Mr Popodopolous

Hmm, you're right- it's such a grey area. Their accounts run to May 31 2018 and I assume for 2018/19, it would be May 31 of this year. Could they arrange a transfer for example and sell on seasons end- on the other hand thereby it being registered in this season for FFP purposes, even if the cash comes in next it would be in this years books. Summer window opens 1st June 2019, May 31st is when Aston Villa's accounts run to- as with my answer to question 2 by @Loderingo it's another area that's fairly unknown. Would probably have to be determined as to whether acceptable via lawyers or arbitration- some sort of test case.

Read earlier Derby maybe in trouble with FFP. Unsurprising in some ways, and yet given their cutbacks may not be entirely accurate. This Tweet could be very revealing though- unsure how to interpret it but if they don't go up this year, could they have a big problem? I haven't seen them as one of the worst offenders yet I maybe wrong, but if a load of contracts expire say and they have all been brought for fees...that could be a huge hit? Any accountants able to confirm?

Could have completed what he started- in Jan 2001 he left them just outside the drop zone but with no home win all season in 6 months. He's already got the impressive distinction of relegating 2 clubs in one season- could have got an award surely unique in football by not only doing that but returning to that club 17 years on and taking them down again!

Good questions @Loderingo They could. I mean it's debatable as to whether they would be able to raise enough in the case of Birmingham with cost of transfer, amortisation but they could reduce their punishment I am sure. Birmingham would probably need to sell Adams, Jota, Dean to name 3- but if they could raise sums to the right level then yes punishment could be avoided. Or if it was a bit above, punishment could be mitigated significantly as they would be showing big steps towards compliance, by having said fire sale within the required timeframe. This second bit is one area that is unclear to me. It's hard to say- I would say that if punished but still in breach then maybe a lesser punishment would be applied e.g. a fine or embargo if the club is showing concrete steps. For example if Birmingham had that firesale and were compliant for the 3 years to this season, they would still have the problem of the £37m loss last season (minus deducted costs) as the starting point and if there was anyone left worth selling, they may well need another to comply. Aston Villa have been so flagrant in their approach that I would hope they would really get made an example of, even more than Birmingham. Lengthy embargo and insistence on compliance even after punishment or risk rolling points deductions. Whether that would stand up though, I don't fully know.

With Tammy unbelievably staying at Villa and them adding Kalinic and Hause to their already highly expensive squad, they need denying promotion if they go up. 15-20 points and a transfer embargo, if as expected they charge through FFP. If it looks like they won't stick it onto next season.

I do see what he's saying, but really both A) and B) should be punished by the EFL- but for different reasons.

Fully agree with this post. No special dispensation for relegated clubs, was just explaining how the loss limit changed over time. It's their challenge to meet and they seem to have failed to do so! Fully agree, no leeway- I'd further harmonise the rules too by scrapping in due course the £35m loss limit for PL clubs relegated, though I don't know how realistic it would be. However, they are already at an advantage with huge parachute payments (albeit a much higher cost base too), why should they have an extra £44m in Year 1 and though it drops, an extra £22m in Year 3? Doing some rough calculations before factoring in wages admittedly, their profit on transfers lower than 16/17 for last season and so far this. Combined with parachute payments dropping by £8m last year from £41m-£33m then this year £15m. Wages will undoubtedly (surely)? have dropped...just a question of how much they failed by IMO and as such should be punished with a big points deduction plus embargo.

Yes and no, not exactly. In practice yes. However the reality, not so much. When Villa came down, they would have had the PL loss limits- which are much higher than Championship- as their starting point. Therefore in 14/15 and 15/16 they could lose a max of £35m per season and £13m in Championship. Put in FFP deductions and they easily satisfied it. Last season, gets trickier- 14/15 results wiped out, ignored and 15/16, 16/17 and 17/18. Now we don't know 17/18 results yet but when deductions etc factored in, yes it's likely they passed it- albeit max loss plus deductions now £61m (£3m+£13m+£13m rather than £35m+£35m+£13m). Now they are in the Championship and it's their third season here that £35m gets changed into a £13m and their total losses allowed falls to £39m over 3 years. In theory they could have failed it in 16/17 or last season but definitely didn't in the first and probably didn't in the 2nd. This however is highly likely the season they will fail it- and it could well be a big fail! Struggle to see how they won't tbh.

£40m bank loan?? Should we be worried...would SL/Pula Sports or whoever (i.e. in reality SL) be a guarantor of this loan or would it fall on the club...?

Think a lot of sides are stronger at home these days too, or perhaps more accurately weaker away- away series wins seem to be becoming less, this was a notable one however and we should win in West Indies in the upcoming tour which is more of an expected one. That said we got a major win in SL 3-0! First in ages over there.

Bristol should be fine this year- think that was a must win for Newcastle at home and they lost without a bonus point. 7 points above a fairly big gap.

Good news Think the estimate in the Autumn was 12 + 3 for the aggravated breach. Seems fairly consistent with the Autumn reports though and as such if it still holds, should be between 12-15 anyway- if there was a way to make it have the biggest impact that would be great i.e. this season if playoffs was likely or next season if not. @solihull cider red Bolton just seems to be a mess, as the Dale Vince thread shows. Yet in FFP terms aok- they're a weird and possibly unique example because it is far more common for a club to be cash fine through a rich owner but in FFP trouble but so random for it to be in reverse- yet Bolton seem to be such a club! The SCMP rules of 60% of turnover seem complex- perhaps they are being enforced more readily now but it's hard to say. Fairly sure our wage bill was >60% in League One in the 2 years under SO'D and Cotterill. Maybe there is some kind of exemption for existing contracts, don't really know though. Sunderland most definitely will be over and above 60%!

India won a series in Australia for the first time this week. Well rain and bad light saw off a lot of the last 2 days but 2-1, quite impressive- if a full 5 or even 4 and a half days play it may well have been 3-1. Especially considering better India sides than that have failed to win over there. Australia definitely not the force they were too- an opportunity for us to push to the top of the rankings in 2019 maybe- though India are now deservedly top after this, we are 2nd. Australia down in 5th which augurs well for the Ashes this summer too! That said Smith and Warner will be eligible by then, Bancroft will have got some game time but we always win the Ashes at home anyway. Can we ponder a 5-0 I wonder...?

I can get into it more properly tomorrow but tbh an accountant? I wish good money they're on...I digress. Allowances. Academy expenditure is one, Community is one, Women's football is one and there are some more I cannot recall off the top of my head. It takes us below £39m over 3 years but not by much, but enough. The one year loss thing doesn't apply as it used to as it is a 3 year rolling loss limit. £39m + allowable costs. Say for arguments sake £20m lost in year 1- if your previous 2 years are £19m or less then you comply. Then if for example the year preceding the £20m loss is £6m then you can lose £13m the following season. Then that £6m gets wiped out and you start on £20m and can lose about that (£19m) over the following 2 seasons- so about £9.5m per season. Say allowable costs £4m per year- you add £4m to your accounting loss so in short FFP Loss + Allowable/Deductible Costs=Accounting Loss. Is my broad understanding of it. It's the FFP loss that has to be £39m over 3 years but if it's say £45m and then you knock off £4m per year then your FFP loss is £37m even if total loss that appears in accounts when added up is £49m over 3 years say.

Spot on, excellent post. It's possible for example Leeds someone like this could turn a small profit every so often (and be within FFP) or the lower clubs if they sell sell sell- but if they do that they go down. Overall I agree fully- sustainability at this level a non-starter, PL we can exist within our means or a top end League One side with Cup runs, a strong youth policy, regular sales and yeah some times but not too much in the Championship could see sustainability. Don't think anyone would want the latter however- I know I wouldn't!

That's broadly speaking how I tend to see it too. A fine has its place if a side has gained little and breached little. Points penalty at the top end and maybe the bottom end if there are sides below at the bottom who are in breach and a side below compliant I dunno say Rotherham 22nd and Birmingham 20th something like that. If Birmingham get the mooted 15 point deduction next season say, then that's not an impossible scenario in fact! Wholly agree on your last point too. Clubs who have complied should take legal action if the EFL try to dodge punishing an offending side- as you say if when it comes to it the correct and appropriate punishments are not applied then basically there's no point in having it anymore. For to name a few, plenty of bottom half clubs run within realistic means. More significantly, ourselves, Sheffield United, Middlesbrough arguably, Norwich and Leeds to name 4 or 5 in the top half run correctly, taken moderate to big hits to stay compliant so it has to be enforced. There's probably a few more in a similar boat.

Yeah, hadn't thought of it like that. In no way should clubs who have breached get off scot free- a) Out of fairness and consistency b) Because other clubs have made big, sometimes huge sacrifices to comply. All breaches should be punished but I believe the EFL have a bit of a sliding scale as to the severity of the breach, the intent behind it and the severity of punishment gets decided on these factors. Aston Villa are a particularly flagrant case, they barely seem to acknowledge its existence. I suppose I worded my post a bit poorly but what I was trying to say is that Aston Villa are undoubtedly the worst, the most blatant- their losses for this season especially must be huge. They won't officially be in breach until March 2019 most likely- if they miss the playoffs this year any potential points penalty should be applied next season. Same goes for Birmingham, same goes for Sheffield Wednesday. Those are the big 3 atm IMO.

QPR are as part of their settlement, but that maybe a one window thing- it wasn't clear. Definitely shouldn't be however! Birmingham were but can now sign players under very strict conditions, think Sheffield Wednesday were but won't sign anyone anyway and Aston Villa aren't but probably should be- probably will be in the summer! Don't think anyone else is. Possible that one or all of the last 3 are under a business plan where they work with the EFL. The other interesting thing that makes it a bit harder for public analysis is that so few clubs have released their accounts for last season! Only 7 thusfar (plus we can have approximations based on Blackburn Venky's London e.g., probably not a huge difference) the EFL will have the financial info for last season and projected accounts for this season by March/end of March I think.

That's the crux of the issue- not only must they punish but the appropriate punishment must be applied. Personal take is the harshest punishments should be reserved for those most blatantly disregarding- QPR and Aston Villa. Genuinely Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday for all their gambling, have at least made some efforts- albeit too little too late. They both have made certain adjustments e.g. certain players unavailable for selection, presumably higher waged to try and get to leave. Aston Villa though seem to be sticking their fingers in their ears singing to the EFL and the other 23 clubs singing 'La La La, I can't hear you.' Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday seem to be incompetence as much as recklessness and should undoubtedly be punished- Villa though seem to have a dislikeable dose of arrogance and entitlement thrown in for good measure. I'd piss myself if all their claims of Purslow found a loophole are for the wrong FFP i.e. PL and CL and leaves them up high and dry. If enforced rightly, then Villa need to pay a visit here...

Was pondering doing this over Christmas but decided to wait a bit. Birmingham's financial results though and their losses inspired me to make this thread and wonder how clubs are placed and whether we may have an advantage over them in the future i.e. next season. Aston Villa- Surely failed it over the 3 years to this season. However we only have their results for 16/17 at this time, technically compliant between 15/16 and last season but not by much. So far, out of FFP total of £13m, they lost £6.5m in 16/17 after allowable costs removed. Can lose post said costs another £32.5m over the 2 seasons to the end of this season with parachute payments decreasing...In trouble surely. No results for last season yet. Birmingham- Failed! Missed it by varying calculations, £11.4m, primarily through their big loss last season of £37.5m!! (FFP allowances take it down to 'only' £34.3m). Surely require a points deduction this season or next- the double whammy comes that after this season, their starting point will be that £34.3m loss which means they can lose £2.35m per season after costs to 2020/21- huge challenge...oh and wages last season apparently 200% or so of turnover. Blackburn- Hard to say as Venkys London results differ a bit to their accounts, the latter of which hasn't been published for last season. However should be compliant this year due to relatively low loss in 16/17 plus an excellent saleable asset in Dack if they need. Probably will be alright but won't be able to push the boat out without sales etc .No results for last season yet though Venky's London a good estimate and should be fine for this year, after unsure. Bolton- FFP no problems at all. Their problems seem to be cash based as opposed to FFP but nowhere near the loss limit of £39m I think thanks to a small loss in 2016/17 of £4.4m, or if we're taking the 3 years into account to last season, they lost only £6.1m in 2015/16 and that's before deducting any costs. Transfer embargo and wage limits surely helped them quite big in this respect. However since the lack of investment form owners, they probably won't roll the dice even though they most definitely could. No results for last season yet. Brentford- No accounts for last season but before any deductions, lost around £13.7m over 2 seasons i.e. 15/16 and 16/17 and if the starting point last season, their position even better. Player sales still probably necessary most years but with Benham and his wealth, combined with the excellent results for 16/17 they can pick and choose a bit- perhaps even roll the dice one year. Similarities to us model wise? However we have the better facilities, higher gates so our model is like a Brentford Plus IMO. No results for last season yet. Derby- In a bit of a tight spot for the 3 years to last season but probably compliant. Also been making some big sales in recent years which helps to offset a bit, £22.5m over 15/16 and 16/17. No results for last season yet. Hull- The Allams don't like spending money and want out. Their FFP position is fine but could face a cash crunch with the reduction in parachute payments- very unexpected revival for them also. Seem to be placed okay but it may change and can depend on the owners too. Parachute payments end after this season- £41m, £33m then...£0. Ipswich- Absolutely no issues with FFP, problem for them looks like being relegation- departures of McCarthy, Waghorn, McGoldrick and Garner in one summer the final straw. Leeds- I'd have thought fine FFP wise, may change a bit if Bielsa is on a big whack. Spent a bit last 2 seasons, however made a small profit in 16/17 plus made sales each summer too. No results for last season yet. Middlesbrough- Should be fine FFP wise, but spent a lot last season- big sales too though. This and last season saw Parachute Payments of £41m and £33m- but they run out from next season. No results for last season but big sales this summer surely helps? Millwall- Released results. Not a big spending club but could give it a go if owners wanted. Roughly lost £18m before exclusions in the 3 years to last season, if we include the 2 years before this then it's about £10.85m over 2. Nowhere near. Norwich- Parachute Payments gone this season, but a low loss in 16/17 and a good profit- lot of wriggle room and may even be fine for next season too given the 3 year cycle starting in 17/18 to next saw a good profit and writedown of players also removes future costs. Usually fairly prudent aren't they? Nottingham Forest- Fine for this season probably, owing to a relatively low loss in 16/17, player sales and Brereton sale for £7m- academy sees it as pure profit. Next season though if they don't go up could see a different picture. Maybe like another Birmingham but not quite as bad- hamstrung though most definitely, but not necessarily a total disaster. No results for last season yet. Preston- Should be fine FFP wise. Not exactly big spenders, could give it a go if they wanted. Lost about £4m in the 2 years to 16/17, which is exceptional for Championship IMO. No results for last season yet. QPR- The most punished so far and yet it wasn't enough. Should due to Parachute Payments be compliant for the 3 years to last season and even the 3 years to this season. Thereafter? A huge challenge- their income will plunge by between 40-50% next season. Lost about £17.4m in the 2 years to 2016/17. No results for last season yet. Reading- Lost after excluding their loan write off about £19.62m to the years of 15/16 and 16/17. Should be fine for the 3 years to last season and low losses in 16/17 mean fine for this- next season is where their problems should begin, that is if they stay up. No results for last season yet. Rotherham- No bother at all. Lost £2.6-£2.7m in total pre exclusions the 2 seasons to 16/17. Could probably give it a go if the chairman wanted but they probably are fairly happy with their lot. No results for last season yet. Sheffield United- Lost about £14.2m before exclusions in the 2 seasons to 16/17. No bother surely? About £5.7 in 16/17, can't see them being in trouble though expenditure has increased. Brooks sale a big profit. No results for last season yet. Sheffield Wednesday- FFP trouble surely? Especially given how the losses more than doubled in 16/17, surprised they haven't had to flog Reach, Bannan and Forestieri- at least not including certain players in the squad gave a message they were trying to do something albeit a bit too late. No results for last season yet. Stoke- Bit of a surprise but they might be in trouble. Certainly next season ones to watch for that- they lost £31.9m or thereabouts and though it included write-downs of around £29m and the PL has a higher loss limit, when that cash plunges...surely if they are midtable in January 2020 say, they start some big sales, if not sooner. However they also made that loss despite all that TV money and a profit on player sales of £22m that season...could the firesale be sooner?? Relegation wage clauses. Swansea- Profit of almost £13m in 2016/17. That stands them in very decent stead for FFP this season, made big player sales too this season though not necessarily always big profits with amortisation etc. Think absolutely fine FFP wise and probably next season too. Possibly even started cutting a bit too much too soon, but then again if their owners don't invest much it maybe quite needed. No results for last season yet. Relegation wage clauses. West Brom- Posted a profit of £32,147,000 in 2016/17. Should be absolutely fine FFP wise for this season, but last season that huge profit apparently transformed into requiring a bank overdraft. No results for last season yet. Relegation wage clauses. Wigan- Should be absolutely fine for the 3 years to this season- final year of Parachute Payments saw a profit of £4.3m in fact. After that, it gets tougher- can't see them troubling the top of the League in any case. No results for last season yet. Therefore as we can see- and I really should present it on a spreadsheet or something- while there are still quite a few financial positions to be finalised, we actually are in not too bad a position and definitely if we only add steadily next season too, then summer 2020 we can really splash the cash. Or we could roll the dice a little next season, knowing that it would be restricted the following season- though a big sale of Kelly would change the equation significantly. The question I guess is whether it will be enforced correctly but clubs in big trouble at this stage include: Birmingham, Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday. Those with a decent challenge ahead of them may include Derby, Middlesbrough, Nottingham Forest, QPR and Reading. Blackburn and Wigan will see money tight. The unknowns include the PL relegated sides but Stoke seem in trouble. Teams like Bolton, Millwall, Preston and Rotherham actually could have a go but can't see their owners doing this. Brentford also maybe able to have a go and I can see their owner trying it. 6 of these sides will leave the division at the end of the season- hopefully one is us upwards (though unsure that's so likely). Of those looking like coming up, Sunderland may well be a danger next season as naturally big club, Portsmouth seem to have momentum but beyond that not too much to worry about. As to those likely to enter from PL. Huddersfield will be able to splash the cash if they want, sure their accounts absolutely fine and you throw in the higher loss limits PL, parachute payments, their likely profit last and this season...Southampton of course a big club at this level so maybe a danger but unsure of their finances, seem a fairly sensibly run club though financially speaking. Fulham haven't clicked but should barring a firesale have enough to be up the higher end. Seem to be quite a few clubs who will be in trouble or hamstrung however over next season and the season after...opportunity for us maybe? Has to be enforced correctly though or we may as well scrap it!

1 away point all season- I see what you're saying but I can't see us winning too many away. Bath game at Twickenham? Forgot about that- yeah that's definitely winnable, Cup tie, Cup final etc.

Vital vital win that- a draw would have been a worry and a defeat disastrous. Because second half of the season sees trips to: Exeter, Northampton, Bath, Leicester, Harlequins- and last day of the season- Newcastle! Highly likely the home form will decide the season...

It's so close- not usually as close as that around halfway but that League table...well a defeat may well drop them bottom whereas a win maybe up to and this is half the division at the halfway stage. Crazy.

A factor about Cotterill and LJ difference in budgets. If we recall in 15/16 especially we were walking a bit of a fine line financially. Because of the redevelopment still ongoing we had a maximum capacity of less (average published attendance 15,292) as Lansdown Stand still being built. Throw in also the corporate facilities in the Lansdown. These weren't there in 15/16 so Cotterill was arguably by necessity on a restricted budget. This was something that wasn't the case for LJ as (average published) attendances the next year hit 19.2k plus the higher corporate revenue base from the Lansdown being complete. If somehow and it's all ancient history now, but had Cotterill managed just to see us through the season he may well have seen the benefits of the budget increase- one of those what if situations. Just something I think should be factored in.

My favourite thing about Hollowhead? He relegated 2 clubs in one season- he left them right near the drop zone in 2001 with no home win in late January then went to QPR in late February in a bid to keep them up- by the end of the season both were in the division below- takes some doing!! As for their most recent incumbent, he is surely better off out of there. Can't see GJ going there, but Cotts? Maybe.