chinapig Posted December 29, 2022 Report Share Posted December 29, 2022 12 hours ago, Bristol Rob said: As per the earlier posts. More detail: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64111067 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted December 29, 2022 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2022 Believe a chunk of it will be on instalments, they certainly still owe on players such as Diangana, Grant etc. Transfer instalments still owing and year 2 of Parachute Payments running out after this season makes for a bit of a crunch situation or could do. All clubs owe instalments of course but their owner either won't or can't bung the cash flow in each year to keep the ship steady from that angle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted December 29, 2022 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2022 (edited) On FFP again, accounts still not out for Birmingham, Millwall and Stoke. All are due by the end of the year but in the case of Stoke this would merely be Bet365 which would contain March 31st 2021 to March 30th 2022 so would take a bit of extrapolation! Blackburn extrapolation from VLL to club is easier. Extrapolation for these maybe merely with Operating costs, amortisation, profit etc. Birmingham based on HK accounts lost maybe £26m last season. UK ones show the finer detail. Stoke linked with Ross Stewart?? Or at least Alex Neil reportedly has an interest, is FFP not a factor. Meanwhile I still wonder how Reading can sign Hendrick on loan under FFP, he was reportedly on £50k per week at Newcastle, albeit the parent club are covering a good chunk. What's your take @Davefevs if Stoke are genuinely interested in Ross Stewart despite aggregated pre tax losses of £97m in the two Covid years and we are walking this tightrope are we receiving equitable treatment? I have long had scepticism on this point. I struggle to see how they are in an FFP position to do so, post Parachutes. Edited December 29, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted December 29, 2022 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2022 From memory Stoke post £112m pre tax across 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. We lost £38m by comparison. Clearly with Covid averaging that is £14m for us and £62m for Stoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted December 29, 2022 Report Share Posted December 29, 2022 My take is - if they sign Stewart for £5m, it’s likely on a 4 Yr deal so £1.25m this year, double it if it’s £10m. It’s not unreasonable they might sell someone and then any transfer profit might cover it, maybe more than cover it. I’d chill over Xmas and see what actually happens. Have a stale mince pie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted December 29, 2022 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2022 Yeah I can see, maybe they would sell but I do wonder if they are being given more leeway given the size of their losses vs ours, the fall in income forecasted to last season (Parachute Year 3 to Champ cash) then again maybe I should wait until early 2023, Christmas period as you say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted December 29, 2022 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2022 On a non FFP note, I have read as I thought maybe the case, that Cardiff ate asking for the embargo to be paused/put on hold while they explore other legal avenues. Proceedings stayed in other words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted December 30, 2022 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2022 (edited) Unless there has been a Companies House error, Birmingham both PLC and FC PLC seem to have exercised their right to wait until the end of March to submit accounts. Technically 9 months from Reporting date so end of June means due by end of March but pre Covid they usually released in or late December, or maybe early January. Given that they are listed as PLC albeit in Hong Kong, is the 6 month rule not necessary in those circs? They are listed on CH as a Public Limited company however so I'm a bit surprised. Edited December 30, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 2, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2023 (edited) Obviously they have since been appointed but a little more detail on how the clubs submit their financials and how the CRFU feeds into the CFRP. Did a bit of digging. Emphasis on Agreed Decisions where possible but ultimately the CRFP decision will be final. Edited January 2, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 3, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2023 (edited) Not City, EFL or even strictly speaking UEFA related. Barcelona fined by La Liga following breaches of their FFP regulations. Wonder if this will lead to more as things progress- they will appeal of course. Weirdly they appear to be appealing to some sort of UEFA body when they are in dispute over La Liga regulations?? https://www.sportbible.com/football/barcelona-fined-la-liga-ffp-561133-20230103 Edited January 3, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 4, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2023 Millwall accounts, for both Holdings and club have arrived at CH but not yet available. I expect they will be visible sometime in the next couple of days. Not expecting anything drastic or out there. Still awaiting Bet365 as they will show the final 2 months of 2020-21 and the first 10 of last season for Stoke City or Stoke City Holdings or aspects of it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 4, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2023 A little bit round the houses and also for the Football Regulator thread, but as expected it seems that real time monitoring and ahead of time monitoring will be in play for the new way football financial regulation is done. https://www.footballinsider247.com/everton-ffp-update-revealed-as-january-announcement-looms/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 5, 2023 Report Share Posted January 5, 2023 Millwall 2022 results: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 5, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2023 (edited) Thanks. Still well clear of FFP for now although wage bill up by 10 pct. Wonder if it's risen again this year but I wouldn't be expecting them to run it close to the wire FFP wise. £3m a year in allowable costs is Swiss Ramble general best estimate. Interesting to see how they and others comply with the 90-80-70 pct sliding scale thst is due to be coming in to replace the 3 year rule, but that said maybe the Parachute issue being resolved will put a lower ceiling under costs at this level. Edited January 5, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 5, 2023 Report Share Posted January 5, 2023 3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Thanks. Still well clear of FFP for now although wage bill up by 10 pct. Wonder if it's risen again this year but I wouldn't be expecting them to run it close to the wire FFP wise. £3m a year in allowable costs is Swiss Ramble general best estimate. Interesting to see how they and others comply with the 90-80-70 pct sliding scale thst is due to be coming in to replace the 3 year rule, but that said maybe the Parachute issue being resolved will put a lower ceiling under costs at this level. Re wage bill - possibly increased again this season. Afobe just been mutually terminated (his contract!!!) btw. Yes, re new FFP (guesswork at this stage), they may have to cut back a bit. Here’s a new version of my Viz for those clubs who’ve submitted 2022 accounts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 5, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2023 (edited) Should also add, tomorrow or Saturday Bet365 accounts will see the light of day. The date on these keeps moving but Stoke's numbers from 31st March 2021 to 27th March 2022. Last Bet365 reporting period was made up to 30th March 2021. This therefore will show the final 2 months of the 2020-21 season and up to 27th March of 2021-22 although a deeper dive breakdown into wages etc would hahave be to wait for 2021-22 club and Holdings accounts which are due at the end of February. Can extrapolate by monthly losses probably but a good chunk of guesswork- would also include the final chunk of Parachutes probably as I assume that some of these are paid at the back end of the season.. Edited January 5, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 6, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2023 (edited) Okay, bloody hard to extrapolate but the basics suggest that... I'll let others try and work it out with the club accounts but their income seems too low considering it was end of March 2021 to late March 2022! Sadly it doesn't break down income by category for a segment ie Stoke unlike say Birmingham Sports Holdings Ltd. Am querying how costs appear to have fallen by so much in a year. £30 odd million!? Administrative expenses, is that everything. Given that they turned over £40m in season 2020-21 and £50m in season 2021-22 but these accounts show aggrgsge turnover of £51m for the last two years something seems odd. Perhaps it excluded Bet365 sponsorship from the turnover at this level ie the ground naming rights etc. Mahbe a £20-25m pre tax loss for the club? As I say extrapolation from this is difficult but to seemingly halve your running costs is...odd. Edited January 6, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 6, 2023 Report Share Posted January 6, 2023 22 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: bloody hard to extrapolate When you said you were gonna have a go, I felt for you 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 6, 2023 Report Share Posted January 6, 2023 Stoke 20/21 was their final year of PPs don’t forget….21/22 just normal revenues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 6, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2023 (edited) Yes agreed but at the same time Gate receipts and commercial revenue will have bounced back, that's why I estimated their overall income last season to be £25-30m What sticks out for me though isn't haggling over a few million here and there of revenue, but costs seemingly falling massively...somewhere between a quarter and half by the look of things! 42.86 pct based on the Bet365 comparative figures!? Not going to try and extrapolate 2021 to 2022 for club to May etc! Until the Stoke City Holdings accounts out though it's impossible to get a full picture. Edited January 6, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 6, 2023 Report Share Posted January 6, 2023 Has the big impairment wiped out amortisation costs? Guesswork! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 6, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2023 Certainly will have done! From memory in 2019-20, the total impairment was £42-43m and of that they allocated about £30m to Covid. Then about £3-4m in 2021-22..not allocated to Covid. I suppose too the (why didn't we do this) whole acceleration of wages for unwanted players ie Provision for Onerous contracts would front load costs also. Had we done that in 2020-21 accounts say even if not a Covid cost (this doesn't so far appear to have been) this would have yes increased the losses but costs would have been accelerated and the impact halved due to the aggregation and averaging of 2019-20 and 2020-2021. There were clearly players who were either unwanted or unaffordable even a year ago, well I say a year ago let's say Autumn 2021 when the 2020-21 accounts were being finalised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 6, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2023 I do once again raise the q as to whether both sides are being treated in a fair and equitable manner. We need to free up wages/profit on players/amortisation or one of them anyway to add. Stoke reportedly will only be looking to let or take offers for Flint, Laurent, Powell if new players come in. There is a subtle difference there...we could well be in a similar FFP position yet- or is it that the League are granting clubs a certain level of autonomy and will judge come March or the summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 6, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2023 (edited) Stoke for example would need a £19m pre tax profit from 2021-22 to match our 3 years between 2019-20 and 2021-22. That is 3 year losses. Averaged ours was £52.5m. Theirs is £48.5m and counting so pre tax losses last season not exceeding £4m. Broken down, we lost £10m, £38m and £28.5m. Which averaged is £24m + £28.5m. Theirs was £88m and £9m across the 2 Covid season, the Bet365 version is hard to extrapolate... £48.5m in pre tax losses as a starting point. Seen their FFP costs estimated at £9m per season- ours are about £5-6m per season. Then again the problem for us was never last year or before. PL loanees galore for one... Edited January 6, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 7, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2023 (edited) Suppose that my views which are a bit stuck in pre Covid aside with this, how about...this isn't talking about any specific club or situation but...applicable to seasons ending 2021, 2022 and 2023. New body and or EFL. Some Covid solutions. 1) If losses after the combined average and usual FFP deductions are at £39m of below (or adjusted for yoyo clubs) no further questions. Loss limits higher in PL etc. 2) If above but the subtraction of £5m x 2 (average £5m and then £2.5m) takes a club to or below limits no further questions asked. Obviously this is independent of other creative accounting unlinked to Covid. 3) IF losses and I don't mean after the £5m x 2 plus TV exceed or easily quantifiable ones such as TV, Gates, Commercial etc after the EFL mandated add-backs still exceed £39m then at bare minimum some sort of panel to adjudicate either for the club or for the principle if multiple clubs have done something similar. For example if multiple clubs have done impairment and attributed to Covid or player transfer add-backs. Rules maybe changing but that is my proposal to uphold the integrity of the rules while still in play. Would be far easier for me to advocate "Well rules are soon to be changing, Covid huge impact- let's effectively let a lot go unless outstandingly bad or egregious". Not necessarily how I see it. Obviously if an Independent Panel rules the process either impermissible under FFP/P&S or under FRS 102 and this is the difference between compliance and not for a club or clubs then the usual rules apply. A club would have the right to an IDC or whoever the new body is in order to state their case and the IDC or whoever it is now would decide the issues as usual. Edited January 7, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 11, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2023 (edited) Interesting development. https://www.footballinsider247.com/man-city-ffp-busting-plan-in-peril-amid-50m-reveal-sources/ An Independent regulator by the sound could have real strong powers, talk of 5 year bans from Football if misleading financial returns!? I think Man City are a lot more legit now than they once were but an outright cap on RPTs would be real new ground. Edited January 11, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 11, 2023 Report Share Posted January 11, 2023 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 12, 2023 Report Share Posted January 12, 2023 Good article here re Cardiff: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 12, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2023 18 hours ago, Davefevs said: Business Plan remains in play then. Was always likely and necessary given their weird combination of FFP and Insolvency- usually it is strictly one or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 12, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2023 (edited) Interesting tweet in that thread about cost of loans post Covid too, at least as far as costly loan fees are concerned. Edited January 12, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.