Mr Popodopolous

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.

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...