Mr Popodopolous

The relevance to P&S remains to be seen but the following clubs accounts- directly or otherwise, are due out by the end of 2022. *Via Bet365, we should see Stoke City's numbers to end of March 2022 at least. The detail underpinning these possibly not so much. *Millwall- made up to end of June 2022. *Via Venkys London Limited, Blackburn's accounts to end of March 2022.

Belgium bit of an aging side aren't they. Sofascore said average age of starting line-up 30.5...have they seen better days?

Expected goals has Canada as the better side. Certainly seemed from what I saw and the brief highlights that but for finishing they were. All 4 sides in with a chance of progress by the looks.

Well no I am biased I suppose. I am biased against clubs of any kind who either breach FFP or who use unusual means to try to achieve compliance. My club aren't exempt from this but it's conjecture at this stage unlike past cases. As it is with Stoke, Fulham, Nottingham Forest.

This is interesting, an interview with Rick Parry and it pertains to possible reform. https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/stoke-city-parachute-payments-efl Just on the Stoke stuff, for anyone from there lurking: 1) Some of my words were perhaps ott but is there a case to answer? I don't think that unusually large Covid numbers can just be waved through 2) It's not just Stoke I criticise, I have in the past been very critical of Derby, at times Sheffield Wednesday, fairly furious about Aston Villa and have not been afraid to speculate on my own club and their FFP compliance or what the add-backs might be and wherher they may be in accordance with FFP and even FRS 102 itself- so I'm not biased.

Tuned in about 10 mins or so ago, Canada certainly seem well in the game.

Little bit of speculation I saw on Twitter but one Reading fan asked if they might have breached their Business Plan. Relevant snippets below, from the Decision itself and from the Budget.

Agŕee to an extent. Null points of course! Probably more useful over a League season than a month long tournament tbh but well though we did, 6 goals from 13 shots is unusually clinical and especially Saudi Arabia who had 2 goals from 3 shots!! That's far from long term averages but again short term tournament. Spain had 6 from 15 shots penalties aside, you're doing well if you get half that usually. Over a season a side can certainly regress to the averages. It can be a sign of things to come. Not always though and less likely in a major tournament.

I reckon our wage bill club wise- that includes I assume the Women's team and Community Trust will be £24-25m. As you say it won't add up exactly.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05450440/filing-history

Fwiw I had a quick look at XG. Had Spain winning 3.49-0. About double then. Argentina and Germany both win on XG, interesting to see how it diverges.

England, Saudi Arabia and Spain seem like the most clinical sides so far. Looking at Spain on paper there's not a lot wrong there save for the lack of a top class striker. Certainly capable of dominating a midfield battle. As you say stronger opposition will be a better indicator. As it will for France and perhaps us although Iran usually don't concede many at all.

Not seen any of the game so won't comment too much but are Spain that good or Costa Rica that bad?? In the case of the latter, they used to be better than this- competitive, defensively okay and with a bit of flair on the break. 6 goals 15 shots (adjusted for non penalties) is also on the clinical side and certainly above the norm (the other goal a penalty which presumably was one shot).

Thanks. I'll try and find the quote in question too, for context etc. It's a huge claim isn't it- if they actually mean that now the wage bill is as low as £27m. Journalistic license or poor interpretation is also quite possible- not many local journos are financial pundits too! I'll reserve judgement until their actual accounrs ate out as there are too many missing pieces at this stage. That would be a new one as onerous contracts has down the years been wage related- maybe Stoke are applying it differently but that's the wage side usually. Onerous contracts is impairment of amortisation or of wages? Unlike us there seems not to be a several million gap in wages between club and Holdings. Less events maybe? No real idea.

Ashton Gate Limited accounts are out.. Wage bill seems to be about £6.6m- but as a ratio it'll take a bit of piecing together. Revenue bounced back seems to be about £17.45m for last season. When the club accounts are out that'll help piece together the jigsaw. I believe that the gap as has been seen consistently is £5-6m between club and Holdings. The latter takes precedence for FFP in its current form- and so it should because the approaching £30m in revenue comes from the consolidator not the club in isolation. The wage bill down by a third rumour can be partially explained by this therefore.

I know we're not so big on speculation now @Davefevs @chinapig @ExiledAjax Still interesting to debate, do we actually believe Stoke cut wage bill that quickly? The reporter didn't put hard numbers out but as mentioned did say down by half though the precise period wasn't made clear either.

Again read an interesting claim about Stoke. SCFC- or as I call them Stoke Cheaters FC. Anyway. Apparently their wage bill fell 50 pct in O'Neil's time there...in the season in whixh he joined it was £54m... Unsure if it means it's 50 pct lower now or this referred to last season but it really puts our efforts into perspective if it's anywhere near true. £50m in 2020-21, for their consolidated wage bill and ours was £35m. Now theirs is/was reportedly £27m and ours is £30m- as of last season!! Our efforts really don't look all that, in that context. Plenty of devil in the detail of course... ...For example how was the Provision for Onerous Contracts in 2020-21 factored in? That's not FFP excludable- it was provided for but unsure if it was utilised, but was about £9m in any event. Might it be £27m plus that- which accelerates some of it into that year and out of subsequent years. Might the £27m be players only or football side only but not include the other Operating Costs and wages- similar to our potential debate between Club and Holdings. Still no Stoke accounts but their local journo said wages down by half. I suppose how it worked here was... 1) Do a huge write-down of £42-43m in 2019-20 and of that £30m was assigned to Covid. That's £30m in costs removed. The initial £12-13m seemed like regular impairment and may have been made prior to the Pandemic. 2) Think there was a further £3m in 2020-21- wasn't specified as a Covid cost. 3) This enables a player to depart the club without incurring an Impairment loss or a genrtal loss on disposal provided of course that their departure is equal to that of the remaining book value- or to leave on a free should the departure not yield any fee. No impairment loss, impairment eliminated. 4) The £9m in onerous contracts would be included in costs but frontloaded presumably- and probably less than the costs of fulfilling it over the timeframe of the remaining contract. At minimum it brings it forward but presumably these or some of these would be relating to players that were under contract but who left in 2021-22 in particular summer 2021. I now estimate bszed on the remainjng book vakue and subsequent additions, that their annual cost of amortisation (player registrations) to be maybe £5-6m as of last season. Wages who knows. For context amortisation was £30m in 2019-20 and that didn't include the £30m in Covid and £12-13m in general player impairment. It's definitely clever accounting but...

Whether it's football or politics related or walks the line between the two is hard to say. However heard something quite interesting on radio, bit of a "Boycott Qatar" movement been building in Germany. Mood quite flat, enthusiasm less than usual- if they get on a roll it may change but journo thought not. Said on radio that viewing figures down 1/3 to date for the opening game. https://www.dw.com/en/bars-in-germany-boycott-qatar-fifa-world-cup/a-63794873 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11455021/Football-mad-European-cities-turn-backs-2022-FIFA-World-Cup-bars-refuse-games.html

Here is one thing. Why is the schedule so condensed this time?? 4 games a day right through the group stage excluding the last round where both games kick off simultaneously is rather condensed! Looked at past WCs ie the last couple and was 3 in a day tops- is it purely as it is midseason.

I might also add, if they (the League- ie in this instance the Football League) are found to have been excessively sympathetic or lenient to clubs, any clubs that is. Well it wouldn't surprise me if that was open to legal challenge down the pipe, the EFL working too closely I mean if it turned out that had happened. As a regulator they should not he steering a club out of the shit for want of a better term. Not saying that it's happened here but covering all bases...could have happened with PL and Everton.

That's true, fair. Context of August but my own view even at that time and clearly I'm just a fan on the forum was that it'd be completely incongruous for the League just to say "Ah you know what, forget it to 2022-23 as the system changes anyway in 2023-24". I do get it though and there was uncertainty. Can see that, some of the numbers mooted still feel a bit toppy and on the optimistic side though. I think it probably computes out over time proportionally speaking. The revenue is undoubtedly higher in Holdings although the cost base is lower and profit and loss a bit superior... ...Although regular FFP allowances will also be lower with the club accounts in isolation. Big gap in depreciation alone some years. Plus a lower revenue base- both have pros and cons though with Holdings more money to waste I guess as we've seen!! Agree, that could be the way that it proceeds in the next year or 2. Another thought that occurs is that IF Everton emerge unscathed wirh most revenue, add-backs and claims of £170m from 2019-20 and 2020-21 then how can pretty much anyone be punished. Both Premier League and Championship see governed by P&S after all- would there be any scope for a case against the PL for failure to enforce the same regs.

Another observation is that specific to us, the club, them sending mixed messages doesn't help. I get that this situation is fluid, complex and open to interpretation but: 1) Claims such as the wage bill down by 1/3, is liable to blur lines at best and potentially misleading (to fans I mean). 2) Especially when the starting point for FFP is the bottom figure, the consolidated wage bill that includes everything. Yes not the club in isolation or the playing squad in isolation- or the figure afaik net of NI or say matchday staff. 3) See also The claims that were perhaps out of context mamely the wage bill was now at £20m or even halved or between £15-20m. Feeds into point 1 again. What is a strict definition of the wage bill. 4) In August when both Gould and SL came our with differing messages on FFP in the space of a few days. There are valid grounds for criticism of the club here. As well as praise namely the disclosure of the headline loss at Fans Forum, the early release of accounts well before the end of February.

Fair play! Let's hope they shed some light but it's doubtful as you say. As to your other point, won't quote the whole post but yes I should take a bit of a step back in respect of specific allegations- however I still consider the transfer add-backs and the concept of excluding Impairment of Player Registrations due to Covid as being open to question both under FFP regs and maybe in certain aspects under accounting standards (FRS 102). Neither sit well with me as concepts on the face of it. Think it's fair to estimate as a starting point for Stoke e.g. and for Fulham and Nottingham Forest to an extent- in the case of Fulham they did reference the £20.9m Impairment as a perceived Covid cost. Strategic Report referencing however may be the way. I might send them an e-mail too the EFL, about whether policies fit consistently.

Supporting evidence can argue a case and definitely there will be more detail 'in-house' ie between clubs and the League but don't think it can amount to a final determination. The closest category I can find is Review Applications but whether it's applicable here I'm unsure. On a basic level so far we know of...Fulham and their impairment, Nottingham Forest and their transfer add-backs and Stoke and their Impairment and transfer add-backs. I suppose loads of others may have done this internally. Maybe nobody will fail P&S to 2021-22 and 2022-23.

More time to better assess the impact of Covid on the market. Of course the specifics of these guidelines are quite important. In theory they could raise issues yes but the specifics of the type of and conditionality of the approval can also be important. Only the clubs and EFL will the finer detail. Independent advice in a case like this I'm sceptical about just how independent it is. Stoke hired the independent advisers, Stoke presumably paid for the independent advisers therefore... Agreed FRS 102 isn't everything but this seems an unusual and opportunistic accounting treatment that only a handful of clubs (that we know of) appear to have utilised. If loads have done it or have done transfer add-backs then it's a lot more acceptable. I wonder if they could though- surely it takes investigation over the medium to longer term for a case like this. The timeframe of some past cases shows it wasnt as quick as it should have been. Derbt could and did trade normally until Jan 2020 albeit with a couple of short term embargoes. Depends how many clubs have argued this sort of thing. From what we can see publicly and yes that maybe at odds with the reality, not many have. The only thing we all easily know about publicly agreed was the initial £5m x 2 and £2.5m. The rest is conjecture as to what has and hasn't bren agreed- or what categories are deemed permissible or still should be tested. More open yes but there was a little snippet in one of the cases that said EFL advice or working with them let us say was not able to override the regulations. In other words if the EFL permitted something and the advice turned out to be wrong, the club could be the ones to carry the can. I'd have to trawl through old cases...see if it's findable. In terms of Stoke v Derby it's more I mean the cheek of it, the range of loopholes. Find it highly dubious.