The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

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 bull 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.

That's how I see it. They had plenty of opportunities to reduce their spending in the cycle or to bring in more money but they choose to go down the path of gaining a competitive advantage. 

They had 3 years to do that. So how they can argue a player sold 2 months later should be included is just bizarre.

Forest agreed to the rules which included the deadline. Case closed. 

Interestingly I heard Richard Masters speak to parliament today. He said its not the premier league that brings the charges. Its a independent panel. I guess the PL refer it to the panel who then decide if a charge should occur.  I didn't know that. 

[Hxj]

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

Interestingly I heard Richard Masters speak to parliament today. He said its not the premier league that brings the charges. Its a independent panel. I guess the PL refer it to the panel who then decide if a charge should occur.  I didn't know that. 

I would suggest that that is misleading.  The Premier League Board's powers are:

Board’s Disciplinary Powers W.3.

The Board shall have power to deal with any suspected or alleged breach of these Rules by:

W.3.1. issuing a reprimand;

W.3.2. imposing a fixed penalty or other sanction where such provision is made in these Rules;

W.3.3. exercising its summary jurisdiction;

W.3.4. referring the matter to a Commission appointed under Rule W.19;

W.3.5. seeking interim measures in accordance with Rules W.58 to W.61;

W.3.6. referring the matter to The Football Association for determination under The Football Association Rules;

and/or W.3.7. concluding an agreement in writing with that Person in which it accepts a sanction (which may include any of the sanctions referred to at Rule W.51) proposed by the Board, provided that agreement has been ratified in accordance with Rule W.13 (a “Sanction Agreement”).

The Commission's powers are to decide if there has been a breach and if so what the sanction is.  The Commission acts as judge on cases brought by the Board.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Something else Masters mentioned. I don't think he is an impressive Football Leader in general terms, but this rather nails it.

“We don’t want to be doing it, but we have to do it, because we have to think about the clubs that have compiled with the rules snd ultimately their fanbases. That is the duty of the Premier League board and the EFL board.”

Edited January 16 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

7 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I would suggest that that is misleading.  The Premier League Board's powers are:

Board’s Disciplinary Powers W.3.

The Board shall have power to deal with any suspected or alleged breach of these Rules by:

W.3.1. issuing a reprimand;

W.3.2. imposing a fixed penalty or other sanction where such provision is made in these Rules;

W.3.3. exercising its summary jurisdiction;

W.3.4. referring the matter to a Commission appointed under Rule W.19;

W.3.5. seeking interim measures in accordance with Rules W.58 to W.61;

W.3.6. referring the matter to The Football Association for determination under The Football Association Rules;

and/or W.3.7. concluding an agreement in writing with that Person in which it accepts a sanction (which may include any of the sanctions referred to at Rule W.51) proposed by the Board, provided that agreement has been ratified in accordance with Rule W.13 (a “Sanction Agreement”).

The Commission's powers are to decide if there has been a breach and if so what the sanction is.  The Commission acts as judge on cases brought by the Board.

 

I'm pretty sure he's not going to lie to parliament about the existence of an independent panel which makes these charging decisions. 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Us and Nottingham Forest both finished bottom 3rd in 2021-22. As we can see one took tough decisions, the other pushed. That £58.6m will of course I assume include the £20.9m in Promotion Bonuses.

£11.9m is presumably a combination of Player Transfer fees, loan fees and maybe some add-ons triggered?

This was the year in which their Covid losses went from £8-8.5m in each of the 2 main Covid years to a forecast of £12-12.5m when normality had for the most part resumed.

Brennan Johnson, two 8 figure bids turned down one in summer 2021 one in January 2022.

Edited January 16 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

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

I'm pretty sure he's not going to lie to parliament about the existence of an independent panel which makes these charging decisions. 

Maybe he needs to tell the PR team that the rules have changed.  This is from the press release regarding Everton and Nottingham Forest:

Everton and Nottingham Forest confirm Premier League PSR breaches

Premier League investigations and independent Commissions

- The Premier League Board have the power to investigate any suspected or alleged breach of Premier League Rules  
- Where, following the conclusion of an investigation, an admission by a Club or otherwise, the Board believes that there is a suspicion or allegation of a Rule breach, it has a number of options available to it. One of these options is to issue a written compliant and refer the matter to a Commission
- The League has access to an independent Judicial Panel, comprising a number of legal, financial and other experts. Members of the Judicial Panel are appointed, in accordance with Premier League Rules W.19, W.20 and W.26, by its independent Chair, Murray Rosen KC, an experienced barrister. It is the Chair who selects members of the Judicial Panel to sit on Commissions, which are independent of the Premier League

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Another good article.

https://archive.is/2024.01.16-081410/https://theathletic.com/5204376/2024/01/16/everton-forest-psr-punishments/

[Davefevs]

1 hour 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 an aggravating factor than a mitigating one in my opinion. 

It is, but…

…in the second bold bit, that’s not what’s being suggested.  What is being suggested (as mitigation I guess) that the end of their financial year fell in the “middle” of the summer window…and that they sold in that window, just not before 30th June.

They aren't suggesting deferring the transfer til January.

Brum got pulled up on not selling Adams in January but waiting til the summer.

But I do agree that the rules are the rules.  I just think that it might mitigate their punishment.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I suppose a key difference with the Birmingham 2nd case was thst they complied anyway, just not through the prescribed method.

However Reading fell foul of complying via the wrong method in 2023 so the EFL have tightened up, PL maybe where we were in 2019.

Edited January 16 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Another good article.

https://archive.is/2024.01.16-081410/https://theathletic.com/5204376/2024/01/16/everton-forest-psr-punishments/

Yes, a very good piece by Ollie Kay. Should be compulsory reading for Everton and Forest fans who, as Kay suggests, should be angry at their owners not the Premier League.

Certainly if we had breached FFP, as we almost certainly would have without the Gould/Pearson rescue job, I would have been angry with Steve not the EFL.

[Markthehorn]

Might explain why the Pozzos are keen for new investment or a way out..

Mind you also generally get a story like this every year!

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/jan/16/spanish-prosecutors-recommend-12-year-sentence-for-watfords-gino-pozzo-over-tax-claims

Story is linked with Granada hence the Spanish involved but still not a good look. 

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Markthehorn said:

Might explain why the Pozzos are keen for new investment or a way out..

Mind you also generally get a story like this every year!

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/jan/16/spanish-prosecutors-recommend-12-year-sentence-for-watfords-gino-pozzo-over-tax-claims

Story is linked with Granada hence the Spanish involved but still not a good look. 

Can't say I'm shocked. Are Watford fans surprised at all?

If he is convicted I wonder if the EFL can disqualify him as an owner and force a sale of the club?

[Markthehorn]

20 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Can't say I'm shocked. Are Watford fans surprised at all?

If he is convicted I wonder if the EFL can disqualify him as an owner and force a sale of the club?

Not particularly now no as there is definitely that Udinese/Watford and in this case Granada link of moving players around otcourse .

Maybe but then the EFL seem to let all sorts of characters through and come in to take over clubs .

[Davefevs]

 

Promotion bonuses driving those costs, otherwise Luton doing Luton things!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Preston have reduced their losses.

 

Ouch though, football wages alone >100% of turnover. Pre tax loss not far off 100% of turnover.

Overall though their position could be worse. For their budget still overachieving.

[Davefevs]

Yes, had a quick skim through PNE’s results earlier.

[Mr Popodopolous]

No wonder they were late releasing their quarterly.

Without more detailed info it's hard to get a full picture of course.

£32m pre tax loss in the first quarter!?

No European revenue either post Christmas, interesting to see how that is distributed timing wise but wow.

Edited January 17 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I wonder if it is possible Man United, Man United of all sides FFS could fail P&S to this year. The 3 years to 2023-24.

Pre-tax Loss

-£149.623m..2021-22

-£32.574m..2022-23

*Q1-£32.804m..2023-24.

-£215.001m then maybe more to be rounded up with 3 quarters left of the season.

Edited January 17 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Closer to the level, in the unlikely event Leicester prove to be over right now and still over in March, and frankly there are so many other clubs I'd love to see fall foul in-season rather than Leicester, should they get referred instantly or some sort of instant in-season deduction?

The EFL will have their accounts for 2021-22 and possibly 2022-23 by now. Restrictions on additions and Maresca's comments plus an unscheduled unpredicted relegation make me wonder a bit...?

Edited January 17 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Middlesbrough accounts are set to drop, could be anything up to the next 10 days.

As for Preston they'll havw to be a bit careful perhaps although they always speak of sticking to FFP.

As for Luton, expect a major pre tax profit this year. Sure costs will have risen but their expenditure has been quite low? How much is committed to the new ground however.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Birmingham fans don't mind pushing the boat out clearly.

Had a quick nose of their forum and one proclaimed they should look to outlay £24m on fees should Jordan James to for £6m!

That would make Mark Ashton blush. I dunno if they meant total outlay in terms of fees, wages and agents fees but.  

Another more sensible one suggested £12m, he regularly blogs about Birmingham and their dodgy past owners Almajir but that would be quite a departure from the norm and probably not at all feasible under FFP at this level.

Edited January 17 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

@Mr Popodopolous following on from our conversation yesterday, we now face Forest in the FA Cup. 

We could get knocked out of the FA Cup by a club who's cheated, a club thats admitted cheating. Due to their cheating, they hold an unfair advantage on the pitch. 

We as a club have made competitive sacrifices to keep within the rules so even the thought of potentially losing to a club that's cheated boils my piss! 

Yes they may get a points deduction in the Premier league but that doesn't help us. We could be cheated out of a r5 place which also means that because of their cheating, we as a club that's complied, lose out on some big revenue. That sucks. 

 

[RedRoss]

Not really FFP but funding and cash flow issues could be on the horizon for Blackburn.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/24027004.date-set-venkys-application-release-funds-blackburn/

They have a few good players we could pinch if they run into problems. I think we've got to be more ruthless like Luton with Reading.. I wouldn't mind looking at Femi Azeez from Reading.

[Rob26]

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Middlesbrough accounts are set to drop, could be anything up to the next 10 days.

As for Preston they'll havw to be a bit careful perhaps although they always speak of sticking to FFP.

As for Luton, expect a major pre tax profit this year. Sure costs will have risen but their expenditure has been quite low? How much is committed to the new ground however.

there up now 

 

[Rob26]

anyone able to update our numbers and whack up all the excel stuff like before thanks 

 

theres an interesting footnote which states when the accounts were made during this season we are currently at 5.6m net spent on transfers/agents/loan fees if that helps too

Edited January 18 by Rob26

[Davefevs]

[Mr Popodopolous]

While Middlesbrough are well within P&S and clearly have decent allowables what with a Category One Academy, that underlying loss is notably high.

Do I think Gibson is likely to overspend? Given his past FFP crusades absolutely not. Akpom sale profit will help for this year but the underlying loss when you strip out theoretical one offs..

Impairment and Onerous Contracts

Aggregated about £4m. In other words subtract that from the Loss on a potential recurring basis.

Profit on Disposal of Players and Mel compensation

£22.319m and £2.728m

An underlying loss of about £27-28m which on one hand is surprisingly high, otoh is not uncommon at the level. Middlesbrough are one of the better run clubs too.

Maybe a bit less given the Impairment accelerates Amortisation.

[Rob26]

so what does our FFP budget look like for this year and next potentially if we have an average loss next year.

 

also with the accounts being signed by gibbo in november and issued 9/1/24 to CHouse, does that mean the footnote of 5.6m net spend this season applies to summer only or would it have to be up to date when put on Chouse? which we have potentially spent 2.5m plus maybe something sub 1m for Ayling loan

[Hxj]

48 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

also with the accounts being signed by gibbo in november and issued 9/1/24 to CHouse, does that mean the footnote of 5.6m net spend this season applies to summer only

You should only include information in relation to transactions that are finalised as at the date the accounts were signed.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting post from Foxestalk.

"If the club really need to bring in a big lump of cash quickly, surely could they not move the womens team training facilities to Seagrave and sell off Belvoir drive to a developer. Got be worth a few million. You could build a fair few houses on the site."

Well would be except that the rules changed in 2021.

No problem with it for Cash Flow but the rules expressly adjust this out of the P&S calculations. ie if it's Cash Flow they need why not, if not well it can be done but no difference to the 3 Year Loss. 

Edited January 18 by Mr Popodopolous