Mr Popodopolous

Atmosphere was something else too- not usually like that at rugby! Mates of mine could hear it all the way in Clifton. Only one that I assume can compare (I missed it but assume it was similar)? was the Bath game in August.

Bit lucky in that respect- watched a bit of the game and Newcastle had a pretty close try disallowed when well on top- would have been their 3rd try in half an hour and that momentum surely would have got them the bonus point- had 2 disallowed in fact, the other clearly not a try but 3 tries in first 30 mins or so would have given a great platform to get try 4 and a bonus point win.

Juju Well, we won't get the full picture until Recon Group UK Limited's results are released but it looks bad for Aston Villa. Haven't had the chance to analyse the figures in full yet but pretty sure for the 3 years to last season, they passed. This season however, failed and likely big time at that e.g. 2016/17-present. A key reason they would have passed last season is PL loss limit £35m plus allowed costs in a season whereas our league is £13m plus allowed costs in a season. @downendcity There is no great clarity on this, but according to a respected blogger Al majir on all things Birmingham financial, once punished the obligation on the club for the remainder of the period is £13m losses (plus allowable costs) each remaining season of it. The difficulty here comes is that 16/17 is a 3 year FFP period but if it's rolling as I think then they would- and just say they lose £40m this season. That would mean reducing losses by £27m in a year while £13-14m in parachute payments goes! Huge adjustment...same the next season too. Selling Grealish would solve year 1 but would be tough for a while.

Yeah that's possible and the less detailed accounts too, helps signify a smaller company. When they had already made an operating profit though- plus the cash from Mawson sale and Stones sell on- it still looking in from outside admittedly, looks like it wasn't necessary. I'm all for understanding the wishes of a club to be as profitable as possible, but that just seemed odd- clearing balance sheet maybe for takeover. Essentially, I'd have sold them even with the small operating profit if midtable and going neither up nor down- but not if on the edge of playoffs and playing well- that's my outsiders view. Probably would have made a few million in profit due to Stones sell on and Mawson sale in any case.

Though they were relegated last season- perhaps linked to this, Barnsley's accounts make for interesting reading. Barnsley were nowhere near FFP- nowhere near. Actually before player trading made an Operating Profit of £398,000- excellent by Championship standards...yet they made hay when the sun shone financially and sold Bree, Hourihane and Winnall in January 2017 when they were on the edge of the playoffs. Profit on transfers of £12,449,746- £100 on interest was profit of £12,848,354 in 2016/17. Mawson had been sold in August and they got a sell on for Stones so I believe they didn't need to sell Bree, Hourihane or Winnall when they were near top 6. 2017/18- A miniscule loss (by Championship standards) of £1,403,156, interest payments £100 too. Obviously player trading/profit took that loss down again, £176,331. They sold Roberts but also lost Messrs Scowen and Marley Watkins (yes I know). Now there is a club who made quite a few unnecessary sales! Assumed they were selling them to balance the books but seemed according to their accounts pretty well unnecessary- ended up losing a good side and going down! Lesson in there for us!

Nottingham Forest headline loss £5,596,000 HOWEVER that includes a debt write off of £5m which under FFP does not count so add £5m to that. I looked back at my own projections for their losses last season- and only around £2m out which I think given no publicly given wage figures for new signings not a bad effort. I had it about £12.4m for their losses last season inclusive of transfer profit, changes in amortisation etc- and the primary reason for that was I overestimated their transfer profit by about £2.4m.

Those accounts that are due today- those big 3 plus assorted others. Aston Villa? No sign yet. Nottingham Forest submitted theirs and being processed at Companies House. Interestingly Sheffield Wednesday have extended their accounting period for 2018 to July from May...so late April you'd think. Wigan we roughly know, not in FFP mess, Wolves no sign yet- think they passed 3 year FFP but would have been close! Birmingham I saw on Twitter, their parent company in Hong Kong posted 6 month results to end of December. Let's say half season but yeah 6 month losses of parent company somewhere between £13-17m, will look into it later. Real losses maybe a bit lower but not by a lot. Failing FFP still it appears- THROW THE BOOK!! If they sell Adams and Jota that certainly would help...

Not been on this thread for a little while. Kieran Maguire's first letter of each paragraph acronyms- is it acronyms, is that right- absolute quality. One of the best aspects of football writing in 2018-19! QPR lost £37m last season- however £20m of that was the FFP fine which of course excluded from calculations. They're still okay FFP wise and might even be next season, but big, big challenges for them moving forward. This is Year 4 of 4 of parachute payments but thereafter...knock £13-17m off (depending on calculations) but you add back on parachute payments. Reckon they won't be able to renew Rangel, Cameron, Wells or Hemed if they are to comply plus Freeman and Eze should attract interest- may have to sell at least one of those? Cardiff lost £13-14m last season but their headline loss £38m- cost of promotion though came to £23m or so- that includes bonuses, fees due, possibly landmarks in fees based on it etc and is excluded for FFP purposes- I think they likely compiled over 3 years but there wasn't much in it. Certainly not quite on a shoestring, but notable nonetheless. In theory by no later than 28th February 2019, the results for Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday and most notably Aston Villa are due out. These will be telling! Wolves results from last season too though I think they were fine- not by much but anything up to and including the limit would see them pass.

Saw this online- good piece. https://www.wsc.co.uk/stories/14196-editorial-championship-s-financial-chasm-driving-clubs-to-desperate-measures

The rules seem to keep changing Dave! I can't be certain on this, but so far as I've kept up to date with, those relegated after 1 season get the 2 years i.e. those who come straight down only get one and that would be from 2015/16- local Norwich media seemed to suggest last season was end of parachute payments for them i.e. final season when I looked into it. Also their site suggests they are zero this year. https://www.canaries.co.uk/News/2018/october/norwich-city-annual-accounts/

Looking in from the outside. My take is that on the pitch their decline began with Laudrup sacking- Monk tough he did well for a time, was tactically a significant break from latter stage Jackett but for the most part it began with Martinez, through to Laudrup, via a slightly more pragmatic/tactical (but still technically good) Sousa and between Sousa and Laudrup of course Rodgers. They had a brilliant model on and off the pitch. Off the pitch, getting in the American investors did for them in that sense and investors as opposed to benefactors appears to be the key word. Throw in instability and it is quite the collapse.

Middlesbrough lost around £6.8m last season- that was after player sales though. In FFP terms, they're surely fine for this and next season. Their big departures summer 2018 were a preparation for the ending of parachute payments.

Aston Villa, Hull and QPR are in the final year. Norwich have run out of theirs and this is also Middlesbrough's last year- but both of these are club who look to do the right thing and they took tough decisions when they had parachute payments- I don't have the figures to hand but I think Norwich did a player write down last season as well as the player sales from Jan 2017 and especially summer 2018. Middlesbrough sold Gibson, Traore, Bamford and loaned out Braithwaite- not playing Downing either as to do so would trigger a wage rise. I don't think Gibson and Smith at Middlesbrough or Norwich would recklessly gamble against FFP regs personally. Swansea is an interesting one and last years accounts will be instructive- when they finally release them! Surely they are in quite a smaller hole than say Stoke, but again the Coates will fund any Stoke losses from a solvency/going concern POV- Kaplan and the other American investors at Swansea, much less clear cut.

I appreciate the sentiment, but the problem with that is given that the Championship is a financial shitstorm, you may well end up having to set a precedent which means a bottom 6 as well as a top 6 or even relegating half the division. 12 points this season and 9 next season of the other aggravated breach is proven will do for now I reckon...as well as however long their transfer embargo will be. They need to sell Adams and either loan or sell Jota- in the case of the latter wages in full plus loan fee- for a start.

The worst scenario would be something like this- punished but not meaningfully... Here goes. This season, found in 3 year breach but complied with EFL business plan so docked 6 points thereby killing off any remaining playoff places but not enough for the drop. Maybe a fine of some sort. Then as per something I read on the Birmingham site who writes about FFP in general (only read it for the FFP), once you are punished you are measured and punished on one year totals so you are not punished twice for the past overspend- if that's true then... High earners out of contract, their losses £12m next season and their huge losses of this and last season ignored because of the punishment this year and they go up- that's an appalling loophole if true. In Aston Villa's case, not so sure it would be applicable because of the drop of parachute payments at same time as high earners out so may well have to sell anyway, but for a fair to middling Championship club then maybe.

Fair point- I think it's possible but not cut and dried. My view on it is that Championship clubs who have complied and those who have been punished seriously should look at legal routes if they bottle it on Aston Villa- EFL should be wary of this.

Given they seem to be planning to hit Birmingham hard, I wouldn't bank on it...

I agree with you- assuming though that it's linked to some sort of sliding scale i.e. small but still notcieable breach top 2 to playoffs, or perhaps smaller but notable top 6 to outside playoffs but bigger and it is top 2 to outside playoffs.

Yeah, agree- it hopefully will set a precedent in that the bigger the loss/flouting, the bigger the advantage gained- the bigger the penalty. Fully agree, they knew the rules and therefore have to take their medicine. EFL have to get this right, it sets a precedent moving forward... The good news on that is their own rules or interpretations on websites of these, say that the EFL say nothing is off the table and they can set punishments as they deem fit- in theory at least it means the idea of demotion from top 2 to playoffs or if a bigger breach still. top 2 to 7th say can still happen and indeed top 6 to outside playoffs. Would say that 12 points would be fairer and a bigger deterrent but The grey area here though- and in legal terms it perhaps makes sense- is the switching from 3 year to 1 year assessment periods once a side has been punished for the duration i.e. Birmingham's increased losses in 16/17 won't count against them this year and their huge losses last year won't count against them this or next season...if it's true I don't know but Al Majir who writes about Birmingham finances seems pretty clued up so who knows. Their 6 month results from their parent company in Hong Kong will be instructive as to whether they will be breaching it this season as well, even on the one year ruling- I'll keep an eye out for BSH Holdings.

QPR- the first big offenders who received a punishment under the old rules have released their financial results for last season... The £20m exceptional item I assume is one aspect of their fine you can strip from the losses but- and even this is with parachute payments...they'll need to cut deep and fast next year unless they fluke a promotion to PL via playoffs this season. They have been offloading high earners this summer though which will help and the sacking of Holloway will have created a non-recurring cost.

Forgot to add in that post @Davefevs, @chinapig and @downendcity you may all be interested in the above.

That is decent, workaround of the swear filter that!

Birmingham believe they are being singled out...to which I say don't through incompetence or arrogance, breach the rules by this much in such a short space of time. https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11694/11636412/birmingham-unhappy-at-being-singled-out-by-efl-with-potential-12-point-deduction Another piece of FFP news I read relating to Birmingham- and whether it will prove to be true time will tell, but this is something along the lines of what I said about enforcement and rolling punishments or otherwise. The interesting twist in the tail is that once they have been punished for their 3 year breach, from here on in well the next couple of seasons i.e. this and next, they will only be assessed on single season results- i.e. £13m loss limits, so they are not punished again for their 2016/17 figures and especially these ones. Unsure what to make of that... My reading of that basically is that instead of looking at £37m loss and loss in 16/17 and adding it to 18/19 say, then it'll be struck from the record and only in 2018/19 if they broke the rules of £13m will they be punished again and even more so for the cycle from 2017/18-2018/19, that huge loss last season and any this year provided they are compliant of £13m or less won't be counted.

Perhaps strong a bit premature but improving definitely. Stronger in home conditions maybe.

Looks like a consolation win on the cards, unless weather intervenes. Putting aside undoubted disappointment about the defeat- a strong WI side good for Test cricket. Wonder if this is start of a revival for them there- I remember when we collapsed at Sabina Park in 2009, there were some very flat pitches after that one- this time? There were not. Seemed a bit braver in their approach. On a tactical note, we finally got it right- first day we saw off the new ball, we dropped anchor for a while and went back to basics. Test cricket- to take nothing away from WI, we were quite flashy and well overly attacking at times in the first 2 games, can't do that out here on their pitches that seem livelier than a few years ago.