Mr Popodopolous

Ah with you now. The fee and then some! To make it worse they put the fee in a very financially beneficial period, 2018-19 PL money provision so no amortisation needed but could write it back years later if the verdict went their way. Fortunately that particular verdict didn't go their way and €110m partially using xG for a sadly deceased player is surely for the birds.

Their pre tax losses were £94m in the period ending 2021-22. I'll debate this wirh you on the FFP thread if you like as I don't want to go into depth on here -£25m pre tax 2018-19 -£17m in each of 2019-20 and 2020-21 (pre tax, debt waivers don't count in FFP so -£22m). The average there is -£17m -£47m pre tax 2021-22. Their Covid add-backs were highly interesting..they argued £12m in the season of 2021-22 and £8m in each of 2019-10 and 2020-21 (averaged at £8m). That 3rd year figure is very suspect. Stoke my main issue is their transfer market activity which should be challenged IMO.

That would make sense. The Semenyo sale would mean we passed for sure..IMO.

Surely that would be included in the €110m that they're arguing for? I am possibly not getting it here..

Their claim is far greater, €110m was it?? Yet to read the statement or article however.

I really do query NFFC position to last season. I also have a problem with Stoke and their using Covid in part to wipe the slate somewhat. PL totally agree took far too long to refer Everton too.

Not exactly no..They were narrowly in line by my calculations to 2017-18. However a major breach would habe been forecast for 2018-19 without promotion. 8 figures. Again the future and teal time monitoring did not exist in the same way then. The League couldn't impose restrictions ahead of future seasons to assist with compliance. They can now. Clubs voted for this. We don't need to sell Scott for FFP, but we would be restricted somewhat in our expenditure this season and that is the trade-off.

If you cite Aston Villa you are missing a couple of key details. 1) They gained £36m profit on disposal and leaseback of stadium in 2018-19 which meant they could hold onto Grealish and gamble once more. This loophole is shut! A stadium or fixed asset sale would thus have no impact. 2) They also had HS2 route going through their training Ground, another £14.4m income albeit compensation. We do not have this luxury, it was their bad luck yet fortune at the same time. No other club has been impacted upon albeit benefited in this way. 3) 3rd and final year of Parachute Payments. 4) The future monitoring was not as advanced as now. Now if a club loses between £x and £y in 3 years the League will ask for the following 2 years of P&S numbers and can impose restrictions ahead of time if required to help prevent a breach. That said we don't need to sell Scott for FFP, nor Conway or Bell. Not strictly speaking but it will mean we maybe can't spend much more than we have this season.

Scott will be on a list of targets. They may look to sign 2, perhaps 3 midfielders if the price is right with Lanzini also off.

Basically helps to cover cash losses, write down debt or push if required our allowable losses from the lower to higher limit. In simple terms, no equity means a club fan in a Championship 3 year cycle make pre tax adjusted losses of £15m, equity wise the first £24m is counted in 3 years which is where the £39m kicks in. Otherwise it's something between £15m and £39m if a club owner injects some say £10m in equity in 3 years would be a £25m adjusted 3 year FFP/P&S loss. Perhaps some combination of all 3.

Huddersfield and Sheffield United (plus Blades Leisure Limited) accounts also due out today or in the coming days. Sheffield Wednesday and the associated companies all due at the end of July.

Two bits of news. Peterborough- reported £1m profit for 2021-22, their accounts due out today or next few days in practical terms https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/sport/football/peterborough-united/peterborough-united-to-show-a-healthy-profit-in-published-accounts-4202413 Sheffield Wednesday although no accounts out yet, reportedly lost only £10m in each of 2021-22 and 2022-23. This would be landmark as it would be their lowest losses since 2015-16 if we exclude such items as the Hillsborough transaction. This gave them a profit of £2.5m in 2017-18 and when moved go the correct year it fell to a £35m loss but meant that they posted a profit of £19m in 2018-19. That has gone now, all gone. Otherwise it was losses underlying of: 2016-17, £20.765m 2017-18, £35.5m 2018-19, £19m 2019-20, £24.78m 2020-21, £25.084m Aware of the Covid impact and average in the last two but thst is genuinely impressive if legitimately reduced to £10m.

Unsure about that, although would need a better tactical layout than the poster put for sure. It lacks width but a cohesive unit could certainly be made out of it. A back 3 of Ayling, Webster, Kelly though right wing back could pose a problem. Vyner is also out of contract in a year, we need to seek to extend him if possible.

I actually think we can keep Scott this year and remain compliant. If anything waters become even less choppy after this season. It just means we can't spend much more, £2-3m and that includes amortisation wage etc if we want to push it to the limit. One or two more signings only. E.g. if we added Knight on a 4 year deal for £2m, that would be £0.5m pa in amortisation and £10-15k per week in wages a further £0.52-0.78m per year. Cost £1.02-1.28m. Leaving £0.72m-1.72m or £0.98-1.98m to put back into the team.

Back to Rotherham maybe? Was on loan there in the 2nd half of season.

Ben Jacobs and Chris Cowlin mentioned, suggested that they are the frontrunners.

If Scott goes then game changer, don't need to worry for years if it's for £25m or so. Even close to £20m and we'd be very much secure. I do see what you're saying though, even if Scott goes for big money we'll only reinvest a portion to keep clear..in theory we could replicate clubs like that hut better albeit Millwall wage bill 2021-22 £23.3m so that is on the rise. Depends how close we want to push the adjusted £39m tbh.

Is it me or when it clashes ie us and that other side in Bristol, why is it the case that we often need to be the ones to move. 12ish for us on a Saturday and make them play on the Sunday if that's a factor for consideration.

I actually think we're abour £36-37m or thereabouts due to the overhang from 2021-22 but moving forward I can't disagree..this is before sales. Once that £19m FFP loss from 2021-22 is gone clearer waters still lie ahead plus the TV deal rises form 2024-25 which means more revenue for all

Thanks. I assumed he was an academy product I guess.

Coady I can check but think pure profit, Collins £9-10m profit on disposal, think Kilman also pure profit. If academy pure profit. The Neves deal.was £47m minus remaining Book Value of £2-3m.and £1.6m sell on to Lie to iirc. They're clearly in a decent sized FFP hole although I query whether the PL have shown such energy with a host of others.

Their owner has plenty of money, could be a cash flow thing ie cash from China although that's suspect. Although he could have called it quits after relegation who knows.

Little bit of a look at Leicester That £40m for Maddison this is gross remember not net. He joined Leicester in summer 2018 on a 5 year deal for £24m. In 2020 he signed a new 4 year deal. £40m - £4.8m. Plus 15 pct of profit to Norwich. That would be a further £2.4m. Profit on Disposal £32.8m. Barnes as an academy product would be pure profit. Castagne Book Value is £8.6m. Anymore than that profit, less a loss. The players who were released will undoubtedly have yielded strong wage and amortisation savings. Otoh we don't know which season the Maddison profit will go into, and then Coady at £7.5m and Winks at £10m will bring large costs of their own. Wages on relegation fell by 1/3 to 50 pct as per one report. Otoh TV revenue alone down £50-60m. Maybe £70m. Last season they sold Fofana big but they had lost £92.4m the prior season which included European football and an 8th placed finish. That is a revenue another hit, another loss? That £92.4m loss included a £9-10m profit on disposal of players. Faes in the summer and Souttar and Kristansen all added to amortisation and wages. The latter two were signed in January so if a £2.5m on a 2.5 year deal £0.5m amortisation last year and £1m this year- cost rising again. Sacking Rodgers he had a decent sized payoff which is more cost to add.

Thanks that sounds right, think their aggregated likely pre tax losses across the last two seasons but before any money for the Bellinghams will be £49-50m or thereabouts. That's across 2021-22 and 2022-23. Even with the reported money ie Bellingham £10m, Jobe £1.5m fee it wouldn't surprise me if they need an improvement of £7-8m for this season and that's before any new signings and the cost of these (wages and amortisation). By which I mean if their baseline loss is around £25m and their FFP allowances around £5m a year. Without the reported Bellingham x 2 money it's: -£25m pre tax 2021-22, £5m in expected allowances and the EFL £2.5m Covid. FFP loss -£17.5m -£24-25m pre tax 2021-22..£5m in expected allowances. FFP loss -£19-20m. Therefore a likely FFP loss of £1.5-2.5m this season. Granted the cost base may fall but before cost base falls and revenue rises a season on season improvement of £17 5-18.5m needed ahead of 2023-24. Maybe more like £6-7m then.

Millwall and wages, had a quick look Not quite so low now. £13,396,000 in 2017-18, £22,316,000 in 2021-22. That is a rise in about 4-5 years of 70%. Albeit from a fairly low base.