Mr Popodopolous Posted February 2 Author Report Share Posted February 2 My other point is that e.g. Transfer Profits lost for 2021-22. As we and even belatedly Stoke with Collins and Souttar proved the market hasn't gone entirely. If you can't sell players then 2021-22 add-backs pertaining to transfers being disregarded or downsized that is tough but fair. Otherwise we especially have been penalised for doing the correct thing and developing players with value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 On 26/01/2024 at 16:05, Mr Popodopolous said: Needs challenging or adjudication on IMO. I've been trying to compare it ours or stokes sponsorship and stoke get 10m+ for all sponsorship in the last accounts (and have commercial income separate from it so its only sponsor ship, which I also think is blown out of proportion, given it was at that level in the premier league, then they come down it reduced to 5m when they didnt feel the need to pay them as much due to parachute payments, then went up a few M every year until its back to premier league levels, but that figure is for all sponsorship, so not just bet365/owners - I imagine they have other sponsors). where we are 7m for commercial and sponsorship, which probs puts our sponsorship at around 5m in total after you take 2m+ off for hospitality etc (based on using stokes figure to make it like for like potentially) brum were 5m for commercial and sponsorship, lower turn outs and ground so lets be nice and let them have only 1m of commercial and 4m of sponsorship, they can claim the ground name is worth more than this and potentially double just for the ground renamed? its a fact that ground naming is far less lucrative than the shirts. and the reason is simple, its in every picture of the players playing football, the stadium name is not. any club with more for stadium naming rights to a group owned company than they get for the shirt should be a major red flag. but stoke are pushing it with their sponsorship as well clearly 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 2 Author Report Share Posted February 2 4 minutes ago, Rob26 said: I've been trying to compare it ours or stokes sponsorship and stoke get 10m+ for all sponsorship in the last accounts (and have commercial income separate from it so its only sponsor ship, which I also think is blown out of proportion, given it was at that level in the premier league, then they come down it reduced to 5m when they didnt feel the need to pay them as much due to parachute payments, then went up a few M every year until its back to premier league levels, but that figure is for all sponsorship, so not just bet365/owners - I imagine they have other sponsors). where we are 7m for commercial and sponsorship, which probs puts our sponsorship at around 5m in total after you take 2m+ off for hospitality etc (based on using stokes figure to make it like for like potentially) brum were 5m for commercial and sponsorship, lower turn outs and ground so lets be nice and let them have only 1m of commercial and 4m of sponsorship, they can claim the ground name is worth more than this and potentially double just for the ground renamed? its a fact that ground naming is far less lucrative than the shirts. and the reason is simple, its in every picture of the players playing football, the stadium name is not. any club with more for stadium naming rights to a group owned company than they get for the shirt should be a major red flag. but stoke are pushing it with their sponsorship as well clearly Stoke are pushing it, Birmingham even more so IMO. Most grounds have non-matchday events too which helps but this Birmingham deal raises red flags for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 (edited) at least stoke take the shirts and ground themselves, Birmingham are giving themselves the ground naming but obv want to keep the main sponsorship opportunities open to others on the shirts. theres little exposure its getting but the partner is able to pump the extra money into the club they are literally valuing it more than the real advertising real estate (the shirts) but at the same time leaving it open for others to buy that from them so can still get legit sponsership money trying to sell the shirts well, cake and eat it time I reckon. unless they are going to do it for the shirts as well when the current deal runs out, but how much do you put on that if the ground name is 9m :laugh:, must be another 20m worth of sponsership for them shirts I reckon based on the stadium naming and thats not being generous on the ratio of what shirts vs stadium name is really worth :laugh:. Edited February 2 by Rob26 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 2 Author Report Share Posted February 2 I hadn't considered that, a very good point. Naming rights but shirt sponsorship reserved..this seems a notable attempt to flout or bend the rules when you put it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, downendcity said: 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. There is no such thing as a football regulator. It is a member's only club. The clubs agree to the rules and until recently policed them themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, Hxj said: There is no such thing as a football regulator. It is a member's only club. The clubs agree to the rules and until recently policed them themselves. You are right, I should have said football administrators. Clubs policing financial rules and themselves would be like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) A tale of Four Cities..Plus QPR I fully believe that we would have been referred for FFP, not least had we not sold Semenyo verbatim. We made sacrifices for the good of the club in effect. Our known losses and FFP position, best estimates for all of the above. Bristol City Holdings 2018-19 PROFIT £10m 2019-20 -£10m 2020-21 -£38m *Average-£24m 2021-22 -£28.5m 2022-23 -£22.2m Your starting point is £42.5m Loss Before Tax to 2021-22, £19m in FFP Allowables and the bare minimum of £7.5m in Covid add-backs. Easy easy. £16.5m bare minimum and maybe lower. To last season, £74.7m, maybe £22m in Allowables and then £7.5m in Covid bare minimum..£45.2m. However when you look at the Covid years, we lost £5m in Year 1 and £13m in Year 2. This can legitimately lop it down to £41.2m minimum. SwissRamble reckoned the 12 to 13 month adjustment added about £5.3m to our costs that year. Issue resolved. My issue stems from the others. These other 3 were all compliant to 2022-23 I am sure but the issue I have is to the present season. Birmingham City 2021-22 -£25m 2022-23- Seems like -£24-25m That is a fairly similar position to us. They appear to have about £5m in Allowables per year and I don't see why their income loss should be much more than £2.5m for 2021-22. Now the Bellingham cash came to perhaps £9.45m. However their prior losses came wirh a small Transfer profit which meant the losses were slightly higher. They also sold Chong and someone else for modest fees. Sacking 2 managers costs as well. Covid is looking in the rear view mirror, one estimate could be a pre tax loss of £6.5m or less required to comply. Cardiff City 2021-22- £26.639m This included a £4.225m Profit on Disposal of Players which perhaps hasn't been replicated..otoh their amortisation will have fallen and their wage bill slashed somewhat. Plus £0.5m in an RPT loan write off which doesn't count towards P&S Losses I reckon they have £5m in Allowables per year. Apparently they've been in touch wirh the EFL over P&S but they haven't sold anyone of note fwiw not since Moore. Maybe a lower cost base and the non Sala payment embargo helped to save them, Insurance payment for Sala of some sort. Wales had more lockdown restrictions than us in 2021-22. QPR 2021-22 -£24.667m. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023–24_Queens_Park_Rangers_F.C._season I estimate abour £4m per year in FFP allowables. There was a report on their Loft For Words of a £10m FFP hole for this coming season. You wouldn't know it looking at their Transfer Activity..Chair and Willock remain. There have been some sponsorships by RPTs and Dieng and Dickie wwre sold but not got massive numbers. 1 manager poached, another in, sacked, another in, sacked, anfojef in compensation paid. My view is that if clubs lack saleable assets that is their tough luck in all honesty. The only realistic and lkeky Covid impact in 2021-22 will have been Player Sales in terms of a gamechanger for P&S. If they have received excessive allowances for the cycle ending 2023-24 we and others should receive recompense of some kind, we gutted our squad somewhat. The one the only Stoke City..here goes nothing. Deep breath. Stoke City 2017-18 -£30.27m 2018-19 -£15.392m 2019-20 -£88.455m 2020-21 -£9.57m Combined Average -£49.0125m 2021-22 -£18.172m 2022-23 -£11.006m The others pale into ******* insignificance set against this. I don't particularly like Birmingham, Cardiff or QPR but the above is egregious. Periods ending 2021 (no test for 2020), 2022 and 2023. They sold Souttar and Collins for a combined £20-25m so that perhaps added weight to their arguments. I estimate as does Swiss Ramble that Stoke had £9m a year in Allowables pre Stadium sale and £7m per year now. To 2021..weighting for combined average. Either £61m or £55.5m. Pre tax pre adjusted losses -£94.6745m. This was despite and inclusive of the Stadium and Training Ground trick. Minus £27m plus Covid.. -£38.223m and £18.680m The average being £28.4515m. P&S Loss -£39.223m for the period ending 2020-21. The period ending 2021-22. Now on the full -£39m rather than including PL years. -£3.859m attributed to Covid for 2021-22. They sold Souttar and Collins but their losses for a prolonged stint they are absurd. Have been for a good 6 years despite and inclusive of the Stadium and Training Ground trick..£32m Profit (halved due to the combined Average). Anyway yes pre tax aggregated losses periods ending: 2021- £94.6745m (Initial Upper Loss limit £55.5m or £61m). 2022 -£82.5765m (Upper Loss Limit £39m). 2023- -£78.1905m (Upper Loss limit £39m). Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) We occasionally discuss sporting advantage and FFP @W-S-M Seagull Stoke seeing it laid out like that, is so egregious isn't it?? Especially as they have gone on unlike the others to throw money around this season again. @Hxj Do you think they've been cleared in full..this seems so so out of kilter with the rest of the division not least given that they have no brilliant record of selling players, alright but not remarkable. Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) Taken from a Birmingham forum, the naming rights in the context of these looks dubious.. QPR £1.2m over 2.5 years, Swansea 7 figure sum, 10 year deal. Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) Back to my main post, I still maintain that Birmingham, Cardiff and QPR appear to have been treated with Kid Gloves. The number of PL loanees and so forth they've added when surely pushing against limits compared to us for 2 seasons is remarkable. I get our hole was great but.. Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 Birmingham Inbound Permanent Summer Roberts- Leeds Bielik- Derby Laird- Man United Miyoshi- Antwerp Dembele- Bournemouth Sanderson- Wolves Buchanan- Werder Bremen Winter Seung-Ho- South Korea Pritchard- Sunderland Loans Summer Stansfield- Fulham Aiwu- Cremonese Burke- Werder Bremen Drameh- Leeds Dozzell- QPR Cardiff- Inbound Summer Goutas- Sivasspoor (Free) Meite- Reading (Free) Ramsey- Nice (Free) Siopis- Trabzonspor (Free) Winter Tsuonda- Japan Hovarth- Nottingham Forest Turnbull- Celtic Loans Summer Ugbo- Troyes (redeployed 11th January 2024) Grant- West Brom Bowler- Nottingham Forest Runarsson- Arsenal (Recalled 1st February 2024) Panzo- Nottingham Forest (Recalled 15th January 2024). Winter Phillips- Liverpool Wilson-Esbrand- Man City Diedhiou- Granada QPR- Inbound Permanent Summer Richards- Brighton Begovic- Everton (Free) Fox- Stoke (Free) Colback- Nottingham Forest (Free) Cook- Nottingham Forest Autumn Cannon- Free Agent Winter Frey- Antewerp Loans Hayden- Newcastle Hodge- Wolves Our activity and treatment especially given the lack of major sales seems markedly different I must say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) Do you remember our last season position in particular?? @Hxj how do you square the circle of equitable treatment exactly? I see no major sales from these clubs yet at least one of them in Cardiff already appears to have been cleared for FFP THIS year. Had we not sold Semenyo...well I wonder. Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) One more thing to add. Birmingham, Cardiff, QPR, Stoke. Cardiff dropping is an extremely long set of odds but the others I dunno who I'd like to drop more really. Odds are one of them could go down this year. Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) Ideal world, I'd like them to all drop. Albeit all decent from a geographical perspective for us so there's that.. Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted February 4 Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) @Mr Popodopolous So let's look at Cardiff. Their group accounting losses (Cardiff City Football Club(Holdings) Limited are: 2019: £0.8 million 2020: £12.5 million 2021: £12.0 million 2022: £26.6 million So for FFP to 2022 their answer is £45.7 million before any add backs at all. They were in the EPL in 2018/19, which forms part of the period, for loss limits. In 2022, they had player amortisation and write offs of £7.5 million, but made a profit on player trading of £4.3 million. They sold some. Player additions were £1 .0 million. More than happy to debate, but I see no problem with Cardiff City to 2022. As to 2023, they spent little on fees, whether there is a problem or not I have no idea, as of yet there is no evidence that they have breached to 2023 Edited February 4 by Hxj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 Just now, Hxj said: @Mr Popodopolous So let's look at Cardiff. Their group accounting losses (Cardiff City Football Club(Holdings) Limited are: 2019: £0.8 million 2020: £12.5 million 2021: £12.0 million 2022: £26.6 million So for FFP to 2022 their answer is £45.7 million before any add backs at all. They were in the EPL in 2018/19, which forms part of the period, for loss limits. In 2022, they had player amortisation and write offs of £7.5 million, and made a profit on player trading of £4.3 million. Player additions were £1 .0 million. More than happy to debate, but I see no problem with Cardiff City to 2022. As to 2023, they spent little on fees, whether there is a problem or not I have no idea, as of yet there is no evidence that they have breached to 2023 Thanks @Hxj I got a bit carried away last night ha went all Chapter and Verse with clubs. 2023 I think they're fine to as are Birmingham and QPR, my confusion stemmed from an article implying they'd already been cleared for this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted February 4 Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: my confusion stemmed from an article implying they'd already been cleared for this year. They well have been cleared to 2023 already. They may well have been cleared subject to final accounts. Or they may believe that they will be cleared as they know all the figures. Edited February 4 by Hxj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Hxj said: They well have been cleared to 2023 already. They may well have been cleared subject to final accounts. Or they may believe that they will be cleared as they know all the figures. I'll link the relevant article or sections if you like. To 2023 I get.. to 2024 sounds like real-time. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/inside-cardiff-citys-transfer-window It could be poor reporting but again the restrictions that we were under. Well a lot will depend on the 2023 accounts I guess. Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) It does make me wonder though, could we have sold Semenyo in Summer 2023 either by end of June or Summer verbatim? What precedent is set here? Plus putting aside Stoke for now, my main queries thete are to 2021 or 2022, my main candidates in alphabetical order are: Birmingham, Cardiff, Leicester and QPR. To this season I mean. Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 4 Report Share Posted February 4 20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: It does make me wonder though, could we have sold Semenyo in Summer 2023 either by end of June or Summer verbatim? What precedent is set here? I’m sure we could’ve, but we’d have risked early summer recruitment and the stuff we did in January too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Davefevs said: I’m sure we could’ve, but we’d have risked early summer recruitment and the stuff we did in January too. Well Cardiff appear not to have sold but have had a usual chaotic window.. otoh that included kutd or loans ending early too. I've calmed down a bit now and no longer crying conspiracy but it still seems s bit all over the place FFP. The amount of leeway at different clubs does make me wonder a bit. If anything Covid allowables should be fading now given we are 2 years after the last flurry. Wales had some in 2021-22 I know. QPR were talking of a £10m FFP hole last May, I doubt that has been filled let alone to add PL loanees in January. Dieng and Dickie went for how much? Some RPT sponsorships of modest amounts. Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) In a way I can't complain too much, Derby and Reading got clobbered with it straight after Covid-19. If I was Luton, Millwall Preston to name a few I'd probably be more annoyed at clubs with bigger than anticipated Transfer Covid Allowables..our spending was somewhat ridiculous. I'm glad to see Stoke still struggling. All over the place in another sense, in that Leicester with an £83m Upper Loss Limit and some major sales and Parachutes are so hemmed in but Birmingham, Cardiff, QPR could add despite none of the above advantages. Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) Oh I do hope there is some truth to this. On paper yeah because this is the final year of the Grealish sale. https://www.football365.com/news/aston-villa-forced-sell-ramsey-100m-star-grealish-ffp-benefit-out-of-equation-2024-25 Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnAstonVillafan Posted February 4 Report Share Posted February 4 1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Oh I do hope there is some truth to this. On paper yeah because this is the final year of the Grealish sale. https://www.football365.com/news/aston-villa-forced-sell-ramsey-100m-star-grealish-ffp-benefit-out-of-equation-2024-25 You hope that we are forced to sell players ? How are Villa or Newcastle, Brighton or West Ham supposed to compete, get to a higher level without strengthening their squads ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 Just now, AnAstonVillafan said: You hope that we are forced to sell players ? How are Villa or Newcastle, Brighton or West Ham supposed to compete, get to a higher level without strengthening their squads ? Well there is that of course it's more a case of I am not too unhappy in respect of what we have seen at EFL level coming up the chain. We've had to do it more than many at this level. My comments were a bit flippant but I've long thought the PL have been too soft on FFP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 (edited) Aston Villa will be fine anyway, as among their stated fans are the following. Prince William- President-Designate (whatever that is) of the FA. David Cameron- Foreign Secretary, former PM of course and now is he a Lord? Can't quite recall. Richard Masters- Head of the PL. Not being entirely serious with this post but you never know. Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 Jocularity about friends in High Places aside, the one that really gets me is PSG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 https://archive.is/2024.02.04-092630/https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/everton-forest-charges-premier-league-2887142 Another interesting article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4 Author Report Share Posted February 4 Going well on the pitch, less sure off it. West Brom. https://archive.is/2024.01.15-121343/https://theathletic.com/5201321/2024/01/15/west-brom-takeover-news-football/ Not FFP but have seen it stated elsewhere that they perhaps will need some more commercial loans soon without takeover materialising. I wonder if they are gambling on winning the playoffs this season. 1 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.