The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Davefevs]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

Conflicting reports tbh. If they've paid up alls well.

I haven’t seen any detail, what have you seen / gleaned?

[ExiledAjax]

3 hours ago, MyBrotherErnie said:

Not a pretty picture for us!

Play off form.

Jokes aside, yep it's bad, but accounts for this year should be better. Probably more like £400k per week.

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If they have been able to renegotiate fees or instalments that sets a really poor precedent.

My recollection is that Bristol City renegotiated a transfer deal with some one with cashflow issues.  Can't remember all the details, but those in glasshouses ....

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

My recollection is that Bristol City renegotiated a transfer deal with some one with cashflow issues.  Can't remember all the details, but those in glasshouses ....

Fair enough if we've done it- were we the paying club or the selling? Might have been Nathan Baker and Aston Villa.

[ScottishRed]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fair enough if we've done it- were we the paying club or the selling? Might have been Nathan Baker and Aston Villa.

That is my recollection MrP 

[Hxj]

7 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

That is my recollection @Mr Popodopolous

And mine now 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Hxj

[PHILINFRANCE]

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fair enough if we've done it- were we the paying club or the selling? Might have been Nathan Baker and Aston Villa.

It was certainly Villa, but I thought it involved Kodja.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

It was certainly Villa, but I thought it involved Kodja.

There was talk that we also removed some of Kodjia’s add-ons as part payment of Baker’s fee when signed.

But then definitely renegotiated the terms of Baker’s fee / payments later to help Villa’s Cashflow.

[Rob26]

would the selling club have to be happy to renegotiate the payment schedules though?

it has to be optional, so if it is then must not be able to punish them for that, even if its a bit shit thinking they may have not really sorted things,

but on the flip side the sellers may like it if it brings in additional revenue by the end of the deal, as no doubt that is the way you get someone to accept worse terms by paying more in interest and fee's for the extension. 

I'm sure if they are behind on other bills it will come out in the wash as they must be getting monitored closely now you would think

[W-S-M Seagull]

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

Still really stinks to me. 

Aquire players they can't afford, use those players to gain a performance advantage, get a meaningless transfer embargo as punishment outside of the window, make money from those performance advantages and then pay the club's they owe money to. They are then free to do exactly the same again in the next window as the embargo gets lifted.

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

It was certainly Villa, but I thought it involved Kodja.

May well have been tbh. Not sure which one it was when they had cash flow issues without doubt.

1 hour ago, Rob26 said:

would the selling club have to be happy to renegotiate the payment schedules though?

it has to be optional, so if it is then must not be able to punish them for that, even if its a bit shit thinking they may have not really sorted things,

but on the flip side the sellers may like it if it brings in additional revenue by the end of the deal, as no doubt that is the way you get someone to accept worse terms by paying more in interest and fee's for the extension. 

I'm sure if they are behind on other bills it will come out in the wash as they must be getting monitored closely now you would think

This is true too, it can be beneficial to both parties. Has to be optional totally agree.

There are rumours or have been at the Sheffield end, Matt Hughes mentioned it in an article in March about how things had been cut to the bone a bit.

The fact that they keep using the term that promotion back is the top priority makes me think willing to ride out embargo and pay up if promoted or takeover completed.

28 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Still really stinks to me. 

Aquire players they can't afford, use those players to gain a performance advantage, get a meaningless transfer embargo as punishment outside of the window, make money from those performance advantages and then pay the club's they owe money to. They are then free to do exactly the same again in the next window as the embargo gets lifted.

I agree does not sit well. Technically I don't think they have a huge cost base, didn't in the PL and surely been on the side post relegation but...

1) Late with transfer fee instalments. Big red flag number one.

2) Delayed their accounts to CH both for club and Blades Leisure Limited by 3 months, could be using the Covid argument or the takeover argument.

3) Rumours about not paying non Foorball suppliers, rescheduling etc etc..

Yes revenue higher than budgeted for due to Cup run and higher gates but rescheduling seems very dubious.

Their accounts and Huddersfield also for 2021-22 (they delayed by 3 months) will be very interesting, not from an FFP angle as I believe both are quite clear but from a cash flow, neither should have had chatter of administration given the low cost base at the PL level which doubtless continued to fall post relegation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11873261/Sheffield-United-introduce-extraordinary-cost-cutting-measures-avoid-going-administration.html

From mid March or so, mentions suppliers etc.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Mr P and Rob.

I do think the EFL need to tighten up on non / late payment.

We are seeing two real issues at the mo’:

• cashflow (not FFP)
• losses (FFP)

on the second one, it appears that the EFL are happy to work with clubs that pay their bills (us, Stoke), but come down hard on those that don’t (Derby) and those that break the rules without giving a toss.

You’d hope with us and Stoke that we are getting our house back in order…we certainly seem to have taken a hit on the strength of our playing squad to do so.

Which of course takes you back to bullet 1, those that don’t pay and gain an advantage from it.

What we are also seeing is that where clubs are deducted points, very few are avoiding relegation…punishments are working you could say.  Reading (-6) and Wigan (-3) both in real danger.

[W-S-M Seagull]

29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Mr P and Rob.

I do think the EFL need to tighten up on non / late payment.

We are seeing two real issues at the mo’:

• cashflow (not FFP)
• losses (FFP)

on the second one, it appears that the EFL are happy to work with clubs that pay their bills (us, Stoke), but come down hard on those that don’t (Derby) and those that break the rules without giving a toss.

You’d hope with us and Stoke that we are getting our house back in order…we certainly seem to have taken a hit on the strength of our playing squad to do so.

Which of course takes you back to bullet 1, those that don’t pay and gain an advantage from it.

What we are also seeing is that where clubs are deducted points, very few are avoiding relegation…punishments are working you could say.  Reading (-6) and Wigan (-3) both in real danger.

These embargos are pretty useless outside of transfer windows. Its not really a deterrent if clubs can just pay up before the next window. 

In my opinion a good deterrent would be, if a club does something that warrants them being placed under a transfer embargo then then that embargo should last for the next full transfer window. 

If a club is under an embargo from Feb-May then it has no impact upon them. 

Being a well run club and playing by the rules seems to be a detriment. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Mr P and Rob.

I do think the EFL need to tighten up on non / late payment.

We are seeing two real issues at the mo’:

• cashflow (not FFP)
• losses (FFP)

on the second one, it appears that the EFL are happy to work with clubs that pay their bills (us, Stoke), but come down hard on those that don’t (Derby) and those that break the rules without giving a toss.

You’d hope with us and Stoke that we are getting our house back in order…we certainly seem to have taken a hit on the strength of our playing squad to do so.

Which of course takes you back to bullet 1, those that don’t pay and gain an advantage from it.

What we are also seeing is that where clubs are deducted points, very few are avoiding relegation…punishments are working you could say.  Reading (-6) and Wigan (-3) both in real danger.

Mostly agree with this Dave although given the sheer scale of Stoke and their losses up to 2021 and the types of write offs certainly...and you might be able to in different ways add some others to this well I wonder if the CFRP will agree in the fullness of time. Think we are in a position now where we comply whatever even if the minimum Covid losses applied to all for FFP assessment purposes.

26 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

These embargos are pretty useless outside of transfer windows. Its not really a deterrent if clubs can just pay up before the next window. 

In my opinion a good deterrent would be, if a club does something that warrants them being placed under a transfer embargo then then that embargo should last for the next full transfer window. 

If a club is under an embargo from Feb-May then it has no impact upon them. 

Being a well run club and playing by the rules seems to be a detriment. 

Interestingly Burnley still seem to be under embargo for not one but two offences.

Both the submission of 2021-22 accounts to the League and the submission of this season's Projections for FFP. Now I don't believe that they are threatening FFP loss figures of £83m to this year for one moment. They put it down to a change of auditors but...it could easily be a Balance Sheet rather than a Profit and Loss issue. They may also be working to a £15m adjusted loss limit if no equity.

In this instance the clubs agreeing to the restructure of the debt could be at fault here too. Football Creditors are guaranteed come what may so why would a club agree to it with a club flush with Parachute Payments and a lowish PL cost base. I wouldn't!

Embargoes can actually follow teams up or down depending on the offence in question and or a failure to resolve.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

I think if you continue not to pay tho things escalate quickly in terms of follow on sanctions

no club has to take any restructuring at all, the only situation their hands would be tied is if the club was 100% insolvent and going to crash with no one getting paid out, this is a bit of a different situation a few steps before that phase, and they should get someone to take them over if this dozy guy falls through

if clubs continued to not get paid they can send in a winding up order, which if not paid leads to administration where the penalties will really stack up, and sure the EFL would up the sanctions if the payments were not restructured and/or payments were met after the sanction (i think the loan made sure they were good till end of the season)

I think even tho as fans we see the restructuring of the transfers unethical, I know it goes on way more in the game than is reported (and stays behind closed doors most of the time)

I'm certain they are clubs out there that do it and its not reported because they are managing their clubs correctly with the financials, we only know about it with sheff utd because there is a trigger of the EFL action which has been lifted, people know the cup money isn't enough, the cut backs and loan they took on probs tied them over till the end of the season, so its getting reported because that's probs the only thing left. 

Found this online which is speculative without specifics that they paid one transfer off and renegotiated another.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-united/revealed-the-deal-sheffield-united-brokered-to-lift-their-transfer-embargo-4112569

[Rob26]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Mr P and Rob.

I do think the EFL need to tighten up on non / late payment.

We are seeing two real issues at the mo’:

• cashflow (not FFP)
• losses (FFP)

on the second one, it appears that the EFL are happy to work with clubs that pay their bills (us, Stoke), but come down hard on those that don’t (Derby) and those that break the rules without giving a toss.

You’d hope with us and Stoke that we are getting our house back in order…we certainly seem to have taken a hit on the strength of our playing squad to do so.

Which of course takes you back to bullet 1, those that don’t pay and gain an advantage from it.

What we are also seeing is that where clubs are deducted points, very few are avoiding relegation…punishments are working you could say.  Reading (-6) and Wigan (-3) both in real danger.

can SU continue not to pay tho and not have that snowball quickly into something bigger say 3 months max later? I don't think they would get away with that 

I think it stayed as an embargo only because they made efforts to try and sort things out and now they are satisfied its removed. 

I kinda believe them when they denied the close to administration reports, just because you would have to be stupid when trying to sell your company to let it drop in adminstration and not get the same money for it, espieally if they had a points deduction keeping them from the league, would have been short sighted to get that loan and not have it cover you until the end of the season from what you have to pay. and thats how you pass that cost onto the next owner also

happy for them to be deducted lets say 20 points tho as a boro fan

Edited April 21, 2023 by Rob26

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

I think if you continue not to pay tho things escalate quickly in terms of follow on sanctions

no club has to take any restructuring at all, the only situation their hands would be tied is if the club was 100% insolvent and going to crash with no one getting paid out, this is a bit of a different situation a few steps before that phase, and they should get someone to take them over if this dozy guy falls through

if clubs continued to not get paid they can send in a winding up order, which if not paid leads to administration where the penalties will really stack up, and sure the EFL would up the sanctions if the payments were not restructured and/or payments were met after the sanction (i think the loan made sure they were good till end of the season)

I think even tho as fans we see the restructuring of the transfers unethical, I know it goes on way more in the game than is reported (and stays behind closed doors most of the time)

I'm certain they are clubs out there that do it and its not reported because they are managing their clubs correctly with the financials, we only know about it with sheff utd because there is a trigger of the EFL action which has been lifted, people know the cup money isn't enough, the cut backs and loan they took on probs tied them over till the end of the season, so its getting reported because that's probs the only thing left. 

Found this online which is speculative without specifics that they paid one transfer off and renegotiated another.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-united/revealed-the-deal-sheffield-united-brokered-to-lift-their-transfer-embargo-4112569

Thanks for this. The restructure thing doesn't sit well, paying off one is of course correct...offering incentivisarion hmm. Yeah it probably happens more than we realise but it feels like gaming the system and the agreeing club are complicit.

See likewise reports of:

Liverpoop accepting no money in Year 1 for Wilson (cash flow not FFP).

Arsenal deferring Bielik payment by Derby.

Now this.

It's a distortion to some extent.

As with my complaints about certain clubs seemingly receiving favours in the loan market, would all clubs receive this benign outcome. Would Bristol City be helped by the bigger richer club if we were in trouble or facing EFL embargo for failing to pay on time.

In terms of administration etc, Central awards can be used if needed to meet Football debts so it would then depend on the nature of the debt, whether Central Awards can be used to cover it. (Central Awards for the most part are TV revenue as distributed by the League iirc).

Edited April 21, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

35 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

I think if you continue not to pay tho things escalate quickly in terms of follow on sanctions

no club has to take any restructuring at all, the only situation their hands would be tied is if the club was 100% insolvent and going to crash with no one getting paid out, this is a bit of a different situation a few steps before that phase, and they should get someone to take them over if this dozy guy falls through

if clubs continued to not get paid they can send in a winding up order, which if not paid leads to administration where the penalties will really stack up, and sure the EFL would up the sanctions if the payments were not restructured and/or payments were met after the sanction (i think the loan made sure they were good till end of the season)

I think even tho as fans we see the restructuring of the transfers unethical, I know it goes on way more in the game than is reported (and stays behind closed doors most of the time)

I'm certain they are clubs out there that do it and its not reported because they are managing their clubs correctly with the financials, we only know about it with sheff utd because there is a trigger of the EFL action which has been lifted, people know the cup money isn't enough, the cut backs and loan they took on probs tied them over till the end of the season, so its getting reported because that's probs the only thing left. 

Found this online which is speculative without specifics that they paid one transfer off and renegotiated another.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-united/revealed-the-deal-sheffield-united-brokered-to-lift-their-transfer-embargo-4112569

Again it just absolutely stinks. 

Purchased a player when they we're in the Premier League, couldn't afford to pay thr installments whilst back in the Championship. Use said player to help get them back into the Premier league. Renegotiated the payment terms on the promise of giving the other club extra money upon them getting promoted to the land of riches. 

I just don't like it.

[Rob26]

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks for this. The restructure thing doesn't sit well, paying off one is of course correct...offering incentivisarion hmm. Yeah it probably happens more than we realise but it feels like gaming the system and the agreeing club are complicit.

See likewise reports of:

Liverpoop accepting no money in Year 1 for Wilson (cash flow not FFP).

Arsenal deferring Bielik payment by Derby.

Now this.

It's a distortion to some extent.

As with my complaints about certain clubs seemingly receiving favours in the loan market, would all clubs receive this benign outcome. Would Bristol City be helped by the bigger richer club if we were in trouble or facing EFL embargo for failing to pay on time.

In terms of administration etc, Central awards can be used if needed to meet Football debts so it would then depend on the nature of the debt, whether Central Awards can be used to cover it. (Central Awards for the most part are TV revenue as distributed by the League iirc).

suppose clubs treating other clubs more favourable than others just down to the owners and managerial staffs relationships between them, often getting a loan may be down to how beneficial its going to be to the players development and how each set of owners/staff get on with each other. 

think its good that them big clubs helped others out in their time of need, I know they will of set themselves up to make more on the back end though as well which was probs the main reason they did it as could accommodate it in their cash flow, but finance restructuring is never going to be illegal, part of business, and I don't have a problem with it as long as the clubs who are owed the money have no problem and are benefiting from the arrangement just as much.

I'm certain they are plenty of clubs doing it behind the scenes and we do not hear about it because its all done behind closed doors and only comes out in the wash if it has to

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Again it just absolutely stinks. 

Purchased a player when they we're in the Premier League, couldn't afford to pay thr installments whilst back in the Championship. Use said player to help get them back into the Premier league. Renegotiated the payment terms on the promise of giving the other club extra money upon them getting promoted to the land of riches. 

I just don't like it.

If you look at Sheffield United and their underlying financials though it's odd that they are in the position in the first place. Same with Huddersfield to an extent although their embargo was for a different reason which has been genuinely resolved ie submission of last year's accounts to the League.

I assume they had some sort of wage cut built in on relegation too, Ramsdale sold will bring in more cash flow...All quite odd, playoffs last year, Cup run this. Something doesn't stack up- like I say delayed accounts until end of June.

It doesn't sit well though and the optics of rescheduling are poor.

[Rob26]

3 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Again it just absolutely stinks. 

Purchased a player when they we're in the Premier League, couldn't afford to pay thr installments whilst back in the Championship. Use said player to help get them back into the Premier league. Renegotiated the payment terms on the promise of giving the other club extra money upon them getting promoted to the land of riches. 

I just don't like it.

I don't particularly like the ethics too, but would like to see how much/often every club does it as part of their usual business practices before I judge them for it.

Given how alot of clubs seem to operate financially, it must happen a lot, and if its not happening with the clubs they are getting the finance elsewhere to restructure it.

I'm sure even add ons are negotiated afterwards too, like pay more on certain number of appearances, you could have a club say look we arnt playing him past this mark (or selling him) if you don't reduce the required payment to a new amount, I bet that has gone down many times before , or we will pay this faster if you remove these potential liabilities or buy outs on sell on clauses etc.

I know we as a club have done that with at least one of our players (downing) who if he played so many games was due a payrise and an additional year, and his contract was up in the summer and we did not want to renew it as we were looking to cut costs and he was getting on. We benched him until he come to an agreement to remove that clause from his contract, which may have involved a pay off, but he wasn't used for a good month or so before he caved in, that stinks also to me, and if we done that with players, I'm sure similar stuff is done between clubs

[Rob26]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If you look at Sheffield United and their underlying financials though it's odd that they are in the position in the first place. Same with Huddersfield to an extent although their embargo was for a different reason which has been genuinely resolved ie submission of last year's accounts to the League.

I assume they had some sort of wage cut built in on relegation too, Ramsdale sold will bring in more cash flow...All quite odd, playoffs last year, Cup run this. Something doesn't stack up- like I say delayed accounts until end of June.

It doesn't sit well though and the optics of rescheduling are poor.

yeah I know what you mean, I just got the impression the owner wanted to sell the club and was sitting behind it being like a limited company and the fact he does not need to fund any short falls if he does not want to.

and thats why they are having cash flow issues, rather than insolvency issues. I've not looked at the numbers like you guys do , but think its more a case of him saying enough is enough, I'm selling it and that's caused the situation they are in.

I'm sure he didn't mind a transfer embargo, as you would think that sitting in second there would of been an expectation to spend lets say 5-10m at least on fee's/wagers to keep that push going that he's avoided too. 

think his aim is just to get them up and sell it on, if dozy don't buy it im sure someone else will now they are pretty much promoted. although the deal seems like its taking forever 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Anyway just on a wider note the model is somewhat broken.

FFP aside, Stoke have fantastic owners. Let's disregard the main subject of the thread for a minute and while they are there no cash issues.

Talking of cash, their Cash Losses in 2021-22 were £39m which is absurd for a midtable Championship club. Like I say owners will underwrite and debt has been written off etc (doesn't impact FFP apart from gap between upper and Lower Limits) but the Cash Flow statement I mean wow??

Edited April 21, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks for this. The restructure thing doesn't sit well, paying off one is of course correct...offering incentivisarion hmm. Yeah it probably happens more than we realise but it feels like gaming the system and the agreeing club are complicit.

See likewise reports of:

Liverpoop accepting no money in Year 1 for Wilson (cash flow not FFP).

Arsenal deferring Bielik payment by Derby.

Now this.

It's a distortion to some extent.

As with my complaints about certain clubs seemingly receiving favours in the loan market, would all clubs receive this benign outcome. Would Bristol City be helped by the bigger richer club if we were in trouble or facing EFL embargo for failing to pay on time.

In terms of administration etc, Central awards can be used if needed to meet Football debts so it would then depend on the nature of the debt, whether Central Awards can be used to cover it. (Central Awards for the most part are TV revenue as distributed by the League iirc).

Isn’t this just “business” really?  Just happens to be the business of football clubs.

The agreeing club, isn’t complicit, it can trade how it likes (within the rules / laws).  Any decent club / business might think twice about dealing with that club going forward or at least the terms of how they deal with them.

What do you do, be all pure and run a bigger risk of net getting any of your money?

I’m sure the Wilson loan with conditional obligation to buy was about FFP also because of amortisation.

Should we be on the naughty step for somehow knowing Anis Mehmeti’s release clause?

 

[Rob26]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Isn’t this just “business” really?  Just happens to be the business of football clubs.

The agreeing club, isn’t complicit, it can trade how it likes (within the rules / laws).  Any decent club / business might think twice about dealing with that club going forward or at least the terms of how they deal with them.

What do you do, be all pure and run a bigger risk of net getting any of your money?

I’m sure the Wilson loan with conditional obligation to buy was about FFP also because of amortisation.

Should we be on the naughty step for somehow knowing Anis Mehmeti’s release clause?

 

I agree, clubs can operate in the rules and if the EFL etc aren't happy with it then its up to them to come up with rules to close loopholes, even tho I do not see restructuring a deal as such (no one is forced to take the deal and must be plenty of times it happens anyways), and we are the club that they may of kept out of 2nd place because of it 

we sold jordan rhodes to sheff wednesday on the same basis as wilson if that was correct, loan till end of season then end of season then they have to buy at the agreed price, essentially agreeing to delay a sale till the next year, no doubt with sheff wed it was down to FFP.

but worked both ways and we got nearly 12m back for him I think, which was more than enough (and probably why we agreed to the structure of the deal in the first place as that's what we paid for him and he wasn't a success story),

and doubt we would of got more from anyone else, good job they had obligation to buy as he didn't score many goals for them :laugh:, I'm sure a straight loan at that point would of just resulted in further loans at other clubs until his contract ran out

clear ffp fiddle for sure, but loans with an obligation to buy is not against any rules, I'm sure they would happen less if the FFP rules were changed to start the fee amortisation from the start of the loan tho if the conditions were already met (or was impossible they would not be met if future dated) that obligated them to buy, thats on those making the rules to close out these fiddles if they havent already.

I think if we sold him to the next interested club were talking about getting 8-10m max, so we benefited from the move as well

I think with sheff utd, they had the embargo on the 20th, the loan charges were registered on the 24th jan, it tends to leave me thinking they had borrowed enough to get them to the end of the season at that point and that's why nothing escalated (dont see why they wouldnt and the owner will of thought he's passing that on to the next owner)., that's just my speculation tho, but I think they acted with efl quickly so it was only that round of payments that were affected, my thoughts and speculation anyways

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

clear ffp fiddle for sure, but loans with an obligation to buy is not against any rules, I'm sure they would happen less if the FFP rules were changed to start the fee amortisation from the start of the loan tho if the conditions were already met (or was impossible they would not be met if future dated) that obligated them to buy, thats on those making the rules to close out these fiddles if they havent already.

…but also just following the financial accounting model for that type of “transfer”.  Had Wilson’s loan been an obligation to buy rather than a conditional obligation (promotion) to buy, then Fulham would’ve had to start amortising the £12m fee at the start of the loan season.

As you say if you think club’s are taking advantage, then either accept it, or change the rules.  It’s quite acceptable to have a pure accounting policy that all Ltd Companies follow, but have different treatment for FFP submissions, isn’t it?  Depends how tightly or loosely they want FFP to follow accounting policy.  There are allowances today.

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Anyway just on a wider note the model is somewhat broken.

FFP aside, Stoke have fantastic owners. Let's disregard the main subject of the thread for a minute and while they are there no cash issues.

Talking of cash, their Cash Losses in 2021-22 were £39m which is absurd for a midtable Championship club. Like I say owners will underwrite and debt has been written off etc (doesn't impact FFP apart from gap between upper and Lower Limits) but the Cash Flow statement I mean wow??

Didn't they sell their own stadium to themselves tho? I don't like that practice either and couldn't imagine Lansdown doing something like that.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Didn't they sell their own stadium to themselves tho? I don't like that practice either and couldn't imagine Lansdown doing something like that.

Ha I could make a whole thread about Stoke but will try to boil it down into a few bullet points. It's why I don't put us and then into the same category entirely. They literally got it over the line a few days before the rule changed but anyway...

*They sold the stadium to themselves at a Profit of say £30m in late May 2021.

*They also did likewise with the Training Ground, couple of million profit there.

So far so mundane and with Sale and Leaseback comes a market rent but their case...much more.

*2019-20. They still had rather a lot to amortise and were heading towards less calm FFP waters. They wrote down £30m in Player amortisation as impairment which goes against FFP but that have sought to argue that FFP should not apply here due to Covid.

As such they accelerated £30m into 2019-20 thereby removing some £30m in costs and claimed that Covid meant they could no longer receive they fees that they could have, they hired experts but he who pays the piper?

*2020-21. Sought to add back £11m in Player lost transfer profits and cost saving.

Total impact of suspect items £41m, which is £20-20.5m as 2019-20 and 2020-21 averaged into one.

*£2-3m also attributed to the transfer market last year too.(EFL agreed limit for last year £2.5m).

The double side of this is that it means they can offload in one go without needing to impair come 2021-22...whichever way you look at it, up to 2021 it's incredibly egregious. Beyond that it changes but...

They sought to not just accelerate £30m of amortisation or even halve the impact hut exclude it entirely. They've still been loaning lots of PL players albeit selling Collins, then Bursik and Souttar thereafter as well as well on for Collins is a change of direction.

The fact Everton have been charged...their case has strong similarities to Stoke tbh.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

I know its more business related than FFP, but after been doing some digging I think Dozy's Sheff Utd take over is dead in the water, his exclusive peroid is up and they are looking at other options now.

https://www.sheffieldunited.news/news/sheffield-united-takeover-prince-abdullah-ready-to-entertain-new-offers-after-dozy-mmobuosi-fails-on-his-part/

Quote

Rare (***)poster, long-term reader. Don’t do social media, like to keep up with my Blades gossip through this forum, and never really had anything interesting to say until now.

I can’t provide a source, because it would drop someone in the brown stuff, but this is saucy.

As we stand, the Dozy deal to buy the club won’t go ahead, the reasons being is that despite his PR bravado, he hasn’t satisfied the EFL questions on the directors and owners test. But more importantly he’s not met the payment dates agreed with Prince Abdullah and when I say dates, I mean, dates, plural, quite a few I believe – hence why the saga has dragged on and on.

Now, to be clear, the following is my opinion and not from my source, but missing a couple/few/more payments that were due, and I bet we are not talking spare change here, could have contributed to the financial problems the club has had recently, if we had budgeted for it.

that's a quote from their forums as well, typical ITK anonymous info but seems like its probs there or there abouts,

plus officially by the EFL, Dozy provided proof to the EFL of his funds and had his company audited and never replied to any of the queries enough to satisfy them. I do wonder how much deposit he paid and if he is getting it back, one lad said 27m (who's info they highly rated on their forums based on past reveals including the embargo before it was known) but I can't imagine he paid a 3rd upfront but think there is activity on companies house to a similar value (I saw someone say on there - cba to check :laugh:).

I don't think he would of been good for the club or game really, too many red flags including a 30k CCJ for unpaid rent in a area that does not come across as a place for a millionaire let a lone a billionaire to live, thought the EFL would never let someone with outstanding CCJs take over a club

Would think they a great shot for someone else to swoop in and seal the deal being practically promoted and available for £90m+ although you think the price should go up with promotion being secured, how hard can it be for someone with serious wealth to even get a loan against the club for that much to make it happen if they only want to put a small % down

[Curr Avon]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-city-losses-championship-rivals-8386461

How Bristol City's extortionate operational losses compare to their Championship rivals

Bristol Live spoke to author of The Price of Football Kieran Maguire to get his views on City's 2021/22 numbers and those of their league rivals

Bristol City's operational losses last year further emphasised the amount of work still required to further make the football club more sustainable as Championship sides continue to chase the Premier League dream.

The Robins' accounts showed they faced losses £532,000-a-week in the previous financial year, with only five other clubs topping that figure in Fulham, Bournemouth, Nottingham Forest, Birmingham and Stoke City, as past and present league rivals continue to post their figures.

City have worked tirelessly to address their financial woes, which were inflated by the Covid pandemic including the collapse of the transfer market and the loss of revenue. In their latest accounts which were posted in November, it confirmed a pre-tax loss of £28.5million for the 2021/22 financial year which was £10m better off than the year prior.

City saved costs on player wages, which fell from £5m from £31.5m to £26.9m, while turnover was £29.6m in the latest financial year compared to £16.6m in the year before. However, the cost of operational losses is still an extraordinary and unsustainable figure, although the Robins aren't the only team.

Fulham (£1.3million) and Bournemouth (£1.1m) were the two clubs who were losing over £1m-a-week but their respective returns to the Premier League via promotion meant they have been able to recoup and put money back into the coffers. Nottingham Forest's gamble to the top-flight paid off after they were sustaining weekly losses of £981,000.

Including Bristol City, nine Championship sides incurred losses of over £400,000-a-week while Blackpool's figure was the lowest at £75,000. Speaking to Bristol Live, Football's Finance Expert and author of The Price of Football Kieran Maguire said of the figures: "The approaches taken by owners of Championship clubs suggest their decision making is a combination of love, vanity and insanity as they try to provide the means for their clubs to achieve promotion to the Premier League.

"As one owner said, 'Football club ownership is a bit like owning a racehorse, the two days are the ones when you buy it and sell it, the ones in between are very expensive with occasional highlights but plenty of forgettable ones too'."

City owner Steve Lansdown, who is still hoping to sell the club or source extra investment, has invested just under £240m in the club during his tenure which includes over £120m over the last six years. "Bristol City are dependent upon Steve Lansdown’s affection for the City and the club in sustaining their position in the Championship," Maguire added.

"He has put £230m into the club and whilst there have been improvements in terms of the stadium and infrastructure hasn’t had a financial return on his investment on the pitch.

"The club does have a strategy in that it is trying to generate more non-matchday income from the stadium and achieve better cost control. Having said that over the last decade, wages have averaged £125 for every £100 the club generates which is not sustainable.

"The EFL’s Chief Execitive Trevor Birch is trying to knock heads together and encourage clubs to live more within their means. The culture of clubs, from owners, managers, and fans, is that spending more and more money is seen as a shortcut to success on the pitch, and that leads to more financial risks being taken.

"Until that mentality ceases or there is less of a gap between the Premier League and the EFL there’s little chance of a significant fall in the losses currently being generated."

City have managed to avoid a points deduction having fallen in line with the EFL's Profit and Sustainability rules, however, Reading became the second side this season to be punished. Earlier this month, they were docked six points having failed to meet an agreed budget following an earlier breach of the profit and sustainability limits in 2021.

Wigan were also handed a three-point penalty in March after failing to pay their players on time. It's worth noting Derby have yet to submit their accounts, alongside Sheffield United, Huddersfield and Peterborough.

 

Championship operational losses 2021/22 (per week)

Fulham - £1.3m

Bournemouth - £1.1m

Nottingham Forest - £981,000

Birmingham City - £577,000

Stoke City - £548,000

Bristol City - £532,000

Reading - £487,000

QPR - £468,000

Cardiff - £463,000

Preston - £450,000

Blackburn Rovers - £418,000

Middlesbrough - £410,000

Milwall - £240,000

West Brom - £227,000

Hull City - £151,000

Luton - £144,000

Barnsley - £122,000

Coventry - £110,000

Blackpool - £75,000