The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

They basically need to cut costs or raise transfer profit by €309m in order to hit the €60m target.

Their income has reportedly risen by €146m this season which still leaves a €163m hole. Which is before transfer activity on the debit side, before the costs of the summer 2022 additions.

On the plus side lots have left- their squad has thinned out significantly but their surge in income is...curious.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[luke_bristol]

Not Championship I know, but they could be next season - Leeds have been ordered to pay approx £25m to an ex player (that only played 48 mins of football for them) for breach of contract, and a further £15m to Bayer Leverkusen 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Think was RB Leipzig.

The fee has been accounted for already in their amended 2020-21 accounts.

The £25m in wages seems ropey to me, spread over term of contract or in one hit- although no survival means no huge survival bonus.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They basically need to cut costs or raise transfer profit by €309m in order to hit the €60m target.

Their income has reportedly risen by €146m this season which still leaves a €163m hole. Which is before transfer activity on the debit side, before the costs of the summer 2022 additions.

On the plus side lots have left- their squad has thinned out significantly but their surge in income is...curious.

Nation state owners, as is effectively the case with Man City, whose accounting techniques are now subject to charges and investigation.

I wonder whether there might be a theme here. 

How long will it be before questions are being raised about Newcastle's accounting approach?

 

[cityexile]

40 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Think was RB Leipzig.

The fee has been accounted for already in their amended 2020-21 accounts.

The £25m in wages seems ropey to me, spread over term of contract or in one hit- although no survival means no huge survival bonus.

Guessing a bit, but it was a five year contract from 2020-21 I think. They are appealing, but if upheld I would have thought they may have to take 60% in this years (as due), and 20% in to each of the next two seasons.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, downendcity said:

Nation state owners, as is effectively the case with Man City, whose accounting techniques are now subject to charges and investigation.

I wonder whether there might be a theme here. 

How long will it be before questions are being raised about Newcastle's accounting approach?

 

Yeah clearly Nation state owners of clubs are suspect from this angle.

So far Newcastle seem to be walking the line. So far...they inherited a very good FFP position from Mike Ashley and an infrastructure badly in need of investment. The question in the short to medium term will be whether Commercial Revenue is fair value IMO.

Man City, I'd say likely comply now but the first 5-10 years...hmm. The club will have grown significantly and major player sales year on year all help- the question there is how they got there in the first place and clearly if required they must be punished accordingly.

PSG are really interesting. At first like Man City they overspent and had the UEFA limits and Business Plan. UEFA supposedly botched a 2018 case but at the same time they deemed to be selling lots of players and complying that way.

Covid came along and UEFA refotmrf FFP of course but not certain when system A ends and system B begins. Meanwhile post Covid having posted losses of €124m and €224m (pre tax, pre adjustments- set into one so €174m), PSG in summer 2021 add:

1) Donnarumma

2) Ramos

3) Wijnaldum

4) Messi

Small matter of adding Pereira and Hakimi too. All contributed to their reported €369m pre tax loss last year!? Whether the loss limit to 2022 was €30m or €60m they smashed it waaaay out of the park.

Them and Juventus should have been handed more than a fine and conditionality. More without doubt. A chunk of Mbappe's new deal being accelerated will help but that year and the huge overspend should still have been dealt with accordingly.

A number have left this year...

Areola, Bulka

Kurzawa

Draxler, Herrera, Wijnaldum ,Paredes, Gueye, Rafinha, Di Maria

Icardi

January saw Navas depart. Sarabia too.

Full list. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022–23_Paris_Saint-Germain_F.C._season

[Rob26]

22 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

https://www.tribalfootball.com/articles/southampton-owner-dragan-solak-facing-massive-loan-repayment-4453533

Don't see that necessarily going according to plan.

you not think he will just refinance it then problem solved?

[Rob26]

20 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Think was RB Leipzig.

The fee has been accounted for already in their amended 2020-21 accounts.

The £25m in wages seems ropey to me, spread over term of contract or in one hit- although no survival means no huge survival bonus.

must be over the contract I reckon, as I think it must of been a contract that was agreed if he signed for them, so the ruling means they have to pay the contract,

but saying they have to pay 25m out is the click bait way of describing it for the news sites,

I think it probs get cut down on appeal if the transfer fee did tho, but the sum is similar to the transfer fee so make only come down by 8 or so mil,

but then maybe not as I think these forms of arbitration may favour players more than clubs, epically when they are using a technicality in a force majeure situation of covid to try and rob a player of the best contract of his life. 

If I was leeds what I would argue is what ever wages he has got in that five year period that he should be under contract with leeds should come from his settlement, as really he should still be under contract and they have lost the chance to sell the player on too, or loan him out and recover some wages etc. that's fair in my mind, as he is getting his contract and also a free transfer, but then that is down to how leeds tried to get out of this deal in the first place. I think that principle is part of our law so may well of been taken into account in the 25m tho already :laugh:

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Rob26

[Rob26]

 

[Hxj]

20 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The £25m in wages seems ropey to me, spread over term of contract or in one hit

As the player contract is no longer in existence my understanding is that all costs would need to be deducted immediately on the decision, excluding any costs already deducted,

[Rob26]

5 minutes ago, Hxj said:

As the player contract is no longer in existence my understanding is that all costs would need to be deducted immediately on the decision, excluding any costs already deducted,

imagine thinking your clever and that you can set precedent and dodge a transfer, and as a result you effectively flush 40m down the drain plus legal costs spent :laugh:, when if they bit the bullet they may have only flushed 25m down the toilet if sold him or loaned him out :laugh:

I really don't get why they thought they would win this one, if they did, then imagine how many other clubs would have been pulling the same get out clause, I think it was always doomed to fail just to avoid that house of cards falling down for everyone else during a time of covid where people were already down money wise

[Bristol Rob]

35 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

you not think he will just refinance it then problem solved?

Might be a lot easier to refinance if the asset the loan was used to buy hadn't found themselves devoid of a Premier League income.

[Rob26]

25 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Might be a lot easier to refinance if the asset the loan was used to buy hadn't found themselves devoid of a Premier League income.

maybe but think they plenty of vultures in this sport for them 10% + short term loans

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

As the player contract is no longer in existence my understanding is that all costs would need to be deducted immediately on the decision, excluding any costs already deducted,

Thanks.

Okay so £25m added to Leeds outgoings this season. Did read that they're appealing it.

[Rob26]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks.

Okay so £25m added to Leeds outgoings this season. Did read that they're appealing it.

I tend to think that they won't be as lucky as they were with the club transfer fee with the loss of earnings claim from the player, as them things are setup to protect players more than protect clubs from players (I am assuming, like tribunals are)

at least with the transfer fee they had the angle that both clubs agreed to release his registration, so they lost a transfer fee they could have got by keeping him on the books. and the reduction in fee, that seems in line with what they would expect to get if they sold him after he flopped (or recovered through loans for 5 years)

with the player its a direct loss of earnings on a contract which must of been signed, the first claim kinda cements this one I feel.

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Did read that they're appealing it.

The test for inclusion in the accounts is 'is it more likely than not that the amount will be paid.'  As the majority of lower court cases are not appealed and most appeals to higher courts fail it will be difficult to avoid a charge to the profit an loss account where a lower level court has decided against you.

[Rob26]

 

Quote

 

Peterborough have been handed a three-point deduction for failing to comply with EFL regulations – but the punishment is suspended until the end of 2023.

Posh have also been fined £50,000 regarding the appointment of chief executive David Paton last January.

An official statement read: “The club failed to declare Mr Paton as a relevant person as per the requirements of the regulations and allowed him to act in a role that brought him under the definition of a ‘relevant person’ without receiving written authority from the EFL.

 

“In addition, the club allowed Mr Paton to act as a relevant person despite him being subject to a disqualifying condition.

“Mr Paton has also been banned from being a relevant person for a period of two years effective from 19 May, 2022 for acting within the definition of a relevant person without receiving written authority from the EFL.

“The sanctions have been agreed by the club and Mr Paton in accordance with the terms of an ‘agreed decision’ which have formally been ratified by an independent disciplinary commission chair.

“The club and Mr Paton have agreed to pay all associated costs with the ratification of the respective agreed decisions.”

Peterborough currently sit fifth in the League One table – two points above Wanderers despite playing an extra game at this stage.

Darren Ferguson’s side are unbeaten in their last six matches following Monday’s 3-1 win against Exeter at London Road.

The club responded: “The club regrets the oversight that led to our failure to comply with rules 2.5.1, 2.6 and 4.4 and we sincerely apologise to the EFL.

“We have implemented a rigorous set of procedures to ensure that such breaches do not occur in the future.

“We thank the EFL for completing its investigation in a thoroughly transparent and professional manner.

“The club can also announce that Mr David Paton has left the role of chief executive officer by mutual consent, effective immediately. We wish David well for the future.

“The club will be announcing plans for the role of chief executive officer in due course.”

Posh are back in action on Saturday afternoon when they make the trip to the Abbey Stadium to take on Cambridge.

 

 

 https://www.efl.com/news/2023/april/efl-statement-peterborough-united 

 

so is this a suspended punishment which requires an additional breach to be activated, or are they saying they are docked 3 points in december?, the first option makes more sense to me

Edited April 12, 2023 by Rob26

[Rob26]

https://www.efl.com/news/2023/april/efl-statement-birmingham-city/

Quote

Matthew Southall, Paul Richardson, and Maxi Lopez have all admitted to breaching EFL Regulations in respect of the Owners and Directors’ Test (OADT) following their unapproved involvement with Birmingham City Football Club in 2022.

Following a thorough investigation, the three individuals have accepted that they had acquired control of the Club without going through the appropriate sign-off procedure with the EFL.  In addition, Mr Southall also accepted a charge of Misconduct after admitting to signing a false declaration regarding his role as a Relevant Person under EFL Regulations. 

As a result of admitting the charges, Mr Southall is now prohibited from being a Relevant Person for a period of six months, three months of which are to be suspended until the end of the 2023/24 season. Mr Richardson and Mr Lopez are also banned from being a Relevant Person for a period of two months and one month respectively, which are to be suspended until the end of the 2023/24 season.

All three individuals, who are liable for £45,000 of the associated costs with the investigation, have entered into an Agreed Decision with the League as provided for in the Regulations.

A link to the decision can be found here.

 

 

seems bit unfair to Peterborough that they get a suspended points deduction for appointing a CE without permission but Birmingham change owners without permission and get a lesser punishment.  Could this be because they may already have something coming through for points with ffp or something?

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 hours ago, Rob26 said:

 

 

 https://www.efl.com/news/2023/april/efl-statement-peterborough-united 

 

so is this a suspended punishment which requires an additional breach to be activated, or are they saying they are docked 3 points in december?, the first option makes more sense to me

Essentially it is the first. Have until December or the date in December specified to avoid activating. Agreed Decision or EFL push for the max they think they can win would be one possibility.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

50 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

https://www.efl.com/news/2023/april/efl-statement-birmingham-city/

 

seems bit unfair to Peterborough that they get a suspended points deduction for appointing a CE without permission but Birmingham change owners without permission and get a lesser punishment.  Could this be because they may already have something coming through for points with ffp or something?

There are some notable differences.

Firstly the individuals in this case agreed, EFL v the Club is still yet to fully play out- the Club are contesting at an IDC. Whereas in Peterborough case both the Club and this individual Agreed to the EFL's proposed terms, presumably some haggling from both sides.

Secondly this is seen as a bit of an aperitif to the main course- Birmingham have been under investigation as to who actually owns, has owned or controlled the club and tbis investigation has been ongoing for 2 years and dates back to 2016.

A Cambodian diplomat by the name of Wang Yaohui has not taken any of the EFL tests, the strong suspicion is that he would not pass or have passed- John Percy said at the time of the Maxco charges that an Investigation was still ongoing for Birmingham, suspended deduction for this one vs the Club was deemed the most likely verdict but if Birmingham are contesting I'd hope the League push for something stronger. 

Anyway he is also colloquially known as Mr. King this is about the potential big charges not Maxco v EFL and in June 2022 court papers in Cambodia did imply that he was a beneficial owner or controlling party of Birmingham.

Last difference, Peterborough guy wad technically disqualified so it feels like they have got off lightly with a deduction only being suspended- first offence, cooperation I dunno maybe weighed in their favour.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Embargo for Huddersfield lifted. Presumably accounts for last year now submitted to EFL- for the rest of us they have until 30th June 2023 but I expect there are no FFP issues there given how they started cutting from Day 1 post relegation and never had huge PL costs in the first place.

As of end of June 2021, and yes prior to additions they had £1.4-1.5m left to amortise and a wage bill of £24-25m in 2020-21.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

https://www.removepaywall.com/https://theathletic.com/4394846/2023/04/10/chelsea-accounts-explained-ffp/?source=twitterpcads&ad_id=40911570

article on chelsea with paywall removed

[Mr Popodopolous]

Thanks, shall read it later.

Chelsea and their accounting policies have interested me for a number of years. Under Abramovich in FFP times they would post a big profit, then big loss- but always within the UEFA let alone the PL 3 year loss limit.

However, they lost £121m last year despite and including:

*A £123m Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations.

*Reaching the CL quarter finals.

*Finishing 3rd in the PL.

*Reading two domestic Cup finals.

With all of the combined revenue and offsetting that this brings.

On the flipside, Chelsea also had iirc a £76m Player Impairment and a £49m cost of changing the top brass. These won't be repeated but the top 3 revenue, two Cup finals won't either. No costs of sanctions but player sales far down, a load of new amortisation...yes some savings from the Impairment and makes Profit on Disposal somewhat easier, wonder if they'll try to attribute the £49m to the change of ownership caused by the Ukraine war and therefore should be exempt.

Oh yes small matter of firing Tuchel, hiring Potter ie the compensation to Brighton, firing Potter and hiring Lampard is a new additional cost.

I expect that they will seek to attribute as much as possible to the Ukraine war and the impact of sanctions on them laat season etc.

Edited April 18, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

As for our level or sides related to our level, we still await the following:

End of April

*Burnley and Burnley Holdings- Relegated from PL but have bounced back.

*Sheffield Wednesday, their parent Sheffield 2, as well as Sheffield 3 and 5- Stadium company and its parent respectively.

*Sunderland- Promotion to this level last season.

*Swansea parent and subsidiaries.

Delayed

*Huddersfield

*Peterborough- Relegated in 2021-22 from this level.

*Sheffield United and Blades Leisure Limited. Look set to bounce back.

All have put in for an option to extend by 3 months.

Both Burnley and Sheffield United remain under embargo, Huddersfield have had their listed because they clearly got last year's accounts to the EFL as that was their reason.

[Rob26]

On 18/04/2023 at 16:27, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks, shall read it later.

Chelsea and their accounting policies have interested me for a number of years. Under Abramovich in FFP times they would post a big profit, then big loss- but always within the UEFA let alone the PL 3 year loss limit.

However, they lost £121m last year despite and including:

*A £123m Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations.

*Reaching the CL quarter finals.

*Finishing 3rd in the PL.

*Reading two domestic Cup finals.

With all of the combined revenue and offsetting that this brings.

On the flipside, Chelsea also had iirc a £76m Player Impairment and a £49m cost of changing the top brass. These won't be repeated but the top 3 revenue, two Cup finals won't either. No costs of sanctions but player sales far down, a load of new amortisation...yes some savings from the Impairment and makes Profit on Disposal somewhat easier, wonder if they'll try to attribute the £49m to the change of ownership caused by the Ukraine war and therefore should be exempt.

Oh yes small matter of firing Tuchel, hiring Potter ie the compensation to Brighton, firing Potter and hiring Lampard is a new additional cost.

I expect that they will seek to attribute as much as possible to the Ukraine war and the impact of sanctions on them laat season etc.

yeah the sanctions card is defs getting played with them basically commerically being put on pause for a length of time, although will be funny to see how far they push that as I have no doubt it will be a crazy number that will coincidently put them the right side of FFP :laugh:

[Davefevs]

Guess this means no points deduction incoming:

 

[MyBrotherErnie]

Not a pretty picture for us!

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Guess this means no points deduction incoming:

 

If they have been able to renegotiate fees or instalments that sets a really poor precedent. Was bad enough when Arsenal restructured Bielik with Derby but this like for like feels somewhat worse even if Derby worse overall.

The higher revenue part of it is one thing but if you cannot pay a Football debt as it falls due then no movement should occur.

Pretty sure they've been missing other debts and suppliers too, so I've read...ie non football related.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If they have been able to renegotiate fees or instalments thst sets a really poor precedent. Was bad enough when Arsenal restructured Bielik with Derby but this like for like feels somewhat worse even if Derby worse overall.

Maybe they simply paid what they owed?

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Maybe they simply paid what they owed?

Conflicting reports tbh. If they've paid up all is well.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous