Last season

[GrahamC]

The retained list came out on May 14th, my hunch is it will be a few days earlier this year, so next Tuesday or Wednesday.

Our first signing was made on July 1st, (Matty James) with Andy King signing the day after & Rob Atkinson the day after that, though the contract extensions for Weimann, Simpson & Baker were all announced in June.

Because the season starts a week earlier I would expect that our transfer business might start a week or two earlier this summer.

[Edgy Red]

If Nige is hoping to get us in to the top half of the league next season then we need to add 3 or 4 players who will be first team starters.

We are likely to lose a fair few from this years group (mainly squad players) but we need to add some quality, or i can only see another season of bottom half struggle.

Time will tell but this summers recruitment is huge.

[Northern Red]

Transfer window opens on June 10th.

[Davefevs]

I see Cotts and Burt are trying to steal an early march, reports they’ve agreed a fee for Coventry’s Jordan Shipley already.  Ideally we’d like early business, but with the early start to the season there is a long period til end of window, then the World Cup to embed (embed further) any late window signings.

[Edgy Red]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I see Cotts and Burt are trying to steal an early march, reports they’ve agreed a fee for Coventry’s Jordan Shipley already.  Ideally we’d like early business, but with the early start to the season there is a long period til end of window, then the World Cup to embed (embed further) any late window signings.

That would be a decent signing for The Shrews. League 1 will be a strong division again next season but i'm sure Cotts will be aiming higher than he managed this season.

[archie andrews]

nathan byrne and rinohmoto sorry for spelling if wrong be good start only a few tweaks from top half anyone else eg a playmaker a bonus

[LondonBristolian]

44 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

The retained list came out on May 14th, my hunch is it will be a few days earlier this year, so next Tuesday or Wednesday.

Our first signing was made on July 1st, (Matty James) with Andy King signing the day after & Rob Atkinson the day after that, though the contract extensions for Weimann, Simpson & Baker were all announced in June.

Because the season starts a week earlier I would expect that our transfer business might start a week or two earlier this summer.

It's weird - my memory is that Weimann's contract took several weeks and that Baker was signed close to the beginning of the season but that's obviously over-estimated in Weimann's case and completely wrong in terms of Baker! 

I'd imagine from the comments made so far, and the fact we've known for weeks we'll be playing Championship football next season, that the initial plans for next season have been made already. The club will know who we want to move on, who we want to keep and who  our first choice targets are. Obviously the unknowns are whether we get those players we want, whether we get bids for the players we don't and whether bids come in for anyone else. Injuries will be a factor too - the Benarous injury means Pearson will have had to reassess cover and decide if someone from the academy can step up or whether we need to sign (or retain) someone else.

I'd expect the retained list this week and the first transfer business to be announced in June but I might turn out to be completely wrong on that. 

[GrahamC]

@LondonBristolian Weimann was June 15th & Baker June 28th.

Agree that the fact we’ve effectively known for a month we are safe means we have probably been active for a while on targets.

[Davefevs]

Fully expect retained list on Monday.  Nige has already told the players on Thursday that Saturday will be the last time he will see them…so really no need to delay.  They all know their fate / position in Nige’s plans for next season. Whether some under contract try to hang it out is up to them.

[BS4 on Tour...]

22 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Fully expect retained list on Monday.  Nige has already told the players on Thursday that Saturday will be the last time he will see them…so really no need to delay.  They all know their fate / position in Nige’s plans for next season. Whether some under contract try to hang it out is up to them.

Cheers Dave, incidentally, how do you know what Nigel told the players on Thursday?! You always claim you are not ITK - then you post stuff like that which seriously suggests you are totally in touch with the inner circle?!!!

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Cheers Dave, incidentally, how do you know what Nigel told the players on Thursday?! You always claim you are not ITK - then you post stuff like that which seriously suggests you are totally in touch with the inner circle?!!!

I’m not ITK, but I listen to all of Nige’s interviews, this particular bit was him addressing the squad in training on Thursday as part of Robins Uncut 30.  Paraphrased he said “this is your penultimate training session, we are back in tomorrow for pre-match prep and then I won’t see you after Saturday”.

[Sir Geoff]

NP said in the last presser that the list will be out as soon as possible. So Monday would be a good guess 

[Sir Geoff]

10 hours ago, GrahamC said:

The retained list came out on May 14th, my hunch is it will be a few days earlier this year, so next Tuesday or Wednesday.

Our first signing was made on July 1st, (Matty James) with Andy King signing the day after & Rob Atkinson the day after that, though the contract extensions for Weimann, Simpson & Baker were all announced in June.

Because the season starts a week earlier I would expect that our transfer business might start a week or two earlier this summer.

Can't make signings earlier as contract don't expire until June 30th. July 1st is the earliest a player can actually sign for a new club.

[italian dave]

14 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Can't make signings earlier as contract don't expire until June 30th. July 1st is the earliest a player can actually sign for a new club.

We could though, presumably, announce the (re-) signing of someone like Klose before then

[GrahamC]

21 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Can't make signings earlier as contract don't expire until June 30th. July 1st is the earliest a player can actually sign for a new club.

Seems strange that according to the poster above, the window opens on June 10th then? 

Presumably as a consequence of the early start due to the November World Cup?

Guess it means signing a contract that as you say, kicks in from July 1st?

[italian dave]

35 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Seems strange that according to the poster above, the window opens on June 10th then? 

Presumably as a consequence of the early start due to the November World Cup?

Guess it means signing a contract that as you say, kicks in from July 1st?

Loan deals? Released players? Elsewhere in Europe where contracts expire at different times? I’m only guessing though!

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Sir Geoff said:

Can't make signings earlier as contract don't expire until June 30th. July 1st is the earliest a player can actually sign for a new club.

You can sign a player from another club whenever you like, however the registration only “transfers” when a window is open. Lloyd Kelly transferred to Bournemouth in May.

[DT The Optimist]

I also ask (and wonder) if we can expect an announcement re Nathan Baker around the same time the retained list is announced?
I think we hope for the best but fear the worse…

[Mr Popodopolous]

In respect of the Retained List as early as possible I'd have thought. Monday hopefully, if NP and  the club have already discussed with players etc...

As far as inbound players go, and that could even impact players out of contract being offered new terms, this might well depend on discussions with the EFL and overall financial picture. I hope I'm wrong but it is possible that we might end up under some kind of Embargo or Business Plan this summer.

If we were under those parameters, the type of inbound business would initially depend on the type of Business Plan or Embargo. Covered it elsewhere for 2 of 3 possibles.

Eg with 'Professional Standing', Idehen would be one of the 23. Whereas under 'Permitted Players' he would not (by which I mean he wouldn't count towards the quota and we could still sign finances permitting).

The Reading embargo is the most relaxed or at least less onerous of all, finances permitting.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Mr P - worth reading this:

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/embargoes-faqs/

There are different embargoes.

The first type, the you are referring to seems to categorise things like clubs in Administration…and brings in the rules you state, like “players of professional standing”.

The second type, failing to meet P&S limits, is far less punishing, is related to players 21 and over who’ve played 5 games.

There is no way we would’ve played the likes of Idehen if we thought we were gonna be subjected to “professional standing” rules.

Stop panicking Capt Mainwaring

[Davefevs]

As it stands we have 26 established players…several who won’t be here next season anyway.

[chinapig]

17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In respect of the Retained List as early as possible I'd have thought. Monday hopefully, if NP and  the club have already discussed with players etc...

As far as inbound players go, and that could even impact players out of contract being offered new terms, this might well depend on discussions with the EFL and overall financial picture. I hope I'm wrong but it is possible that we might end up under some kind of Embargo or Business Plan this summer.

If we were under those parameters, the type of inbound business would initially depend on the type of Business Plan or Embargo. Covered it elsewhere for 2 of 3 possibles.

Eg with 'Professional Standing', Idehen would be one of the 23. Whereas under 'Permitted Players' he would not (by which I mean he wouldn't count towards the quota and we could still sign finances permitting).

The Reading embargo is the most relaxed or at least less onerous of all, finances permitting.

The, to me surprising, statement from Gould that we will have the same budget next season implies that we either expect to be ok as far as FFP goes or are willing to accept some sanction - say a 6 point deduction.

I assume we have been having ongoing discussions with the EFL in any event.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

The, to me surprising, statement from Gould that we will have the same budget next season implies that we either expect to be ok as far as FFP goes or are willing to accept some sanction - say a 6 point deduction.

I assume we have been having ongoing discussions with the EFL in any event.

I appreciate I’m a broken record on this, but I honestly don’t see us taking a points deduction.  And based in estimates it would be 1-3 points rather than 6 per se.

Nige (the club) has made great strides in reducing the playing budget from last season to this.  Sorry!!,

And of course RG can talk about “playing budget” and mean more than one thing.  Could mean wages, could mean wages plus amortisation, could mean the full cost of running BCFC.

For example, wage bill could stay exactly the same, but amortisation might get smoothed over the next 3 season.

Taking actuals and rough estimates of amortisation over a period of time:

20/21 - £13m

21/22 - £6.5m (Nige has halved it in one season)

22/23 - £6.5m

23/24 - £1.0m

That £6.5m could be spread over 22/23, 23/24, and 24/25 if all of the likes of Kalas, Massengo, Bentley, Dasilva, etc, signed 2 year extensions this summer.  It would then look something like this:

20/21 - £13m

21/22 - £6.5m 

22/23 - £2.9m (a reduction on projections of £3.6m)

23/24 - £2.8m (increase by £1.8m)

24/25 - £1.8m (increase by £1.8m)

That £3.6m reduction might be enough to put us back inside the FFP limits.  It really is only 22/23 that is a concern.  We just need to get through next season.

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

I appreciate I’m a broken record on this, but I honestly don’t see us taking a points deduction.  And based in estimates it would be 1-3 points rather than 6 per se.

Nige (the club) has made great strides in reducing the playing budget from last season to this.  Sorry!!,

And of course RG can talk about “playing budget” and mean more than one thing.  Could mean wages, could mean wages plus amortisation, could mean the full cost of running BCFC.

For example, wage bill could stay exactly the same, but amortisation might get smoothed over the next 3 season.

Taking actuals and rough estimates of amortisation over a period of time:

20/21 - £13m

21/22 - £6.5m (Nige has halved it in one season)

22/23 - £6.5m

23/24 - £1.0m

That £6.5m could be spread over 22/23, 23/24, and 24/25 if all of the likes of Kalas, Massengo, Bentley, Dasilva, etc, signed 2 year extensions this summer.  It would then look something like this:

20/21 - £13m

21/22 - £6.5m 

22/23 - £2.9m (a reduction on projections of £3.6m)

23/24 - £2.8m (increase by £1.8m)

24/25 - £1.8m (increase by £1.8m)

That £3.6m reduction might be enough to put us back inside the FFP limits.  It really is only 22/23 that is a concern.  We just need to get through next season.

I am more optimistic on that front too despite Gould saying a while ago that we would be prepared to take a hit. Just managing expectations I think.

As I said I'm sure we have been talking to the EFL to get our ducks in a row.

[Merrick's Marvels]

Gould's most recent comments - to Twentyman pre Hull game - gave no indication that a points penalty was a possibility. He said we'd have a similar budget to last year (whether we spend that on just the wages of free signings or, like last year, combine it with a small amount of transfer fee as well, we'll just have to wait and see). He said we'll be looking to find value for money in the lower leagues like Tanner and Atkinson.

He also said discussions were still ongoing with the EFL about how much of a club's losses they will allow to be written off as covid-related. I think he meant both in City's case but also generally throughout all the leagues. He said without a definitive decision on this it made it difficult to know exactly how much a club could afford to spend going forward. He said there are also changes to FFP imminent which adds a further complication to how club's can plan financially going forward in the longer term, although I got the sense that these last points won't impact on our short term plans ie this summer. He seemed clear on what the budget was this summer and, again, I didn't get any sense that he expected us to start on a minus points total at the start of next season. Fingers crossed!

Edited May 8, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[Davefevs]

Good summary MM

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Mr P - worth reading this:

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/embargoes-faqs/

There are different embargoes.

The first type, the you are referring to seems to categorise things like clubs in Administration…and brings in the rules you state, like “players of professional standing”.

The second type, failing to meet P&S limits, is far less punishing, is related to players 21 and over who’ve played 5 games.

There is no way we would’ve played the likes of Idehen if we thought we were gonna be subjected to “professional standing” rules.

Stop panicking Capt Mainwaring

Thanks Dave yeah, I'll look at this again. Feels unlikely that we would be under a Professional Standing Embargo definitely- given the transparency and cooperation this would be fairly unprecedented although it is worth noting that despite this, Reading were though despite being under the 2nd type of Embargo, unable to add anyone until late July 2021 and Birmingham likewise in 2018. Presumably the embargo was being used as leverage to some extent in discussions. Birmingham was slightly different of course as they signed Pedersen for £2m under a Soft Embargo which exacerbated issues massively.

For context, Birmingham's first signing in 2018/19 was on 7th August 2018. Clearly the EFL had put a full embargo on them while the issues remained disputed.

Reading's first signing in 2021/22 was on 12th August 2021.

Sheffield Wednesday have been under embargoes pre-season for multiple reasons in recent times. Their first signing in 2018/19 was on 16th August 2018, in 2019/20 on 10th July 2019 but they weren't allowed to register them for some time afterwards, and 2020/21 was a bit different due to Covid and an ongoing hearing but 28th July 2021.

These have in recent times all been quite badly mismanaged clubs though.

There is also the "Permitted Player" rule to consider which appeared in the Derby and Reading settlements. 3 starts at Championship level or above, not exceeding 25 players- perhaps that is what happens with a Business Plan, nothing on the EFL site though.

I made a start on where we might stand with that on the FFP tinkering round the edges thread- I do wonder if the Football League as a starting point might put a full embargo on a club as a precursor for talks- Reading's restrictions only seemed to be eased after discussions. Business Plans and monitoring can- but don't always- cover new or extended contracts too.

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

The, to me surprising, statement from Gould that we will have the same budget next season implies that we either expect to be ok as far as FFP goes or are willing to accept some sanction - say a 6 point deduction.

I assume we have been having ongoing discussions with the EFL in any event.

Ongoing discussions yes I agree, but still seems up in the air to me- what we anticipate and what the Football League accept- same goes for a host of clubs- may not be the same.

51 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I appreciate I’m a broken record on this, but I honestly don’t see us taking a points deduction.  And based in estimates it would be 1-3 points rather than 6 per se.

Nige (the club) has made great strides in reducing the playing budget from last season to this.  Sorry!!,

And of course RG can talk about “playing budget” and mean more than one thing.  Could mean wages, could mean wages plus amortisation, could mean the full cost of running BCFC.

For example, wage bill could stay exactly the same, but amortisation might get smoothed over the next 3 season.

Taking actuals and rough estimates of amortisation over a period of time:

20/21 - £13m

21/22 - £6.5m (Nige has halved it in one season)

22/23 - £6.5m

23/24 - £1.0m

That £6.5m could be spread over 22/23, 23/24, and 24/25 if all of the likes of Kalas, Massengo, Bentley, Dasilva, etc, signed 2 year extensions this summer.  It would then look something like this:

20/21 - £13m

21/22 - £6.5m 

22/23 - £2.9m (a reduction on projections of £3.6m)

23/24 - £2.8m (increase by £1.8m)

24/25 - £1.8m (increase by £1.8m)

That £3.6m reduction might be enough to put us back inside the FFP limits.  It really is only 22/23 that is a concern.  We just need to get through next season.

Agreed on this- especially the last bit, post 2022/23 I have no particular grounds for concerns. Smoothing would help a lot, if we can't smooth or can't agree new terms then sell.

32 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Gould's most recent comments - to Twentyman pre Hull game - gave no indication that a points penalty was a possibility. He said we'd have a similar budget to last year (whether we spend that on just the wages of free signings or, like last year, combine it with a small amount of transfer fee as well, we'll just have to wait and see). He said we'll be looking to find value for money in the lower leagues like Tanner and Atkinson.

He also said discussions were still ongoing with the EFL about how much of a club's losses they will allow to be written off as covid-related. I think he meant both in City's case but also generally throughout all the leagues. He said without a definitive decision on this it made it difficult to know exactly how much a club could afford to spend going forward. He said there are also changes to FFP imminent which adds a further complication to how club's can plan financially going forward in the longer term, although I got the sense that these last points won't impact on our short term plans ie this summer. He seemed clear on what the budget was this summer and, again, I didn't get any sense that he expected us to start on a minus points total at the start of next season. Fingers crossed!

May not start on minus points but we might start under a Business Plan of some description- or monitoring requirements. Maybe there would be a points deduction attached- see Reading and a suspended -6.

What Gould or a club and not just our club say may not correlate with what the Football League will accept. That's the big question mark...for a host of clubs.

If the Football League follow the UEFA template then it's Player Costs as 90% of turnover in Year 1, 80% Year 2 and 70% Year 3- and Year 3 is the new benchmark moving forward- by player costs I mean wages and amortisation. Plus a 6 year average of transfer profits also counts as revenue- I assume clubs in excess would need to offload before they add anyone new. Another layer of complexity as you say.

Plus I've read, each case/club case with Embargoes is dealt with individually, on a case by case basis- so we can extrapolate but not get a full on IMO. I assume that if a club are rather bullish in talks, pushing back strongly then the EFL might impose strong restrictions e.g.

The other thing to bear in mind is that until this season Business Plans were largely retrospective- now they can be pre-emptive, this change could catch a few out.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What Gould or a club and not just our club say may not correlate with what the Football League will accept. That's the big question mark...for a host of clubs.

Yes, absolutely. The outcome of discussions is still up for grabs and could be not what we're looking for - hence my fingers crossed. At least we appear to have been up front and transparent about our figures, started a dialogue early. Hopefully this earns us some brownie points instead of minus points! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Yes, absolutely. The outcome of discussions is still up for grabs and could be not what we're looking for - hence my fingers crossed. At least we appear to have been up front and transparent about our figures, started a dialogue early. Hopefully this earns us some brownie points instead of minus points! 

Do hope so and the transparency, plus dialogue should only count in our favour IMO agreed.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If the Football League follow the UEFA template then it's Player Costs as 90% of turnover in Year 1, 80% Year 2 and 70% Year 3- and Year 3 is the new benchmark moving forward- by player costs I mean wages and amortisation. Plus a 6 year average of transfer profits also counts as revenue- I assume clubs in excess would need to offload before they add anyone new. Another layer of complexity as you say.

I hadn’t read the the 6 year bit, you gotta link anywhere please?  Ta.  (I can’t see anything in Annex F of the UEFA doc…is it a transitional arrangement?)