The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[RollsRoyce]

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agree with the bulk of this. All of it pretty much.

Things are getting much better. Nobody at the EFL spotted the Fixed Asset loophole until it was too late. Covid ones I believe are being reviewed or should be in certain areas..I'd query Fulham, Nottingham Forest and Stoke for a start and Everton with some of their arguments didn't find favour.

Imagine a counterfactual in which there is no Fixed Asset profits possible..Aston Villa would have run aground in 2018-19, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday in 2017-18 and beyond, Reading in 2017-18 or 2018-19..and the overspending being caught early may have left these clubs in less of a existential hole. Birmingham would've failed 2018-19 again and once more perhaps beyond, Blackburn to a few million possibly avoided an FFP breach.

It could have changed the dynamics at top

Stoke benefited to the tune of £16m in FFP terms in addition to Covid stuff from their one.

Likewise if Man United have sought to argue £40m expressly in Covid losses for 2021-22, that's suspect to me.

US owners will want tougher financial regs I assume yeah, irony in some ways given the sheer capitalism of USA but then again regulation of how they do their sports..

There are also checks on Associated and Related Parties now...Sheffield Wednesday e.g. used shell sponsors and may still do but they were deemed to be at a fair rate so the EFL were understood to be okay with it. About £1-1.5m per year all-in if memory serves.

The gulf at multiple levels is enormous yeah.

As you rightly state, it is the loopholes causing the issues. Take the Man City use of sponsorship, the initial Chelsea signings on 8 year deals to amortise deals over a longer period (now capped at 5 years). The Derby example of the revaluation of players each year. Which brings us to stadium revenue. `Essentially the expectation is that income comes from 3 streams, tv/media income, matchday revenue and sponsor/commercial. The area being looked at right now is stadium revenue. For example, which would relate to us, why should the football club benefit from using a stadium for rugby? If you have a hotel attached to a stadium, is that football revenue? Why should holding exhibitions in a stadium count as football revenue? Loopholes are where they all fight it out. It is one for lawyers and accountants. 

For a club like ours, non PP , the tv deal is what? Around £10m a season. Ticket sales and other commercial revenue for our gates? Another £10M . I would guess Us, Cardiff, Coventry with similar attendances will be around £20M in income (I will go check now) from those sources. So where does the stadium company get their turnover from? Rugby ? Concerts? weddings? Why should that count for football FFP? Little guidance in this area. 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, RollsRoyce said:

As you rightly state, it is the loopholes causing the issues. Take the Man City use of sponsorship, the initial Chelsea signings on 8 year deals to amortise deals over a longer period (now capped at 5 years). The Derby example of the revaluation of players each year. Which brings us to stadium revenue. `Essentially the expectation is that income comes from 3 streams, tv/media income, matchday revenue and sponsor/commercial. The area being looked at right now is stadium revenue. For example, which would relate to us, why should the football club benefit from using a stadium for rugby? If you have a hotel attached to a stadium, is that football revenue? Why should holding exhibitions in a stadium count as football revenue? Loopholes are where they all fight it out. It is one for lawyers and accountants. 

For a club like ours, non PP , the tv deal is what? Around £10m a season. Ticket sales and other commercial revenue for our gates? Another £10M . I would guess Us, Cardiff, Coventry with similar attendances will be around £20M in income (I will go check now) from those sources. So where does the stadium company get their turnover from? Rugby ? Concerts? weddings? Why should that count for football FFP? Little guidance in this area. 

 

 

Commercial Revenue on the footprint is fine, Property revenue not so much but we're so much more than a Football Stadium as we leverage it very well.

A loophole is e.g. Stadium sale profit, Man City case something else entirely.

All AGL Revenue save for the Ground Rent and Service Charge not least as it consolidates out at the Group level is applicable for us.

It wasn't so much a Revaluation policy as an amortisation one. How you write off the cost over time. Revaluation is something else.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Sounds like QPR are basically under a soft embargo this window due to P&S.

Maybe it's even a hard fail?? Conflicting interpretations but as expected if they can't add or can barely add, wonder if they're at risk of a points deduction too.

[Mr Popodopolous]

 

New CEO?? When did that happen, thought Lee Hoos who spoke a lot on FFP was there.

Edited January 13 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Announced this week.

[Loosey Boy]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Announced this week.

Let’s boost their financial situation by signing Ilias Chair

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Loosey Boy said:

Let’s boost their financial situation by signing Ilias Chair

I'd say Willock is more realistic but depends how deep the hole..Willock also out of contract come the summer fwiw.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Certainly wouldn't be against Willock if the opportunity arose, Chair would be a delight..both could be excellent but probably dreaming.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Leicester could be selling Souttar, makes me wonder if there maybe an FFP issue brewing there.

I've queried their position on and off for months, Maresca suddenly unable to get anyone in and Souttar out of nowhere linked with a move away.

Book Value about £12.28m if so, that's the breakeven point. ie if you sell for less is at a loss and actually increases your loss less wages saved.

Edited January 13 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

This is PL but FFP system theoretically aligned.

 

Ooh I hope so. I still have an issue with Nottingham Forest and their Covid losses in 2021-22.

[W-S-M Seagull]

23 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This is PL but FFP system theoretically aligned.

 

Ooh I hope so. I still have an issue with Nottingham Forest and their Covid losses in 2021-22.

I am absolutely delighted to hear this. 

As you know I am annoyed that Everton wasn't dealt with sooner and how that enabled them to continue to use that advantage by cheating to stay in the premier league. 

Imagine the reaction from the likes of Andy Burnham if they recieve a double points deduction  

My worry is tho, when they appeal their original punishment there may be some sympathy due to another charge. 

No sympathy from me. They cheated. They admitted cheating and it looks like they've continued to cheat. Relegate the ******* in my opinion. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

The whining and Special Pleading in respect of Everton has been truly off the charts.

From their fans, pundits who should know better (then again with pundits... ) and various public and political figures. Probably some journos too.

[W-S-M Seagull]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The whining and Special Pleading in respect of Everton has been truly off the charts.

From their fans, pundits who should know better (then again with pundits... ) and various public and political figures. Probably some journos too.

I'm quite brutal with my thoughts. In my opinion, if a club is relegated because of a FFP breach, they should also forgo a percentage of the parachute Payments. That would act as a further deterrent. 

Everton have had no regard for the FFP rules and therefore all of the other clubs. If they end up getting relegated and end up in administration then I won't be getting out any violins. 

[Rob26]

On 11/01/2024 at 14:16, Mr Popodopolous said:

Could be a bluff, could be a negotiating ploy or similar but interesting comment by Maresca. Could be dated.

Still think they could be close if not over limits to this year.

I think they may just be thinking, 10 points clear of 3rd, do we need to spend any money now, given their situation.

nice to get another player in to boost the numbers, but after all what they may be recruiting in this window may be someone who does not work for them when back in the prem

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

I think they may just be thinking, 10 points clear of 3rd, do we need to spend any money now, given their situation.

nice to get another player in to boost the numbers, but after all what they may be recruiting in this window may be someone who does not work for them when back in the prem

I actually think they could be over limits to this season ie the 3 years ending in 2023-24 as it stands, although it is possible I am double counting some aspects good and bad.

However yes what you say would also make sense.

Edited January 15 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Maresca elaborated and basically said they're not allowed to on Friday, not without players being sold.

[Rob26]

17 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The whining and Special Pleading in respect of Everton has been truly off the charts.

From their fans, pundits who should know better (then again with pundits... ) and various public and political figures. Probably some journos too.

fans are fans,

pundits, public and polital figures and journos all have fan bases to appease that they want to make money from, and that includes everton fans, so they have a interest in being sympathetic, 

I'm sympathetic to all fans who have owners cost their club due to breaking the rules, its not fair to them and not their fault but the restrictions will never work if you do not punish them the way they are trying to do presently.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Charged/referred, as expected both Everton and Nottingham Forest.

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Rob26 said:

fans are fans,

pundits, public and polital figures and journos all have fan bases to appease that they want to make money from, and that includes everton fans, so they have a interest in being sympathetic, 

I'm sympathetic to all fans who have owners cost their club due to breaking the rules, its not fair to them and not their fault but the restrictions will never work if you do not punish them the way they are trying to do presently.

Fair comment but what irritates me is pundits and journalists pronouncing on the subject who clearly have no idea of the regulations. Much as they appear to have never read the laws of the game.

[Rob26]

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/everton-nottingham-forest-charged-ffp-premier-league-2854223

[Rob26]

so whats the basis for everton? have they not already been done for some of the years in the last 3?

looking up their sanction included 2 of the years. surely them 2 years no longer count or something? would seem a fair way to do it possibly, other wise you get done for ffp maybe for 3 years in a row,

if they are compliant this year only but not the other 2, seems off to do them again. 

Edited January 15 by Rob26

[Mr Popodopolous]

Based on the Derby and possibly remains to be seen Everton precedent, Leicester at the very least and maybe Leeds dependint on the size of breach could have a claim v Nottingham Forest. If found guilty of course.

Southampton feel too far back..However if Everton have breached in successive years I would suggest that Burnley, Leeds and Leicester could all have claims.

Norwich, Watford and Southampton too far back in terms of points probably and Nottingham Forest if they had a claim would be struck out.

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://archive.is/2024.01.15-162932/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/01/15/nottingham-forest-premier-league-charge-30-signings/

Percy. Is a Nottingham Forest fan granted but top journo all the same- especially with Midlands clubs.

Some of their defence is clutching..

[Mr Popodopolous]

Superficially attractive on one level but it doesn't sound like there was a Binding Agreement with Tottenham judging by this.

They turned down bids which would have almost certainly surely seen them clear, £30m in June.

You can make an argument for mitigation for intent etc ie a point or 2 back, but there is no point in a Deadline that all must adhere to I'd the conditions for an unconditional sale to Tottenham didn't exist any later than June 30th 2023.

[Mr Popodopolous]

If this is accurate, then to build on earlier stuff make or break for Nottingham Forest, I don't see how it is rowed back into 2022-23 ie no later than June 30th 2023 from September 1st 2023.

 

Accounting Deadline and Transfer Deadline respectively.

Edited January 15 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If this is accurate, then to build on earlier stuff make or break for Nottingham Forest, I don't see how it is rowed back into 2022-23 ie no later than June 30th 2023 from September 1st 2023.

The breach has been admitted, so it is down to mitigation.

I think that realising the best value for your players in the same transfer window would be a significant point of mitigation.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The breach has been admitted, so it is down to mitigation.

I think that realising the best value for your players in the same transfer window would be a significant point of mitigation.

Do you think they will make “allowances” for post-accounting period transfers?

[Hxj]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Do you think they will make “allowances” for post-accounting period transfers?

To keep it simple - yes when it comes to determining the penalty.  There is a rumour that an outline negotiated settlement has been reached, hence the statement that:

"The club intends to continue to cooperate fully with the Premier League on this matter and are confident of a speedy and fair resolution."

[W-S-M Seagull]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Do you think they will make “allowances” for post-accounting period transfers?

I don't think they should. A deadline is a deadline. 

What's next? A club saying "well we could have sold a player in the summer and got X amount but we knew we could get more in the Jan window as prices are inflated and in the meantime we continued to use that player to benefit" 

It's complete bs to me. Forest had the opportunity to sell which would have seen them comply, they chose to gamble on getting sympathy further down the line and they continued to play him. 

Their argument falls apart when you consider there was absolutely no guarantee they'd be able to sell him further on in the window. As we know, transfers collapse all the time. Spurs could have decided to buy someone else instead. The player could have got injured. 

I'd probably suggest that's more of a aggravating factor than a mitigating one in my opinion. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

48 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The breach has been admitted, so it is down to mitigation.

I think that realising the best value for your players in the same transfer window would be a significant point of mitigation.

Mitigation means potential to reduce the points deduction for overspend IMO, not to wipe it entirely. Or should.

EFL v Birmingham (2) and EFL v SWFC seem like pertinent cases to draw on.

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

I don't think they should. A deadline is a deadline. 

What's next? A club saying "well we could have sold a player in the summer and got X amount but we knew we could get more in the Jan window as prices are inflated and in the meantime we continued to use that player to benefit" 

It's complete bs to me. Forest had the opportunity to sell which would have seen them comply, they chose to gamble on getting sympathy further down the line and they continued to play him. 

Their argument falls apart when you consider there was absolutely no guarantee they'd be able to sell him further on in the window. As we know, transfers collapse all the time. Spurs could have decided to buy someone else instead. The player could have got injured. 

I'd probably suggest that's more of a aggravating factor than a mitigating one in my opinion. 

Totally agree. A deadline is a deadline or there is no point in this framework.

Nottingham Forest let us not forget saw their stated predicted Covid losses rise weirdly in 2021-22. We started with the hard yards financially, we cut the Group wage bill by £5m, club in isolation by £6-7m.

We cut our amortisation and held off on signings. Nottingham Forest sacked a manager, hired another, increased their amortisation be it through fees or loan fees, turned down bids for Johnson in the Championship never mind the PL, and maintained their underlying wage bill of around £37m I think it was.

Edited January 16 by Mr Popodopolous