The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

Plymouth. One of the few to release accounts early.

Well within FFP, cash Balance of £5m and that loss will include promotion bonuses. Could return to profit this year? Albeit promotion also brings higher costs.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Parachute Payments or not, I question their FFP position to this season if they are doing shit like this.

£83m plus Allowables and they did lose £92.4m in 2021-22 alone albeit before Allowables etc.

Any compensation from Everton would absolutely move the dial but I'm wondering will they pass the 3 year Upper Loss limit test to this season as it stands right now.

Maybe players would be sold too but I wonder the £83m adjusted Upper Loss limit to this season.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[BCFC Rich]

I was talking to a friend about parachute payments last night. Obviously, on some level, they are needed, it would be hard to compete in the prem without paying some prem-level fees etc.

Two thoughts we had were

1. Could we make it mandatory for all contracts to include relegation and promotion clauses? In the same way, all players in Spain must have release fee clauses. That doesn't solve all the issues but would help mitigate some of the damage from relegation. 

2. Could you have a system where parachute payments were optional? + The amount you decide to take is optional and if you are promoted back to the prem you have the payments deducted from your prem income. 

I don't have enough detailed knowledge to know if theses could work. Would be interesting to know what others think. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting questions, afaik.

1. They already have relegation clauses. Can vary perhaps between a third and half. Or cor selected players, perhaps some exempt.

2. That is interesting, deferred gratification or frontloaded to assist with the cost base, question is would it unduly benefit those with wealthy owners vs more of a self-financing model.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Was going to add, clubs are incredibly unforthcoming in respect of their accounts so far this season.

Norwich released theirs.

Birmingham as they had to released via HKSE- another £24-25m pre tax loss.

Plymouth no concerns. Lost £3-4m in a promotion season, will have included Promotion Bonuses etc.

Blackburn via Venkys London, lost £20m and maybe more but that only covers 1st April to 31st March so..

The rest? Nah nothing.

Ours are often out by now. Not this year they aren't.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Deadlines to CH are as follows:

1) Accounts that end 31st.May, end of February.

2) Accounts that end 30th June, end of March.

3) Accounts that end 31st July, end of April.

There are some due to Stock Market rules who have to submit by the end of December for accounts that end in June or indeed 3 months after the end of the period- is Birmingham and Man United.

Only a few such as Burnley, Sheffield Wednesday, Sunderland, Swansea end in July.

Derby are a bit of an oddity, owing to their new company post admin takeover being 23rd June, their accounts are made up to 30th June but they have to submit by 23rd March the following year rather than 31st.

We moved our date from 31st May to 30th June 2023 so these accounts will cover 13 months and not 12.

EFL and PL should get some real time and future numbers and projections well ahead of us.

[Bristol Rob]

 

Administration or takeover?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Some theories are more mundane, maybe Sheffield Wednesday are revisiting priced.

There are definitely protests against Chansiri a week tomorrow on the horizon.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Seen it suggested by a reputable source aka Al Majir that Birmingham are in regular dialogue with the EFL about their P&S position.

Cardiff, QPR and maybe Leicester in the 3 years to this season were my other candidates.

By which I mean not the retrospective look back at the period ending 2022-23, no the look from 2021-22 to this season at present in real time.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Leicester- Factors

2021-22

£92.4m loss before tax- £1.4m in Covid losses. I'm rounding a bit but that's roughly it from memory.

It wouldn't surprise me if their allowables are £25m per season given the Category One Academy and recent Training Ground Construction.

This included:

*Record or top 2 or 3 revenue for them, £214.59m in Turnover what with a European semi final (Conference League) and an 8th place finish. Oh and £9.2m in Profit on Disposal of Players.

2022-23

Fofana- Sale Price, £70m

Maddison, Sale Price, £40m

Schmiechel, about £1m iirc.

Some loans out may have yielded a bit. Albrighton, Perez to name 2.

Minus any remaining book value and sell on clauses.

Could their interest payable have fallen due to the debt write off, thereby cutting losses.

Negatives

Falling from 8th to 18th surely knocks Prize Money somewhat!

No European competition, does that not knock £15-20m off revenue.

Signing Faes adds £3m in amortisation alone.

Souttar £15m reported fee, 5.5 year deal about £1.3-1.4m. Kristansen £12m, 5.5 year deal about £1-1.1m or so. Tete loan I read was between £1-3m.

Rodgers departure. He wouldn't get a full payout but is an extra cost.

Are they candidates to be up against it for £83m Upper Loss limit this season?

[Rob26]

On 01/12/2023 at 20:39, Mr Popodopolous said:

Equity can cover up to 5 years, will take Middlesbrough up to the max £39m plus Covid plus allowables IMO.

Gibson could be tidying the balance sheet for a sale, or he could just fancy writing off some debt. If there is interest payments that would reduce their losses a bit moving forward.

the loans are from his own companies, and he takes no income from them and usually writes them off for ffp, and think he does more than is needed from ffp because its money thats never getting called in, and think it just gets wrote off when needed for FFP and maybe at other times that may benefit the other companies too

no signs or rumours or anything about a sale, think its more just ffp manovering than anything else and tidying up the groups books 

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12854333/Chelseas-rivals-push-cap-contract-amortisation-rules-Premier-League-meeting-TODAY-leave-Todd-Boehlys-trouble-FFP-400m-summer-spending-spree.html

If it's backdated to the summer...

Unsure it stands up though to backdate, albeit I reckon Chelsea may have P&S issues anyway irrespective.

You can never say never but at the very least it seems open to challenge, backdating to the summer.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[38MC]

57 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12854333/Chelseas-rivals-push-cap-contract-amortisation-rules-Premier-League-meeting-TODAY-leave-Todd-Boehlys-trouble-FFP-400m-summer-spending-spree.html

If it's backdated to the summer...

Unsure it stands up though to backdate, albeit I reckon Chelsea may have P&S issues anyway irrespective.

You can never say never but at the very least it seems open to challenge, backdating to the summer.

99.9% certain Chelsea would be able to successfully challenge any fine or sanction that could come from backdating. How can you be punished for something that wasn't punishable at the time you did it? That breaks every principle of fairness and justice. It would be foolish for clubs to insist on this because all that it's going to achieve is lawyers getting massive fees for a test case virtually certain to fail. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, 38MC said:

99.9% certain Chelsea would be able to successfully challenge any fine or sanction that could come from backdating. How can you be punished for something that wasn't punishable at the time you did it? That breaks every principle of fairness and justice. It would be foolish for clubs to insist on this because all that it's going to achieve is lawyers getting massive fees for a test case virtually certain to fail. 

Possibly looking to align with UEFA which took effect from summer 2023 but UEFA didn't backdate.

Irrespective Chelsea and their numbers are quite interesting, they usually release accounts in December or early January, certainly did under Abramovich.

Their loss before Profit on Disposal of Players in 2021-22 was £242m or something. That was a year in which they finished 3rd, reached 2 Cup finals, reached the CL QF and won the European Super Cup.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Rule approved, but no backdating!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12855005/Premier-League-clubs-vote-CLOSE-amortisation-loophole-exploited-Chelsea-agree-limit-contract-lengths-five-years-rule-wont-backdated-Todd-Boehlys-avoid-headache-400m-summer-spending-spree.html

Clubs who owe an overdue transfer debt too, to an EFL or PL club will also be prevented from registering players- surprised that isn't de rigeur tbh- and funds can be deducted from Central Awards to satisfy the debt.

Again surprised that isn't the norm-EFL already appear to have it, the whole debt and registration element.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

On 08/12/2023 at 22:04, Bristol Rob said:

 

Administration or takeover?

cost for advertisement eclipsing the demand :laugh: 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/dec/12/chelsea-transfer-plans-at-risk-as-premier-league-clubs-ponder-amortisation-cap 

clubs have voted to match uefa for the max contract amortisation duration.

This is one ffp fiddle that I had no issue with and would of let them continue to use, its the club who are taking the risk by giving out these lengthy non standard term contracts, if they pay off then they should benefit, and if they don't then let them learn the hard way. 

although I do think it's going to be unenforceable for this season anyways for any players already signed, as you cannot expect to have success applying law changes retrospectively in court surely? maybe wont get away with January purchases pushing you over the limit, but any in the summer that would have been good without the rule change I'm certain will have to be allowed

i'm sure I saw that this will cost chelsea this season approx 24m of their ffp budget.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

cost for advertisement eclipsing the demand

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/dec/12/chelsea-transfer-plans-at-risk-as-premier-league-clubs-ponder-amortisation-cap 

clubs have voted to match uefa for the max contract amortisation duration.

This is one ffp fiddle that I had no issue with and would of let them continue to use, its the club who are taking the risk by giving out these lengthy non standard term contracts, if they pay off then they should benefit, and if they don't then let them learn the hard way. 

although I do think it's going to be unenforceable for this season anyways for any players already signed, as you cannot expect to have success applying law changes retrospectively in court surely? maybe wont get away with January purchases pushing you over the limit, but any in the summer that would have been good without the rule change I'm certain will have to be allowed

i'm sure I saw that this will cost chelsea this season approx 24m of their ffp budget.

If changed this season, £24m think Kieran Maguire said that, but no backdating no change. Probably effective from January or summer 2024.

Chelsea actually voted for it as per Ornstein.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Looking at clubs potentially with the £39m limit possibly being breached tbis season.

Cardiff and their Sala insurance payout is odd..and timely.

Why would you settle as the insurer. Were the insurer negligent?

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/66823892

Miller's Insurance LLP..do seem to have an office in Cardiff 

Surely over their heads though, higher paygrade.

If they settled for £10m then more fool the insurer as that is what Cardiff were arguing on- assume a settlement would naturally be lower.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Actually checked again they may or may not have an office there but it seems timely and I do wonder why they settled suddenly.

It still makes no sense, a report in January said they sought to insure Sala the day after the crash for £20m, they were suing for £10m, maybe a bit more than Milled settle in September 2023.

To be clear they provided for thw whole fee in a period whereby there was no risk of breaching P&S.

Thjs payout will now assist them in or push them towards compliance for a period years after the event for a player deceased nearly 5 years on. Disgusting and bizarre.

It strikes me as the sort of shit that would not fall our way at a time of need.. vile club though Cardiff so no change there.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Actually checked again they may or may not have an office there but it seems timely and I do wonder why they settled suddenly.

It still makes no sense, a report in January said they sought to insure Sala the day after the crash for £20m, they were suing for £10m, maybe a bit more than Milled settle in September 2023.

To be clear they provided for thw whole fee in a period whereby there was no risk of breaching P&S.

Thjs payout will now assist them in or push them towards compliance for a period years after the event for a player deceased nearly 5 years on. Disgusting and bizarre.

It strikes me as the sort of shit that would not fall our way at a time of need.. vile club though Cardiff so no change there.

it's a mis-selling claim, nothing disgusting or bizarre about it. where the revenue falls is where they have to apply it

I imagine the insurance company must of not told them of the restrictions on adding players to insurance clearly or in writing and when a player was covered by the policy.

lets face it 99.9% of the time there is no need for instant insurance as these things like don't happen, I'm guessing for them to settle for an amount which may be in the millions there must be a decent level of ambiguity in Cardiff's favour or they would never settle. 

when selling insurance you do have to have all the information and everything presented correctly and in the agreed legal formats so its black and white whats covered and what is not.

The insurers and/or their underwriters may have took a view that paying out something small compared to the amounts being banded about with the litigation saves them on future legal fees and draws a line under it.

My thoughts are tho if they were suing for 10m though they have probs settled for amounts that are only in the first few millions at best and it still could be much lower than that.

if its a case that Cardiff knew deep down was not going to bring them 10m then they could of settled at anything, even like 500k if they thought they were going to lose and the main leverage they had was being able to make the insurance companies spend endless cash on litigation defending it and also risk if they lost setting a precedent they may not like,

insurance companies often rather settle than leave themselves on the hook for much larger amounts, they typically pick and chose their battles based on the expected value they have on fighting it, the whole business is all about risk management 

see could be settled for 1m or less or a little more, make it private, then both sides can paint things in a light that they both won, they probs both have, it would of got so far if it was frivolous and they had sold the policy correctly, but this is a once in a life time situation which obviously was not built into the policy's, but i'm certain there will be clauses built into sports insurance to cover everyone going forward in black and white now it has happened. 

could the timing of the of the settlement be one that suited cardiff? maybe and that would possibly influence them to take it as well when they did. I'm sure the settlement will stand out in the accounts like a soare thumb, im sure we had 3m in our last accounts show up in a section of the accounts that was usually featuringing minimal values, thats how we all know derby paid out 3m to us from our case, or we assume that where it come from :laugh: 

[Hxj]

No evidence yet that Cardiff received a penny in compensation.

The terms of the agreement are confidential.  It could be that Cardiff got nothing. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Hxj said:

No evidence yet that Cardiff received a penny in compensation.

The terms of the agreement are confidential.  It could be that Cardiff got nothing. 

Yeah that's true, a very good point!

None of it makes much sense though, have to assume they received something otherwise they wouldnt have settled.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

it's a mis-selling claim, nothing disgusting or bizarre about it. where the revenue falls is where they have to apply it

I imagine the insurance company must of not told them of the restrictions on adding players to insurance clearly or in writing and when a player was covered by the policy.

lets face it 99.9% of the time there is no need for instant insurance as these things like don't happen, I'm guessing for them to settle for an amount which may be in the millions there must be a decent level of ambiguity in Cardiff's favour or they would never settle. 

when selling insurance you do have to have all the information and everything presented correctly and in the agreed legal formats so its black and white whats covered and what is not.

The insurers and/or their underwriters may have took a view that paying out something small compared to the amounts being banded about with the litigation saves them on future legal fees and draws a line under it.

My thoughts are tho if they were suing for 10m though they have probs settled for amounts that are only in the first few millions at best and it still could be much lower than that.

if its a case that Cardiff knew deep down was not going to bring them 10m then they could of settled at anything, even like 500k if they thought they were going to lose and the main leverage they had was being able to make the insurance companies spend endless cash on litigation defending it and also risk if they lost setting a precedent they may not like,

insurance companies often rather settle than leave themselves on the hook for much larger amounts, they typically pick and chose their battles based on the expected value they have on fighting it, the whole business is all about risk management 

see could be settled for 1m or less or a little more, make it private, then both sides can paint things in a light that they both won, they probs both have, it would of got so far if it was frivolous and they had sold the policy correctly, but this is a once in a life time situation which obviously was not built into the policy's, but i'm certain there will be clauses built into sports insurance to cover everyone going forward in black and white now it has happened. 

could the timing of the of the settlement be one that suited cardiff? maybe and that would possibly influence them to take it as well when they did. I'm sure the settlement will stand out in the accounts like a soare thumb, im sure we had 3m in our last accounts show up in a section of the accounts that was usually featuringing minimal values, thats how we all know derby paid out 3m to us from our case, or we assume that where it come from

This is also true, could be a small settlement, surely not the full £10m if anything.

Yeah could be related to a precedent and fear of setting one.. timing would definitely suit Cardiff.

Cardiff will have made signing after signing like all clubs so it seems odd that they would forget they needed to insure tbh. Trying it on? Seems like their Hard Bun.

Agreed that a settlement would be less than the dull amount otherwise you fight it.

[Hxj]

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

None of it makes much sense though, have to assume they received something otherwise they wouldnt have settled.

They could have been told by Counsel that they were having 'a laugh' and that their case would be dismissed with costs of the other party awarded against them.  The agreement could therefore simply be that each party meets their own costs, it happens regularly.

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/12/12/west-bromwich-albion-wba-takeover-guochuan-lai/

Still won't change their P&S position save for interest that may or may not be due with current MSD loans no longer being due.

I'd quite like it to happen after the Janaury window, perhaps they would need a bit of a mini firesale, lose Corberan etc.

[Mr Popodopolous]

In respect of Cardiff, a local journo there did imply it was a multi million pound settlement.

[Rob26]

 

15 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This is also true, could be a small settlement, surely not the full £10m if anything.

Yeah could be related to a precedent and fear of setting one.. timing would definitely suit Cardiff.

Cardiff will have made signing after signing like all clubs so it seems odd that they would forget they needed to insure tbh. Trying it on? Seems like their Hard Bun.

Agreed that a settlement would be less than the dull amount otherwise you fight it.

I don't think it was a case of Cardiff forgetting to add anyone to the insurance, I think there was ambiguity there in the coverage that a player wasn't covered by the policy until they had their name added to the policy, where Cardiff must of had enough paperwork etc that showed it wasn't unreasonable to think that they could sign a player and they would be instantly covered by the policy. You can have policies for example what insure assets or liabilities upto a certain money value for an agreed amount of claims, and 

Obv there is something on Cardiff too as if he was added to the insurance then there could be no arguments, but I have a feeling this situation (without a death) prob has happened consistently I reckon where players may not be added to the insurance policies for a short period of time after signing at many clubs. It's just the fact they normally live until they are insured and at best are probs only ever injured before being formally added to the policy.

it may well be that they were already covered for every/single/yearly instance up to 10m and you can read the policies and not see anything there about having to register a player on the policy first for immediate coverage (it may say you have so many days/hours to update it maybe or not mention the procedure at all)

so all they were insured for was 10m, so no claims could be entertained above that and the argument is if a player that new is covered by the policy or not, which should be something black and white and if there is abiguity where you could take it either way, usually courts will side with the people who issued the contract.

There's enough there that Cardiff may well have done nothing wrong with the insurance and the own insurers ambiguities in their procedures has meant that the underwriters thought it was at least worth a challenge before they paid millions out, as its probs among the highest end of payments they will of had to cover with these sort of policies as they don't normally end this way. (this is of course based on that local news reporter making out they got a decent pay off as they wouldn't if it was frivolous).

I'm sure its changed policies all over the world and plenty of clubs are calling the insurance companies before they let anyone travel home. 

I can't grudge them benefiting from the payment tho, as they have had to pay cost out in previous years, and it looks like they are clearly at a loss over the deal, as looks like a deal that probs cost about 20m plus legal costs. 

[Rob26]

15 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/12/12/west-bromwich-albion-wba-takeover-guochuan-lai/

Still won't change their P&S position save for interest that may or may not be due with current MSD loans no longer being due.

I'd quite like it to happen after the Janaury window, perhaps they would need a bit of a mini firesale, lose Corberan etc.

Quote

“West Brom are available for around £30 million, plus the various debts and loans owed which take the overall price closer towards £60 million. Though all parties have signed non-disclosure agreements, it is understood that the American group is currently in pole position.”

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/major-west-bromwich-albion-takeover-development-shared/

seems decent value for someone wanting a decent placed platform to push for the prem

I think if they take over and pay the MSD loans off early they will still need to pay the majority of the interest for this season, I'm sure I've read instances of people restructuring them and still needing to cover the next interest payment or so to clear it off early.

[Mr Popodopolous]

FFP could be set to bite or bite more for Man United..

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12859129/Manchester-United-Cost-Missing-Champions-League.html

Seemingly they budgeted to reach the CL QF. That's nearly as bad as banking on future player valuation to underpin increasing expenditure.

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/12/18/wolves-target-two-january-signings-despite-65m-loss/

Wow. I knew the Wolves situation wasn't going to be good but Percy says they posted losses of £65m last hear.

This explains a great deal and totally explains their business this summer.

They have avoided, should avoid a deduction but surely raises some questions about Bournemouth given their Upper Loss limit is £83m to this year, maybe even Nottingham Forest and or Fulham.

Leicester to the existing season too maybe, ie the 3 year period ending in 2023-24. They're fine to all periods before.

Everton got their -10 but they got it in such a convenient season..2021-22 or 2022-23 and they'd probably have been sunk.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous