Mr Popodopolous Posted February 5 Author Report Share Posted February 5 A side has released their accounts!! It isn't Birmingham, Cardiff, QPR, Leicester or even Millwall whose losses I think may have upticked. When Hull owner spoke of trembling the wwhe bill in August 2022 he wasn't fully wrong as it was probably £8-8.5m..it upticked in January 2022 and up again in 2022-23 obviously. Did pretty much double year on year though. That is despite and inclusive of the Profit on Disposal, which I take to be KLP. He should account for most, maybe some were sold at a moderate loss which saves later but diluted the Profit there and then. 18 months to get up IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 5 Author Report Share Posted February 5 Amortisation and wages pretty much doubled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 5 Report Share Posted February 5 Luton added too, as they were Champ last season. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 5 Author Report Share Posted February 5 They're certainly going for it aren't they..I wonder if costs have risen again this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 5 Author Report Share Posted February 5 (edited) This is interesting too. Looked for a bit of analysis of Hull accounts and seems Sporting Quarters are an in-thing.. Birmingham are looking at a Sports Quarter and Hull are also looking at something similar, a Sporting Village. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hull-city-unveils-plans-25m-8121075 Edited February 5 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 5 Author Report Share Posted February 5 (edited) Few tin hatters here, Birmingham fans or some anyway seem to think their wage bill was artificially inflated by their ownership ie not on the club itself but those who have ties to their HK Chinese outgoing owners. https://wewilljourneyon.proboards.com/thread/8117/accounts-june-2023 Edited February 5 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 (edited) If this is true..There is already a poster on there who is/has been adamant that Leicester needed to sell. If that is roughly aligned the EFL cannot let them go up without challenge in 8-figure breach?? Some of my analysis and estimates have had Leicester £20m over limits btw, fwiw. Some much lower...I have a range. Edited February 6 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 On 04/02/2024 at 15:25, 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 ? you sell to strengthen the squad, that's how clubs generate revenue outside of match day and tv and climbing the league, all the clubs your competing with do the same as well. and invest heavily in the academy setup to generate money from spends which do not count towards FFP everyone has to do it as well 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 1 hour ago, Rob26 said: you sell to strengthen the squad, that's how clubs generate revenue outside of match day and tv and climbing the league, all the clubs your competing with do the same as well. and invest heavily in the academy setup to generate money from spends which do not count towards FFP everyone has to do it as well Perfectly put. Your club just sold Rogers to Aston Villa no less. Have sold multiple down the years..I actually highly doubted whether it was required from an FFP angle but it provides quite a bit more headroom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Perfectly put. Your club just sold Rogers to Aston Villa no less. Have sold multiple down the years..I actually highly doubted whether it was required from an FFP angle but it provides quite a bit more headroom. Wouldn’t have thought so, sold Akpom in the summer for £10m. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 (edited) Reports that PSR/FFP could be set to change next season. That would be a cop out..to be fair to all clubs you need IMO to see it through to 2025-26 and let the chips fall where they may. Change it in summer 2026 I reckon. As well as an obvious candidate in Chelsea, I also forecast that Aston Villa would benefit from such a rule change being so swift because the Grealish £100m sale benefit disappears from view after this year. Happened in summer 2021 therefore is effective from the years which precede and the years which follow 2021-22. Edited February 6 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 On 04/02/2024 at 15:25, 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 ? Putting aside the fact the ffp rules were introduced to protect the status of the elite clubs, the rules are the rules. If you want to spend to compete then you need to raise that money. Produce another Grealish for example. We're all bound by the same spending limits so no point crying about it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 Just now, W-S-M Seagull said: Putting aside the fact the ffp rules were introduced to protect the status of the elite clubs, the rules are the rules. If you want to spend to compete then you need to raise that money. Produce another Grealish for example. We're all bound by the same spending limits so no point crying about it. Yes, this poster has changed their tune? A few weeks ago they were strongly pro the FFP rules I thought. We are all bound by them, we have sold numerous not least to effing Bournemouth so crack on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 In respect of possible Regulatory changes for the PL, the magic number iirc is 14/20. Or 70%. Unsure what it is for the Championship, was 75% at one point unsure about now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Reports that PSR/FFP could be set to change next season. That would be a cop out..to be fair to all clubs you need IMO to see it through to 2025-26 and let the chips fall where they may. Change it in summer 2026 I reckon. As well as an obvious candidate in Chelsea, I also forecast that Aston Villa would benefit from such a rule change being so swift because the Grealish £100m sale benefit disappears from view after this year. Happened in summer 2021 therefore is effective from the years which precede and the years which follow 2021-22. Didn’t someone say that it’ll be transitional…ie still have to pass PSR too until the 3-year cycle ends? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Didn’t someone say that it’ll be transitional…ie still have to pass PSR too until the 3-year cycle ends? I believe so, it seems chaotic right now. Albeit I personally think it should be left alone until summer 2026 to be fair to all. Edited February 6 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 (edited) Just on the Birmingham RPT, it does seems odd given their Commercial Revenue last year. Remember this is in HK$ which makes it a bit harder to pin down but.. Commercial Revenue appears to be Club specific. Remained pretty flat year on year. Maybe a bit up, perhaps a bit down. Seems strange that a side yes it's an innovative deal should see it suddenly surge quite like that. I get the increase element but not to that level based on modest gains so far and indeed improvement on the pitch until Eustace sacked but back to the bottom 3rd atm. Rooney in will have helped with Commercial pull but he was sacked. Basically based on that it rose by HK$.524m between 2021-22 and 2022-23. Edited February 6 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I believe so, it seems chaotic right now. Albeit I personally think it should be left alone until summer 2026 to be fair to all. I’m not sure it can be described as chaotic when we don’t know the ins and outs of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 5 minutes ago, Davefevs said: I’m not sure it can be described as chaotic when we don’t know the ins and outs of it? Fair, hopefully there won't he some sudden pivot mid-stream, the PSR running alongside for a while does encourage me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 (edited) How is a potential doubling if not more of the Birmingham Commercial Income via an RPT in a year justified I wonder, especially in the context of the League they are in. Edited February 6 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 20 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: They're certainly going for it aren't they..I wonder if costs have risen again this year. looking at the loans etc they will have a bump on fees and wages this season for sure, last season wasn't even the same scale as this season for the incomings 4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Perfectly put. Your club just sold Rogers to Aston Villa no less. Have sold multiple down the years..I actually highly doubted whether it was required from an FFP angle but it provides quite a bit more headroom. yeah not required for FFP but think had to be sacrificed for the greater good player had his head turned and wanted to go, so think they had to let him go rather than take the risk of keeping someone who might not be as professional as he was if he was still here and had been told no. also gives a good message to other younger lads, and think that's the market we are in for most our signings the sub 24 years, that the club is a good place to come before going to the prem or better. 1m he cost, think he went for 10m plus add ons and sell on, so we come out with 8m up front after paying city off their 25% sell on too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnAstonVillafan Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 10 hours ago, Rob26 said: you sell to strengthen the squad, that's how clubs generate revenue outside of match day and tv and climbing the league, all the clubs your competing with do the same as well. and invest heavily in the academy setup to generate money from spends which do not count towards FFP everyone has to do it as well I'm not sure how a team trying to elevate, move forward a level sells its best players and somehow strengthens by not replacing them. Man City didn't sell Aguero at the peak of his powers to get better. Spurs didnt sell Kane until he broke their scoring record. They got the best out of their top players. Villa are in the top as of four now. We arent going to stay there by selling Douglas Luiz to Arsenal, unless he is adequately replaced. Same goes for Newcastle. How are they going to compete at the sharp end while Chelsea, Arsenal and City simply bring more in. Academy setup ? Villa ? Jesus Christ we have always done that. 14 million on youth developmement to May 2022. 8 millon going in just now at the new inner city academy. It is literally what this football does. Davis, O'Hare, Ramsey, Archer, Chukwuemeka, Grealish all products of the youth setup sold on at profit. The club is trying to increase commerical revenue and sponsorship to close the gap, but its a glass ceiling. FFP is merely stopping the Sky SIx from being challenged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnAstonVillafan Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 7 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said: Putting aside the fact the ffp rules were introduced to protect the status of the elite clubs, the rules are the rules. If you want to spend to compete then you need to raise that money. Produce another Grealish for example. We're all bound by the same spending limits so no point crying about it. This is the best Villa side I have seen in 28 years. I ain't crying. But not many clubs can pull a £100m player out of their youth academy and sell him before he reaches his peak just to balance the books. We will spend but we will also coach, drill and improve our players to progress. I reckon FFP will be overhauled soon anyway. Its not fit for purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 (edited) 13 minutes ago, AnAstonVillafan said: This is the best Villa side I have seen in 28 years. I ain't crying. But not many clubs can pull a £100m player out of their youth academy and sell him before he reaches his peak just to balance the books. We will spend but we will also coach, drill and improve our players to progress. I reckon FFP will be overhauled soon anyway. Its not fit for purpose. It is fine, just because a few clubs don't like it doesn't mean it isn't fit for purpose. As I'm sure everyone reading this knows, had the Fixed Assets loophole been closed in 2016-17, there would have been a £30m hole assuming the same expenditure and revenue patterns for Aston Villa in 2018-19. Stoke would have been screwed in 2021 or 2022. Sheffield Wednesday would have been screwed there and then and probably screwed again. Derby would have been in trouble across multiple periods, as would Reading even more so. Birmingham would have failed again. Blackburn might have failed. The big flaw with FFP was allowing Fixed Asset sales to count towards the returns. As we can now see had this rule not been fixed Leicester could've swerved it this January. They could actually face a £20m+ deficit this season according to someone on their forum. EFL presumably didn't agree with them signing Sensi. Edited February 6 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 1 hour ago, AnAstonVillafan said: This is the best Villa side I have seen in 28 years. I ain't crying. But not many clubs can pull a £100m player out of their youth academy and sell him before he reaches his peak just to balance the books. We will spend but we will also coach, drill and improve our players to progress. I reckon FFP will be overhauled soon anyway. Its not fit for purpose. Why do you think it's not fit for purpose? Personally I think it needs to be harsher and the punishments more severe and over time keep reducing the allowed losses until eventually its at zero. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 @Hxj In respect of Leicester what is your thinking? Is there scope if they have FFI and or results for the last 2 years and indeed the projected show a breach can action be taken in Spring by the EFL/CFRP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 (edited) I am quite confident that Leicester could be >£83m as it stands. Edited February 6 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: In respect of Leicester what is your thinking? The Q&As on the EFL website have been updated sometime since I last looked at them. Some additional information on Embargoes, and also 'Professional Standing'/'Established Player' which I believe is a changed definition (or maybe more clarity). The rules are now clear that a club which is predicting a FFP breach will be subject to an Embargo, as will a club which only meets the limits with future receipts. Currently no clubs are subject to an Embargo, so no club is predicting a breach as of today. That said the Future Financial Information doesn't have to be in yet for this year. My view remains the same as it always has been. You cannot breach FFP until your accounts are finalised and the final FFP form submitted, as they are the measure used. If the measures change my view might change. Edited February 6 by Hxj 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 4 minutes ago, Hxj said: The Q&As on the EFL website have been updated sometime since I last looked at them. Some additional information on Embargoes, and also 'Professional Standing' which I believe is a changed definition (or maybe more clarity). The rules are now clear that a club which is predicting a FFP breach will be subject to an Embargo, as will a club which only meets the limits with future receipts. Currently no clubs are subject to an Embargo, so no club is predicting a breach as of today. That said the Future Financial Information doesn't have to be in yet for this year. My view remains the same as it always has been. You cannot breach FFP until your accounts are finalised and the final FFP form submitted, as they are the measure used. If the measures change my view might change. In theory then and thanks, they could have their cake and eat it. I take the Embargo Q&A bit to mean that when it becomes March 1st and the In-season Projections go in. Predicting breach and referred I read somewhere else unless I'm misinterpreting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 (edited) Apologies for a small deluge of data incoming @Hxj but I do think it could open to interpretation based on these. Albeit you are the expert. Will try and get them in order. Edited February 6 by Mr Popodopolous 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.