Mr Popodopolous

I'll have a go! Purely focusing on us here and not the context, the rules the regs etc- we as with all regular Championship clubs can lose £39m over 3 seasons. We have fallen below this happily in the accounts between 2015/16 to last season, once the allowable costs- namely Infrastructure Expenditure, Youth Expenditure, Community Expenditure and Women's football expenditure all factored in. BCFC Holdings Losses by season- before allowable expenditure: 2015/16- £14,798,070- Minus allowable expenditure of £2.7m. 2016/17- £6,346,035- Minus allowable expenditure of £4.5m. 2017/18- £25,164,281- Minus allowable expenditure of £4.7m Total losses- £46,299,386- Minus allowable losses of £11.9m. Total FFP adjusted losses therefore appear to be £34,399,386. This is good because it means that 2015/16 losses are removed from the record and the starting point is therefore 2016/17 and that is before even taking into account the sales and cost reductions of this summer i.e. Hegeler, O'Neil, Steele all off the wage bill even though we got no fee. Our current FFP position therefore would be based on the last 2 seasons and before taking into account this season, 2 year FFP losses of £22,310,316 which means we can lose if we wish up to £16.69m roughly this season in FFP terms (that's before the allowable expenditure). I'm hoping after the big sales and some of the aforementioned players who departed without a fee but less wages that we may break even this season. If we break even this year and our allowable costs are say £4m, that would be a profit in FFP terms this season of £4m which would take our overall FFP losses for this and last season down to £16,464,281. Which would mean a good roll of the dice possible in 2019/20- by which I mean only sell if we want to and add some decent assets- not go nuts but add our decent assets. If we are still at this level in 2020/21 and didn't go on a wasteful spending spree next season or this January- sort of just spending because it's there- then we could have a big war chest in 2020/21, good scope to gamble if we wished. As a little end note, not knocking the board or anything but last season had there been a guarantee it would have got us over the line, we could seemingly have added another £4.5m to the expenditure if other allowance based figures are broadly right- that's not on a fee that's total of wages, fee, signing on fee etc but we could have. The trade off would probably have been bigger cutbacks this season had the gamble not paid off and we may have been hamstrung moving forward for a year or 2. Forgot to add- Transfer income or revenue gained by sell on fees offset operating losses. Quite important! Adjusted Loss excluding Profit on Transfers or Sell on fee Revenue: 2015/16- £14,434,719 (Profit on disposal of Player Contracts £81,358). Other financial items took our overall losses to what they were which was £14,798,070.. 2016/17- £18,515,320 (Profit on disposal of Player Contracts £13,603,739). Other financial items took our overall losses to what they were of £6,346,035. 2017/18- £25,165,335 (Profit on disposal of Player Contracts £296,625). Other items took the losses to what they were of £25,164,281. Basically our operating loss averaged out as it appears on the accounts is £19.37m per season. FFP exclusions over the 3 years appear to average a shade under £4m so we need an average of £2.37m per season of Profit on disposal of Player Contracts or a reduced wage bill or other expenditure by similar margins just to stay within FFP. This summer though should provide a huge boost moving forward. Reduced amortisation also helps with this overall improvement in financial position- because I believe when a player is sold, their amortisation is therefore off the books. Same when they leave as a free agent. (That goes for Djuric, Hegeler, Magnússon, Engvall- but not Reid or Bryan as the latter were academy so zero amortisation cost. Flint kept renewing so there maybe some there too).

Not City or even Championship related, but I saw this online- here is a club I never assumed would slip into possible FFP issues- if indeed these projected accounts for last season (accounts overdue) but particularly moving forward for them, this and next, in the right ballpark.

RIP Emiliano Sala and David Ibbotson.

March 2019, perhaps the end of March 2019? EFL have advance financial information- Companies House accounts while not the whole picture give a fair barometer, but the problem is that most clubs don't submit their accounts to Companies House until end of Feb, end of March. As for the EFL- they received accounts for last season by December 1st of 2018, clubs had to submit them by then to the EFL (but not, confusingly, Companies House). I think they have to submit this season's projected accounts by March or end of March this year- given transfer window shut, a projection to May 31/June 30 2019 should be feasible. Sanctions or otherwise (in theory) are based on the previous seasons 2 real accounts and this seasons FFI, also known as projected accounts. There's a significant lack of public transparency on this however- commercial reasons probably dictate this.

For sure- would have had big problems even had they made it to the island. Could it have been searched on foot during daylight though sooner than it has been- if indeed it has been? This Tweet was sent 10.36am on 22nd January- nearly 48 hours ago. No criticism at all of anyone searching, but in these things time can really make all the difference.

Saw this on Twitter in last 10 mins. Seems to be a lot of talk about it- any truth or?? Flares basically seen on an island that is (aside from birds and wildlife) uninhabited, an island near Alderney. I've honestly no idea, but seems to be a lot of talk about it on Twitter. Police have done a half hour aerial search of the island, but nothing on foot yet apparently...Island called Burhou. World Heritage site.

Horrible news- let us hope that somehow everyone on board is found alive.

Probably right- it does very get very complex in terms of rounding, 31st Jan would make sense for exercising an option in fact. That's a good point that, maybe 1/12 would go into the next year or maybe it would be rounded to include the 1/12th. No idea however on this latter point.

I wondered if given contracts tend to run out on 30th June for players. If we renewed it, i.e. exercised the option at the end then it would be pure profit as 3 years is up and maybe treated as a new deal? However, doing it now which is give or take 2 and a half years in, would have the remaining balance- £500k in the £3m over 3 years scenario- set over the new lifespan of the deal i.e. now until June 2020? In other words, £500k/1.5 rather than contract run down, amortised £3m/3 then option exercised in say May or June 2019 which could in theory have a zero remaining balance.

Can spend what you like on Infrastructure, Academy, Community, Womens football and possibly there are some other areas but they are the main ones. So yeah, they are excluded from FFP calculations. "B" Team thing is a really good question. I think Brentford absolutely fine FFP wise, so £1m per season may not make a huge difference if the supply of talent to sell remains steady but consistent. Whether it would class as academy is hard to say though, could be argued it counts as sort of a de facto academy maybe? @Coppello That sounds an interesting job- inside track if you like! PL? Pretty well impossible to fail the £35m a season max loss at that level surely, but the STCC provides a few possible headaches I suspect. The STCC thing- is that £7m gross or net? i.e. If you sell a player who is on £50k per week it's £7m plus that saving? Definitely can imagine loopholes, particularly for bigger clubs (and Watford due to their tie-up with Udinese, Granada)?

Tend to agree- they seem to have been kicking the can down the road a bit. The interesting thing about Derby- and it is a big unknown- is that while most clubs have amortisation straight line in the standard way, they seem to have players valued and sales or release depend on that- unique among football clubs. Could either bolster them or see them take a big hit this summer with all the out of contract players. Definitely unclear though, sounds like a boost on paper but then again...

That's roughly what I thought- thanks. No easy get out for Villa then as it stands? Of all the transgressors, they and QPR are the ones I have the biggest issue with. Others should be punished absolutely.

Do you mean independent of FFP or for FFP? Unclear. Their squad is aging, they have sold a lot of good players and as you say mainly they are loanees in terms of their best. However those sales may have kept them from failing FFP- gambling on promotion this year?

On the FFP issue a specific case. https://www.swfc.co.uk/news/2019/january/dejphon-chansiri-statement Essentially Sheffield Wednesday could face a 2nd transfer embargo if they don't resolve by March. Adam Reach is their most saleable asset IMO. Then you have Bannan though age may play a part and he's not been that productive this season and Forestieri with his off the field stuff- on paper a saleable asset, but that reduces that!

Interesting thoughts today by Andy Holt the Accrington chairman- his Twitter account worth a look. I mean it'll never happen but if it did, it would solve the FFP bother at a stroke. Quite a long thread...

Oh yeah, when I said payment terms I meant which year it would be in the books. As you say payment terms however they want- would hope though given Villa's accounts are (as it stands) to the day before the window opens that any transfer would have to be to before that date- so this January. I suppose there is a remote chance of him going abroad when the transfer windows differ e.g. if a Chinese club put in £30m bid in mid February their window is different to ours and that may count. You'd hope a move in Summer 2019 but with the cash flowing in the season before wouldn't fly though, but who knows. @downendcity Fully agree.

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...?