Mr Popodopolous

Always thought they were in a false position when we played them early October. They were bottom but looked not bad albeit not a possession dominant side- could see they were really playing for Robins too or at minimum he hadn't lost the dressing room or anything similar.

It was their local media/paper! A sign of the times or what.? I agree with your analysis btw. Colwill though U21 definitely I remember last season. Daley-Campbell they signed from Leicester, surely? Isaak Davies surely another, played more than once sure there are more too. Ollie Tanner signed but played? Plus Wiki says 24 players have made at least one appearance at Championship level. And a further 4 have made 1 Cup appearance. That's 28? 24 bare minimum. There was a 29th, a young player but he's out on loan.

Strikes me that they comfortably exceed 23 of Professional Standing anyway, as that rule basically means anyone who has made a sub appearance except in JPT. The rule about Established Players, that may enable them to sign one or two under the restrictions but I don't see how that is applicable here? Other non P&S embargoes have surely fallen under Professional Standing rules?

Small update on Cardiff, have read that they have 22 registered players as per EFL squad lists so can add one more under their embargo, subject to the relevant criteria no fees etc. I am struggling to see how though given their squad (Wiki) shows 29 and a further 5 out on loan- and almost all of whom qualify under Professional Standing??

Possibly that with Stoke although what I am trying to work out is whether the onerous contracts provision should appear in 2020-21 or 2021-22 wages/Operating Costs. This can have a crucial impact upon FFP and could add a bit of credence to their claims of wages falling drastically etc.

Thanks. Think they should be fine to 2022-23 given the £100m (give or take) rise in TV revenue and the increased loss limits in the PL- either an Upper Loss Limit of £61m or £55.5m. It does though beg the question, as to whether they let alone Fulham could have breached to last season on the way up- and if so what will be done about it and by whom. (Nottingham Forest have iirc claimed they are compliant btw). Or if not breached properly then complied but only through dubious means that need challenge. As we know though, just because a club or ownership claims compliance doesn't make it so- Cardiff in 2016 for their January embargo, the dispute with Derby etc.

One item of Stoke's 2021 accounts there appears to be inadequate disclosure on, set against some other clubs who did this in the past anyway. The whole provision for Onerous contracts- does it fall into the 2020-21 or the 2021-22 accounts? On the flipside if the £9m is charged to the Operating Expenses or included in wages in 2020-21 that is a one off cost that won't be repeated and should yield some savings too from accelerating the cost. Whereas if you look at Norwich or Newcastle a few years back there was a corresponding entry pertaining to wages or operating expenses. Everton showed something too.

Had another quick look. I wonder about Nottingham Forest to 2022 although a lot may depend on their Covid losses and what was permitted and the Carvalho sale. As we know, £39m loss limit etc. I reckon Nottingham Forest and their FFP allowances are maybe £6m per season. Covid sees 2019-20 and 2020-21 averaged and halved. 2018-19 Pre-tax loss- £26,629,000 This was both despite and inclusive of a profit on disposal of players of £10,558,000. 2019-20 and 2020-21 Pre-tax loss £17,365,500 Plus as we know, the loan write offs are if past precedent is anything to go by excluded from FFP- there was £5m x 2 in these years so we are on pre tax losses of £48,994,500 once averaging etc. Although the accounts were 13 months for 2020-21 so this adds some extra costs that won't be reflected moving forward. Average transfer profit in these years £12,787,500- this is the losses following and inclusive of the transfer profit. Of course if their Covid claimed add-backs are allowed to count in full then this gives plenty of breathing space- and I estimate a pre tax loss of £29m last season plus any promotion bonuses which appear to be excluded from FFP but nothing cast iron on this. Perhaps over £30m even in pre-tax losses if EFL accept all arguments. Their Covid argued losses and 2021-22 projected ones seems dodgy to me! Can only assume that a lot of the third year one related to some arguments around player trading- speculative and dubious I think. As with Stoke, potentially us and who knows who else it appears to fly in the face of the EFL voted on limits. Is there an argument that the CRFB should look to challenge excess Covid losses if the excess is the difference beyween compliance and failure? By challenge I mean an IDC or similar to adjudicate.

There is a salient point in that piece having just skimread it. The flak and controversy surrounding the medical emergency v Swansea in late October. It may have been technically correct after all- granted the outright right thing to do probably would have been to stop the game, but technically speaking? Possibly a split decision between stadium safety officer and referee?

Mike Ashley has been heavily linked with a club this afternoon. Sheffield United. Who knows the truth but he could he the owner of Sheffield United while also owning Coventry's stadium.

Apologies, I missed that bit. That is a very weird discrepancy- definitely recall the £15m being declared. Possibly the 1st instalment but...That's an impressive spot.

I think it maybe tucked away under Provisions somewhere but will go and double check. Notes 28 and 30. Possible thst the £19m could also include costs of litigation, interest if applicable etc. I could be wrong but they possibly have sought to include the fee in full as a provision in 2018-19 accounts...therefore absorbed in a PL season of £100m TV revenue and intend to reverse if they win the case. Cake and eat it much??

Do need to factor in inflation and the fact that the Euro is undoubtedly a stronger currency than the Pesata was but this really is a constant hike. I dunno if Qatar was a particularly expensive one or is it more sadly the rule these days?

Will stick to this thread on it but still trying to work out the technicalities of it, or even some of the basics but by way of an example. If the CFRP having reviewed the info from the CRFU decided they did not like a certain practice, especially in the context of P&S compliance, what powers of review or challenge would they have? Bear in mind that a club and the League may have discussed these in a prior period- a good example would be Stoke, could the CRFP in effect challenge or override that agreement? Or indeed us if they found- and this would have to apply to all who did the practice- the transfer add-back theoretically rumoured idea to be a stretch. @Hxj @ExiledAjax both seem to know the law. In other words how final and binding is EFL sign-off, green light etc in this context? If transfer add-backs was deemed dicy under FRS 102 eg...a lot of unanswered questions really as to how far their powers go, in P&S context certainly.

That's still open to argument btw, the EFL may or may not have permitted it but just recently, the CFRP have been appointed and will be reviewing submissions for all clubs. Unsure that it is quite so cut and dry as you suggest. https://www.sportresolutions.com/news/view/efl-club-financial-review-panel-has-been-appointed In theory could they even overrule or find fault with existing club and EFL agreements? Well they've only just been appointed so it feels like an open question. Do you factor in this new body into your calculations?

Possibly sort of FFP related but Blackburn seem willing to stick rather than twist- risk losing Brereton-Diaz on a free in the summer, although they aren't at risk of breaching FFP this or next year IMO. Of course the payoff would be promotion to the Premier League.

One more note on Cardiff, also read that as expected if they win the case then Provision reversed! I struggle to see how they can include it in a period after 2018-19 or would it be in 2019-20 in the unlikely event they did but the Balance Sheet, maybe the Profit and Loss even would stand to benefit to the tune of £15-20m in the event of a reversal. If it fell beyond 2018-19 then depending in the year it would either benefit FFP headroom by £15-20m or £7.5-10m. Which seems awful given the Sala tragedy and Cardiff's actions. Always hard to tell with social media but quite possibly a lot of Cardiff fans don't support their ongoing stance. Thiufh the money is accounted for in Balance Sheet terms, it is also suggested that it is not there as such.

Was a great final and despite the obvious problems with the location itself and the reasons behind the tournament award, some good football, games, shocks while some fancied middle weights crsxhex out hence a clear surprise factor. Belgium, Denmark, Uruguay plus of course Germany! Best ever? I doubt although the final itself was perhaps up there. Old star Messi overcame the probable heir in Mbappe. One side note, can Infantino get lost with his tinkering? In some ways worse than Sepp ever was! 1) A 48 team World Cup? 80 games is too many, 50 pct more sides bound to dilute the quality though some of the so called lesser sides closed the gap quite well this time. 2) That tournament might entail 16 groups of 3, causing dead rubbers plus a possible repeat of West Germany v Austria 1982. 3) A 32 team Club World Club Cup. Really?? 4) Now he has a hope reportedly for a World Cup every THREE years, Matt Hughes reports tonight. Feeding into point 3. Thought the Confederations Cup was at times a good little tournament but clearly not. Messi v Ronaldo? Ronaldo has played in a wider range of Leagues but I've always preferred Messi just about, less ego plus seems I dunno lower centre of gravity, bit more technical perhaps.

In respect of Cardiff, done a little more reading- seems they are fighting on really. Surely the embargo remains in force during January minimum subject to their appeal- Swiss Federal Court due to rule on it by end of January/early February or is it that proceedings stayed until this is heard? https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/complex-cardiff-city-emiliano-sala-25777421 That bit, proceedings being stayed is speculation on my part but Swiss Federal Court surely the last realistic avenue? If proceedings live then in theory a sanction ie ban may not be enforceable until these exhausted?

Would agree that performances at home have for the most part been decent but think there is a bit of optimism bias there. Swansea game we got pushed back at times 2nd half, feels more like draw territory, Coventry that point looks okay given they were in a bit of a false position. On the flipside, we arguably rode our luck to get 3 points at WBA, certainly 2nd half we had to absorb a lot, fortunate to get points at Middlesbrough and Wigan arguably. Blackpool away, could have won or lost tbh. The goal conceded was a poor one at the end but they definitely had their chances too. Up near playoffs dunno, more points certainly. Norwich away we probably deserved a point too.

I think I remember it, was not only freezing but a terrible game too! Earlyish in JPT. 1 minute, bang- Golden goal, game done. Mix it have been Torquay at home.

Clearly Scott is markedly superior to Massengo but in a central 3 I could see more from him, better suited to a CM 3 etc- energy is more easily exposed in a 2 than a 3 but with the contract situation that debate is probably not.

He is also the joint 2nd highest booked in the League (8 apparently). At what point does benefit outweigh cost etc. I don't mean to the team, his overall benefit to the team is very clear but in terms of the yellow cards accumulating.

May as well ask you @Davefevs Do we think we have the headroom to sign anyone in January without outgoings? Keep reading or hearing "Oh we need to sign a centre back/midfielder/holding midfielder" whoever come January but is it even possible as of now? My gut feeling is probably not if no outgoings but I doubt we know for sure.

Devil is in the detail for us and many clubs right now isn't it. We or some other club may propose certain Covid add-backs whereas the League or CRFP well who knows. On the raw numbers we are surely on course to breach this season as it stands- January window or end of May 2023 may change this. The big unknown is what we have claimed in terms of Covid if we are due to be compliant and what maybe deemed acceptable- we just don't know. Agreed. I also wonder if treatment has been equal. Stoke I am rather interested in yet they seem to sign PL loanees etc despite a hefty cost base. Bet365 accounts will show certain numbers up from 31st March 2021-30th March 2022, that's just over 10 months of their 2021-22 accounts and are due out by the end of the year. Don't think Luton will have issues for a whole, subject of course to higher vs lower limits, equity etc.