Rob26
-
Posts
233 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Events
Posts posted by Rob26
-
-
leeds just announced sponsorship from red bull, who have at the same time taken a minority share in the club
-
2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
Leeds chairman has clarified a couple of things. It could be in part to protect negotiating position of course.
Sounds as if P&S sales the bigger issue as set against the Cash Flow. Depending on the Augustin case and a range if other factors could be as 'low' as £20-25m or as high as £50-55m the hole in P&S terms.
Thanks for posting.
Bit surprised that, historic alleged offences aside for Chelsea, none of Aston Villa, Chelsea, Newcastle, Nottingham Forest are on there.
See also Bournemouth, their expenditure remains a mystery- they really wind me up, where are their sales and they won't have major Allowables in all likelihood.
shame you never get a report of what each club claimed for ffp purposes, even if its high level figures without a breakdown, just so u know how far off everyones calcs are
just seen this which looks like the allowances are increased for the championship - first I had heard of this change, and mentions its for one year as well, so not sure if it will feature rolling forward or a new figure next year?
Previously, clubs have been permitted to lose no more than £39 million over a rolling three-year period, but at the annual summer get together, Championship clubs have agreed to slightly adjust the figure for one year to £41.5 million. While not a substantial change, it's still a potential help for Boro and their rivals as they plot their moves for the upcoming summer transfer window.
-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/28172788/leicester-premier-league-points-deduction-financial-rules/
LEICESTER CITY and Everton are both at risk of receiving massive points deductions ahead of the new Premier League season.
The Foxes are currently awaiting a verdict after being charged with breaching Profit and Sustainability Rules.
-
1
-
-
he wouldn't of took us up, just see the previous years play offs when we couldnt even get a decent shot vs villa over 2 games :laugh:
On 27/05/2024 at 18:22, chinapig said:Assuming you mean Leeds, Kieran Maguire says £2m. Not much help then.
they look like they had around 30euro millions in sales this season just gone, so a good portion of that should help, although likely they will of had 1/3 - 1/2 of it in already
-
15 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
I expect Leicester had they stayed down would've faced a hole to 2024 and a bigger one to 2025.
Southampton potentially a hole to 2025.
The League rightly got the Fixed Assets loophole shut.
but don't Leicester have unanswered cases.
maybe I'm wrong but...
did they not breach their final premier league season? that's one case I think BPL wanted them to answer and they used them not being part of the league any more as an excuse to ignore them
then last season was most likely a subsequent breach and they ignored the EFLs same requests as the BPL citing that they dont have to comply because were a BPL team last year so haven't broken any EFL rules or reported anything that would require additional monitoring, EFL won't know about this breach for sure until they publish the accounts, but probs has to be one
so if that's the case, there is also the chance they have a 3rd case to catch for next season also, and you also have aggravating factors if the loophole is not deemed by the courts to be a loophole and just a club defying the rules.
could be a very interesting club to watch how its handled.
leeds might also be putting together a legal case for them to answer to, we certainly got something out of derby county for denying us into the play offs, which we believe was a 3m settlement. You would imagine their case would be based on missing out on automatic promotion by 7 points (well 8 as goal difference keeps them out at 7) which has more gravity than us coming 7th - when was clear as day we wouldn't of done jack shit if we were there other than collect 2 sets of home and away match day revenue for the semis
-
4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
Small update by Kieran on Leeds.
If they pour in loans and or equity that issue should sort itself out.
Irrespective of that, FFP sales will be needed.
yeah if you post that information with the same reports they just dont get the same number of clicks do they :laugh:, you can save that for an update for more clicks saying it might be ok
there's more than enough meat on the bone with that squad if they need to do a few sales, gnoto and summerville are going to bail them out massivly
I also think that they bought the club (in full) in the championship, and think its a place for a club like leeds that you are not going to have to try that hard for the investors to dig a little deeper when they all got one eye on the premier league, statistically they are most likely to be the team that is in year 2 of EFL football after BPL relegation that gets promoted night season, theres normally at least 1 team that gets promoted after they spent a year coming close and getting to grips with the league.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
One factor I had forgotten, the Augustin compensation.
From an FFP perspective, not sure how that will impact matters. Could add up to £24.5m or maybe it has already been accounted for somehow.
april 2023 that was announced.
their accounts go upto 30th june 2023, so it has to be in last seasons accounts. you couldn't ignore reporting that liability, in fact they should of really had an allowance for it in the previous years accounts possibly, as either the liability for his contract or if there was a case lodged at that point for the expected outcome. I can't imagine they thought it was a case they would really win for the lads contract he has lost out on.
you also had fifa ordering them that they had to pay the original 21m fee, but they appealed it and settled on 15m (as the club that won probs wanted the money rather than having that size hole in their accounts) so there is probs some improvement on that fee on the books that would offer something back when that settlement was crystallised for the players end too.
-
1
-
-
how much money do they have coming in from transfer sale payments? likely that offsets a decent chunk.
-
21 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:
Do you mean borrowing or lending?
like the club borrowing from the shareholder
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
So Nottingham Forest have retained their status in England’s top flight after two victories in their last three games left them six points clear of the relegation zone.
This was achieved despite a 4-point deduction for breaching the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR), which was confirmed after the club was unsuccessful in its appeal,
Their fans will believe that justice has been done, as Forest did enough on the pitch to ensure survival, while others might argue that this successful campaign was only made possible by the financial excesses that resulted in the club failing to comply with the PSR targets.
Whatever your point of view, let’s take a look at Forest’s accounts for the 2022/23 season, which was a record breaker in many ways, as the club by the Trent saw Premier League football for the first time after 23 long years.
Having led the club to promotion, manager Steve Cooper also guided Forest to safety, but the Welshman was dismissed last December, replaced by the experienced Portuguese Nuno Espirito Santo.
Profit/(Loss) 2022/23
Forest’s pre-tax loss widened by £21m from £46m to £67m, despite revenue shooting up £125m from £30m to a club record £155m following promotion to the Premier League, as this was eaten up by operating expenses rising £135m in the top flight.
In addition, net interest payable significantly increased from £1m to £10m, while profit from player sales dropped from £4m to £3m.
The main driver of Forest’s revenue growth was broadcasting, which rose a staggering £113m from £12m to £125m, due to the far more lucrative Premier League deal (ten times as much as in the Championship).
There was also good growth in the other revenue streams, especially commercial, which more than doubled from £9.3m to £18.9m, while match day increased by a third, rising £2.8m from £8.2m to £11.0m.
However, after so long outside the top flight, Forest had to significantly invest in the squad “to give the team the best opportunity to compete in the Premier League”.
As a result, Forest’s wages rose £86m from £59m to £145m, while player amortisation increased by £34m from just £7m to £41m. In addition, other expenses more than doubled from £13m to £28m.
Although Forest’s £67m loss is far from ideal, it’s worth noting that this was by no means the worst result in last season’s Premier League, as no fewer than seven clubs posted larger deficits, namely Aston Villa £120m, Tottenham £95m, Chelsea £90m, Leicester City £90m, Everton £89m, Southampton £87m and Newcastle United £73m
-
1
-
-
norwich are in a mad place for spending, if delia does not want to lose control (as she has let the other shareholder match her at 40% shares each) she either has to match his outside investment (to avoid his being converted to shares and giving him control), reject his investment or let him borrow the club money.
and borrowing the club money could well lead to it being converted to equity if the club cannot pay it out.
so be interesting to see how that plays out, as if you were just wanting paying out the club your likley to just sell most your shares rather than let someone match your shares.
I suppose depending who owns the other 20% he could maybe get control without her letting him.
-
think the 100m would only be to balance the books, given you have amortisation and profit from sales to factor in for ffp.
how far out do u think they really are
-
On 14/05/2024 at 10:41, Mr Popodopolous said:
Ah that one thanks, I was still stuck in the 3 year Rolling mindset.
also thinking about how the media works they are probs fine but good to drag another major supported team into the headline for clicks :laugh:
-
i've not checked or looked into the numbers, but I think it was working on the assumptions of next seasons limited, but then factoring in the 5x bottom team spending cap, which maybe why you got liverpool down as good to go to them saying if them rules get passed with the cap in them then they are now close.
-
1
-
-
chelsea fire sale needed before june, and/or likely they will be purchasing a training ground from themselves https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/man-utd-chelsea-liverpool-ffp-32798200
-
1
-
-
On 05/05/2024 at 09:34, Mr Popodopolous said:
Bellingham was 15% of Profit, which equates to £9-9.5m.
Seen contradictory suggestions but one was that Birmingham also get that % of the add-ons as and when they fall due. That still isn't revenue under P&S however, it bolsters position without a doubt.
yeah add ons have to be included in any profit share/sell on %, otherwise you would hear about clubs just making deals 1m with 50m of add ons for his first start to dodge the payments
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Hxj said:
I thought that this was another test in addition to the percentage test?
So you can spend up to 85% (or what ever limit) of your income, provided that sum is not more than 5 times the lowest income from defined (and presumably known in advance) sources.
that would make more sense, mad how its proposed like it levels the playing field tho
yeah your allowed to outspend them, but no more than 500% more than the teams with the least money.
I suppose it may come in to play more in future years if the money in europe etc gets out of hand
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Davefevs said:
Concept good, but 5x is hardly a cap is it, if the only team over it is Chelsea!
i dont get it, so am I right thinking they are going from 85% for wages and players fees of your clubs actual revenue, but instead are proposing 500% of the lowest clubs revenue?
I must be getting it wrong coz that just sounds like a its good if u want to invest in your club and you got the money and not going to change your mind,
but sounds like a recipe for disaster for clubs that take on incredible liabilities in a failed push like everton and then go down, potential for an owner to change their mind due to the level of debt the club owes would be huge surely.
-
2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
No surprise here, wonder if Aston Villa will look to sell and leaseback the Training Ground (the upgrade of which was partially funded by public money during the HS2 construction phase).
The problem or a problem they have is that qualifying for European football also stipulates certain requirements and in some ways it is more stringent.
It's as if they think the Rules should only apply when it suits them. Sure they aren't alone in that but remember that 2019 loophole which has how shut at the Football League level.
as one of the members of the premier league tho they are entitled to argue and negotiate and propose changes.
think your wasting your time tho when you have to comply with uefa as well, and surely uefa will be pushing as many leagues to fall in line with their rules as they can to even it out, they can argue it out but in the end if they are qualifying for europe they got to comply anyways with uefas version.
-
everton look like they may get took over if 777 pay this loan off https://football-italia.net/genoa-owners-step-closer-to-everton-takeover/
-
everton sound like they are running out of options https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/everton-takeover-stuck-purgatory-crisis-3010133
777 had to pay this loan off by april as a condition of approval for take over, which hasn't happened, and although they are rumoured to be others interested the fact the owners are letting the 777 saga drag on this long i'm sure is a sign there is nothing concrete, with maybe buyers wanting to see what league they are buying them in before get serious.
going to be in a world of shit if the owner dont get back to covering the bills if the 777 can't take it over.
they will sharp want their money back too
-
3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
£63m Profit??
Nope, a £90m pre tax loss even if it is included at full stated Profit. Can you link to the Article in q?
Yes slightly under value would cover all bases although not too far as tax can be paid on such transactions and HMRC may want weird.
It is not really a loophole no, is basic Accounting. Albeit something that the EFL rightly voted to adjust out
The gamble can be one of two ways really..perhaps 3.
*Stave off the inevitable.
*Buy time to get higher on the pitch and start to make up gaps that way.
*Buy time to use it to restructure finances over a 2-3 year period so you're back on the level.
Amortisation length rule won't be backdated but any subsequent signings that they (or anyone else make) will.be assessed over a max of 5 years irrespective of the actual length that they sign for.
I meant for FFP, I linked the article in my first post about it,
here is the part I got that from tho
-
is it a loophole tho? is it not part of the rules you can sell assets in your group but it has to be fair value? the media describe it as loopholes for the clicks and sales but just thought its inter group transactions which all get fair value if deemed valid.
the smart move on their behalf would of been doing it slightly under value - as apposed to them being greedy and relying on a value that won't stand up and will bite them in the ass later on.
that sun article reckons it puts them at a 63m profit for the year, but there is only so many times you can kick this can down the road tho before things tighten up and you don't have these options open to you.
maybe thats why I don't get mad at the clubs that find these holes in the system, part of me hopes the leagues get better and patch the holes up,
but the clubs that can't manage their ffp without doing this can only do it so many times, and it might delay them getting hit, but makes the fall a little more juicy.
Everytime teams like this do it and still fail to climb back into the champions league to balance the books, you just know when it does hit them its going to be something worth getting the popcorn out for,
these badly managed clubs often dont seem like they even know how to handle the extra money for spending they have farmed and always seems like are just constantly making things worse.
they must be getting close to a point where they need a bit of luck and players/managers not performing actually start to turn things around, as how much more can they keep spending on game changing players?
yet all they will probs come up with is sell players to make 10-20m of profit only for them to 5x over 5 years again at 50m-100m on one or two players, not thinking ahead they need a 10-20m profit on sales in each of the next 4 years to pay for it, and thats without paying for the rest of the players that are amortised in the accounts for even longer from past seasons
I wonder if the rules on 5 years amortisation only applies to new signings, can they reset the remaining amortisation by extending some deals back up to 5 years, or longer with extensions
-
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
We saw this in the EFL between 2018 to 2021. Albeit this was moreso Sale and Leaseback, the exception there being Reading when they outright sold their old Training Ground and land around the Stadium in a selling spree in 2017-18 and 2018-19.
There may have been a transaction last year too but it didn't arise in time for the Business Plan and wasn't a Fixed Asset disposal but iirc Shares in a company that owned a Fixed Asset- that loophole has also been closed incidentally..their Accounts for last year they've somehow extended to the end of June deadline wise.
yeah I think clubs on the edge of FFP are pushing accounts till the end of june, so if they have just extended to then it is to be expected, as they are kicking that can down the road and will want the chance of a fire sale in june if things dont come to plan.
would be mildly amusing if this hotel sale went under B15 and they said its not allowed and they had to get their fire sale on
-
the ffp guy saying on talksport it may not get approved, it may go against the good commercial faith rule B15 where the league can disallow it if it serves no commercial purpose other than benefitting their ffp situation
The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)
in Football Chat
Posted
their shirt sponsor was worth 6m in the last prem season, you would imagine at a push that is the max you could say.
if they blow that out the water they probs going to get it re-valued. I think even 6m is probs double what clubs at the top of the league that have recently come down are on
the average deal is 500k for our league, so although that comment does make it seem like they may take the piss, I would imagine its a number under half a dozen at best. to count on more as an argument to keep you on side of ffp is just setting yourself up for a fall