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

JonDolman

Understanding FFP

Recommended Posts

I get confused with how FFP works. Isn't it that we can lose so many millions over a 3 year period. Isnt this year 1 of that 3 year period. So we are not really under pressure to sell this summer, as long as we do by end of year 3.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BlowerBCFC said:

It’s a rolling 3 years. So over the last three years all the loses come into it. 

Yep. But is this the first of the three year period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BlowerBCFC said:

It’s a rolling 3 years. So over the last three years all the loses come into it. 

Yep, this is the third year of the three year rolling period. It's not quite all the losses that On my way! in to it, as certain expenditure can be excluded - spending on infrastructure, such as ground re-devlopment and also spending on the academy.

Mr Pop. seems to have a handle on the more detailed facts and figures than most, but I get the feeling that while we should be OK, it's probably a bit tighter than we would like.

There has been much debate about how Villa will fare in the light of their financial issues at the start of the season and losing their parachute payments, but it has been interesting to read about West Brom, over the last few days. There has been speculation that Moore went because they are on a knife edge financially, having effectively "mortgaged" next year's parachute payments to fund this years promotion push ( I think this is what Villa did last season), so this year is shit or bust time.

While  ffp might not hit West Brom this time around, as with Villa, failure to gain promotion could come back to bite them big time 12 months down the road. If so, the it makes it all the more important that if club's like Birmingham and Villa do breach ffp limits this time , they are given the right penalties. If not, then relegated clubs will continue to use parachute payments to overpower the championship financially, knowing that a manageable "wrap on the knuckles" is all they will get if they fail to get promotion straight back and then fall foul of the financial rules, meaning that as long as they have decent financial backing they can then re-group.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Homer Simpson said:

And year 1, and year 2.

What he said.

Using full years as examples we are currently in Year 3 of the cycle 2017, 2018, 2019, Year 2 of the cycle 2018, 2019, 2020 and Year 1 of the cycle 2019, 2020, 2021.

If that makes sense.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

So do people think we have to sell one or two of our better players every year?

Can't do any harm. We appear to either need to trade smartly, or slash the wage bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

So do people think we have to sell one or two of our better players every year?

We won't have to. We just probably won't be able to splash out as much as we have done in recent years if we don't.

Bear in mind in the past 3 seasons (including this) we've probably spent nigh on £35m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

So do people think we have to sell one or two of our better players every year?

This year's accounts will be a good indicator if that is the case.  There has been speculation that we are getting close to ffp limits. If that is the case, and that includes the profit made on the sales of Reid, Bryan and Flint, then it really puts things into perspective!

We all know how much tougher it is for a club like ours to compete with clubs benefitting from parachute payments. Now it seems clubs like Villa, and also apparently West Brom, have effectively raised money against their third year of parachute payments in order to give themselves the best chance of luck promotion. If they feel that normal parachute payments are not sufficient for them too compete, our ability to be competitive and stay within ffp is a very difficult circle to square.

We are now in a stronger position financially because of the additional income coming from the stadium re-development - corporate boxes, commercial use of the stadium on non match days etc., but even with this we still fall short of the bigger clubs in the division. 

Our wage bill will continue to rise, either when we bring in better players on better wages , or give improved contracts to the players we want to keep, and I suspect those costs will rise quicker and by more than will our revenue streams. If so, then the only way the club can balance the books, and especially as regards ffp, is to raise additional cash by selling players.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, downendcity said:

This year's accounts will be a good indicator if that is the case.  There has been speculation that we are getting close to ffp limits. If that is the case, and that includes the profit made on the sales of Reid, Bryan and Flint, then it really puts things into perspective!

We all know how much tougher it is for a club like ours to compete with clubs benefitting from parachute payments. Now it seems clubs like Villa, and also apparently West Brom, have effectively raised money against their third year of parachute payments in order to give themselves the best chance of luck promotion. If they feel that normal parachute payments are not sufficient for them too compete, our ability to be competitive and stay within ffp is a very difficult circle to square.

We are now in a stronger position financially because of the additional income coming from the stadium re-development - corporate boxes, commercial use of the stadium on non match days etc., but even with this we still fall short of the bigger clubs in the division. 

Our wage bill will continue to rise, either when we bring in better players on better wages , or give improved contracts to the players we want to keep, and I suspect those costs will rise quicker and by more than will our revenue streams. If so, then the only way the club can balance the books, and especially as regards ffp, is to raise additional cash by selling players.

 

Shows how unrealistic people can be on here with their expectations in the transfer market.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFP...it's a complex thing. I'm still learning as I go along.

In short, it used to be measured by yearly losses now yes it is a rolling 3 year period. Officially £39m over 3 years, but the rolling means that...

Okay under this system and it is still developing and being tweaked quite clearly, not least as the EFL are not terribly dynamic, let's begin in 2015/16.

This was Year 1 of the New and revised System. Rolling from 2015/16-2017/18, 3 year FFP losses could not exceed £39m.

This is as distinct from Accounting Losses which is what the club publish or what we see on the balance sheet when we check this out. The reason that these diverge is because a number of items are exempted as they are seen as 'good' expenditure, either socially or to grow the club:

  • Net expenditure on Youth- No brainer.
  • Infrastructure- Covers areas like stadium development/building/new training facilities, 
  • Women's Football Team
  • Community Expenditure
  • Cost of Amortisation, Depreciation and Impairment of Non Football Assets- i.e. of running costs, excluding football. Certainly the last 2 ,Amortisation I assume would be covered too but would have to make certain.

In short, you add these to the £39m and you get how much you are allowed in FFP accounting losses, or to simplify a bit add it to £13m. I think we are fine for this season and given the restructuring, unless we go nuts, perhaps next season too. There's probably more to add but that covers a lot of aspects.

What it does I believe though mean that if we wanted, well I say we SL more like it to fast track and build a truly world class academy- an English equivalent of Ajax which just keeps churning them out, and out and out- that would not be counted towards our FFP. If SL wanted to throw £20m a year at it for x years, then that would surely be legitimate under FFP provided it is spent in the right way, steadily bringing through those up to it, selling on those who aren't quite what we don't quite want. It'd have to be from our own academy though as opposed to lifting castoffs from Ajax, Barcelona, Chelsea, Man City etc and couldn't be an alternative to keeping a steady first team...but I think it is a legit option under FFP but would need to look at it more closely.

Oh yeah and certain exceptional costs can be excluded or applied for exclusion. Promotion bonuses or payments to club in fees if promotion gained that fall due some useful example. The most obvious, some would be debated with/adjudicated by the EFL etc.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha if you want to see a club in trouble, Swiss Ramble's estimates for Aston Villa...which are mostly in line with mine for this season that I made the other week as it goes. :laughcont:

The one bit I forgot was the Adama Traore sell on fee. Other differentials were that this account assumed a reduction of £5m whereas I generously (?) said £10m and it also doesn't mention the £3m in land compensation which presumably is non-recurring income- it could be HS2 but that's not certain. Broadly the same though.

D1cXnRTX4AADq7N.jpg

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ha if you want to see a club in trouble, Swiss Ramble's estimates for Aston Villa...which are mostly in line with mine for this season that I made the other week as it goes. :laughcont:

The one bit I forgot was the Adama Traore sell on fee.

D1cXnRTX4AADq7N.jpg

You'll have to break that down for me in layman's terms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, East End Old Boy said:

They’re f**ked! 🤞

Was gonna go into more but that is about right! Here's hoping...

There has been speculation something will turn up with regards HS2 and the training ground, but here's hoping for a firesale! 🤞

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, East End Old Boy said:

They’re f**ked! 🤞

This is the sort of explanation I can get behind!

What is your view on the latest Brexit withdrawal proposal?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically FFP is a waste of time. The EFL dont seemingly have the bottle to adequately punish clubs for falling outside of limits. 

The ONLY punishment for this should be points. 

No point in fines as the whole thing is about £’s anyway!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, nickolas said:

Basically FFP is a waste of time. The EFL dont seemingly have the bottle to adequately punish clubs for falling outside of limits. 

The ONLY punishment for this should be points. 

No point in fines as the whole thing is about £’s anyway!!

I don't have a problem with embargoes and restrictions as a starter measure as well- i.e. can only sign players with a wage value of £x per week, cannot renew existing contracts unless conditions are met etc- some of their embargoes are very stringent.

EFL MIGHT yet be starting to get a grip..finally. Much hangs on the outcome of the Birmingham hearing...if they bottle that then we may as well not bother PLUS clubs who have made balancing acts or been punished before should sue EFL or similar for having to make sacrifices for no reason.

Even fines could be useful but only if they were to count towards FFP calculations and have to come out of club income, not paid by owners- i.e. every £1 you pay in fine is £1 less you can spend on wages, fees or similar- that would enable the need for wage bill slashing, player sales and bringing breaching clubs back to the pack. However as constituted in their current form then yes, fines are pointless.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, East End Old Boy said:

They’re f**ked! 🤞

Didn't know you were a Chartered Accountant EEOB!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, nickolas said:

Basically FFP is a waste of time. The EFL dont seemingly have the bottle to adequately punish clubs for falling outside of limits. 

The ONLY punishment for this should be points. 

No point in fines as the whole thing is about £’s anyway!!

We don't know this yet!

Clubs are only now  publishing  the sets of accounts that will be the third in the three year cycle. It is only when these have been provided and it is known which clubs have breached, and by how much, that we will find out whether the EFL has the balls or not to dish out the right type and severity of penalty.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Was gonna go into more but that is about right! Here's hoping...

There has been speculation something will turn up with regards HS2 and the training ground, but here's hoping for a firesale! 🤞

Is that for this current reporting period, or is a case that they have to move mountains to comply for next season? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

FFP...it's a complex thing. I'm still learning as I go along.

In short, it used to be measured by yearly losses now yes it is a rolling 3 year period. Officially £39m over 3 years, but the rolling means that...

Okay under this system and it is still developing and being tweaked quite clearly, not least as the EFL are not terribly dynamic, let's begin in 2015/16.

This was Year 1 of the New and revised System. Rolling from 2015/16-2017/18, 3 year FFP losses could not exceed £39m.

This is as distinct from Accounting Losses which is what the club publish or what we see on the balance sheet when we check this out. The reason that these diverge is because a number of items are exempted as they are seen as 'good' expenditure, either socially or to grow the club:

  • Net expenditure on Youth- No brainer.
  • Infrastructure- Covers areas like stadium development/building/new training facilities, 
  • Women's Football Team
  • Community Expenditure
  • Cost of Amortisation, Depreciation and Impairment of Non Football Assets- i.e. of running costs, excluding football. Certainly the last 2 ,Amortisation I assume would be covered too but would have to make certain.

In short, you add these to the £39m and you get how much you are allowed in FFP accounting losses, or to simplify a bit add it to £13m. I think we are fine for this season and given the restructuring, unless we go nuts, perhaps next season too. There's probably more to add but that covers a lot of aspects.

What it does I believe though mean that if we wanted, well I say we SL more like it to fast track and build a truly world class academy- an English equivalent of Ajax which just keeps churning them out, and out and out- that would not be counted towards our FFP. If SL wanted to throw £20m a year at it for x years, then that would surely be legitimate under FFP provided it is spent in the right way, steadily bringing through those up to it, selling on those who aren't quite what we don't quite want. It'd have to be from our own academy though as opposed to lifting castoffs from Ajax, Barcelona, Chelsea, Man City etc and couldn't be an alternative to keeping a steady first team...but I think it is a legit option under FFP but would need to look at it more closely.

Oh yeah and certain exceptional costs can be excluded or applied for exclusion. Promotion bonuses or payments to club in fees if promotion gained that fall due some useful example. The most obvious, some would be debated with/adjudicated by the EFL etc.

Couldn't we buy Brittany Assombalonga,  Tamara Abraham or Jacqueline Grealish then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Is that for this current reporting period, or is a case that they have to move mountains to comply for next season? 

The current reporting period 2016/17-2018/19 yep. Next season it gets quite a bit worse...

 A nice little hole- yes a fair few contracts expiring, but down £13-14m in parachute payments- this is the final season.Plus for all that some amortisation comes off the books, their January permanent signings will all but cancel that out- only £1-2m improvem,enmt as signing on an x.5 year contract say £3.5m 3.5 year deal. Half season roughly would be amortisation £0.5m, next 3 years £1m and for each subsequent year they're at the club, under that contract it's £1m.

If various calculations are correct., they will have to lose in FFP terms...well actually they'll have to make a £21m FFP profit against the backdrop of £13-14m in revenue down. Annoyingly a sale of Grealish would cover this if fees tipped are mooted but only to the extent that it would do for next season, they would then have that load of costs and to break even in FFP terms- then they would have to make savings just to sign...their likely huge loss this season won't be cleared until 2021/22 being the rolling 3 year period.

In short, big problems yes but still a lot of variables.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

FFP...it's a complex thing. I'm still learning as I go along.

In short, it used to be measured by yearly losses now yes it is a rolling 3 year period. Officially £39m over 3 years, but the rolling means that...

Okay under this system and it is still developing and being tweaked quite clearly, not least as the EFL are not terribly dynamic, let's begin in 2015/16.

This was Year 1 of the New and revised System. Rolling from 2015/16-2017/18, 3 year FFP losses could not exceed £39m.

This is as distinct from Accounting Losses which is what the club publish or what we see on the balance sheet when we check this out. The reason that these diverge is because a number of items are exempted as they are seen as 'good' expenditure, either socially or to grow the club:

  • Net expenditure on Youth- No brainer.
  • Infrastructure- Covers areas like stadium development/building/new training facilities, 
  • Women's Football Team
  • Community Expenditure
  • Cost of Amortisation, Depreciation and Impairment of Non Football Assets- i.e. of running costs, excluding football. Certainly the last 2 ,Amortisation I assume would be covered too but would have to make certain.

In short, you add these to the £39m and you get how much you are allowed in FFP accounting losses, or to simplify a bit add it to £13m. I think we are fine for this season and given the restructuring, unless we go nuts, perhaps next season too. There's probably more to add but that covers a lot of aspects.

What it does I believe though mean that if we wanted, well I say we SL more like it to fast track and build a truly world class academy- an English equivalent of Ajax which just keeps churning them out, and out and out- that would not be counted towards our FFP. If SL wanted to throw £20m a year at it for x years, then that would surely be legitimate under FFP provided it is spent in the right way, steadily bringing through those up to it, selling on those who aren't quite what we don't quite want. It'd have to be from our own academy though as opposed to lifting castoffs from Ajax, Barcelona, Chelsea, Man City etc and couldn't be an alternative to keeping a steady first team...but I think it is a legit option under FFP but would need to look at it more closely.

Oh yeah and certain exceptional costs can be excluded or applied for exclusion. Promotion bonuses or payments to club in fees if promotion gained that fall due some useful example. The most obvious, some would be debated with/adjudicated by the EFL etc.

You've nailed it @Mr Popodopolous. I was actually going to put together a short piece together in the FFP thread on the ins and outs of it. As mentioned in the other thread, I'm an accountant at a football club and I'm currently working on their FFP submission which is due to the Premier League at the end of this month. Whilst it's a different league, I have an understanding of the process from a club's perspective.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nickolas said:

Basically FFP is a waste of time. The EFL dont seemingly have the bottle to adequately punish clubs for falling outside of limits. 

The ONLY punishment for this should be points. 

No point in fines as the whole thing is about £’s anyway!!

 

47 minutes ago, downendcity said:

We don't know this yet!

Clubs are only now  publishing  the sets of accounts that will be the third in the three year cycle. It is only when these have been provided and it is known which clubs have breached, and by how much, that we will find out whether the EFL has the balls or not to dish out the right type and severity of penalty.

 

l meant to add that until now, under the old for rules, the only penalty the ELF could dish out was a fine ( transfer embargo also but not sure if this was for ftp breach) .

Therefore it's not a question of the EFL not having adequately punished club's, they have given the only penalties that were available.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Coppello said:

You've nailed it @Mr Popodopolous. I was actually going to put together a short piece together in the FFP thread on the ins and outs of it. As mentioned in the other thread, I'm an accountant at a football club and I'm currently working on their FFP submission which is due to the Premier League at the end of this month. Whilst it's a different league, I have an understanding of the process from a club's perspective.

While the Prem has different ffp rules and administers them itself, from your position do you get any feedback from colleagues within football as to  how hard the new EFL ffp rules will be applied to offending clubs and how tough the penalties will be?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, downendcity said:

 

l meant to add that until now, under the old for rules, the only penalty the ELF could dish out was a fine ( transfer embargo also but not sure if this was for ftp breach) .

Therefore it's not a question of the EFL not having adequately punished club's, they have given the only penalties that were available.

I wonder if the penalty is to become big enough to worry clubs, will clubs start to act more sensibly, possibly making it a slightly more level playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little line on the Aston Villa thing...

Quite unbelievably they may get £30m for HS2 Compensation. That would mean they have a surplus of £1-5m on FFP.

Now it'd be a once off payment so they would have an enormous hole to fill for next season...because though that £30m would wipe out the deficit...would still be £30m over 2 years from this and last season based on projected figures and real figures.

Then next season they would need an FFP loss of no more than £9m- while revenue falls £17m...because FFP losses this season £9m even with the hypothetical £30m, add back that £30m, subtract parachute payments and the once off- that's another £17m. 

I make that a shortfall/hole of £42-46m just to get FFP compliant over the 3 years to May 2020 and that is even with the £30m mooted for HS2. 

That would be the least deserved lifeline of all time though, FFP wise. Hope the book is thrown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite how that £30M is taken into consideration is beyond me, what can’t SL or any other wealthy owner find a way to inject £30M in to counter that?

The parachute payments really bug me, not that they happen, I understand the reasoning, but the value of them should be applied to all clubs in the Championship (and lower leagues if a club went down again with PP) in FFP calculations. i.e. the highest PP payment should be added to the bottom FFP line of every club in the league, if they or their owner can afford to use that allowance is another matter, but they should have the opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Quite how that £30M is taken into consideration is beyond me, what can’t SL or any other wealthy owner find a way to inject £30M in to counter that?

The parachute payments really bug me, not that they happen, I understand the reasoning, but the value of them should be applied to all clubs in the Championship (and lower leagues if a club went down again with PP) in FFP calculations. i.e. the highest PP payment should be added to the bottom FFP line of every club in the league, if they or their owner can afford to use that allowance is another matter, but they should have the opportunity.

It surely can't be, it would be absolutely well ridiculous underplays it- scandalous if counted as legit income...

I'm unsure about Parachute Payments, Kieran Maguire explains it quite well on one of his YouTube vids. I  reluctantly come down on the side of necessary evil- doesn't mean it can't be reformed though. Should be conditional to clubs making every effort on shifting too costly players off the wage bill and demonstrating the fact that they do so..as well as making it for players unable to shift, once efforts demonstrated and being ringfenced from new costly permanent or loan signings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, downendcity said:

While the Prem has different ffp rules and administers them itself, from your position do you get any feedback from colleagues within football as to  how hard the new EFL ffp rules will be applied to offending clubs and how tough the penalties will be?

I don't think anyone really knows this aside from the EFL themselves who appear to be making it up as they go along. What is quite interesting, is that in the Premier League, they hold our hand pretty tightly and require pretty regular reporting. If there are any areas of concern, they will know they are coming and flag them before our final FFP reporting and strongly advise us on how we should act in an upcoming transfer window etc. This method is quite good and will give a clear indication of a club's attitude with regard to compliance as it's quite hard/brave to ignore their advice. 

I'd be intrigued to see how this differs in the EFL where, in reality, the FFP rules are far more likely to be broken. The short-term cost control (STCC) rules in the Premier League have never been breached, whereas it's not uncommon for promoted sides in the Championship to go over the limit. As we know, when this is flagged it is often far too late and the team's are now promoted to the Premier League. In my opinion, the next club to break them in the Championship, and not get promoted, will be made an example of. Villa look like they could be heading that way but it sounds like they may wriggle their way out with the HS2 money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Coppello said:

I don't think anyone really knows this aside from the EFL themselves who appear to be making it up as they go along. What is quite interesting, is that in the Premier League, they hold our hand pretty tightly and require pretty regular reporting. If there are any areas of concern, they will know they are coming and flag them before our final FFP reporting and strongly advise us on how we should act in an upcoming transfer window etc. This method is quite good and will give a clear indication of a club's attitude with regard to compliance as it's quite hard/brave to ignore their advice. 

I'd be intrigued to see how this differs in the EFL where, in reality, the FFP rules are far more likely to be broken. The short-term cost control (STCC) rules in the Premier League have never been breached, whereas it's not uncommon for promoted sides in the Championship to go over the limit. As we know, when this is flagged it is often far too late and the team's are now promoted to the Premier League. In my opinion, the next club to break them in the Championship, and not get promoted, will be made an example of. Villa look like they could be heading that way but it sounds like they may wriggle their way out with the HS2 money. 

I think a lot of clubs who get promoted or at least talking last 2-3 seasons since the 3 year rolling rules, tend to look like they have been in breach- or be really close to the limit, but once promotion bonuses and allowable costs are stripped out just get home. Wolves a good example, Cardiff another- Newcastle seemed like they had breached but the higher loss limits in PL saved them. Fulham will be a good example when their accounts come out...thought Cardiff were in breach personally by a pretty small amount but then hadn't considered the cost of impairment of non footballing assets, depreciation of those too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HS2 compensation, recent tv documentary reported that compensation was being held up or not paid at all in just about every case, why should villa be any different?  Surely any compensation would belong to the owners, not the club

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting stuff. Sounds like my fears about them getting a deeply undeserved (temporary) lifeline could be moot then!

Who the compensation would belong to is I feel a thornier issue...Bodymoor Heath is their existing training ground- and the site was purchased in the early 1970's by Doug Ellis (for it is he- how long did he run Villa??) according to Wiki.

A club asset then, which as a club they would be compensated for- maybe there would be some kind of formula that the owners would get a % based on the fact they sponsored it, but unsure how the bulk would go to the owners? It undoubtedly shouldn't count towards FFP though...because if training facilities are exempt from FFP, in terms of you can spend what you like on them, then compensation for this bit of possible misfortune should class as income in general- to help them rebuild it, they can do what they want with it but never in a million years for income towards FFP IMO.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/03/2019 at 11:31, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ha if you want to see a club in trouble, Swiss Ramble's estimates for Aston Villa...which are mostly in line with mine for this season that I made the other week as it goes. :laughcont:

The one bit I forgot was the Adama Traore sell on fee. Other differentials were that this account assumed a reduction of £5m whereas I generously (?) said £10m and it also doesn't mention the £3m in land compensation which presumably is non-recurring income- it could be HS2 but that's not certain. Broadly the same though.

D1cXnRTX4AADq7N.jpg

Hi @Mr Popodopolous sorry to keep testing you on this stuff, but from this table am I right to assume that the EFL can take in their losses  from 2015/16 even though they were in the Premier League  that season? If that was the case  this table seems they have already exceeded FFP in a 3 year period? 

 

A couple of other things stand out to me, they still managed to make a £4m loss in 2016/17 despite the £41m parachute payments 

They appear to have almost used up their total FFP in this one season (I think you have already referred to this and say West Brom have done the same),. I think there is a case to also have a limit on a season by season basis as well as the 3 year limit to stop that.

 

Edited by Port Said Red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

Hi @Mr Popodopolous sorry to keep testing you on this stuff, but from this table am I right to assume that the EFL can take in their losses  from 2015/16 even though they were in the Premier League  that season? If that was the case  this table seems they have already exceeded FFP in a 3 year period? 

 

A couple of other things stand out to me, they still managed to make a £4m loss in 2016/17 despite the £41m parachute payments 

They appear to have almost used up their total FFP in this one season (I think you have already referred to this and say West Brom have done the same),. I think there is a case to also have a limit on a season by season basis as well as the 3 year limit to stop that.

 

2015-16 to 2017/18.

There was a big write-down which was revaluation of Villa Park in 2015/16 which takes their losses for that season down somewhat, hence they passed. Don't have the detail right now but will look into that in due course! All fine under FFP though I believe.

Yeah, very profligate.

In terms of FFP losses, you have to strip out the following:

  • Youth Expenditure
  • Infrastructure Expenditure
  • Community Expenditure
  • Women's Football Expenditure

This is all seen as 'good' Expenditure, either building up the club without saddling it with unsustainable wage bill or a crazy owner- or performing a social good.

Additionally, cost of impairment and depreciation plus possibly amortization of non football assets- so let's say Computers decreasing in a straight line value, or I don't know infrastructure...non footballing though so players wouldn't count towards this- this doesn't count towards FFP.

WBA? I think their issue is more cash flow than FFP right now but last season's accounts will be instructive when released. I'm on the fence about one year and 3 year mixed, because it limits ambition but it also limits the chance to grow, to build a solid foundation and then go for it in Year 2 or 3...if clubs manage that aspect responsibly  then I personally have no problems provided they stick to the rules. Besides which I'm unsure chairmen/owners would vote for this. EFL rules ultimately are decided by majority vote by chairmen etc I believe. This is probably something they could all live with and provided the EFL penalise in a timely manner when needed, I think the system isn't too bad...

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only one way to stop the nonsense.

1 - points deduction for minor breaches.

2 - Relegate one league for medium sized breaches.

3 - Relegate two leagues for big breaches.

you have to hit teams like villa where it hurts. Make it a major deterrent.

They will start playing to the rules if you hit them with the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a better handle still- and it is broken down into multiple videos but this one better.

It's not much short of an hour and 20 mins...maybe one to listen to at work if chance arises etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/03/2019 at 10:07, reddogkev said:

I refuse to believe anybody in the world understands FFP. 

 

 

89588585_dianneabott.jpg.0e5b21698d50799c88b965f5781015f4.jpg

1369400060_briancox.thumb.jpg.cffbdb8389dd5488cf3934a0207ee66e.jpg

One of these two has a brilliant mind and brain, and is therefore capable of understanding complex and difficult concepts and articulating them in a way that ordinary people can comprehend, so will understand FFP perfectly.

The other is Dianne Abbott.

 

Edited by downendcity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/03/2019 at 10:07, reddogkev said:

I refuse to believe anybody in the world understands FFP. 

They've produced a handy, easy to understand pictorial explanation for us mere mortals.

 

610957984_ffppicture.png.6db25d979bcad3d40cc881f1b3f69a58.png

Edited by downendcity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/03/2019 at 10:46, JonDolman said:

Shows how unrealistic people can be on here with their expectations in the transfer market.

It also shows how unrealistic it is of SL to talk about the playoffs if we can't afford to bring in the quality needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spike said:

It also shows how unrealistic it is of SL to talk about the playoffs if we can't afford to bring in the quality needed.

Believe it's a bit of both.

I think Assombalonga on loan for the quoted figures might have been viable in January, albeit a bit of a gamble...money isn't everything in that respect though- I look around Europe and closer to home on their good years Brentford and under Wilder Sheffield United and I see sides seemingly vastly outperforming where they should be based on wage bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spike said:

It also shows how unrealistic it is of SL to talk about the playoffs if we can't afford to bring in the quality needed.

Maybe. But then it is possible to get a quality side together doing it our way. We simply cannot afford to do it any other way.

Share this post


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...