Mr Popodopolous
-
Posts
41680 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Events
Posts posted by Mr Popodopolous
-
-
2 hours ago, Davefevs said:
So, Wolves 3 seasons:
15/16: £7.5m profit
16/17: £20.8m loss
17/18: £57.1m loss
Overall: £70.4m loss
Less allowable deductions:
Promotion Bonus: £21.6m > £48.4m loss
Academy, etc: £5m per year = £15m > £33.4m
So inside FFP by my reckoning....saved by 15/16’s profit! They would’ve had to sell the Crown Jewels had they not gone up last season.
@Mr Popodopolous - does that look right?
That sounds very likely and I reckon spot on Dave.
Not followed it for a few hrs- was £21.6m confirmed?
It would have meant IMO bye bye Neves, Costa and Cavaleiro for one. No permanent for Boly, Jota and Afobe.
More importantly in a sense- would FOSUN, Mendes and Nuno kept faith? Have my doubts...
-
Wow, my guess on Wolves promotion bonuses seems to have been spot on.
QuoteHowever the £55m figure is believed to be inflated by around £20m on promotion bonuses for staff and players, plus extra transfer fees owed as a result of promotion.
My latest calculations for what we therefore know...
- £55,149,000- 2018
- £20,830,000- 2017
- £7,561,000- 2016
TOTAL 3 year Loss- £68,418,000
Subtract £20m in promotion bonuses it would seem.
Total 3 year loss- £48,418,000.
Given what clubs like Wolves spend on infrastructure, academy etc in the main at this level, I think there is a fair chance the 3 year excluded spend would be at least £9,418,000- before we even factor in FOSUN taking over and the fact they would want to upgrade training facilities, revenue streams etc.
Looks like they passed it then- not by a huge amount but up to the limit would be enough.
Definite cutbacks this year would have been necessary had they fallen short, but Neves, Costa and Cavaleiro wouldn't have been short of takers and likely for good money at that. Had say Boly and Jota signed permanently they could have been sold on quickly, if option to buy they'd have been off the wage bill with no purchase obligations.
As I said this time a year ago- clever model indeed.
-
1
-
15 minutes ago, phantom said:
Some crazy figures here
You're not wrong! Promotion bonuses of say £20m (not an unreasonable guess for players of that calibre, owners of that wealth) would be excluded though, profit on transfers would offset too. Plus all their more routine excluded costs- one estimate was £18m of excluded costs in the previous 3 seasons.
Most clubs do list 'cost of promotion'- i.e. bonuses or payments due to clubs in the event of promotion which otherwise would not have been due- somewhere in their accounts though, yet nothing yet- so I do wonder...
The Championship Operating losses are just nuts- shows how quickly wages in general, and at times fees have risen at this level- while TV revenue has been left trailing...
The only way to solve it in the long term would be an annual breakeven requirement from operational revenue plus profit on sales whatever that maybe, but I am sure no club would vote for that- plus it would necessitate wages plummeting across the board at this level and the EFL wouldn't like it either because it would reduce the quality of product over time. This emoji sums up the chances of that happening!
-
1
-
-
The moment of truth for Aston Villa will be in the coming day or 2...
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10176070/filing-history
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05891280/filing-history
Think they are spun off into 4 companies- Aston Villa Limited and Recon Football which are useful but not decisive. The one to watch most for last season I'd say is Recon Group UK Limited and possibly (though not looked into it so much), Recon Sports Limited. These are the 2 above who have submitted and we'll know all probably sometime tomorrow?
With the takeover, who knows (or at this stage cares) what the right company will be in 2020 for their financial results this season?
-
1
-
-
Well Wolves financial results are out.
The headline loss for last season is £55.15m which makes it sound like they have smashed FFP. HOWEVER treat with caution due to promotion bonuses which in Cardiff's case e.g. once factoring in clauses due to other clubs as well which are exempt, ran to £23m, no disclosure of those for Wolves yet, they need to be knocked off as and when. Plus don't know how much their new regime invested in infrastructure, youth etc over the 3 years- so it's not certain they have broken it but not enough info to say for sure at this stage. Summed up in one word however? Eye-watering!
In layman's terms, if their promotion bonuses and costs no less than £16m plus the often touted £6m per year spent on infrastructure, academy etc over this 3 year period then they would have took it very near the limit, perhaps up to- but not over. Would have to analyse the figures in full though later plus when (if) promotion bonuses arise ands are disclosed.
Right now though, with what we know for sure it looks like it may have been breached...but those excluded costs have to be taken into account. Shows how well sides like us and though they are a notch lower, Preston, Brentford and in last season's case Millwall- oh and Sheffield United- have done to compete for as long as we did in some ways. Once last seasons results in for all clubs we'll be able to see where we ranked in terms of wage bill (once promotion bonuses etc excluded)...
-
2
-
-
Regardless of those 2, I think we have enough to stay up already- strong at home too, not just in terms of wins but performances. Away from home, unlike the start of the season increasingly 'in' games- nick a bonus point here and there either through keeping it tight or indeed rallying with a late try- Exeter and Harlequins losses respectively.
We'll be fine- Newcastle or Worcester for the drop.
-
On 01/03/2019 at 23:10, RedM said:
Great game, really enjoyed that. We have been close in so many games, thought we were going to be cruelly denied at the death again tonight. And we won a trophy too!
Bed now and on to Preston
And none of the officials noticed!
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.
-
9 hours ago, slartibartfast said:
on the bright side..................no bonus points .
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
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.
-
18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:
Is it possible they are working to the £5m unbacked losses FFP model, so playing safe. They also used to submit less detailed accounts too, not sure if that has any bearing in their size and backing?
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
-
25 minutes ago, Davefevs said:
@Mr Popodopolous thought Norwich were in final season too? They came down with Villa and one of the spreadsheets I got from your old posts says they get£15.1m this year.
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/
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, reddoh said:
it is quite sad that a team that turned themselves around and floated to the top and were a model club to base your team on have dived so badly but I guess changing manager and owner(s) is possibly not the best maybe @Miah Dennehy can enlighten us
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.
-
4 hours ago, old_eastender said:
I believe Villa, Norwich (will be irrelevant if they go up), Hull & QPR are all in the final season of parachute payments. Add to them the financial holes that Stoke, Swansea, Forest & Brum are going to find themselves in. Going to be more FFP coming into play next season I reckon.
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.
-
On 15/02/2019 at 19:28, slartibartfast said:
Relegate the ***** !
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.
-
34 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:
I quite agree. I can see it getting very messy.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:
I was thinking more of Villa. I shall be pleasantly surprised if they do hand out serious punishment.
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.
-
14 hours ago, Drew Peacock said:
Or they can give a piddly meaningless fine.
Given they seem to be planning to hit Birmingham hard, I wouldn't bank on it...
-
25 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:
If a club is having their position demoted from a promotion spot as a punishment then, IMO, it should be out of all contention.
Be utterly pointless to drop them into the playoffs- if they were top 2 then they know they should be the best side in the playoffs. That doesn't guarantee them winning it, but if they win the playoffs then literally no punishment has been metered out- the club gets more revenue from the matches, televised and gate receipts. It's only the fans who suffer there by having to shell out for 3 more games.
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.
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.
The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)
in Football Chat
Posted · Edited by Mr Popodopolous
At last, Aston Villa's full results out.
Pretty busy this morning but a couple of headline figures:
The Wage Bill rise is staggering though. Reduction in Parachute Payments no problem...Total wages once Social Security and Pension costs factored in £73,110,00!
If we're stripping out that aspect and looking at wages- admittedly club wages in isolation, still up to £65,122,000 from £53,490,000.
Headline loss after all that £36,069,000. Though once excluded costs taken into account it comes down of course. Estimate their revenue falls by £21-22m this year with final year of Parachute Payments and presumably no recurring HS2 Compensation. In other words? They need to if rules enforced stringently, reach compliance at a time when revenue drops £21m. Their accounts did suggest they spent £10m or so on Youth Development thoiuygh so they're fine for the 3 years to last season but this season? Big problems you'd think!
Oh yeah and in other news, Reading lost almost £21m. Thought they would be in trouble.