Mr Popodopolous

Should Lansdown try to rally support of other owners against Stoke? I think he should consider it. Should he do a Gibson and lodge a formal complaint about perceived serious and cynical breaches or at least attempts to mask FFP issues. My view is maybe.

Mostly no. I will say that I was expecting more from them tbh. 1) Euro 2021- Impressive in reaching the semi finals- and they could score goals, indeed did score quite frequently. Even in defeat they gave Belgium a proper run around for good chunks of that game- doing it for Eriksen may have been a factor. 2) Qualified strongly. Often a decent sign. 3) Done well in some not so easy Nations League groups across the last 2 editions. Yeah credit to Tunisia but I was expecting more from Denmark.

Prohibited or just unrealistic? Seems fair to me. You're right though I suspect, certainly the League would need to get a favourable judgement for any kind of re-statement probably. It's not an IDC but another form of Commission isn't it? It's adjudication rather than punishment- I forget the correct term but one of the Derby cases referenced it as an option. Either way I'd say it needs referral. Is this not a unilateral and subjective interpretation of the regulations though, by Stoke? I'm struggling to see the FFP/P&S regulation even with Covid amendments that says a club can just exclude millions in amortisation of Player Registrations for Covid particularly given the massive cost saving in upcoming years. There was certainly no career ending injury in the mass write-down of 2020. All of those players who were there at that stage, none have retired through injury. I haven't even got onto salary yet although on that note there is a Provision for Onerous Contracts totalling about £9-9.5m in 2020-21 Stoke accounts. Not altogether sure that I wrote my part of that post you responded to so well. My fault. I should have written 'more likely' or 'less likely'. Trying to get my understand this bit: *Concept- Accepted. *Exclusion from P&S? Yes. Does that mean then it's £88m - FFP allowance - Rest of Covid allowance=FFP loss. The remainder of the Covid costs that year were £8m or thereabouts. Or £88m-FFP allowance-the £30m impairment and the £8m remainder (yes I know impacts are halved and averaged but one dodgy FFP practice at a time eh. ). Still time for this practice to be challenged. Other clubs really need to lodge complaints with the League, Stoke are as dodgy FFP wise as Derby were I'd say.

If I am reading this correctly, and I agree on the 'over-thinking' point without doubt. My favoured solution for P&S purposes would be to either: a) Have some restated straight line amortisation for all clubs who have done this. Then let the chips fall where they may. b) Failing that, just don't allow it for P&S returns- no Covid relief for Impairment of Player Registrations in Covid seasons. c) Appoint some kind of Commission to adjudicate on the validity of the issue and if the EFL get a favourable verdict then the FFP numbers may change from compliant to breach for Fulham and certainly Stoke. To 2021-22 anyway I expect. Everton almost certainly would. Still don't fully understand what you mean by.. "As regards the second point, there is nothing that I have seen in the EFL regulations that modifies that treatment, so provided the accounting standards are met the write down is entirely acceptable". Does this make exclusion from losses more or less acceptable? Even if we accept the concept of the write-down, should it be excluded from P&S calculations? Stoke signed a bunch of players who turned out to be not that good. A mess of their own making. "Ooh but Covid meant we couldn't sell- why can't this be excluded from costs"? More like overspending and a toxic club environment dragging them down messing up their valuation. Entitled, cynical bunch of tossers at Stoke.

While I largely agree wirh this analysis, it is worth noting that our Nations League underperformance has dropped us into a harder group than we need to be in for Euro 2024 qualifying. Yes we'll qualify, not least because half of Europe seems to qualify these days and the jeopardy seems to have gone out of it but 2nd pot means we slot in with Italy and Ukraine either side of us. Under the old system with playoffs, no backstop with Nations League and no top 2 qualifying verbatim it would have been trickier had we dropped into Pot 2- ie when only 16 qualified.

They dominated tactically and technically. Lot more ball, lot more shots- pressure was building etc although we contributed to this by taking a step back after scoring early. Had shades of the Croatia semi final in that respect- they (Italy) also went 4-3-3 not a back 3. Granted what you say has a lot of historical resonance but they (Italy) largely a possession and pressing side in that Euros.

Without going on too much about stats etc, 6 goals and 13 shots none of them pens or own goals is fairly anomalous as a ratio. Likewise, statistically how many times do Saudi Arabia win that game? 3 shots, 2 goals and about 1/3 of the ball.

That's incredible. Not seen the game, listened to some on the radio... One of the early favourites- first major shock!! Could they exit in the Group stage?

Worth remembering that the last incumbent of FIFA presidency- a broken clock is right twice a day- was anti VAR because of that reason, basically how can you have VAR at the top and not lower down. He was also just stubborn, pigheaded on certain issues too. It does disrupt the flow of the game? It's not going anywhere but is it worth it?

Tbh as far as the analysis goes, Championship as a League seems to be and trending in the direction of, one of the lower ones for average penalties awarded per game. Perhaps VAR is the missing ingredient but even taking our chart busting numbers out of it, there have been less awarded for a few years now. Think the PL etc have more per game on average.

Ironically that can happen yes.

Another for @BigAl&Toby Bit of a straw man potentially but it could certainly be worse. A look at Hull's accounts over the last few years was of interest. From 2016-17 in particular and maybe a bit before, following a combination of the FA rejecting the name change and a breakdown of relations with their fans, Allam went from benefactor to clawing back. PL cash and Parachute Payments meant that for 5 years and possibly a bit before Allam ran the club in a way that could claw back loans. They were literally either solely or net repaying loans for 5 seasons (He was also charging interest on said loans prior to this but was outweighed comfortably by what he was sticking in- when times were good). He changed it a bit in 2020-21 due to Covid and a fall to League One but that balance was falling year on year as he was clawing it back- and the running of the club was in a way that enabled him to do so. See to some extent, Chansiri at Sheffield Wednesday last couple of years. Similar albeit much lower level- stuck in £x in New loans but clawed back £x + y in repayments across 2019-20 and 2020-21.

Agreed on both counts. In theory he could lend them interest free as some owners do but yes the higher the loans the higher the interest. Likewise he could be like the Allams were post their Hull City Tigers name change being rejected which brings me onto my next post...

I remember it I think when there was a serious on-pitch injury v Brentford late 2000 but yes it's really rare.

I noticed how long it's been. It would give time-wastimg sides less.opportunity to hide for one.

Thanks. Always wondered how they were accounted for. Paid on a one term hit or spread over the contract- or does it very?

Looking too at the Football League and Premier League regulations it does seem in theory at least that promotion may not now be the escape route it is seen as- there is more detail than there was and it seems more able to carry between the Leagues- as it should have been ever since the regs were harmonised!! Will post the relevant sections.

I still don't see how the Stoke impairment argument- see also Everton and Fulham- is in accordance with the EFL's amortisation and impairment regs either. Granted the last two are PL... Interesting bit- 1.1.3- about sign-on fees too! Always assumed they could be bundled in with amortisation. Or rather they maybe can impair if they wish but I still don't see how it can just be written off to Covid and write off £30m of losses from the year and in total up to £30m in costs from upcoming period...certainly it flies in the face of these regs.

I actually found this Q&A between RamsTrust pertaining to Derby's breaches just before the final decision last year. Found quite illuminating, especially the process of 'sign-off' or otherwise. https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/efl-response-to-ramstrust-questions/ Don't agree with all of the EFL's answers but found the Q&A quite useful.

There was Muse as well in 2019. They're fantastic live- I think so anyway. Music is good but the set, live display top notch- was there for it in summer 2019, very much enjoyed it.

Agreed. I wonder if something else that maybe an add-back is growth of Commercial revenue. We've basically returned to 2019 levels and we grew that year £4m in Commercial Revenue terms from 2017-18 which in turn was £2m higher than 2016-17. I'm rounding for speed and simplicity.

Surprisingly and happily the accounts state it is not far off at all for 2021-22 when set against 2018-19! A little remarkable actually. 2019 and 2022

Ah are these out now?? Will have to take a quick look at these- thanks. Assume it'd perhaps be bundled up into Commercial Revenue? Closest category I can think of. It's not really Commercial or Event at all though. Rendering of Services? Doesnt neatly fit any category.

This is fair. Is good to see it highlighted quite precisely. Well you and me both how the circle is seemingly being squared is a mystery. Cost of testing etc seems a useful and valid add-back as for all clubs. Do you mean for the Vaccine Centre? Either will have appeared in 2020-21 or 2021-22 I'd have thought.

Six of the best, nice. Strong start, that lengthy injury delay could have stalled us but 6-2 excellent. Maguire should have a penalty, Iran's was dodgy/soft however. VAR eh?? Very clinical too, took chances well..thought we went to sleep a bit after racking up that big lead bit Iran's goal woke us up again. Was no big deal as we were 4 up. To think, Bellingham is only 19?? Grealish, Bellingham, Saka x 2- all goals from midfield one way or another, augurs well. Thought Saka's 2nd was excellent. Rashford scored quickly off the bench too, good for competition and confidence.