Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yes, sounds about right. My personal view on clubs who do not pay the wages is that a punishment needs to stick- lifting as soon as paid is just weak, weak, weak.

A harsher punishment due to unexpected takeover delays seems harsh to me. Mel was assured the takeover would complete on the 24th of December and the wage bill will be accounted for. If he knew he would have freed up some cash, but he didn't know so he didn't free it up. However, if an owner simply chooses not to pay the wages then that obviously required harsher punishment.

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I also believe clubs should be soft embargoed for not submitting accounts to Companies House in a timely manner, but unlike the first bit, this bit can be lifted fairly swiftly thereafter. There are two Championship clubs who are well overdue in this respect.

Seems to be in part due to the charges brought upon the two clubs by the EFL. I don't think it has a material impact on P&S submissions so does it really matter to the EFL?

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I mean- 4 year period but my reading is this?

  1. 2017-18- Year 1
  2. 2018-19- Year 2
  3. 2019 and 2020-21- Added then halved- Year 3. With Covid losses of course excluded/factored in.

Presumably then, you would get in 2021/22:

  1. 2018-19- Year 1
  2. 2019-20 and 2020-21 Added then halved, with Covid losses of course excluded/factored in. Year 2.
  3. 2021/22- Year 3.

If not, you would get some very bizarre P&S outcomes, with some clubs benefiting unduly and some clubs unable to fully utilise their 2018/19 profits! Not even sure it should have been averaged out plus Covid losses, surely Covid losses alone and the usual process up to 2019/20 would have sufficed.

I'm with you on the 2021 period but I assumed a move back to 3 years for 2022. I think the difference in P&S loss is only a couple of £million either way. Average AND Covid allowances is strange. There must be a reason for it?

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I assume they are still using the Parent as the basis for the P&S results. Which again is the right thing because Sevco 5112 represented the consolidated accounts.

The EFl will but for us who like to estimate the P&S losses is doesn't really matter if you use a correction value - something like an improvement of £7m from the group accounts or £3m worse than the club accounts over the 3 seasons.

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Those varied bolded bits suggest that the compensation was received in, or moved into 2018/19? 3 year aggregate figure for Adjusted Earnings before Tax fell by £617,000. No mention of the playoff final- but Compensation was reported at £4m or thereabouts IIRC.

Lampard officially joined Chelsea on the 4th of July. It's another of those in the first week of July which creeps into the previous accounting period for some reason - see Ince and Weimann(?) as examples in the past.

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Rent at £1.1m? £4.16m per season seems fairer by far for a transaction of that size. Regardless, I wonder if that £3.1m sensitivity pushed up the Forecast losses and these would therefore drop by the same amount at time of resolution.

I'm still surprised the EFL didn't push back on this one during the hearing. It would have been easier to win that than the stadium fee or amortisation charges.

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We see a huge spike into 2018/19 above. I appreciate wages will have been down too of course.

The small reconciliation in the year doesn't interest me too much, Derby would have been just about within P&S anyway IMO.

Yep. That's mostly due to the group of players who signed extensions in 18/19, only to leave in the very early part of 19/20, the fault with our amortisation policy - Johnson, Butterfield, Blackman, Anya and Huddlestone all left on frees in the 19/20 period after costing a combined c£20m.

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Does the amortisation drop off a cliff in 2020/21? We know Rooney was on £100,000 a week but that £80,000 a week was put into the income kitty by 32Red, IIRC. Bieilk- similar £20k per week, less? Clarke loan- less in the case of the latter I'd surmise.

I've estimated a drop to £15m in 20/21 (pending no extensions). This could decrease by almost half if Wisdom and Waghorn sign extensions though. Dropping again to £9m in 21/22 (pending no extensions), made up mostly from Lawrence and Marriott. Only Bielik and Jozwiak of significant book value beyond that, with their contracts currently set to expire in 2024.

Rooney's wages would be a complete guess. One source suggests the following for other players above £10k:

  • Lawrence - £30k
  • Davies - £25k
  • Wisdom - £23k
  • Clarke - £22k
  • Carson - 20k
  • Malone - £20k
  • Bielik - £20k
  • Marriott - £18k
  • Jozwiak - £15k
  • Byrne - £11k

It's hard to argue against those figures being too far out. Only those in bold are currently set to stay beyond this season. te Wierik was another supposedly in the £10k+ camp, but he's on his way back to the Netherlands. Marriott has also returned to Sheffield Wednesday on loan who will pick up most of his wages. Holmes off to Huddersfield for £1m and a small saving off the wage bill.

We'll have a tiny squad for next season at the moment. Marshall, Roos, Byrne, Evans, Forsyth, Bielik, Shinnie, Lawrence, Jozwiak, Ibe and Marriott are the only players with more than a season and a bit of experience to their names.

I don't think anyone can use the wage bill as a stick to beat the club with anymore. Same for transfers where fees received exceed fees going out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

A harsher punishment due to unexpected takeover delays seems harsh to me. Mel was assured the takeover would complete on the 24th of December and the wage bill will be accounted for. If he knew he would have freed up some cash, but he didn't know so he didn't free it up. However, if an owner simply chooses not to pay the wages then that obviously required harsher punishment.

Seems to be in part due to the charges brought upon the two clubs by the EFL. I don't think it has a material impact on P&S submissions so does it really matter to the EFL?

I'm with you on the 2021 period but I assumed a move back to 3 years for 2022. I think the difference in P&S loss is only a couple of £million either way. Average AND Covid allowances is strange. There must be a reason for it?

The EFl will but for us who like to estimate the P&S losses is doesn't really matter if you use a correction value - something like an improvement of £7m from the group accounts or £3m worse than the club accounts over the 3 seasons.

Lampard officially joined Chelsea on the 4th of July. It's another of those in the first week of July which creeps into the previous accounting period for some reason - see Ince and Weimann(?) as examples in the past.

I'm still surprised the EFL didn't push back on this one during the hearing. It would have been easier to win that than the stadium fee or amortisation charges.

Yep. That's mostly due to the group of players who signed extensions in 18/19, only to leave in the very early part of 19/20, the fault with our amortisation policy - Johnson, Butterfield, Blackman, Anya and Huddlestone all left on frees in the 19/20 period after costing a combined c£20m.

I've estimated a drop to £15m in 20/21 (pending no extensions). This could decrease by almost half if Wisdom and Waghorn sign extensions though. Dropping again to £9m in 21/22 (pending no extensions), made up mostly from Lawrence and Marriott. Only Bielik and Jozwiak of significant book value beyond that, with their contracts currently set to expire in 2024.

Rooney's wages would be a complete guess. One source suggests the following for other players above £10k:

  • Lawrence - £30k
  • Davies - £25k
  • Wisdom - £23k
  • Clarke - £22k
  • Carson - 20k
  • Malone - £20k
  • Bielik - £20k
  • Marriott - £18k
  • Jozwiak - £15k
  • Byrne - £11k

It's hard to argue against those figures being too far out. Only those in bold are currently set to stay beyond this season. te Wierik was another supposedly in the £10k+ camp, but he's on his way back to the Netherlands. Marriott has also returned to Sheffield Wednesday on loan who will pick up most of his wages. Holmes off to Huddersfield for £1m and a small saving off the wage bill.

We'll have a tiny squad for next season at the moment. Marshall, Roos, Byrne, Evans, Forsyth, Bielik, Shinnie, Lawrence, Jozwiak, Ibe and Marriott are the only players with more than a season and a bit of experience to their names.

I don't think anyone can use the wage bill as a stick to beat the club with anymore. Same for transfers where fees received exceed fees going out.

  

That bit feels fair enough. However I do believe in fixed penalties as a rule of thumb. See Chansiri at Sheffield Wednesday- there is or has been a wage issue there. Not waiting on a takeover but simply late...for me that should mean sitting out the January window, with respect to incomings. Have they fulfilled their obligations to Monk and Pulis yet, I wonder?

In part perhaps, in Sheffield Wednesday's case however these reached a final resolution in early November 2020. No excuse IMO. Derby are still I suppose waiting for the EFL appeal to come through.

Maybe, maybe not- I'd like to see stronger Governance in general though and such a move would certainly tighten it. As an aside, Birmingham do release their Hong Kong Group accounts bang on time, FFP or no FFP. Perhaps there are harsher punishments for late submission out there? :dunno:

It is odd. One or the other- if it does move back to a 3 year after averaging this time, it will mean that some clubs will benefit unduly- just to pick one club, we otoh might not because we wouldn't have had the 2017/18 drop off to utilise in full the 2018/19 profit of £10m plus allowable costs- to me, as we would stiill have had £25m from 2017/18 hanging over but with a new starting point of 2019/20 bypassing the £10m profit! That's utterly illogical, to me the fairest solution would be for that 2019/20 and 2020/21 combination to stay on the books until such time as it has expired- so:

Quote
  • 2017/18, 2018/19 and Combined 2019/20 and 2020/21
  • 2018/19, Combined 2019/20 and 2020/21 and 2021/22.
  • Combined 2019/20 and 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23.

Finally- 2021/22 onwards to resume the new 3 year period, with whatever results obtained in that year and 2022/23 forming the base.

Well the ones for 2016/17 did not. That P&S difference was about £6m- for that year alone. Using the club accounts in isolation would confer a clear advantage in a P&S context- or would have done. That could have also been down to the fact that one was 10 month accounts and one was 12 month accounts. I think similar for 2017/18- though where the hell the £55m projected Group Accounts loss came from I'm struggling with! I know you knock off £40m for the ground profit but the final losses for that year were £1.1m or thereabouts! Rowett compensation too?

The Lampard compensation- was it staggered? Maybe a small amount then, the rest in 2019/20? £4m was reported in the Press, that suggested compensation in the Written Reasons was well short of that. Had Derby not yet factored in playoff final revenue too by July 2019? Can only assume not.

They're quite convenient, they help to kick the can down the road a bit by making the present look that bit better- but again it could also be due to the 10 month Reporting Period for Sevco 5112 and the 12 month for the club for the club to the end of June 2017.

I think there was still an argument to be had over the Stadium- but hard to prove. Messenger however was shocking- some of the examples he chose were a total joke, yet comparable grounds from period, from similar bits of the world albeit with Land Value being higher in Derby, comparable capacities- he chose Morecambe and a Rugby League Stadium, with standing capacity either in part or full to name 2?? Amortisation, we'll see- one report did suggest the EFL have put in new evidence though it's unclear tbh. Back on Messenger, am I right from memory that he also didn't go to Pride Park itself for the valuation but instead relied on modelling or somesuch? Amateur! I should also add I've looked at some comparables in terms of relatively recent valuations, albeit unsure all were under DRC- and it feels toppy, £81.1m.

Don't see what they would have hoped to have gained from a small discrepancy in amortisation value, would it even have materially impacted P&S, only felt like a couple of million?

Would it have accelerated losses into 2019/20 then, or decelerated into 2018/19? It's difficult to tell given those short extensions and the impact.

A drop to £15m is still hefty, considering that losses in 2018/19 as per the Written Reasons were quite a lot despite a fairly low amortisation charge of £4.6m being stated!

Wisdom and Waghorn signing extensions would kick the can down the road, would reduce the losses in that particular season but knock headroom off the following one. I hope no club gets any leeway for P&S as a result of these reforms, that's for sure.

Of those, Malone's wages being covered in part or full by Millwall surely? Carson's certainly in full by Man City- Holmes, £1m minus remaining Net Book Value. Plus Marriott and Te Wierik as you stated.

Remember though, that is only part of the package- lots out of contract yes but losses overhanging from prior seasons make it difficult to recruit competitively. Might be reliant on a bit more youth as well though? I hope the EFL give no leeway to clubs.

Net spend is a red herring though, wage bill is a better indicator but that seems to be coming down. Net spend with that amortisation model doesn't seem the best indicator.

As an aside, how much do we think the Cocu sacking might have cost? Has Keogh yet resolved his issue, I think if not he should still pursue it personally.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hxj said:

 

In any season if a club returns a profit for FFP purposes there are no further tests.

So any club which makes an FFP profit of £1 in 2022 will automatically meet FFP regardless of performance in previous years.

Seems complex- however my interpretation was that if T-1 and T-2 return a profit for P&S/FFP purposes then there are no further tests.

Lose £3m in T-2, but Profit £3m and £1 in T-1= a net profit? No further tests. Was reading them a bit earlier but not in great depth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other good news...

This is pre-emptive EFL measures to help clubs walk the P&S tightrope. Why they didn't do this so much before, I'm unsure- but it seems like the EFL are now!

I am assuming it would be or have to be within certain wages/fees/loan fees.

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

 

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The Lampard compensation- was it staggered? Maybe a small amount then, the rest in 2019/20? £4m was reported in the Press, that suggested compensation in the Written Reasons was well short of that. Had Derby not yet factored in playoff final revenue too by July 2019? Can only assume not.

I'll be surprised if it is staggered as I'm struggling to think of an instance this has happened in the past for any club. With the Final being the end of May, I would have expected that money to be accounted for by July.

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think there was still an argument to be had over the Stadium- but hard to prove. Messenger however was shocking- some of the examples he chose were a total joke, yet comparable grounds from period, from similar bits of the world albeit with Land Value being higher in Derby, comparable capacities- he chose Morecambe and a Rugby League Stadium, with standing capacity either in part or full to name 2??

I don't doubt the EFL could have put a much stronger case forward if that chose a competent expert. With the EFL not appealing this part of the charge then I think this is the end of it.

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Amortisation, we'll see- one report did suggest the EFL have put in new evidence though it's unclear tbh.

I thought the rules prevented the submission of new evidence, instead only appealing the decision based on the evidence already provided.

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Back on Messenger, am I right from memory that he also didn't go to Pride Park itself for the valuation but instead relied on modelling or somesuch? Amateur! I should also add I've looked at some comparables in terms of relatively recent valuations, albeit unsure all were under DRC- and it feels toppy, £81.1m.

Maybe asked a friend/colleague (who visited a while back) for his opinion who described our facilities as "basic".

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Don't see what they would have hoped to have gained from a small discrepancy in amortisation value, would it even have materially impacted P&S, only felt like a couple of million?

The club's amortisation policy requires a review every 6 months (iirc). If the review says the change is required...

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Would it have accelerated losses into 2019/20 then, or decelerated into 2018/19? It's difficult to tell given those short extensions and the impact.

The extensions to Butterfield, Johnson and Blackman? It would have pushed a reasonable chunk of losses into 19/20.

If my understanding of the policy is correct... An example would be signing a player for £5m on a 5 year contract. £500k amortisation a year for the first 4 years with the rest £3m in the final year. Am extension in that final year reduces that amortisation in the 5th year to £500k, with £2.5m in the 6th year. It may not be 10% per year in the actual policy but it helps illustrate the point.

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A drop to £15m is still hefty, considering that losses in 2018/19 as per the Written Reasons were quite a lot despite a fairly low amortisation charge of £4.6m being stated!

19/20 shot up to £25.1m. £15m is a reasonable drop from £25.1m, don't you think?

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wisdom and Waghorn signing extensions would kick the can down the road, would reduce the losses in that particular season but knock headroom off the following one. I hope no club gets any leeway for P&S as a result of these reforms, that's for sure.

It does but it also helps keep the squad size at a healthy level. If we had to sign replacements then the same wages would be going put anyway. Don't think it'll make much P&S impact.

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Of those, Malone's wages being covered in part or full by Millwall surely? Carson's certainly in full by Man City- Holmes, £1m minus remaining Net Book Value. Plus Marriott and Te Wierik as you stated.

You'd hope so. Holmes was a £500-700k signing so a welcome profit on him.

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Remember though, that is only part of the package- lots out of contract yes but losses overhanging from prior seasons make it difficult to recruit competitively. Might be reliant on a bit more youth as well though? I hope the EFL give no leeway to clubs.

"A bit more youth". Any more youth and we'll be an U12 side 🤣

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Net spend is a red herring though, wage bill is a better indicator but that seems to be coming down. Net spend with that amortisation model doesn't seem the best indicator.

My point was more about doing things 'the right way', rather than looking at amortisation which indicates behaviour from the past.

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As an aside, how much do we think the Cocu sacking might have cost? Has Keogh yet resolved his issue, I think if not he should still pursue it personally.

I think the papers suggested around £4m. Doubt it'll be paid upfront . Knowing Cocu he would be happy enough with deferred payment given the financial situation at the club. Given we've allowed him to join MK Dons I'll be very surprised if it hasn't been resolved.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The FFP and general football finance news keeps on coming- saw a snippet that Reading were indeed under the restrictions I posted as well but QPR..

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9165339/QPR-CEO-Lee-Hoos-sends-letter-fellow-Championship-clubs-request-cut-42m-FFP-fine.html?

I remember I thought the 10 year Payment Plan would be a bit of a millstone around their neck in normal times but I don't see this one being approved tbh, by the other clubs! Doubt it should be either.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

£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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the story on the official website links to the wrong accounts (BCH 18/19) so no detail to look at.

Edit - now corrected.

Edited by Olé
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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...