Hxj

19 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

 if he is going to be here he should be backed with funds and a contract though. I’d like to see another 2-3 knight type signings to be honest. 1-2m range maybe slightly more. Not crazy wage signings either.

The club have just spent two years managing down the squad size and the wage bill, I would be amazed if all that good work is ripped up overnight.

They have also made it perfectly clear what pool we are fishing in for players, and so far it seems to be working very well.

Nothing will change.

Pearson knows all this and has enthusiastically signed up to it.

1 minute ago, Henry said:

Not for me

have you unmuted it?

2 minutes ago, paignton red said:

Anybody else trying to log in to robins tv to watch and can't log in on this new website?

I can't either I used to login to Robins TV using 'Google' but the option seems to have disappeared.

32 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Beggar Bush Lane

Minor correction - this company owns the rugby club's training ground.

25 minutes ago, Midred said:

If Wolves were to be in trouble next year and couldn't/wouldn't come up with the  deferred payment would any agreement become null and void or would lawyers become involved?

That would depend upon the conditions.

Just can't see it happening on this basis for obvious commercial reasons.  What if Scott has a serious injury?  All too complicated.

5 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Some may joke but just by theory could be something in it, wolves offer a loan with an obligation to buy next summer when they’re financially stronger,

A loan with an obligation to buy has the same accounting treatment as an outright purchase - so it won't help Wolves.

1 hour ago, Rob26 said:

he said it needs spreading out revenue over the length of the contract

I don't agree for the reasons stated earlier, but would be interested in why he thinks that (other than because it's a 10 year season ticket (which in itself is incorrect)).

44 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Having now seen their website, I sounds a massive gamble!

Feels more like an act of desperation than anything else. 

On 14/07/2023 at 20:38, Owl Visiting said:

There's an argument currently going on Owlstalk about the reason you can't pay with a credit card.

I suspect that the tickets fall outside the terms of the agreement between the club and the credit card service provider.  Given that a service is being purchased and the terms are such that it could go on for an indefinite period, the credit card service provider is potentially liable to refund the whole cost during that indefinite period (if the services are not provided or the season tickets terminated) then the risks far outweigh the benefits of a 1.5% fee.

On 14/07/2023 at 22:41, Davefevs said:

I hope Mr Chansiri follows due accounting standards!

Ah - but what are the correct accounting standards - this is not a standard season ticket by any stretch of the imagination.

The tickets run until the end of the tenth season following Sheffield Wednesday's next promotion into the Premier League.  That could be 11 years if Wednesday get promoted in 2023/24 or 61 years if they get promoted in 2083/84, or forever if they never get promoted.

The club has therefore incurred, potentially, an unlimited cost (assuming the club always loses money) for a limited income.  Therefore for accounting purposes the company should include all the income as income in the year the ticket is sold and in the same year an amount significantly higher that the income as costs relating to the provision of those services in the following years.

I suspect that the tickets are more of an indication of need to generate cash, than a detailed study of the accounting standards.

Although the revised EFL regulations for 2023/24 mean that the sanctions for late payment of HMRC debts will kick in before HMRC issue any winding up proceedings.  In particular a total of 30 days late HMRC payment will result in a transfer ban for three periods.  That will result in clubs paying HMRC on time unless they are financial basket cases.

30 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

Speculating about transfer targets is what football forums are for isnt it??

It is - but the club have made it perfectly clear by action which market we are in, it's spending 0-£1.5 million.  To be spent mainly on those the club can develop, with the odd older wiser head where needed.

2 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

I would absolutely look to upgrade with the Scott money.

It's so easy to spend someone else's money.

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Out of interest, How is Kalas’s inbound transfer (01.07.2019 - 19/20 accounts - summer 2019 window) from Chelsea linked / connected to Kelly’s outbound transfer (18.05.2019 - 18/19 season - summer 2019 window) to Bournemouth…other than by date / window?

The question is, would you have signed Kalas if Kelly had stayed?  Is he not a replacement?

This isn't an accounting issue, but an FFP issue.  As I said I have no idea where this view comes from but it persists in my head.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

It was a decision based on vanity imho, ie to show a profit…and more than likely a bigger bonus for the CEO.

It actually worked against us for FFP further down the line.

I'm not sure that it does.  My understanding is that where you have two deals in the same transfer window, but either side of an accounting date that are connected you can treat them as connected.  For example the cost of Kalas is set against the income from Kelly.   The profit on Kelly for FFP purposes is reduced by the cost of Kalas and the Kalas costs are therefore not deductible in future accounting periods.

I have no idea where this belief comes from, but it makes sense from a commercial viewpoint.

Just now, Rob26 said:

so its when the cash was put in and you can equity convert at a later date?

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,

14 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

or can you not do it for 2 years then decide to convert £24m of equity to get the £39m in the final year?

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. 

3 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Any chance of a quick summary of clubs flying close to the wind FFP wise?

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. 

13 minutes ago, redkev said:

Whoosh way over my head , 

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 ...

36 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Although he could have called it quits after relegation who knows.

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. 

2 hours ago, Magger1 said:

Max got the shirt it’s for others to take it off him but I think a experience keeper on bench to keep him on toes is definitely needed

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.

21 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Even beyond that though, it's low even for them.

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.

21 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm convinced some kind of Sala offset, reversal of Impairment or compensation is part of their financial planning, FFP theory.

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.

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This verdict feels like a fudge.

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