31st March to 31st May 2021. To align with Stoke City FC Limited and Stoke City Holdings presumably.

Stoke City Limited doesn't own those two properties, Stoke City Property does- the club couldn't sell for FFP but the consolidator- Stoke City Holdings could.

Anyway to try and shorten a long story, it appears that the 3 Stoke companies- The Club, the Property company and the Consolidator, might have utilised a loophole, perhaps loophole 1 opened the door for the 2nd as it now says the due dates for accounts at CH which are Monday or have been Monday, now appear to be listed as 28th May 2022!

Not altogether sure which loophole it was but there are varying ways to delay disclosure in the public domain, think Kieran Maguire has referenced Mike Ashley's use in the past but an unusual development indeed..?

[Mr Popodopolous]

It could be a glitch in the CH system too of course..

..Or a cynic might wonder if it's an attempt to a) Scramble up via the playoffs before the EFL can assess in more detail and perhaps more significantly rival clubs can make their views known to the EFL. b) Can stall an an Embargo for late/nonsubmission of accounts to CH c) With that can negotiate with players with a bit more freedom owing to a not yet settled but technically not yet in breach position or d) Some mix of a)-c).

[Mr Popodopolous]

Plus, Reading's accounts out. We knew they were in breach anyway due to the ongoing suspended points etc.

£35.6m loss last season but do bear in mind that Renhe Sports Management might be the reporting entity...based on a (very) quick look and the fact that the average is combined I'm unsure how Reading got an overspend as high as £18m.

My assumption was that it was Reading FC in 2017/18 and Renhe Sports Management thereafter although this could be wrong.

Am assuming £5m per year in regular FFP allowances, maybe £6-8m in Covid costs given the revenue between years and of course the averaging...I just don't see a £57m adjusted P&S loss once all that done.

Possible some of my estimates are out of course.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[NcnsBcfc]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As we know.

Barnsley, Cardiff, Coventry and Stoke are due this coming week. However! Possibly an interesting development in the case of the latter. Few might be interested- @Davefevs @AnotherDerbyFan  @NcnsBcfc @Hxj

Bit long and convoluted but anyway...

Some months ago, Bet365 reduced their Reporting Period to 2021- from 31st March 2021 to 30th March 2021. This ultimately sits above Stoke City Holdings but the latter is top co for FFP reporting but Bet365 includes within the numbers for Stoke.

Usually this would if running on the normal period mean that their- Bet365 accounts out at the end of 2021, start of 2022 but they have until 30th March 2022 to submit to CH. Possibly unrelated but..

Stoke City Property last year (owns the ground, training ground and maybe one or two other bits) extended its reporting Period from 31st March to 31st May 2021. To align with Stoke City FC Limited and Stoke City Holdings presumably.

Stoke City Limited doesn't own those two properties, Stoke City Property does- the club couldn't sell for FFP but the consolidator- Stoke City Holdings could.

Anyway to try and shorten a long story, it appears that the 3 Stoke companies- The Club, the Property company and the Consolidator, might have utilised a loophole, perhaps loophole 1 opened the door for the 2nd as it now says the due dates for accounts at CH which are Monday or have been Monday, now appear to be listed as 28th May 2022!

Not altogether sure which loophole it was but there are varying ways to delay disclosure in the public domain, think Kieran Maguire has referenced Mike Ashley's use in the past but an unusual development indeed..?

Thanks @Mr Popodopolous

@Davefevs and i spoke about FFP after the FBC podcast the other day.

Unlike yourself, Dave; and possibly @Hxj i'm no accountant. But i think looking at FFP as a whole the fairest way is to increase the allowances over the 3 year period.

A PL club gets i believe about £90m over the 3 years of the PP upon relegation.

The championship is such an uncompetitive division because of these payments  in my opinion. The last team that arguably can say they got up to the PL the traditional way is perhaps Brentford (and Dave made the point, if they didn't go up last season, they would have had to change their approach).

The £39m threshold is far too low. In my view it should be closer to £60m. This would allow, some of the clubs to at least compete without the metaphorical one hand tied behind their back.

I don't think that is too large a figure, and would certainly still preclude certain teams trying unsuccessfully to buy themselves out of the division  like Fulham, Bournemouth, Villa, and others did.

When you see that as a club we are only allowed to lose £13m in a season (pro rata), and relegated clubs are going out and spending that on one player; you know that the EFL has been party to making this division an unpalatable one at times. 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Plus, Reading's accounts out. We knew they were in breach anyway due to the ongoing suspended points etc.

£35.6m loss last season but do bear in mind that Renhe Sports Management might be the reporting entity...based on a (very) quick look and the fact that the average is combined I'm unsure how Reading got an overspend as high as £18m.

My assumption was that it was Reading FC in 2017/18 and Renhe Sports Management thereafter although this could be wrong.

Am assuming £5m per year in regular FFP allowances, maybe £6-8m in Covid costs given the revenue between years and of course the averaging...I just don't see a £57m adjusted P&S loss once all that done.

Possible some of my estimates are out of course.

Just re-read the EFL decision.  The decision must’ve been based on actual accounts for 17/18, 18/19, 19/20 and projected for 20/21, hence the unaudited bit in the wording.  The “gross” losses for the 3 years were £30m, £12m, half of £45m (minus covid allowance) and now announced half of £35m (minus covid allowances).

Lets say they took their 2 x £5m allowances.

We are looking at £30m, £12m, half of £40m, half of £30m…..total £77m….therefore just have to remove 3 years of FFP excludables to get £57m “projected”.  I don’t think £6-7m x 3 (c£20m) is that out of the ordinary for a club with a Cat 1 academy.

So possibly, their latest accounts might mean no further sanction on the 6pts as it currently stands.

Of course the big question then becomes what we’re their projected accounts for this season 21/22, and how have they stuck to it?  Have they stuck to their £21m wage budget imposed?  They did get £8m for Olise.  Might squeeze in this season.  Can only assume EFL have been monitoring, as they allowed them to sign Ince, Hein on loan and Barker on a free…whilst Moore and Puskas left on loans, and Carroll and Rafael left permanently.

As it stands as an outsider looking in, it looks like the EFL have managed Reading well this season.  But we will see in any EFL response to the accounts just published or next season.

[Davefevs]

Thought I’d knock up the following for Reading….just to help explain the figures.

Will repeat for other clubs as and when.

[Davefevs]

Coventry showing how it can be done!

[Hxj]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Anyway to try and shorten a long story, it appears that the 3 Stoke companies- The Club, the Property company and the Consolidator, might have utilised a loophole, perhaps loophole 1 opened the door for the 2nd as it now says the due dates for accounts at CH which are Monday or have been Monday, now appear to be listed as 28th May 2022!

Not altogether sure which loophole it was but there are varying ways to delay disclosure in the public domain, think Kieran Maguire has referenced Mike Ashley's use in the past but an unusual development indeed..?

If you shorten the accounting period of a company, your filing date is the later of the original date and three months from the date that you tell Companies House of the change.  You have to tell them on or before the original filing date, so if you time it correctly you get another three months.

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 hours ago, Hxj said:

If you shorten the accounting period of a company, your filing date is the later of the original date and three months from the date that you tell Companies House of the change.  You have to tell them on or before the original filing date, so if you time it correctly you get another three months.

Thank you, that was the loophole that I was trying to remember. Although as per CH, Stoke don't appear to have reduced the Accounting Period, still says 31st May 2021.

Interesting to see if they take up that full 3 months- hope that the EFL are keeping a very close eye as £88m in losses albeit trying to frontload and then secondly exclude Impairment- minimum £30m- entirely...

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 hours ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Thanks @Mr Popodopolous

@Davefevs and i spoke about FFP after the FBC podcast the other day.

Unlike yourself, Dave; and possibly @Hxj i'm no accountant. But i think looking at FFP as a whole the fairest way is to increase the allowances over the 3 year period.

A PL club gets i believe about £90m over the 3 years of the PP upon relegation.

The championship is such an uncompetitive division because of these payments  in my opinion. The last team that arguably can say they got up to the PL the traditional way is perhaps Brentford (and Dave made the point, if they didn't go up last season, they would have had to change their approach).

The £39m threshold is far too low. In my view it should be closer to £60m. This would allow, some of the clubs to at least compete without the metaphorical one hand tied behind their back.

I don't think that is too large a figure, and would certainly still preclude certain teams trying unsuccessfully to buy themselves out of the division  like Fulham, Bournemouth, Villa, and others did.

When you see that as a club we are only allowed to lose £13m in a season (pro rata), and relegated clubs are going out and spending that on one player; you know that the EFL has been party to making this division an unpalatable one at times. 

When you say traditional way do you mean non parachute boosted? That aside yes the Parachute Payment issue creates a problem, although I would point out that West Brom after a strong start have slid into upper midtable and so far Bruce hasn't had a new manager bounce. Have a fairly thin squad too as did Bournemouth to an extent until their late January trolley dash.

I digress, that is a major advantage yes. A preferred solution of mine or at least one to explore in recent times has been to limit Parachute money in terms of counting towards FFP to the equivalent of Solidarity Payments only.

Not so much levelling up as levelling down, I suppose that might push the gap to the PL ever higher but clubs would then have a real onus to cut back and show restraint from Day One as FFP would loom larger in many cases which in turn should drive down wage inflation. 

I don't exactly know how it came into being but have read bits in recent years that it was linked to Solidarity Payments to the Football League the alignment of the two systems. Crucially the PL are supposed to enforce what the Football League want on newly promoted clubs who may have been in breach but I don't really see any evidence of this.

Higher losses could be good, unsure any club who has failed would have done so then although would clubs who pushed it with £39m have just upped their pushing it- but would go against the actual name of it..Profitability and Sustainability. Birch or Parry said that the current system is neither.

Just on the 2nd bit, surely forget the Profit for a minute, the portion that is Sustainable, a net breakeven or better cash flow section. By which I mean, always has to be breakeven at worst irrespective of the owner input, lack of cash is what does for Businesses often.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Update.

https://www.footballinsider247.com/west-brom-will-be-delighted-after-12-5m-confirmation-maguire/

Kieran Maguire says that it is now up to £5m per season for 2019/20, 2020/21 and £2.5m for this season.

Whether a side can spread it over the 2 seasons- eg they legitimately lost £3m in 2019/20 and 2020/21 was £7m=£10m or would it literally be...£3m of £5m=£3m, £5m cap, hit or exceeded=£5m therefore an £8m exclusion loss it is.

Better get reworking some spreadsheets tomorrow with the different scenarios...

Surely would knock on the head the idea of Stoke's £30m- and possibly rising- Covid Player Impairment claim.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Port Said Red]

12 hours ago, Hxj said:

If you shorten the accounting period of a company, your filing date is the later of the original date and three months from the date that you tell Companies House of the change.  You have to tell them on or before the original filing date, so if you time it correctly you get another three months.

The Company Sectretarial Administrator 'er indoors, has one company who use this loophole every year by shortenimg their period by one day. You can do it as many times as you like, but you can only extend the period once every 5 years.

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Just re-read the EFL decision.  The decision must’ve been based on actual accounts for 17/18, 18/19, 19/20 and projected for 20/21, hence the unaudited bit in the wording.  The “gross” losses for the 3 years were £30m, £12m, half of £45m (minus covid allowance) and now announced half of £35m (minus covid allowances).

Lets say they took their 2 x £5m allowances.

We are looking at £30m, £12m, half of £40m, half of £30m…..total £77m….therefore just have to remove 3 years of FFP excludables to get £57m “projected”.  I don’t think £6-7m x 3 (c£20m) is that out of the ordinary for a club with a Cat 1 academy.

So possibly, their latest accounts might mean no further sanction on the 6pts as it currently stands.

Of course the big question then becomes what we’re their projected accounts for this season 21/22, and how have they stuck to it?  Have they stuck to their £21m wage budget imposed?  They did get £8m for Olise.  Might squeeze in this season.  Can only assume EFL have been monitoring, as they allowed them to sign Ince, Hein on loan and Barker on a free…whilst Moore and Puskas left on loans, and Carroll and Rafael left permanently.

As it stands as an outsider looking in, it looks like the EFL have managed Reading well this season.  But we will see in any EFL response to the accounts just published or next season.

I think we might be looking at slightly different numbers although the unaudited bit yeah that is a sign of Projections. 

I was looking at Reading for 2017/18, then Renhe Sports Management thereafter- the latter gives an £11m or so accounting loss for 2018/19 owing to a difference in some Fixed Asset Sales.

As we recall in 2017/18, Reading seemed to 'sell' the Madjeski to Renhe then in 2018/19 it was the Stadium, the old Training Ground and some land all sold by Renhe- although the latter two were also in club accounts possibly, to external but all the same commonly owned companies. Now as far as I am concerned you can't include the Stadium Sale twice, if we exclude one of the two that might square the circle.

Also worth noting that in 2019/20, the Renhe Sports Management loss was IIRC £3m higher than the club one, if that pattern is repeated things start to align more.

They seem to be moving in the right direction as the wage bill dropped by £5.3m I think last season, the January activity will have helped although the 6 signings on loan will have offset that to an extent.

That Renhe vs Reading bit is what makes be move between a £13m on  one hand vs a £19m or £20m target for this season. Will be £13m or less target next year.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous