Jump to content
IGNORED

City release accounts - Ouch!

Henry

By Henry
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, VT05763 said:

There are many worse than us in regard wages to turn over - Preston for example I am fairly sure.

There must be a list on this ?

Preston to take an example it's a bit of a catch 22.

Their turnover is lower and yes wages/turnover may well be worse, but their overall running costs are much lower- but otoh they lack the income streams, especially the commercial ones that we have.

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

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, VT05763 said:

You can't just "move them on" - you will literally be struggling to give them away or wait for the end of contract.

Although to take an example, Stoke managed to somehow (so far) convince the EFL that £30m of Player Impairment costs could be put down to Covid which enabled a proportion of them to indeed be given away, maybe wages partially paid in some cases and quite a lot left on free transfers- this also reduced the amortisation costs in upcoming years though I don't think they should've heard the last of this...

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

Waconda

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Although to take an example, Stoke managed to somehow (so far) convince the EFL that £30m of Player Impairment costs could be put down to Covid which enabled a proportion of them to indeed be given away, maybe wages partially paid in some cases and quite a lot left on free transfers- this also reduced the amortisation costs in upcoming years though I don't think they should've heard the last of this...

"without risking a massive points deduction down the line" -  I should have added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, VT05763 said:

"without risking a massive points deduction down the line" -  I should have added.

Fair. Stoke fans seem fairly bullish about their position tbh based on their forum- when I say position, no way would they fall into insolvency I mean FFP.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I agree that other clubs might struggle. But we need to create room in our budget to recruit new players as well.

If the players coming into their last year aren't willing to negotiate; then we need to move them on.

As for COD and Martin. It'll be interesting as to where their offers might come from. A lot of money in L1 nowadays....

What we most definitely cannot afford to do is repeat the Diedhiou scenario, that is continue paying a whole years wage for someone who is gonna move on.  We have to find a way to move them on, whether that be cut-price fee (free?) or loan.  We have to recoup some of that wage bill, even if we create an impairment on the fee / amortisation.

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Although to take an example, Stoke managed to somehow (so far) convince the EFL that £30m of Player Impairment costs could be put down to Covid which enabled a proportion of them to indeed be given away, maybe wages partially paid in some cases and quite a lot left on free transfers- this also reduced the amortisation costs in upcoming years though I don't think they should've heard the last of this...

Have they convinced the EFL?  What we don’t know is how that was factored into their FFP returns.  Unless you however have more info on this.

6 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

They should remember - He who laughs last laughs longest

Or as my dad says - “he who laughs last, didn’t get the joke in the first place”!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Oddly enough, there is a £750k Impairment in the accounts- Nagy then leaves on a free/for a low fee, could the two have been linked?

I actually think he was a decent player FWIW and in a more possession based side I wonder if we might have seen better.

Nagy will be in 21/22 accounts not the ones published.

Hopefully Nagy’s impairment will be offset by the wages saved.

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

Waconda

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

Oddly enough, there is a £750k Impairment in the accounts- Nagy then leaves on a free/for a low fee, could the two have been linked?

I actually think he was a decent player FWIW and in a more possession based side I wonder if we might have seen better.

Nagy is a different situation to most to be fair.

He wanted to move for family reasons more than anything else (I believe) and would have come to a mutually agreeable exit package I would have thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waconda

Waconda

Posted
Posted

What we most definitely cannot afford to do is repeat the Diedhiou scenario, that is continue paying a whole years wage for someone who is gonna move on.  We have to find a way to move them on, whether that be cut-price fee (free?) or loan.  We have to recoup some of that wage bill, even if we create an impairment on the fee / amortisation.

Yes, there will probably be loans where we pay two thirds of the wage with no loan fee for example.

Palmer, Wells and DaSilva could fall into this category maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lenred

lenred

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, maxjak said:

How cuttingly glib?  If you  have an opinion, then express it, and NOT make a comment  that sounds like a cross between Nanny Mcphee and Mary Poppins?.....Deary Deary Me.........Really?

Your opinion that LJ is better than Pearson is absolute bollocks. That any better for you? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Have they convinced the EFL?  What we don’t know is how that was factored into their FFP returns.  Unless you however have more info on this.

Ha if only I did. I'm basing my view on the fact that there as yet has been no sanction/embargo handed down to date but otoh it could easily be subject to ongoing review- in fact it seems like the only sensible solution given that it would take a year or 2 to work out just how justified it is, to see how the market shakes down post Covid. The problem is that when subject to ongoing review, a side can sneak up via the playoffs or similar?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

From @Coppello

F1A1350F-233D-43CF-BEAB-17BFA98A4DA9.thumb.jpeg.5d615c966324ae5b232e8ce8ffc40ff7.jpeg
(With scribbles from me)

from @ExiledAjax

65451EFE-E23B-45AF-AAE2-D322CC472879.thumb.jpeg.a82da0b9575f348984a0814b8d31b9a8.jpeg

Ta, that rings a bell from looking at the accounts last year.

Ha, see, I did know where the fans hold shares.

Noticed in the accounts there's one more dormant company under the Holdco, but no matter really. It does surprise me that neither Ashton nor Gould were/are directors of Holdco. Presumably there is a reason for that beyond "we'd need to get one extra signature on the board resolutions".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
maxjak

maxjak

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, lenred said:

Your opinion that LJ is better than Pearson is absolute bollocks. That any better for you? 

How succinct......you are quite obviously a student of the game?  .....The fact is that Nige has rarely coached, if ever,  our team, as he leaves that to Fleming.......yet LJ spent most of his time in a tracksuit on the training pitch, must somehow have escaped your attention?...........  Did you also know that cretin is between cramp and dullard in the dictionary?

Edited by maxjak
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ha if only I did. I'm basing my view on the fact that there as yet has been no sanction/embargo handed down to date but otoh it could easily be subject to ongoing review- in fact it seems like the only sensible solution given that it would take a year or 2 to work out just how justified it is, to see how the market shakes down post Covid. The problem is that when subject to ongoing review, a side can sneak up via the playoffs or similar?

As it stands, Stoke are in the cycle that includes a PL year (17/18), so we will need to see 20/21s accounts to see where they are.  Cat 1 status will offset some of those losses, but will be interesting to see when they post these, typically they are before the end of the year, last year they took advantage of the 3 month extension.

They’ve got to be close with impairment / allowance, but may point to Nathan Collins sale in the summer as putting their house in order.

Will be lots of fans sweating having seen ours today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

As it stands, Stoke are in the cycle that includes a PL year (17/18), so we will need to see 20/21s accounts to see where they are.  Cat 1 status will offset some of those losses, but will be interesting to see when they post these, typically they are before the end of the year, last year they took advantage of the 3 month extension.

They’ve got to be close with impairment / allowance, but may point to Nathan Collins sale in the summer as putting their house in order.

Will be lots of fans sweating having seen ours today.

I make their figures £55.5m, ie their upper loss limit to 2020/21. Without Covid that would've been £61m IIRC to 2020 and £39m to 2021. They usually are before the end of the year yeah, as are Birmingham and though not our level, Everton- none have yet materialised, probably a good reason for that.

In fact I'm covering bits of them and two others on the FFP thread now and trying to work out their position and how they might compare to ours. Collins would be a useful mitigating factor and offloading as many as they did might mitigate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EstoniaTallinnRed

EstoniaTallinnRed

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, AshtonGreat said:

The annual reminder of how utterly overpaid footballers are

Absolutely right AG!  If players can't survive on £2-5000 per week then I suggest they are living well over their means, £25,000 a week for the little time they actually work is quite mental.  I wish I could have got paid that money for working 6 days a week, starting at 0400 and finishing around midnight or later depending on the duty,  early mornings and late nights for 25 years. They probably only work 3 or 4 days training and certainly not 8 or 10 hours a day and at most 2 or 3 games a weeks, they are not superstars, but only average football players, as the results confirm. Football needs a shake up from top to bottom, otherwise it could get unaffordable by the working man who started it all in the first place. Where would these players be then?

  • Like 3
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silvio Dante

Silvio Dante

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, real_bristol said:

For those not wanting to trawl through 11 pages I found this thread useful. 
 

 

This is one of the ones that sticks out for me (the bottom of the two). The stadium is, in normal times, a 24/7 venue, and has been designed to give us a bit of a leg up against those with parachute payments etc. Mark Kelly said we were looking at six concerts this year originally, and with all else I’d imagine we projected to be higher than that £16m in 2019. 
 

I’m not saying things are rosy. But I would think we’re probably £15m shy on commercial income of where we thought we’d be, and when you also add in the loss of match day income that £39m shrinks by a lot in a normalised season - even before we tackle the excessive wage issue.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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