The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

On a side note, without wishing to dig them out yet again, Birmingham fans seem somewhat shall we say 'optimistic' not least about their spending power.

1) Even if accepted in full, the underlying loss in 2021-22 was £27-28m before tax. A bit lower last season. That was after Player Sales a £25m pre-tax loss.

2) The £25m pre-tax loss remains on the books if the 3 year FFP rolls on from 2022-23.

3) The Bellingham sell-on is a big chunk that while it will help over 3 years isn't something that will be replicated in next years accounts.

3) If it is the new system, even if accepted in full as far as sponsors go, the 70% must include Football wages, Player Amortisation and Impairment and Agents Fees.

If they want to spend to the limits that's their lookout but some of their fans talking spending £20m in the summer..that doesn't really align with reality under either system as it stands.

Edited January 31 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

You might be able to help on this @W-S-M Seagull

We've periodically discussed Cardiff before when it comes to FFP and you said you know a few.

What's your take as to them and FFP. They seem somewhat less restricted and some if this will be club choice but less hemmed in than we are on the £39m rule, less rightly monitored considering the £26-26.5m pre-tax loss in 2021-22 and the FFI requirement

No major sales since 2021-22, Moore and even that was no more than £5m, yes their cost base lower than ours but £21m turnover in 2021-22, what's your take as to why they seek less hemmed in FFP wise, any ideas?

Ebou Adams loaned out and 2 loanees sent back but Phillips from Liverpool and Diedhiou Granada in.

Birmingham and QPR to varying levels too- we were so hemmed in we couldn't add anyone until Semenyo and even Bamba on a free when Baker had to retire seemed to be beyond us in Autumn 2022.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I remain fairly convinced that we were held to notably exacting standards, perhaps more relative to others.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Bournemouth fans love some mental gymnastics don't they- saw on my feed..apparently they unintentionally overspent in 2015.

I hope they fall foul of the 3 year rule sooner rather than later.

Edited February 1 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

Birmingham's deal was briefly discussed on Price of Football. Discussed at a high level but Maguire didn't mention any concerns 

[Mr Popodopolous]

These things can come back to bite later.

What are the direct Championship comparables? It's financial doping to an extent- what are they benchmarking against exactly.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Can someone explain the mindset of Darragh MacAnthony here.

https://www.newcastleworld.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/efl-chairman-calls-for-newcastle-united-exemption-amid-ffp-battle-4497956

He is talking about new owners verbatim but Newcastle are the obvious ones to be highlighted.

Edited February 1 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

On 31/01/2024 at 23:06, Mr Popodopolous said:

You might be able to help on this @W-S-M Seagull

We've periodically discussed Cardiff before when it comes to FFP and you said you know a few.

What's your take as to them and FFP. They seem somewhat less restricted and some if this will be club choice but less hemmed in than we are on the £39m rule, less rightly monitored considering the £26-26.5m pre-tax loss in 2021-22 and the FFI requirement

No major sales since 2021-22, Moore and even that was no more than £5m, yes their cost base lower than ours but £21m turnover in 2021-22, what's your take as to why they seek less hemmed in FFP wise, any ideas?

Ebou Adams loaned out and 2 loanees sent back but Phillips from Liverpool and Diedhiou Granada in.

Birmingham and QPR to varying levels too- we were so hemmed in we couldn't add anyone until Semenyo and even Bamba on a free when Baker had to retire seemed to be beyond us in Autumn 2022.

I raised my concerns about Cardiffs ffp compliance with my Cardiff supporting friends previously and they had absolutely zero concerns.

Then in the summer they started to have concerns and now suddenly again they don't. I can only assume they think the settlement they got helped them sort those ffp worries out. 

But it doesn't make sense to me either how they continue to buy but remain within ffp. 

I think their owner is just quite bonkers so wouldn't surprise me if they breach it. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

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

I raised my concerns about Cardiffs ffp compliance with my Cardiff supporting friends previously and they had absolutely zero concerns.

Then in the summer they started to have concerns and now suddenly again they don't. I can only assume they think the settlement they got helped them sort those ffp worries out. 

But it doesn't make sense to me either how they continue to buy but remain within ffp. 

I think their owner is just quite bonkers so wouldn't surprise me if they breach it. 

Dalman seems the adult in the room out of their hierarchy tbh, Tan has failed it before in 2014-15.

Insurance numbers will help but that £26.5m loss included a) £4m in transfer profit and b) £0.5m in debt writeoffs. The latter is excluded, the former wasn't repeated. Wagss down and income up but by much??

Birmingham and QPR seem to have had an oddly high amount of leeway too.. Birmingham-£49-50m pre tax in 2 yeads prior to this season...HK indicates £24-25m last year. Sacked 2 managers, some signings but yes Bellingham cash.

QPR no major sale since 2020-21, -£24m. Manager sacked last year, compensation cor Beale but also compensation for Ainsworth from Wycombe.

Sacked Ainsworth, Payout 2, then money to Swedish club for Cifuentes.

All 3 yet to release their accounts..I genuinely wonder if any of these 3 have been held to the same seemingly exacting austerity standards that we were.

Edited February 1 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023–24_Queens_Park_Rangers_F.C._season

Does this look like a side with an FFP crunch to you @W-S-M Seagull that is very expansive compared to us for 2 seasons.

Players from Nottingham Forest x 2, Newcastle ie Hayden loan, Begovic back, now Hodge from Wolves, Taylor Richards loan made permanent.

We couldn't sign Sol Bamba on a free when Baker sadly had to retire.

Edited February 1 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

If this is accurate a little more on Leicester who I've had interest in for some time from a P&S angle.

£114.8m in TV money last year..

Down from £129m the Year before plus they made £21m from Europe that prior year.

Guess what, no European competition in 2022-23.

Their Parachute Payments (plus those of Leeds and Southampton) some 55% of the Central Award so I make that £48.73m. Plus EFL TV deal of course.

I genuinely do wonder about the £83m Upper Loss limit.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just remember that year in which Leicester had the £129m in TV money plus £21m in European revenue they lost £92.4m pre tax, pre allowables.

Clearly certain revenue streams fell last year..8th to 18th and no European Football does that. One that I still watch with a bit of interest

Edited February 2 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

We have Leicester fans on here, who haven't posted much since NP and his team were disgracefully sacked.. that aside I'd love to know their input on the Upper Loss limit or otherwise.

[W-S-M Seagull]

11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

All 3 yet to release their accounts..I genuinely wonder if any of these 3 have been held to the same seemingly exacting austerity standards that we were.

I think the main reason is because of who we are owned by. If we were to recieve and FFP penalty then that would be devastating to Steve Lansdowns reputation in the financial world. 

I think Lansdown is really conscious of how Bristol City impacts his reputation. I think that's why on the bench we are quite nice compared to other teams. We do everything by the book etc. You wouldn't see Lansdown doing a sponsorship deal like Knighthead have free example. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

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

I think the main reason is because of who we are owned by. If we were to recieve and FFP penalty then that would be devastating to Steve Lansdowns reputation in the financial world. 

I think Lansdown is really conscious of how Bristol City impacts his reputation. I think that's why on the bench we are quite nice compared to other teams. We do everything by the book etc. You wouldn't see Lansdown doing a sponsorship deal like Knighthead have free example. 

Agreed pretty much. That Knighthead deal is still ropey to me, value wise albeit tbh I could see ways in which SL Associated companies sponsor us but in a way that is compliant e.g. clearly and obviously Fair Value and can give them a boost in the growth phase- based in Guernsey, UK why not.

I wonder if that was a reason why NP didn't last as he should have, maybe the hierarchy deemed him to be too outspoken..his stuff on officials wonder how what was received in the Boardroom?

Idk..we never made use of the Fixed Assets loophole either when it still existed, SL as a qualified accountant could've been all over it and a host of other loopholes.

I'm glad that we do things by the book btw but just occasionally the odd RPT at truly Fair Value could benefit all parties.

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more.

Hull are apparently right near limits.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/hull-city-ffp-position-examined-9064981

I'm sticking with my 18 month window but I thought given the Allam final half season austerity and if you look at their accounts that year it largely continued plus the obvious rises in income post takeover and the KLP sale I thought they'd on their way buy not quite there yet.

That 2021-22 also included almost £2.5m in Covid add-backs. KLP profit underpins a lot IMO.

Edited February 2 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Cardiff journo claims they are a) Within limits and b) That there was contact with the EFL abour transfer activity until this week.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/inside-cardiff-citys-transfer-window-28555881

Feels like they've been given more leeway than we got, where are their notable sales..?

They claim they had a lot less headroom than anticipated but I see no notable sales since Kieffer Moore and that was certainly short of £10m.

Did they have less to cut, were their cutbacks in 2022-23 swifter than ours?

I don't altogether get how we with higher income were so careful, no PL loanees from January 2020 to January 2023 during the periods of caution etc, had to cut so far..the mooted Insurance Payout could've been a game changer but at the same time there are very legitimate questions as to whether we were treated in an equitable manner IMO.

Edited February 2 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Put simply have we been treated in an equitable manner and I know our spending and legacy spending due to Ashton and Johnson was ridiculous, an equitable manner set against Birmingham, Cardiff and QPR here?

[Hxj]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Put simply have we been treated in an equitable manner

Of course we have.

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Of course we have.

 

 

Well fair enough but it doesn't feel like it..overhang of big losses yet in Birmingham cases some quite good business, Cardiff their usual churn in and out and QPR I dunno perhaps a lower Cost Base but also lower revenue than us.

No major sales for the last 2 either for some time. (I fully appreciate Birmingham and their Bellingham sell on boost).

If £39m plus Allowables is all important what gives?

Edited February 2 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

All clubs in the EPL and EFL passed FFP in 2022 except for Everton.

All EPL clubs and EFL League 1 and 2 clubs passed FFP in 2023 except for Everton and Nottingham Forest.

The EFL Championship position will become clearer in March and April.

As regards Leicester we will have to await their 2024 accounts.  They look to be in a tricky position as the limit is reducing by £22 million and the losses in 2021, which drops out were £30 odd million on an accounts basis.

 

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I think the main reason is because of who we are owned by. If we were to recieve and FFP penalty then that would be devastating to Steve Lansdowns reputation in the financial world. 

I think Lansdown is really conscious of how Bristol City impacts his reputation. I think that's why on the bench we are quite nice compared to other teams. We do everything by the book etc. You wouldn't see Lansdown doing a sponsorship deal like Knighthead have free example. 

I've said before that SL has lived his HL business life in a heavily regulated financial services sector, where there are serious penalties for breach of their rules.  For example, a few years back Nationwide ( I think it was) was forced to take all their adviser workforce out of action for re-training because of breaches/failures and only this last week HSBC were fined something like £56m.

Accordingly, his business instinct would be to automatically manage his BCFC business in accordance with football's financial rules and changes in those rules. Going back to when he first announced that the club had to move to sustainability, he was roundly criticised by many fans, who saw it as an indication that he was no longer prepared to put his hand in his pocket. With hindsight, SL had seen the pending introduction of ffp, foresaw and understood the implications and made changes to ensure that club could and would comply. He also recognised the areas that ffp did allow an owner to invest, so we saw the investment in the academy ( has that benefitted the club both financially and on the playing side?) but also in the redevelopment of AG. Crucially with AG, the redeveloped stadium now generates significant additional income, and not just on match days, all of which can then legitimately be utilised in improving us on the pitch ( or in boosting his nest egg for those that think do !).

As I see it, one of the main problems football's administrators have in ensuring that ffp or p&s is being adhered to, is that the majority of owners don't have SL's background in financial services. Some will have built their wealth by ducking and diving , a la Del Boy, so see rules as an occupational hazard. Others, and in particular those that are effectively sovereign state owners, are used to circumventing rules and, I suspect, that for them in many other areas in which they operate "money talks", so that they always get what they want.

The other problem is well evidenced by Everton currently, but we saw previously with Derby. When a club is penalised for breaking rules that the club was fully aware of, the fans argue that it is unfair and penalises the fans, ignoring the fact that success achieved by cheating those same financial rules enabled the fans to benefit by onfield success!

The other issue is clubs using every device to get around punishment, or to have it reduced by appeals. Fingers crossed that threat of an independent regulator will force the FA/Premier League/EFL to be more vigilant in their prosecution and punishment of offenders and to make sure the rules are made as tight as possible to prevent clever clubs finding ways around them.

 

 

[Hxj]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Well fair enough but it doesn't feel like it

The EFL got a good duffing up over Derby and from what I heard the Financial Unit don't operate on a 'softly softly' basis.

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Well fair enough but it doesn't feel like it..overhang of big losses yet in Birmingham cases some quite good business, Cardiff their usual churn in and out and QPR I dunno perhaps a lower Cost Base but also lower revenue than us.

No major sales for the last 2 either for some time. (I fully appreciate Birmingham and their Bellingham sell on boost).

If £39m plus Allowables is all important what gives?

Problem is Mr P, you are looking at the black and white of accounts, not knowing what each club has put into their FFP submissions, including covid allowances.  You can base that on the 5/5/2.5, but we all know the rules allowed for more to be allowed (with the right evidence)…and we know City benefitted from that.

Without seeing each club’s FFP submissions, we are just pissing in the wind.

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, downendcity said:

The other problem is well evidenced by Everton currently, but we saw previously with Derby. When a club is penalised for breaking rules that the club was fully aware of, the fans argue that it is unfair and penalises the fans, ignoring the fact that success achieved by cheating those same financial rules enabled the fans to benefit by onfield success!

Great post DC….this bit is the best though!

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The EFL got a good duffing up over Derby and from what I heard the Financial Unit don't operate on a 'softly softly' basis.

They did and yes the CFRU seem fine but Cardiff unless I'm misreading it already seem to have been cleared for this season based on that article? Which is surprising.

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Problem is Mr P, you are looking at the black and white of accounts, not knowing what each club has put into their FFP submissions, including covid allowances.  You can base that on the 5/5/2.5, but we all know the rules allowed for more to be allowed (with the right evidence)…and we know City benefitted from that.

Without seeing each club’s FFP submissions, we are just pissing in the wind.

This is true albeit I struggle to see why there should be a notable uptick in 2021-22 which is a relevant period for the present season. Albeit Wales had some lockdown measures for part of 2021-22 which could add.

Women's Team, Charitable Expenditure, Depreciation etc of Tangible, Amortisation, Impairment of Intangible excluding Player Registrations can be extrapolated.

I'm not at all convinced that we got the same leeway last season, EFL/CFRU can push back on Covid levels too.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They did and yes the CFRU seem fine but Cardiff unless I'm misreading it already seem to have been cleared for this season based on that article? Which is surprising.

This is true albeit I struggle to see why there should be a notable uptick in 2021-22 which is a relevant period for the present season. Albeit Wales had some lockdown measures for part of 2021-22 which could add.

Women's Team, Charitable Expenditure, Depreciation etc of Tangible, Amortisation, Impairment of Intangible excluding Player Registrations can be extrapolated.

I'm not at all convinced that we got the same leeway last season, EFL/CFRU can push back on Covid levels too.

We haven’t seen their 22/23 accounts yet.

But we do know they’ve mainly operated in free transfer and loans since.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We haven’t seen their 22/23 accounts yet.

But we do know they’ve mainly operated in free transfer and loans since.

We were horribly hamstrung even for that tbh last season until Semenyo went.

Maybe Cardiff are close but no cigar, maybe they all are perhaps our hole was bigger due to the huge cost base but in Birmingham cases I'm fairly confident their aggregated pre tax losses across 2021-22 and 2022-23, were £49-50m using actual and using HK accounts.

The others, well due out by end of the month.

Edited February 2 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Problem is Mr P, you are looking at the black and white of accounts, not knowing what each club has put into their FFP submissions, including covid allowances.  You can base that on the 5/5/2.5, but we all know the rules allowed for more to be allowed (with the right evidence)…and we know City benefitted from that.

Without seeing each club’s FFP submissions, we are just pissing in the wind.

 

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They did and yes the CFRU seem fine but Cardiff unless I'm misreading it already seem to have been cleared for this season based on that article? Which is surprising.

This is true albeit I struggle to see why there should be a notable uptick in 2021-22 which is a relevant period for the present season. Albeit Wales had some lockdown measures for part of 2021-22 which could add.

Women's Team, Charitable Expenditure, Depreciation etc of Tangible, Amortisation, Impairment of Intangible excluding Player Registrations can be extrapolated.

I'm not at all convinced that we got the same leeway last season, EFL/CFRU can push back on Covid levels too.

Policing of financial rules  reminds me of refereeing.

It seems to me that referees these days are naive and even when allied to the "assistance" of VAR, all too often seem oblivious to players cheating by diving, simulation, unpunished relentless holding by defenders in the penalty area etc. etc. 

Similarly football's regulators have a set of financial rules that they themselves drafted and police, yet it seems that clubs can duck and dive their way around those rules almost with apparent impunity.  Whether it be grossly inflated values of sponsorship by owners related companies or ridiculous COVID allowances ( yes Stoke, I'm looking at you), it's like the emperor's new clothes, everyone else can see it as bu115hit but football's administrators can't/don't/don't want to. 

I'm sure someone ( MR P?) will point out that  those clubs were only doing what they were allowed. If so, then it only proves how naive ( or negligent)  the administrators were when drafting the rules in the first place. As we saw with Derby, the  EFL "forgot' to include provision in the rules so that the profit from the sale of a stadium to a related 3rd party could not be used to offset losses for ffp.

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, downendcity said:

 

Policing of financial rules  reminds me of refereeing.

It seems to me that referees these days are naive and even when allied to the "assistance" of VAR, all too often seem oblivious to players cheating by diving, simulation, unpunished relentless holding by defenders in the penalty area etc. etc. 

Similarly football's regulators have a set of financial rules that they themselves drafted and police, yet it seems that clubs can duck and dive their way around those rules almost with apparent impunity.  Whether it be grossly inflated values of sponsorship by owners related companies or ridiculous COVID allowances ( yes Stoke, I'm looking at you), it's like the emperor's new clothes, everyone else can see it as bu115hit but football's administrators can't/don't/don't want to. 

I'm sure someone ( MR P?) will point out that  those clubs were only doing what they were allowed. If so, then it only proves how naive ( or negligent)  the administrators were when drafting the rules in the first place. As we saw with Derby, the  EFL "forgot' to include provision in the rules so that the profit from the sale of a stadium to a related 3rd party could not be used to offset losses for ffp.

 

 

Derby..plus Aston Villa, Sheffield Wednesday, Reading (may have included the Stadium x 2, the Training Ground and something else), Birmingham, Stoke- (In addition to Covid they also did the Stadium and Training Ground trick), and Blackburn sold and leased back the Training Ground but not for much.

Only Aston Villa have truly prospered through it. That loophole for all Fixed Assets is gone and Rick Parry called it absurd and ridiculous which it was.

The Related Party Sponsorship for Birmingham really does feel ropey. QPR and their reported one looks normal.

It clearly has been tightened up a lot as Leicester literally had to sell players which they failed to do, to get Sensi over the line. Sensi did not arrive.

Edited February 2 by Mr Popodopolous