Mr Popodopolous Posted January 18 Author Report Share Posted January 18 Still have to wonder if there isn't a scenario whereby Leicester are over 3 year limits to this ie the current season. They certainly seem to be unable to add anyone without selling players atm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 18 Author Report Share Posted January 18 4 hours ago, Rob26 said: 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 Perhaps £15-20m above the Loss limit. ie Accumulated position £19-24m used to xafe. Next hear it's hard to say. TV money rising, by how much Idk, but £15-20m above maybe again as while the £19m loss drops out, the gains were quite big that year which may not be replicated to the same level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 18 Author Report Share Posted January 18 The rules could be changing entirely next year though, it's still hard to say. The UEFA one is more about 70% of Turnover for football wages, Player Amortisation and Impairment of Player Registrations and Agents Fees..Turnover may also include Profit on Disposal of Players or it may include the Cash Flow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 I think they are doing good by making everyone get in accounts upto a certain point for each season, maybe if they told clubs their ffp position for the season before january it would give clubs option to change it by selling players I think they should also change the end period for the accounts, make it line up with the transfer window so then the mitigation cases forrest and everton are no doubt putting forward would go away, as you defs get less for most players before end of june than later in the window. infact clubs will no doubt use the period as a way to offer less and potentially force a club behind on ffp to take the low ball offer to meet ffp. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 19 minutes ago, Rob26 said: I think they are doing good by making everyone get in accounts upto a certain point for each season, maybe if they told clubs their ffp position for the season before january it would give clubs option to change it by selling players In theory the tools are there for a fully real-time system, the question for me is about the competence and will of all parties. Clubs actually who lose between £x and £y over the 3 years have to submit their next 2 years worth of Projected Accounts and FFP returns by March 31st of the existing season so in theory the Leagues could go further and faster. Could you have some kind of Business Plan wirh suspended points deductions attached over a future period? I'd say it is possible. 31sr December does offer clarity yes, the old one year EFL FFP regs had something similar but it moved to March for some reason. Only embargoes or fines possible then though. 22 minutes ago, Rob26 said: I think they should also change the end period for the accounts, make it line up with the transfer window so then the mitigation cases forrest and everton are no doubt putting forward would go away, as you defs get less for most players before end of june than later in the window. There is an argument for that but then again does it actually fit with accounting stipulations? I'd argue not but then again is having to sell by end of June, let alone end of May if applicable conducive to Profitability and Sustainability? Not that I have a great deal of sympathy with Nottingham Forest, not given their Covid arguments and the bids turned down for Brennan Johnson. Plus their wild spending of course. 27 minutes ago, Rob26 said: infact clubs will no doubt use the period as a way to offer less and potentially force a club behind on ffp to take the low ball offer to meet ffp. Punishes the profligate and rewards the prudent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 I'll add a bit of context. Two clubs of broadly similar income but one free spending and one more prudent. Prudent one may be able to cherry pick a bit. Problem comes at our level when you factor in Parachute Payments, that distorts it horribly but all things being equal yes it can work that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 2 hours ago, Rob26 said: I think they should also change the end period for the accounts, make it line up with the transfer window One option is to force all teams to have a 30 June accounting date and open the transfer window on 1 July. 2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Not that I have a great deal of sympathy with Nottingham Forest, Nor do I, but realistically the sale of Brennan to solve the FFP issue will be a mitigating factor in any punishment. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, Hxj said: Nor do I, but realistically the sale of Brennan to solve the FFP issue will be a mitigating factor in any punishment. Based on EFL precedent, it is often a 50% reduction to the points deduction for mitigation and or cooperation. Sheffield Wednesday halved on Appeal. Reading smashed the Upper Loss limit but got-6 and a further-6 subject to adherence to a Business Plan. They failed to adhere and down they went. This case seems similar to Sheffield Wednesday IMO in terms of timing, would Nottingham Forest have had some sort of Binding Agreement to sign go Tottenham, price permitting or with a minimum price? I'd say it feels unlikely. Edited January 19 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 Will be interesting to see if a combination of Iversen going to Stoke on loan plus Casadei getting recalled by Chelsea resolves Leicester FFP issues. If not, they're surely right up against the £83m if not beyond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 (edited) I also to come back to Nottingham Forest, we could probably have got more for Semenyo had his form remained good, well it was outstanding in the few weeks before his sale and had we sold between June 30th 2023 and early September but put it in 2022-23 accounts for our FFP. Stoke may likewise have got more for Souttar too, but again same applies..ultimately you can't row back a transaction to suit your FFP requirements, should that be such a mitigation? Edited January 19 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 (edited) Found this comment by Dalman on Cardiff and their financials. Seems odd unless he means the very very lucky Insurance Payout they may have got for Sala. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/tonights-cardiff-city-news-chief-28095723 Edited January 19 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 Cash Flow doesn't impact Profit and Loss as such, Tan can cover that if an issue. Add-ons maybe? Not sure what he means tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 Birmingham and QPR must also be close, given the privations that we worked under for 18 months, I shall expect the same for others. Leicester it's difficult, my Projections still make them likely to be over to the current season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 With an increasing number of premier league clubs recording significant losses, and some of them mind boggling, is anyone else wondering whether the premier league is really the promised land and paved with gold? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 (edited) Very good point. I suppose we could the and be like Brighton and Brentford, Luton if they stay up should be set fair potentially Burnley too but not many. Sheffield United, who knows. Man City, Liverpool and Tottenham all good for FFP albeit enormous suspicion over what put Man City into such a strong position in the first place. Correct enforcement of FFP regs may dampen it down in the medium term but when even top clubs lose money hand over fist. Edited January 19 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 (edited) Leicester again They made a combined £151 million from Europe and PL cash for an 8th placed finish. European revenue from having not qualified will be very modest at best or perhaps £0. Finishing 8th on Year 1, 18th the best year that's a fall of £10-20m in T.V. money isn't it. I wonder if their wage bill fell by £10m from £181m in 2021-22 but cannot reconcile it with their Transfer activity ie Fofana sold then loans out at vstried points for Ayoze Perez, Choudhuey but Faes in, then Janaury Souttar and Kristansen plus a loan for Tete. Sacking Rodgers will have added some kind of payoff to his basic wage. Did the amortisation fall? Maybe but £3m Faes, £1.36m Souttar and Kristansen also added £1.09m and maybe Tete loan fee. I haven't even tried to analyse a possible Rodgers sacking impact, fall in Commercial Revenue e.g. or less games with no Europe or 13 months to 12. I reckon their Profit on Disposal of Players was £80m, up from £9-9.5m in 2021-22 but that in itself was included within a £92.4m loss. Conservative estimates mean their total TV income was down £100m from the combined Europe and PL cash of 2021-22, have assumed Gates, Commercial etc the same and that's probably wrong. Generously I guesstimate Wages down 50% from Peak to now, Amortisation net swing £15m and Profit on Disposal £49m perhaps including loan fees for outbound. Some estimates I have, could put them £15-20m over limits to this year and maybe more. Edited January 19 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted January 20 Admin Report Share Posted January 20 13 hours ago, downendcity said: With an increasing number of premier league clubs recording significant losses, and some of them mind boggling, is anyone else wondering whether the premier league is really the promised land and paved with gold? I know a few of us have been saying it for what seems like ages and it's yet to happen, but surely there must come some sort of implosion or huge reset in football, how can it possibly carry on like this? I thought the justification for fantasy wages for players was that having them in the team would increase revenue and increase success (again revenue), but given the number of clubs at all levels reporting losses, this doesn't stack up to me. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 12 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said: I know a few of us have been saying it for what seems like ages and it's yet to happen, but surely there must come some sort of implosion or huge reset in football, how can it possibly carry on like this? I thought the justification for fantasy wages for players was that having them in the team would increase revenue and increase success (again revenue), but given the number of clubs at all levels reporting losses, this doesn't stack up to me. The Premier League's PR, enthusiastically backed up by the media, focuses on the huge revenue it generates. But Kieran Maguire points out that 18 of the 20 clubs are losing money on a daily basis. Oddly enough that doesn't get mentioned in the PR. Yet fans complain about P&S sanctions rather than their club's owners getting them into this mess. We know the PL plans to change the regulations. My guess is that it will finesse them to make it look like the problem has gone away. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 1 hour ago, Maesknoll Red said: I know a few of us have been saying it for what seems like ages and it's yet to happen, but surely there must come some sort of implosion or huge reset in football, how can it possibly carry on like this? I thought the justification for fantasy wages for players was that having them in the team would increase revenue and increase success (again revenue), but given the number of clubs at all levels reporting losses, this doesn't stack up to me. I think the argument has been (probably by their agents) that it is the players that fans and viewers pay to see, so those players deserve to be rewarded accordingly. The problem is that it seems that with every new massive tv deal agents are immediately lining up meetings with owners/chief execs to extract all of the increase into improved contracts for their clients. ( I know I'm oversimplifying, but you get the drift). In general, no business outside football would operate with such a high percentage of income going on wages - not without going bust they wouldn't! I've said many times before that the whole issue of players wages is like the emperor's new clothes - pretty well everyone on the outside can see that it's ridiculous, but it seems that no one inside football is prepared to say so. Added to the problem is that some clubs now are effectively owned by nation states, with bottomless pockets. They will be prepared to pay whatever it takes to achieve buy success. The problem this creates is that other teams, who don't have the same limitless finances, have to offer similar wages if they are to attract or retain players they need to compete. We said something similar when Derby were on the brink, but I think it does need a big club to go to the wall before football might come to it's senses. Either that or the formation of a super league so the Saudis and Qataris can take their play things and the state wealth, pay stupid wages, get their own tv deals and appeal to the far east audience and leave the rest of the football world to adjust to a more realistic model. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 20 Author Report Share Posted January 20 A report suggests that even the loan out of Iversen and recall by Chelsea of Casadei may not be enough for Leicester to acquire Sensi. Might it not just be a case of used up all space but having a deficit to claw back to balance? ie Still needing player sale(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 20 Author Report Share Posted January 20 (edited) There are conflicting reports tbh but one to watch. https://www.calciomercato.it/2024/01/20/intrigo-sensi-allinter-serve-unaltra-cessione-cm-it/ Edited January 20 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoystonFoote'snephew Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 10 hours ago, downendcity said: I think the argument has been (probably by their agents) that it is the players that fans and viewers pay to see, so those players deserve to be rewarded accordingly. The problem is that it seems that with every new massive tv deal agents are immediately lining up meetings with owners/chief execs to extract all of the increase into improved contracts for their clients. ( I know I'm oversimplifying, but you get the drift). In general, no business outside football would operate with such a high percentage of income going on wages - not without going bust they wouldn't! I've said many times before that the whole issue of players wages is like the emperor's new clothes - pretty well everyone on the outside can see that it's ridiculous, but it seems that no one inside football is prepared to say so. Added to the problem is that some clubs now are effectively owned by nation states, with bottomless pockets. They will be prepared to pay whatever it takes to achieve buy success. The problem this creates is that other teams, who don't have the same limitless finances, have to offer similar wages if they are to attract or retain players they need to compete. We said something similar when Derby were on the brink, but I think it does need a big club to go to the wall before football might come to it's senses. Either that or the formation of a super league so the Saudis and Qataris can take their play things and the state wealth, pay stupid wages, get their own tv deals and appeal to the far east audience and leave the rest of the football world to adjust to a more realistic model. While the wage problem has been exacerbated by nation states common sense went out the window years ago. The debts incurred by clubs due to wages are solely of club owners/boards making as it is they that sanctioned payments to teenagers of sums equivalent to the GDP of a small nation. There has always been a gap in income of players at the top in football and the fan base but it's now long been the case that few season ticket holders have an annual salary that is commensurate with a few months wages of the average EFL player. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 21 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said: While the wage problem has been exacerbated by nation states common sense went out the window years ago. The debts incurred by clubs due to wages are solely of club owners/boards making as it is they that sanctioned payments to teenagers of sums equivalent to the GDP of a small nation. There has always been a gap in income of players at the top in football and the fan base but it's now long been the case that few season ticket holders have an annual salary that is commensurate with a few months wages of the average EFL player. According to the Guardian Man United's debt has increased to £773m and an additional £364m is owed in unpaid transfer fee instalments. This despite the self-styled biggest club in the world having vast revenues. Which reinforces your case. If this is evidence of the success of the Premier League I dread to think what failure looks like. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 21 Author Report Share Posted January 21 This covers say July 1st 2022 to March 31st 2023. The club accounts when out will shed more light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 On 19/01/2024 at 21:05, Mr Popodopolous said: Leicester again They made a combined £151 million from Europe and PL cash for an 8th placed finish. European revenue from having not qualified will be very modest at best or perhaps £0. Finishing 8th on Year 1, 18th the best year that's a fall of £10-20m in T.V. money isn't it. I wonder if their wage bill fell by £10m from £181m in 2021-22 but cannot reconcile it with their Transfer activity ie Fofana sold then loans out at vstried points for Ayoze Perez, Choudhuey but Faes in, then Janaury Souttar and Kristansen plus a loan for Tete. Sacking Rodgers will have added some kind of payoff to his basic wage. Did the amortisation fall? Maybe but £3m Faes, £1.36m Souttar and Kristansen also added £1.09m and maybe Tete loan fee. I haven't even tried to analyse a possible Rodgers sacking impact, fall in Commercial Revenue e.g. or less games with no Europe or 13 months to 12. I reckon their Profit on Disposal of Players was £80m, up from £9-9.5m in 2021-22 but that in itself was included within a £92.4m loss. Conservative estimates mean their total TV income was down £100m from the combined Europe and PL cash of 2021-22, have assumed Gates, Commercial etc the same and that's probably wrong. Generously I guesstimate Wages down 50% from Peak to now, Amortisation net swing £15m and Profit on Disposal £49m perhaps including loan fees for outbound. Some estimates I have, could put them £15-20m over limits to this year and maybe more. The system is an absolute shambles Mr P. Whilst I accept that Leicester shouldn't be in this league due to Evertons cheating they never less are. They've come down, potentially cheated FFP, gained a sporting advantage over the rest of us by cheating and will go back up where they will recieve the premier league riches as a reward for their cheating. I doubt they'd get a points deduction this season and even if they did minus ten would probably still go up. Even minus ten in the premier league can be overcome as we've seen with Everton. It's just a farce. I don't think the sporting punishment makes up for the sporting advantage these teams have got. It seems Leicester may well have gambled on the FFP compliance. Get back to the premier league, get the 100 million TV money, all good. I think the rules need to be more robust to prevent clubs doing this. If predicted to breach there should be tougher mechanisms in place to force them to sell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 21 Author Report Share Posted January 21 (edited) 2 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said: The system is an absolute shambles Mr P. Whilst I accept that Leicester shouldn't be in this league due to Evertons cheating they never less are. They've come down, potentially cheated FFP, gained a sporting advantage over the rest of us by cheating and will go back up where they will recieve the premier league riches as a reward for their cheating. I doubt they'd get a points deduction this season and even if they did minus ten would probably still go up. Even minus ten in the premier league can be overcome as we've seen with Everton. It's just a farce. I don't think the sporting punishment makes up for the sporting advantage these teams have got. It seems Leicester may well have gambled on the FFP compliance. Get back to the premier league, get the 100 million TV money, all good. I think the rules need to be more robust to prevent clubs doing this. If predicted to breach there should be tougher mechanisms in place to force them to sell. It's improved ignificantly on a few years ago WSM. A few years ago the Fixed Asset loophole was very much a thing as we know. With a mix of in-season numbers and Future Financial Information, this should have been picked up in the summer by which I mean if they were over now they are surely over then. If they or anyone are over in March, there must be points off this season IMO. That can definitely have an effect..the higher the overspend the bigger the breach is a useful starting point. I think they might be trying to sell players all told but supposedly no takers. Selling Played a brings its own complications with current Net Book Value and Breakeven point but that's an issue for the club to solve. The only thing I can think of is the new PL rule which also applies to relegated clubs of accounts in by 31st December if a loss in the previous 2 seasons could have flagged this- if relegated the accounts go go the EFL. Is something clubs would have to vote on as a starting point, a club having to have a firesale to reach compliance I wouldn't be against that though. Edited January 21 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 21 Author Report Share Posted January 21 (edited) Otoh if Leicester get some compensation from Everton all issues resolved plus even money to spend perhaps. A further potential scenario is that they may have until June 30th if they are forecast to breach. Edited January 21 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 21 Author Report Share Posted January 21 (edited) Plus, if I understand correctly, the last part of the message in legalese claims that there will be the added argument that the statutory accounts had / have (I don't know which) not yet been filed, therefore there was no breach." This argument is clutching a bit! Both Derby and Sheffield Wednesday used it at various points in their Procedural Defences. Edited January 21 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 21 Author Report Share Posted January 21 I have another proposal too. Deliberately pushing the deadlines to submit the in-season and prior season stuff should incur a maximum penalty got that stand-alone offence. In the EFL e.g. messing around with the March submission dates beyond a certain point? 12 point deduction but that in no way relieves of the obligation to submit or waives the risk of FFP sanctions if these show a breach either for that season or beyond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 21 Author Report Share Posted January 21 Some interesting little debates on Cardiff Twitter, as to whether they're up against FFP. Some say they are fine and Tan is being stingy, some say the Sala (RIP) settlement sees them fine with some to spend, some say they're right up against it. I'm going with the last- subject to the size of the Sala settlement. If it is a moderate settlement then all 3 could have some elements of truth simultaneously. 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.