Mr Popodopolous

The Transfer add-back argument by us, Nottingham Forest and Stoke (Everton and to a lesser extent Aston Villa in the PL) feels like special pleading. Plus see Impairment by Fulham and Stoke. I wouldn't be minded to accept if I was a Governing body or at least have it tested at an IDC. For both of the concepts.

Maybe. Maybe they have taken an approach of 'We consider ourselves to be compliant with this method- you prove otherwise'. Or maybe the EFL have given an unequivocal and binding green light. It is important but...seems the sort of creative method that is open to challenge- unless lots of clubs have done it. The right to review and the timeframe. Clearly they can't 'do' us in isolation, us and us alone and forget everyone else. We also don't know if Nottingham Forest 'selling' Carvalho in January 2022 yielded a good profit or cost saving. Newly promoted clubs are harder to pursue as well, as we know. It is also the newly appointed Indepndent body who will decide this whether to accept or challenge I believe. I have reason to believe that review based on past cases isn't a short term issue- how can it be with unusual accounting treatments such as adding back for players not sold.

This is the crux then. What we consider reasonable (especially the transfer side) vs the view of the not even so much Football League now but that new Independent financial control body they have. It would probably be them who take a decision to charge or not. I stand my £15-16m view of general revenue losses across the two main Covid years. Am also including furlough in turnover or at least not excluding it- were we to exclude then maybe the add-backs a bit bigger. The transfer one feels pivotal.

I think Gould is good but there are two or three bits to this equation. 1) What we claim vs what the EFL believe to be the case. 2) Fine to 2021-22? Yes absolutely. 3) Deductions come after a fail usually. Has Gould stated expressly that we will not fail FFP.

I know and agree with the bulk of this but if compliant to this season- well it's take a major swing. As to your other post, high costs often for lots of events. I expect the cost base for the club in isolation will be lower but then so will the revenue- Catch 22. Indeed if we look at Derby who in 2017-18 had a similar income to us. No I don't believe we are run along similar lines. Even accounting for wages of £46m (Sevco not club) their cost base was £75-76m!? Think this is pre re-statement etc so it meant their other costs were £25m or thereabouts following wages and amortisation.. Covid wise surely the huge hit falls into 2020-21. 2.5 to 3 months of lost trading while not great won't exceed £5m IMO.

I restate my case of last night, construct an argument to work it backwards? Again unless our accounting period was to shift to end of June or July, I can't really think of any. Maybe they are but the numbers are horrible and don't augur well on face value.

@tin @Carey 6 @And Its Smith Again the same holds with Scott sale point. Even if some or all go. Would it be by end of May 2023? I would suggest not because unless any in January the Reporting Period for Bournemouth, Brighton runs until end of June 2023 and Burnley runs until end of July 2023. Very unlikely by end of May, how do you get the best price for one. Our Reporting Period as it stands out until the end of May 2023- we need the transfer to fall within that Reporting Period to count for this season. Be it Scott, Semenyo or sell-ons!

Forgot to add, the above post all IMO of course! Contains a bit of guesswork too.

A fair summary of Covid add-baxks using typical lost revenue and costs, for 2019-20 and 2020-21 would come in at £15-16m (so £7.5-8m) for that and £2.5m for last season. It eats into it somewhat but not enough. I also think that the added depreciation suggests that perhaps our allowables now are £5.5-6m per season rather than £5m in 2019-20 and 2020-21! Agreed- just outlining theoretical possibilities even if that was moot ultimately. Interest payments falling would help but putting on a lot of events...costs. Not the sole factors of course but it costs. Palmer- £1.3m per year was mentioned? O'Dowda- £15k per week? Guessing. Cundy- £5k per week? Again guessing. Moore might have been you who suggested it, Shrewsbury paying £8k per week? What would Bakinson have been on- £5-10k per week? £59-64k per week cost saving wages wise. £2-3m in amortisation and impairment savings On the flipside- Bajic, Wilson, Sykes, Naismith- all joined on a free, but none joined for free. I took a stab in the dark at an £8k per week average wage but maybe lower. £6k x 4 average? £1.2-1.6m added back to the wage savings? Remember too the £2.5m in Covid allowance for last season is no longer applied for this- bit of revenue uplift but still a hole. Could easily be an 8-figure one on face value even if I add £5-6m in extra revenue losses to the standard £5m x 2 for 2019-20 and 2020-21. PS- there was a transfer profit yes as you say but there was also one last season albeit small. Will the net difference to date differ so much from that of last season? All helps of course...

The guy who runs the Cardiff forum made a bit of a stand- good for him.

I'm sure that it's the former, it's a relatively small debt anyway I believe and if not for their postponed games and the impact on cash flow- all 4 were at home in a month to 6 week period-the issue wouldn't have arisen I expect.

Cards on the table though, I don't see how our player transfer profit add-back argument stacks up, I really don't. Realistically surely we need to make £15-20m worth of profit on disposal of players by end of May 2023?

Well yes and no- I think there is a strong chance we will exceed limits to this season as it stands to this season. In theory we have until end of May next year to put it right. Fixed asset 'sales' as we all know are no longer an option- the smaller the gap to fill, the easier to put right. I'm now less worried about in-season deductions. Scott sale January and 6 to 18 month loan back??

I'm not so worried but am stating a fact. Because our accounts run until May 31st 2023 as it stands- fact. If we sell after that point- can you put together a case to include it in the season of 2022-23 and the reporting period that ends May 31st 2023? A deadline is a deadline no? In theory there may be ways but it's not guaranteed.

Still a bit difficult to fathom just how we lost as much as we did...Operating Costs of £60m once wages, non cash expenses all factored?? Plus of course a rise in Interest payable. Still though: *Revenue a net rise of £10-11m (once we include furlough). *Wage bill down £5m *What was amortisation and impairment- down £4-5m? *Transfer profit down £5m *Depreciation up yes- but excluded from FFP. Surely our pre tax losses are £4-5m too high for the net swing for and against? Granted the interest rise and cost of staging events will have a factor?

By May 31st 2023? That is when our accounts run until. There are probably 3 options. 1) Extend the reporting period (which also extends costs- but also perhaps some events revenue). 2) Apply to the Football League to put a transfer after May back into this season? Is that allowable? Who knows. Mel Morris claimed it was.. 3) Put a sale of Scott and or others in Projections to 2022-23, then the benefit might fall into this season rather than next.

In terms of revenue lost I would argue £15-6m in the 2 Covid years. Question is should this be gross or net of cost savings as lockdown will have entailed some. The big one is transfer add-backs. Contrary to some analysis I fear that our accounts will be among the worse end.

To 2021-22 but what about to this season?? This has always been my concern. Depends on signing on fee or agents fee for free transfers of course.

Could be Palmer yep, good shout. Maybe the bulk Palmer and the remainder for Moore and Bakinson. Won't amortisation still be £6-7m this season? Your other post, a return to event and a virtual end of furlough will account for some of the costs. A bit more depreciation and interest too probably.

Only £6m over- have we really improved/are we really set to improve our position by £11-12m in a year?

We are fine to 2021-22 even before any Covid add-backs. Encouraging to see turnover recover so well!! Back up to £29m so soon, credit to all concerned- the commercial side has surged back well! ? The wage bill, well talk of this falling by 1/3- fanciful! Guess it could have been referring to overall football and amortisation costs as a collective maybe. Not checked in full. £5m is okay but not in the ballpark that people were referring to. NO FFP penalties! Obvious to 2021-22...possibly our Depreciation has risen too which subtracts from our FFP losses too- I made our typical costs £5m per year. Means as I thought, an improvement of £17-18m maybe needed for this season but the big unknown is just how much have we been allowed to add-back in addition to the £5m x 2 and £2.5-m baseline. I made it £17-18m but you may be right! Averaged £24m pre tax loss - £5m x 2 for Covid costs and same again for FFP allowances. T-2 -£14m. £28.5m- £5-6m - £2.5m T -1 -£20-21m T...we require a loss not exceeding £4-5m in FFP terms, allowables seem to be £5-6m per year...maybe £17-19m.

Fantastic!! One of the earlier to release...I take back some of my past queries about why so long etc.

Three ways that could go.. Could put him in a significantly positive position to buy Coventry...bet it cost markedly less than some of the 'fair value' sale and leasebacks!! £17m for that...vs £81.1m for Pride Park, £70m was is for the Bet365, £60m for Hillsborough and £56.7m for Villa Park!! St Andrews at £22m looks alright as did Reading given land values in South East but still more than Ricoh in both cases. Distressed sale too, I get that! Or he could push up the rent. Medium to long term depending on current arrangements Or, maybe a new big Sports Direct regional hub.

Well they said it. ?