Hxj

It's more complex than that. For each season you want to access the higher loss limit you need secured funding in place. So for 2023/24 season SL could put in place a personal guarantee for £15 million this month. That would count as secure funding so the FFP limit would be £13 million for 2023/24. He could then fund the cash flow throughout the season introducing the cash as a loan each month. That doesn't count as secure funding. Finally in July 2025 he could remove the personal guarantee and convert the loan to equity, plus issue another £15 million of shares for the secure funding for 2024/25. Every club does it differently every year to some extent, but eventually as you say it usually ends up as equity,

The short answer is you can do it in any way that the EFL agree to. The longer answer is from the regulations: 1.1.19 Secure Funding means funds which have been or will be made available to the Club in an amount equal to or in excess of any Cash Losses which the Club has made in respect of the period from T-2 or is forecast to make up to the end of T+2. Secure Funding may not be a loan and shall consist of: (a) contributions that an equity participant has made by way of payments for shares through the Club’s share capital account or share premium reserve account; or (b) an irrevocable commitment by an equity participant to make future payments for shares through the Club’s share capital account or share premium reserve account. This irrevocable commitment shall be evidenced by a legally binding agreement between the Club and the equity participant and may if The League so requires be secured by one of the following: (i) a personal guarantee from the ultimate beneficial owner of the Club, provided that The League is satisfied that (1) he is of sufficient standing; and (2) the terms of the guarantee are satisfactory; (ii) a guarantee from the Club’s Parent Undertaking or another company in the Club’s Group, provided that The League is satisfied that (1) the guaranteeing company is of sufficient standing; and (2) the terms of the guarantee are satisfactory; (iii) a letter of credit from a Financial Institution of sufficient standing and an undertaking from the Club’s directors to The League to call on the letter of credit in default of the payments from the equity participant being made; (iv) payments into an escrow account, to be paid to the Club on terms satisfactory to The League; or (v) such other form of security as The League considers satisfactory; or (c) such other form of secure funding as The League considers satisfactory. As to timing you have to have secure funding in place for each period to get the £13 million allowance. When you provide the cash in line with your agreement won't really matter. I suspect that the EFL accept that SL doesn't have a spare £13 million in cash available every year in regular amounts.

My belief is that the rules (with the assist of Covid) are finally having an impact on spending. The shenanigans with Derby was the right poke in the eye for all the clubs thinking it was a good gamble. Now in League 1 and no guarantee of promotion in 2024. Then you look at Reading who have got themselves in a right mess by over-spending, they will struggle next season. I know that there are issues elsewhere, but they are generally historic.

The £22.5 million is cash that will be used to pay the bills, it will keep the lights on for a little longer.

Ah but if we get promoted next season the drop in Scott's value is a drop in the ocean ...

Both my 85+ aged parents have smartphones, mainly so someone can see where they are ... last time I asked, an awful lot of visits to the local in the car ...

As I understand things the owner has lost interest, sees the club as an 'expense' without any real hope of a 'way out'. Currently a basket case.

My issue is that an 'experienced keeper' to sit on the bench is a considerable expense. If you bring someone in better than Max fine, but then Max will probably leave and you are back to 'bringing in an experienced keeper to sit on the bench' to cover, doubling your expense. I am more than happy to leave Max as the No1.

For £110 million I would do it. Assuming costs of £0.5 million then a 1% chance of success puts you ahead. You might even get the other party to negotiate a settlement that leaves you ahead. If you are advising Nantes facing £110 million in settlement and say £5 million in fees after a failed appeal which you couldn't pay, and you were offered a settlement of £15 million now what would you do? Sentiment is fine but there are downsides. Part of the issue with the case is that France, in common with most Civil Law jurisdictions, has no concept of 'Summary Judgement' or 'Strike Out' as you do in Common Law jurisdictions like the UK, where the judge basically looks at the papers and says 'no' even if your facts are correct you still won't win, so you lose. The whole case has to be heard and decided upon. So I wouldn't take anything from the case being heard meaning that there is a chance of success for Cardiff. If Cardiff win the case the amount they receive will be income for FFP purposes. Cardiff have already taken a hit for the Sala Fees for FFP purposes, nothing wrong with a credit if they get their money back.

It's a negotiated settlement so it will always be a fudge. That said it does contain a clear warning regarding future conduct.

As to the WBA loan from MSD, I did hear that it was a circular loan. Note that MSD are 'Security Agents' not lenders as detailed in the Charge. I did hear a rumour that the cash borrowed from the club went in a circle and was lent back at interest.

I don't think that the regulations allow for compensatory payments from the old club to the new club, of for an old club to keep paying a player whilst he is at a new club. The club might make some savings by terminating the contract, but the player might just say no thanks, keep paying me, and all my end of contract bonuses plus the July payment. Some savings might be made for example by paying the player after they permanently leave the UK.

It is clear that City will easily clear FFP to May 2023. The buying out of Martin's and Klose's contracts were announced on 31 January 2023 four days after the sale of Semenyo. Buying out the contracts would have accelerated any end of contract costs to 2023 rather than 2024. So it is clear that the club could afford to bring those costs forward and stay within FFP.

Because they have more fans, and therefore more fans punting on their success, and therefore it will cost the bookies more if they get promoted, so the odds are cut to ensure the bookies still win.

Looks like we are going with the Man City 'Fake 3/Fake 4' approach. ??????????????????????????????

Plus some players will need to wait until the end of June to pick up any end of contract or end of year bonuses before they sign elsewhere.

Bookmakers are in the business to make money, not predict the answer. They don't care what the odds are, only that their book will balance in their favour.

It must have come as a terrible shock to them too - not like they were aware of the position in January this year: Oh and again on 17 May 2023:

If you follow the FIFA regulations through, which are based on a sovereign nation, anyone qualifying for any of the 4 home nations, plus Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, and a bunch of other countries, qualifies for all of them regardless of any games played and in what tournaments. So Conway could play for Scotland in the World Cup qualifiers, and when they fail to qualify again he could play for England in the World Cup Finals. It is only a "gentleman's agreement" between the four nations and various other islands, territories etc which stops this happening.

CAS etc stated that they had no jurisdiction to deal with Cardiff’s damages claim. So they are able to take that claim through the French commercial courts.

More philosophically can they afford to not buy Scott?

Football finance related, but not Championship FFP, but probably makes more sense here than anywhere else. A small insight into the huge sums of cash sloshing through football came out at a recent Tax Tribunal case: SPORTS INVEST UK LIMITED v Revenue & Customs (place of supply of football agent services - transfer of player from Sporting Lisbon to Inter Milan in 2016) Anything but paragraph 8(1) to 8(48) is for the diehards only.

Forest by a short head. Roll on next Monday and a win against Southampton will make life very tricky for Everton, Leeds and Leicester.

The trouble with the planning is what does Pearson do? Everyone makes him so old, he's probably younger than most posters on this thread! "You are not going to get your contract renewed Nige, thanks for all the fish etc" "OK" he says In October when say Middlesborough or Sheffield Wednesday sack their manager - in Nige style - "OK I'll f-off there and all my team are coming with me"

I agree completely, correction and recognition are entirely different from apologising.