Mr Popodopolous Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 A reminder... They could lose either £61m or £55.5m in Adjusted Earnings Before Tax to 2022-23 and £39m to 2021-22. By AEBT I mean Losses Before Tax minus Depreciation, Academy, Promotion Bonuses etc. Plus Covid Losses of course. The Covid vs not selling Johnson for 8 figures twice in 2021-22 when they have argued lost transfer revenue I have a major issue with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 £61m v £55.5m depends on whether you go.. £13m + £13m + £13m + £35m /4 x3 =£55.5m. Or £13m + £13m/2= £13m + £13m + £35m. =£61m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 Their losses..we have no clue as to laat season but I'll let others work backwards. I'll do a bit of the work. Nothing to write home about to 2020-21 or before. Nottingham Forest Pre Tax Loss by season 2018-19- £26,629,000 2019-20- £17,542,000 2020-21- £17,189,000 The average here is £17,365,500 2021-22- £47,712,000 You add and halve 2019-20 and 2020-21. You also readd £5m in debt write off in each season. So that becomes £22,365,500. You also subtract £20.9m in Promotion Bonuses. A challenge is to get back to £39m at worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 Their Covid losses. 3rd year is very suspicious indeed given that was the year where we returned to normal..40-50% rise?? They never backed it up further in their 2022 accounts incidentally, the 2019-20 and 2020-21 look okay but that third year is intriguing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 They had the cheek to argue £12m or thereabouts in the year where things returned, 40-50% higher than prior years while turning down bids for Johnson in summer 2021 and January 2022. Think £10m and £18m if memory serves. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 Putting aside my annoyance at Nottingham Forest and their possible Covid fiddle- Stoke did far more. If the crux of the argument is that Nottingham Forest could gain more selling after June 30th I don't see how they have a leg to stand on. A suspected breach should have led to a soft embargo in Spring 2023 and a failure to sell in time should've led to an actual embargo in addition to the charges, no? They literally traded happily through the summer and sold Johnson on deadline day 2023. What is the point of a deadline, an FFP Reporting deadline if you can move the sale date back and forth according to your needs. Unless there was some sort of binding contract for sale but that again makes little sense given the bid by Brentford rejected prior to June 30th. 14th June according to the below. https://www.football365.com/news/brennan-johnson-to-brentford-nottm-forest-reject-bid-short-of-valuation £30m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 23 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Putting aside my annoyance at Nottingham Forest and their possible Covid fiddle- Stoke did far more. If the crux of the argument is that Nottingham Forest could gain more selling after June 30th I don't see how they have a leg to stand on. A suspected breach should have led to a soft embargo in Spring 2023 and a failure to sell in time should've led to an actual embargo in addition to the charges, no? They literally traded happily through the summer and sold Johnson on deadline day 2023. What is the point of a deadline, an FFP Reporting deadline if you can move the sale date back and forth according to your needs. Unless there was some sort of binding contract for sale but that again makes little sense given the bid by Brentford rejected prior to June 30th. 14th June according to the below. https://www.football365.com/news/brennan-johnson-to-brentford-nottm-forest-reject-bid-short-of-valuation £30m. Wonder what transfer values have been put on some of the Olympiakos deals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Putting aside my annoyance at Nottingham Forest and their possible Covid fiddle- Stoke did far more. If the crux of the argument is that Nottingham Forest could gain more selling after June 30th I don't see how they have a leg to stand on. A suspected breach should have led to a soft embargo in Spring 2023 and a failure to sell in time should've led to an actual embargo in addition to the charges, no? They literally traded happily through the summer and sold Johnson on deadline day 2023. What is the point of a deadline, an FFP Reporting deadline if you can move the sale date back and forth according to your needs. Unless there was some sort of binding contract for sale but that again makes little sense given the bid by Brentford rejected prior to June 30th. 14th June according to the below. https://www.football365.com/news/brennan-johnson-to-brentford-nottm-forest-reject-bid-short-of-valuation £30m. I'm sorry but this is an incredibly weak argument and it's an argument that should been thrown out. They must have known they were in potential breach territory and still decided to hang on and sell him for more further down the line. They gambled. They lost. Everton were I believe found not guilty of failing to sell player Y. I think the commission said that had Everton of recieved a satisfactory offer then they would have sold him. I'm wondering how that ties into this because obviously Forest did recieve offers but choose to hold on for more. My own opinion is that Forest must have known they were at risk, they recieved some offers, they would have known that accepting those offers would have seen them steer clear of a breach but nevertheless, the rejected the offers. I consider that to be an aggravating factor. If the deadline is not stuck to then where does it end? Do clubs then sell in Jan and try to argue that should be included in the summer calculations? They also played him in their win against Sheffield Utd, that win could prove to be vital at the end of the season between the two clubs. I've heard a lot of talk about Everton may have breached it again, what's your thoughts on that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 (edited) 14 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said: I'm sorry but this is an incredibly weak argument and it's an argument that should been thrown out. They must have known they were in potential breach territory and still decided to hang on and sell him for more further down the line. They gambled. They lost. Everton were I believe found not guilty of failing to sell player Y. I think the commission said that had Everton of recieved a satisfactory offer then they would have sold him. I'm wondering how that ties into this because obviously Forest did recieve offers but choose to hold on for more. My own opinion is that Forest must have known they were at risk, they recieved some offers, they would have known that accepting those offers would have seen them steer clear of a breach but nevertheless, the rejected the offers. I consider that to be an aggravating factor. If the deadline is not stuck to then where does it end? Do clubs then sell in Jan and try to argue that should be included in the summer calculations? They also played him in their win against Sheffield Utd, that win could prove to be vital at the end of the season between the two clubs. I've heard a lot of talk about Everton may have breached it again, what's your thoughts on that? Totally agree with this post. I can't see how there is a case for the defence here, had there been a binding contract to sell to Tottenham well you never know but it was literally 2nd September 2023 he was sold a full 3 months and 2 days after the end of Nottingham Forest and their Reporting Period ended. Everton interest me. Ornstein said recently they haven't failed again, The Esk who is a regular Everton fan blogger with sources, seems to say Everton have restated elements of their accounts..dunno how the League view that!! It all depends rather. In the EFL there seems to be a principle of reset if a club fails..Everton pre tax loss across the period of 2019-20 and 2020-21 was £260m, halved to £130m before Covid and before usual allowables. Sadly no breakdown of the years but they managed to get £285-286m down to £124.5m so some add-backs must have been high. Taking the EFL system if an adjusted loss in a single year in 2021-22 or 2019-20 and 2020-21 falls below £35m it remains that..If at the level it remains, if above it goes down to the cap. How the PL go about this who knows! By way of example. 2019-20 and 2020-21 combined average adjusted loss maybe £70m. This becomes £35m. 2021-22 was £44.75m before tax, Covid and FFP adjusted eiae it is £21-22m. This remains £21-22m. Which means that if there is an adjusted loss of £48-49m or below they pass. If not they fail again. This as I say is using the EFL method, PL Idk. It offered no indicator in the Written Reasons. Edited January 2 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Wonder what transfer values have been put on some of the Olympiakos deals? Would be interesting to know how material some of them were to compliance. That for me is the key test. A lot of them seemed to be fairly low value, think the profit on Carvalho was a couple of million. Watford and Kamara may require an adjustment, that has gone quiet but it may not tip them into breach. As in how big a gap between an adjusted value and FFP compliance. If £5m headroom and a £2-3m adjustment required then still compliant but it would affect a few periods but if less than £2-3m headroom and that adjustment comes around, then refer to the value of the alleged breach(es). Edited January 2 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 29 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Totally agree with this post. I can't see how there is a case for the defence here, had there been a binding contract to sell to Tottenham well you never know but it was literally 2nd September 2023 he was sold a full 3 months and 2 days after the end of Nottingham Forest and their Reporting Period ended. Everton interest me. Ornstein said recently they haven't failed again, The Esk who is a regular Everton fan blogger with sources, seems to say Everton have restated elements of their accounts..dunno how the League view that!! It all depends rather. In the EFL there seems to be a principle of reset if a club fails..Everton pre tax loss across the period of 2019-20 and 2020-21 was £260m, halved to £130m before Covid and before usual allowables. Sadly no breakdown of the years but they managed to get £285-286m down to £124.5m so some add-backs must have been high. Taking the EFL system if an adjusted loss in a single year in 2021-22 or 2019-20 and 2020-21 falls below £35m it remains that..If at the level it remains, if above it goes down to the cap. How the PL go about this who knows! By way of example. 2019-20 and 2020-21 combined average adjusted loss maybe £70m. This becomes £35m. 2021-22 was £44.75m before tax, Covid and FFP adjusted eiae it is £21-22m. This remains £21-22m. Which means that if there is an adjusted loss of £48-49m or below they pass. If not they fail again. This as I say is using the EFL method, PL Idk. It offered no indicator in the Written Reasons. I really hope they have breached FFP again. You know my thoughts on this already. They should be a Championship club already in a whole load of financial trouble. I feel as if they gained a lasting advantage from their cheating which has helped them compete to stay up this season, despite the points deduction. I hope it all finally catches up with them. I'm glad the PL are now dealing with things more swiftly. It would really complicate the appeal if they get charged again wouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 Just now, W-S-M Seagull said: I really hope they have breached FFP again. You know my thoughts on this already. They should be a Championship club already in a whole load of financial trouble. I feel as if they gained a lasting advantage from their cheating which has helped them compete to stay up this season, despite the points deduction. I hope it all finally catches up with them. I'm glad the PL are now dealing with things more swiftly. It would really complicate the appeal if they get charged again wouldn't it? With you on that! They should have dropped last season, perhaps even 2021-22 given the enormous losses and the suspect Covid arguments. If the PL had Projected and Future info, their real-time monitoring was severely lacking yet the PL and EFL could do better still. The new rule of fast-tracking cases probably came in no small part due to the Everton mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 3 Author Report Share Posted January 3 Kieran Maguire believes that to 2021-22, Nottingham Forest were just about within P&S. Mine also come out that way if we include their Covid losses in full, his calculation are slightly different but again we reach the same conclusion.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 3 Author Report Share Posted January 3 Fwiw, Simon Jordan seems to think Nottingham Forest and Everton will be fine, indeed he reckons no points deductions will occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 3 Author Report Share Posted January 3 Taking Kieran's numbers in turn, far be it for me to query his work but he us possibly forgetting to average the Covid losses. In fact that bit is hard to follow. 2018-19 P&S Loss £20.9m. Rounding will help there, Kieran is rounding up clearly. 2019-20 and 2020-21 P&S Loss £15.65m. 2021-22 P&S Loss £13.9m. However what of the Covid losses. Worth noting too that Academy etc seemed to treble in the year of Promotion. They got Category One but I'd he interested to see how that works. Assuming you take the Nottingham Forest Covid losses for 2019-20 and 2020-21 then the EFL of about £2.5m it comes to £10.8m. £650,000 over limits. If you apply the EFL baseline of £5m, £5m and £2.5m, t be 2 Covid numbers are averaged and hakcdd so add £3.1m to that. Did Nottingham Forest really treble their other costs ie Academy etc in a year..I know they moved to Category One but.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 3 Author Report Share Posted January 3 (edited) https://archive.is/2024.01.03-143135/https://theathletic.com/5176475/2024/01/03/nottingham-forest-profit-sustainability-points-deduction/ I have to say that arguments on their part ie that of some of their fans, that the FFP deadline shouldn't end in June due to the transfer window I have no sympathy. Edited January 3 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 3 Author Report Share Posted January 3 (edited) Kieran Maguire used a term I haven't heard in a while about one possible argument. "Non-adjusting post balance sheet event". I don't see how it flies for this in respect of FFP though. It isn't like there was a deal dragging for 2 weeks and that Johnson went on July 1st or 2nd e.g. he literally went on September 1st or 2nd 2023. The Nottingham Forest accounts were made up to June 30th 2023. A report on August 17th 2023 suggested they had set a price of £40m- all but seven weeks after the Accounting Period had ended. https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/nottingham-forest-set-high-price-for-brennan-johnson-b2394741.html https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12952289/brennan-johnson-tottenham-agree-deal-worth-47-5m-for-nottingham-forest-forward Referral seems the only fair solution IMO. Edited January 3 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 4 Author Report Share Posted January 4 As far as I can now see, there are 3 comparable football cases to draw on here. The last two ended in Points Deductions, the first was arguably botched. 1) EFL v Birmingham Che Adams As we remember, having already failed P&S to the period ending 2017-18, they turned down bids for Che Adams in January 2019 Why they didn't receive further charges in March 2019 I'm unsure because it is clear that..well Shaun Harvey was at the helm of the EFL so it probably answers it well, but their Projections probably showed a 2nd breach in March. If they didn't submit paperwork on time under a Business Plan, that's worthy of yet more charges. Pretty sure the charges came through in mid May 2019..they sold and leased back St Andrews by the end of June 2019 so technically complied but through the wrong method. They sold Che Adams early July iirc, gained their market value then..had they sold him in the January transfer window they were not far off market value and it would've put them back in line. Hearing 1 dismissed the charges but the EFL won on Appeal but it was a reprimand, and a Guilty verdict- but at the same time this upheld a principle for future cases which was the EFL's main goal. 2) EFL v Sheffield Wednesday Sheffield Wednesday or Chansiri more accurately argued that Heads of Terms were in place for the Sale and Leaseback of Hillsborough. The transaction was fine in that era. Shaun Harvey yet again he appears, seemed to think it could be moved between Accounting Periods if the conditions were in place to do so. Independent Commission disagreed, however and they had to put it into 2018-19 accounts as the transaction itself took place the following May or I forget when exactly..June 2019 maybe. Before the end of that season anyway! Shaun Harvey even e-mailed them after the 2017-18 Reporting Period and said that they needed to do it swiftly to look credible. Came up in the Hearing. His actions were probably in no small part why the deduction was halved and certainly played a key role in why the charges for breaching Utmost Good Faith got nowhere.. he's a menace!! 3) Reading, the 2nd case. After failing the first one, as well as a 6 point deduction they were also subject to an 18 month or so EFL Business Plan to ensure compliance with P&S. Any breach would get a further 6 points which doesn't exclude rights to charge for a breach for the Upper Loss limit etc. They I forget exactly what they failed on, but anyway try wanted to sell Tangible Asset(s) that were under the control of a shareholding company or similar. Was weird and complex but they didn't do it in time. Also seems that a Commission's hands are not always tied by prior Agreement between Club and League of that Agreement is fundamentally wrong. Think the Sheffield Wednesday case referred to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 4 Author Report Share Posted January 4 (edited) Bournemouth anyone. No news but I'm interested as to why they don't seem to attracts more scrutiny. It isn't as if they have a huge level of Allowables, a moderate infrastructure, Category Three Academy for some years. Finally awarded Category Two this July though. In the last year or so, debt to equity has come to £92,655,802. It can cover up to 5 years but.. They haven't sold anyone of note since 2021-22. Some of their losses in recent years and as I say quite low Allowables in all probability. 2018-19..-£32.424m *2019-20..-£60.090m *2020-21..+£16.951m (Averaged for Covid..-£21,569,500) 2021-22..£-55.51m Their Upper Loss Limit to 2021-22 after Covid and adjustments was £72m and the same to last season. £83m to this season. Should Bournemouth be under more FFP scrutiny? Edited January 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 4 Author Report Share Posted January 4 I should also add on Bournemouth, the attitude of some of their fans to their FFP breach in 2015 would give me some pleasure if they fell foul. Someone who pops up on my feed from time to time, key word searches. Also interestingly proclaimed that their Corinthian approach to sportsmanship had its day in the Howe and Tindall era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 5 Author Report Share Posted January 5 Aston Villa pages whining about FFP is fairly delicious and breathtakingly hypocritical with 2019 in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 5 Author Report Share Posted January 5 (edited) I'm sure Aston Villa have been pretty big spenders for some time in different ways. The year they sold Grealish, they had an underlying loss of £90-100m. Not a Covid year but the hear all returned to normal give or take. The amount of equity they put in every single season. The Aston Villa mindset wow. Edited January 5 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 5 Author Report Share Posted January 5 I can in seriousness see where they're going with it, but at the same time the messenger is terrible. I'd love it just love it etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 5 Author Report Share Posted January 5 (edited) The page admin appears to be either financially illiterate or just clueless and disingenuous. Par for the course for them however. Edited January 5 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Aston Villa pages whining about FFP is fairly delicious and breathtakingly hypocritical with 2019 in mind. Aston Villa (worlds smallest) Violin FC 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 5 Author Report Share Posted January 5 In respect of Stoke, still no sign of their Bet365 accounts. Almost a week late- tut tut. In respect of Leicester, still wonder how they're aligned to tbis season. Loopholes such as Fixed Assets shut. Chelsea their fans seem oddly bullish, I wonder if they are factoring in the fresh amortisation when talking about savings there and if they are factoring in that their Operating Loss in 2021-22 was £244m. Think they have a huge question to this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnAstonVillafan Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 I have said this to you before, most Villa fans , in fact most fans in the Premier League do not understand FFP or P&S. Most PL lower 14 clubs fans believe it's simply a way of stopping the top six from being challenged by outsiders. I have never thought this personally but I can see why people do. Everton's punishment has brought that into sharp reality for many. Because a lot of fans never considered that it could affect them. Now they simply see City, United, Arsenal and Chelsea turnover players with huge net spends, but when Forest, Villa, West Ham or Everton do the same, some authority has an issue with it. It is seen as anti-competitive and stopping wealthy owners putting money into their clubs. As for Villa fans in general we have demanded transfer activity as a fanbase every year for the whole 36 years I have supported them. We literally shouted for Chairman Doug Ellis to get out of the club if we didn't think he had spent enough money. On Villa fan pages and groups right now fans are arguing with each other about how FFP may or may not affect transfer activity, and most of us have no or limited understanding of the restrictions. Also, after ten years of utter shite, we find ourselves second in the Premier League. Many fans think transfer business is the only way to keep that challenge alive whilst competing in the European stage. I disagree with that thinking, but I am sure that the league is better if Brighton, West Ham, Newcastle or Aston Villa can upset the status quo and disrupt the old order. There is nothing wrong with spending money. Its not a bad thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 5 Author Report Share Posted January 5 Okay thank you and tbh it is new to most PL fans as it's mainly been properly enforced at EFL level in recent times. Everton moderate restrictions was the first rumblings but nothing much else..there are UEFA ones I guess for clubs who qualify for Europe. It is an impressive upsurge. All told I used to have quite warm views towards Aston Villa- when O'Neill and a lot of his side were English up at the top end I thought "that's punching above- impressive". It is still exceeding expectations but feels more slick now but maybe the gap is also bigger. Ah now the Man City stuff, they have finally been charged at long last but it seems to be moving at glacial pace, a sand timer. The Hearing is next Autumn. Chelsea may have historic alleged breaches, still being investigated but could be charging towards failing the PL Upper Loss limit at the end of this season. Man United I wonder about their PL Upper Loss Limit compliance to this season. Arsenal reportedly a bit restricted, even heard Tottenham and P&S but I've looked at their enormous deprecation for the stadium and I dunno whether the analysis is correct in that context. All 4 appear to be presently compliant albeit I wonder a bit about the Lower UEFA limit for Newcastle and post this season Aston Villa maybe maybe not. To be fair I actually in general find it a bit mind boggling that any PL perennial with all that money, undoubted good add-backs from strong infrastructure depreciation, a Cat 1 Academy and all those costs we can exempt and Community could seriously threaten the Upper Loss limit. It is a great money pit much of the modern game. I get it on one level but there can also be a satisfaction to getting up there with less or via clever recruitment. How sustainable Idk. It can also come in quite handy for owners who don't want to spend. Mike Ashley was quite keen I imagine Possibly Gold and Sullivan at times- Benham if he can keep Brentford at PL for a while longer on their likely cost base perhaps he will begin to repay his loans to himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 5 Author Report Share Posted January 5 Strictly speaking not an FFP issue but would you look at that, first year back Benham took back pushing £19m of his loans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 5 Author Report Share Posted January 5 Or someone took it back, it's not certain looking at the wider Balance Sheet. 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.