Rob26

I think they are doing good by making everyone get in accounts upto a certain point for each season, maybe if they told clubs their ffp position for the season before january it would give clubs option to change it by selling players I think they should also change the end period for the accounts, make it line up with the transfer window so then the mitigation cases forrest and everton are no doubt putting forward would go away, as you defs get less for most players before end of june than later in the window. infact clubs will no doubt use the period as a way to offer less and potentially force a club behind on ffp to take the low ball offer to meet ffp.

so what does our FFP budget look like for this year and next potentially if we have an average loss next year. also with the accounts being signed by gibbo in november and issued 9/1/24 to CHouse, does that mean the footnote of 5.6m net spend this season applies to summer only or would it have to be up to date when put on Chouse? which we have potentially spent 2.5m plus maybe something sub 1m for Ayling loan

anyone able to update our numbers and whack up all the excel stuff like before thanks theres an interesting footnote which states when the accounts were made during this season we are currently at 5.6m net spent on transfers/agents/loan fees if that helps too

there up now

so whats the basis for everton? have they not already been done for some of the years in the last 3? looking up their sanction included 2 of the years. surely them 2 years no longer count or something? would seem a fair way to do it possibly, other wise you get done for ffp maybe for 3 years in a row, if they are compliant this year only but not the other 2, seems off to do them again.

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/everton-nottingham-forest-charged-ffp-premier-league-2854223

fans are fans, pundits, public and polital figures and journos all have fan bases to appease that they want to make money from, and that includes everton fans, so they have a interest in being sympathetic, I'm sympathetic to all fans who have owners cost their club due to breaking the rules, its not fair to them and not their fault but the restrictions will never work if you do not punish them the way they are trying to do presently.

I think they may just be thinking, 10 points clear of 3rd, do we need to spend any money now, given their situation. nice to get another player in to boost the numbers, but after all what they may be recruiting in this window may be someone who does not work for them when back in the prem

wouldn't bonuses just be classed as wages?

not to mention most of the deception points require a crazy amount of evidence to back up, they don't have the evidence to make them stack up to the higher level the panel will require. it's already fell through with uefa, can it going exactly the same way, man city either win or end up with a fine so the bpl can say they did something. always seemed to me that when the goverment decided they wanted to get into regulation of the sport that this was done straight away because of the governments special relationship with the state i've no doubt they have broke ffp. but have no doubt they have probs covered their asses legally, the court it was with for uefa was much easier to win they probs forgot to claim 50m this year due to covid :laugh:

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/major-west-bromwich-albion-takeover-development-shared/ seems decent value for someone wanting a decent placed platform to push for the prem I think if they take over and pay the MSD loans off early they will still need to pay the majority of the interest for this season, I'm sure I've read instances of people restructuring them and still needing to cover the next interest payment or so to clear it off early.

I don't think it was a case of Cardiff forgetting to add anyone to the insurance, I think there was ambiguity there in the coverage that a player wasn't covered by the policy until they had their name added to the policy, where Cardiff must of had enough paperwork etc that showed it wasn't unreasonable to think that they could sign a player and they would be instantly covered by the policy. You can have policies for example what insure assets or liabilities upto a certain money value for an agreed amount of claims, and Obv there is something on Cardiff too as if he was added to the insurance then there could be no arguments, but I have a feeling this situation (without a death) prob has happened consistently I reckon where players may not be added to the insurance policies for a short period of time after signing at many clubs. It's just the fact they normally live until they are insured and at best are probs only ever injured before being formally added to the policy. it may well be that they were already covered for every/single/yearly instance up to 10m and you can read the policies and not see anything there about having to register a player on the policy first for immediate coverage (it may say you have so many days/hours to update it maybe or not mention the procedure at all) so all they were insured for was 10m, so no claims could be entertained above that and the argument is if a player that new is covered by the policy or not, which should be something black and white and if there is abiguity where you could take it either way, usually courts will side with the people who issued the contract. There's enough there that Cardiff may well have done nothing wrong with the insurance and the own insurers ambiguities in their procedures has meant that the underwriters thought it was at least worth a challenge before they paid millions out, as its probs among the highest end of payments they will of had to cover with these sort of policies as they don't normally end this way. (this is of course based on that local news reporter making out they got a decent pay off as they wouldn't if it was frivolous). I'm sure its changed policies all over the world and plenty of clubs are calling the insurance companies before they let anyone travel home. I can't grudge them benefiting from the payment tho, as they have had to pay cost out in previous years, and it looks like they are clearly at a loss over the deal, as looks like a deal that probs cost about 20m plus legal costs.

it's a mis-selling claim, nothing disgusting or bizarre about it. where the revenue falls is where they have to apply it I imagine the insurance company must of not told them of the restrictions on adding players to insurance clearly or in writing and when a player was covered by the policy. lets face it 99.9% of the time there is no need for instant insurance as these things like don't happen, I'm guessing for them to settle for an amount which may be in the millions there must be a decent level of ambiguity in Cardiff's favour or they would never settle. when selling insurance you do have to have all the information and everything presented correctly and in the agreed legal formats so its black and white whats covered and what is not. The insurers and/or their underwriters may have took a view that paying out something small compared to the amounts being banded about with the litigation saves them on future legal fees and draws a line under it. My thoughts are tho if they were suing for 10m though they have probs settled for amounts that are only in the first few millions at best and it still could be much lower than that. if its a case that Cardiff knew deep down was not going to bring them 10m then they could of settled at anything, even like 500k if they thought they were going to lose and the main leverage they had was being able to make the insurance companies spend endless cash on litigation defending it and also risk if they lost setting a precedent they may not like, insurance companies often rather settle than leave themselves on the hook for much larger amounts, they typically pick and chose their battles based on the expected value they have on fighting it, the whole business is all about risk management see could be settled for 1m or less or a little more, make it private, then both sides can paint things in a light that they both won, they probs both have, it would of got so far if it was frivolous and they had sold the policy correctly, but this is a once in a life time situation which obviously was not built into the policy's, but i'm certain there will be clauses built into sports insurance to cover everyone going forward in black and white now it has happened. could the timing of the of the settlement be one that suited cardiff? maybe and that would possibly influence them to take it as well when they did. I'm sure the settlement will stand out in the accounts like a soare thumb, im sure we had 3m in our last accounts show up in a section of the accounts that was usually featuringing minimal values, thats how we all know derby paid out 3m to us from our case, or we assume that where it come from :laugh:

cost for advertisement eclipsing the demand :laugh: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/dec/12/chelsea-transfer-plans-at-risk-as-premier-league-clubs-ponder-amortisation-cap clubs have voted to match uefa for the max contract amortisation duration. This is one ffp fiddle that I had no issue with and would of let them continue to use, its the club who are taking the risk by giving out these lengthy non standard term contracts, if they pay off then they should benefit, and if they don't then let them learn the hard way. although I do think it's going to be unenforceable for this season anyways for any players already signed, as you cannot expect to have success applying law changes retrospectively in court surely? maybe wont get away with January purchases pushing you over the limit, but any in the summer that would have been good without the rule change I'm certain will have to be allowed i'm sure I saw that this will cost chelsea this season approx 24m of their ffp budget.

the loans are from his own companies, and he takes no income from them and usually writes them off for ffp, and think he does more than is needed from ffp because its money thats never getting called in, and think it just gets wrote off when needed for FFP and maybe at other times that may benefit the other companies too no signs or rumours or anything about a sale, think its more just ffp manovering than anything else and tidying up the groups books

was pretty high on the accounts I just looked at they issued in april, would expect it to come down no doubt for sure, if not they are asking for it :laugh: i believe they must be over the hump of being able to gamble on promotion

I'm sure its for cash flow, which is plugging holes to buy time to sell it really like you say he is taking a hit on his potential exit fee by adding to your liabilities rather than putting more in. if you intended going into administration you would crush the money you have in the club, the administrators would just find a cheap deal and for the money he has put in that he is owed he would either get pennies on the pound or time limited repayments based on what league the club were in, which normally ends in the seller getting short changed. getting loans kicks the can down the road and keeps you in control of your exit from the sale of your club.

yeah if you dont punish the club for breaching ffp or not paying their bills even if it is unfair for fans then breaches will happen more and more, people who knowingly break ffp will mostly welcome financial penalties for the owners, because they would probs pay to be allowed to put the money in. you can have to have consequences with points etc in addition to fines for cases that require it or they will just take the punishment personally so the club can carry on breaching what ever they wanted. clubs have to be punished even if hurts the fans also on their other point i would like to see some numbers on how clubs outside of division one financially operated before the premier league, this statement makes out that there is a few teams at the top and all the clubs below are feeding them and not being properly compensated for this (no doubt because many clubs operate at a loss) but surely because of the premier league there is far more money around in these leagues below now than there has ever been. watching old documentaries about football and finances the pre-premier league years do not strike me as being years where everyone outside of the top flight was making lots of money with their football clubs, it come across as the opposite and most clubs being badly run and not making money at all, and before the premier league clubs were a much bigger mess financially than they are now, even if the debt levels maybe are more, a lot of that is down to the owners operating the club at a loss you can pump more money into the clubs outside the premier league and its very naïve to believe that would make the clubs receiving the money solvent. it would just mean there is more money to pay wages/fee's for players and clubs will take advantage of it. the only way you will change that is by forcing clubs to not make significant losses, at the moment they basically saying it's fine for you to loose £10m+ a season which cumulatively is not fine in the long run as adds up. of course you are limited to reforming this as other countries need to fall in line at the same time, so you probs have a never ending issue with this, as no one is probs going to agree to be limited by stricter rules (as I imagine it reduces the £ value of many clubs) if it was for me I would look to slowly remove the allowed losses every year. maybe knock down annually allowed losses upper limit by 1m every few years. if you put it in place now for 3.5+ seasons time for the first 1m reduction (for championship) then there is more than enough time for clubs to make sure they are compliant, if it meant clubs could not spend as much on fee's and wages then I'm sure the figures paid would adjust accordingly, we all saw with covid how when there wasn't as much money around that transfer fee's for a short while took a hit and free agents didn't command the same money they used to. but good luck getting clubs to agree to being limited in what they can do, I imagine clubs that may want to sell up or invest will vote against and only those who want to reduce costs agree to try and bring others down while they do it :laugh:. only thing that is making clubs get closer to being solvent each year is the goverment making the money worth less and less with inflation so the amount they owe is worth less than ever :laugh:. would love to see our country be the first that would make efforts to slowly force clubs to become solvent, that 10m+ your allowed to lose every year must only be worth 7m now after the last few years we have had :laugh:

the fact he is able to and getting loans shows they wont go into administration as he can borrow to plug the cashflow while trying to find someone to give him some of his cash back with a sale, which must be the end goal.

https://www.wba.co.uk/news/west-bromwich-albion-group-limited-secures-additional-msd-funding last year wba borrowed another 20m from msd

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12779925/Everton-Burnley-Leeds-Leicester.html EXCLUSIVE: Everton are unhappy £300m compensation claim from Burnley, Leeds and Leicester will be heard by the SAME disciplinary panel that docked them 10 points wonder if the fine comes out your ffp allowance and puts them in breech again, it must be an allowed expense or it could be never ending I suppose :laugh:, bound to be paid out over several years anyways not sure why you have to pay off both leeds and Leicester, did the results Everton got vs both teams take the team that come 3rd last down? If so its surely a stretch to assume if everton did not overspend on ffp that they would of got 6 points off everton being they are relegated teams, at best I think you could argue they would get their average points per game they obtained from everyone else. but then you can't just afford the relegated teams that privilege (if they are) I feel you would have to allow every team in the league the same outcome and see how they all would stack up if that was the case, very messy way to look at things and you could have compensation cases all over the league :laugh:. I would think that one of them are relegated in Everton's place out of leeds and leiscter and only one of them should have a claim with burnley.

like this i just read haha some reach trying that haha I'm glad they thought about it that way as it makes total sense that they never lost anything other than unrealised gains/losses, when you think about it - it's a have your cake and eat it situation

im only a few pages in on that 40 page everton doc, but am I right in reading that both sides agreed their was a breach, BPL said 19m but everton said its more like 9m (probs to try and get it under a threshold of a smaller breach im guessing). Maybe I'm reading it wrong but this bit comes across like there was so much put to them but they determined there was no point in assessing everything over it as could pick apart items which were more undisputable rather than those open to interpretation as there looks like there was enough breech in these to hit that 19m they needed to show they had crossed the line. i'm not far in tho reading so maybe something else shows its different to my assumption later in the document, but would explain why your all getting much higher numbers than they have done them for, because that's all they needed to prove to punish them for this (and maybe politically leave a few cans closed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67490620 Premier League: Newcastle can sign players on loan from PIF-owned Saudi clubs after vote / Tougher rules relating to sponsorship deals between 'associated parties' also failed to get the necessary support, with seven clubs voting against the amendment. They were understood to be the same clubs that opposed the ban on loans, with the exception of Burnley. And in a further sign of a split between its clubs, league chiefs were also unable to get them to approve a £900m so-called 'New Deal' financial settlement with the English Football League, despite hopes a package could be announced. Insiders insisted there was "positive momentum" behind talks, but no vote took place after a continuing impasse over new cost control measures. The Premier League has been under mounting pressure to agree improved level of support for the football pyramid. A report by the Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Select Committee in June said if no funding plan is reached soon, the government should accelerate setting up an independent football regulator "to impose a deal". Panel that docked Everton points will decide compensation claims The same independent panel that docked Everton 10 points for breaching Premier League financial rules will decide on any financial compensation claims from rival clubs. Leeds and Leicester - who were relegated to the Championship last season - along with Burnley - who were relegated in 2022 before returning - are weighing up whether to press ahead with a claim against the Toffees. Had the 10-point deduction been applied in 2021-22, Burnley would have stayed up, as would Leicester last season if it had counted then. Leeds would have finished a place higher, but would still have gone down. It has been reported Everton could potentially face claims for tens of millions of pounds. The clubs have 28 days from the date of the ruling to decide. If they do, barrister David Phillips KC, High Court judge His Honour Alan Greenwood, and chartered accountant Nick Igoe (former West Ham finance director), would hear their arguments. In last week's ruling, Phillips KC referenced applications for financial compensation from a number of clubs, saying he was "satisfied" that they had "potential claims". Everton have 14 days from the ruling to lodge an appeal.

anyone know how they come to the figure they were only 19m in breach of ffp when they lost circa triple the allowance at one point, sounds like a way of not getting into all the covid stuff (with everyone else) but still punishing them for breaching anyways.