Rob26 Posted April 17 Report Share Posted April 17 (edited) everton sound like they are running out of options https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/everton-takeover-stuck-purgatory-crisis-3010133 777 had to pay this loan off by april as a condition of approval for take over, which hasn't happened, and although they are rumoured to be others interested the fact the owners are letting the 777 saga drag on this long i'm sure is a sign there is nothing concrete, with maybe buyers wanting to see what league they are buying them in before get serious. going to be in a world of shit if the owner dont get back to covering the bills if the 777 can't take it over. they will sharp want their money back too Edited April 17 by Rob26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 17 Author Report Share Posted April 17 8 minutes ago, Rob26 said: I meant for FFP, I linked the article in my first post about it, here is the part I got that from tho Thanks, will go back and have a look. I think what the £203m down to £63m represents is the difference between fee received and a) Remaining Book Value to be Amortised and b) Sell-on fees to former clubs. That is the key figure after these two have been accounted for pretty much..would also include any sold at a loss detracting from the overall Profit on Disposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted April 17 Report Share Posted April 17 On 16/04/2024 at 13:50, Rob26 said: chelsea sold hotels to themselves to stay within ffp (76m value) https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/chelsea-wages-todd-boehly-ffp-32580676 whats the rules on property sales these days? value and approval needs to be given by the league, so they need to be worth 76m or more for it to be allowed. listening on talk sport they have only sold the property and have kept the revenue streams from the hotel Thinking back to when Derby "sold" their stadium, they had to show a market rent for being able to continue using the ground. Accordingly, surely if Chelsea is to continue to enjoy the revenue stream from a hotel they no longer own, they must pay a market rent to the new owner, otherwise it would be even more of a sham transaction than it already is! In the wake of Derby, Wednesday and Stoke all exploiting the loophole the EFL left in their revised ffp rules, I think I'm right in saying that loophole has since been closed. It would appear that the Premier League administrators were not quite so quick to plug the loophole that allows a club to sell an asset to an interested third party. I would not be surprised see that Man City's lawyers will be able to drive a coach and horses through the 100+ charges brought against them. Not because they are innocent of the charges, but because it seems that footballs administrators are to naive and cannot see how devious clubs ( especially the wealthiest, with money to afford top accountants and legal advisers) will cheat in order to gain an advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 everton look like they may get took over if 777 pay this loan off https://football-italia.net/genoa-owners-step-closer-to-everton-takeover/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 24 Author Report Share Posted April 24 (edited) No surprise here, wonder if Aston Villa will look to sell and leaseback the Training Ground (the upgrade of which was partially funded by public money during the HS2 construction phase). The problem or a problem they have is that qualifying for European football also stipulates certain requirements and in some ways it is more stringent. It's as if they think the Rules should only apply when it suits them. Sure they aren't alone in that but remember that 2019 loophole which has how shut at the Football League level. Edited April 24 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: No surprise here, wonder if Aston Villa will look to sell and leaseback the Training Ground (the upgrade of which was partially funded by public money during the HS2 construction phase). The problem or a problem they have is that qualifying for European football also stipulates certain requirements and in some ways it is more stringent. It's as if they think the Rules should only apply when it suits them. Sure they aren't alone in that but remember that 2019 loophole which has how shut at the Football League level. as one of the members of the premier league tho they are entitled to argue and negotiate and propose changes. think your wasting your time tho when you have to comply with uefa as well, and surely uefa will be pushing as many leagues to fall in line with their rules as they can to even it out, they can argue it out but in the end if they are qualifying for europe they got to comply anyways with uefas version. Edited April 24 by Rob26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 24 Author Report Share Posted April 24 17 minutes ago, Rob26 said: as one of the members of the premier league tho they are entitled to argue and negotiate and propose changes. think your wasting your time tho when you have to comply with uefa as well, and surely uefa will be pushing as many leagues to fall in line with their rules as they can to even it out, they can argue it out but in the end if they are qualifying for europe they got to comply anyways with uefas version. Of course, all 20 clubs and 14/20 is the required threshold as it should be. It's just that I recall crowing from say Ty Bracey 6 months ago or maybe local journos talking up their financial prudence back in the Autumn so.. Agreed. UEFA also have a lower Upper Loss lLmit for clubs in good financial health and lower still if not, their test is two part (The Ratio rule the main bit then €60m in 3 years plus Allowables, rising to €90m with good financial health). The latter bit may or may not include Fixed Assets sales, less permissive than the PL with it I imagine . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 24 Author Report Share Posted April 24 https://archive.ph/2024.04.24-170630/https://theathletic.com/5441916/2024/04/24/premier-league-salary-spending-cap/ What do we think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 29 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: https://archive.ph/2024.04.24-170630/https://theathletic.com/5441916/2024/04/24/premier-league-salary-spending-cap/ What do we think? Concept good, but 5x is hardly a cap is it, if the only team over it is Chelsea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted April 25 Report Share Posted April 25 13 hours ago, Davefevs said: Concept good, but 5x is hardly a cap is it, if the only team over it is Chelsea! i dont get it, so am I right thinking they are going from 85% for wages and players fees of your clubs actual revenue, but instead are proposing 500% of the lowest clubs revenue? I must be getting it wrong coz that just sounds like a its good if u want to invest in your club and you got the money and not going to change your mind, but sounds like a recipe for disaster for clubs that take on incredible liabilities in a failed push like everton and then go down, potential for an owner to change their mind due to the level of debt the club owes would be huge surely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 25 Report Share Posted April 25 1 hour ago, Rob26 said: i dont get it, so am I right thinking they are going from 85% for wages and players fees of your clubs actual revenue, but instead are proposing 500% of the lowest clubs revenue? I must be getting it wrong coz that just sounds like a its good if u want to invest in your club and you got the money and not going to change your mind, but sounds like a recipe for disaster for clubs that take on incredible liabilities in a failed push like everton and then go down, potential for an owner to change their mind due to the level of debt the club owes would be huge surely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted April 25 Report Share Posted April 25 I thought that this was another test in addition to the percentage test? So you can spend up to 85% (or what ever limit) of your income, provided that sum is not more than 5 times the lowest income from defined (and presumably known in advance) sources. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 17 hours ago, Hxj said: I thought that this was another test in addition to the percentage test? So you can spend up to 85% (or what ever limit) of your income, provided that sum is not more than 5 times the lowest income from defined (and presumably known in advance) sources. that would make more sense, mad how its proposed like it levels the playing field tho yeah your allowed to outspend them, but no more than 500% more than the teams with the least money. I suppose it may come in to play more in future years if the money in europe etc gets out of hand 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 28 Author Report Share Posted April 28 Interesting snippet on QPR and FFP in the Football League Paper. "Somehow, and it must have been by the skin of their teeth, QPR avoided sanctions. Even more incredibly, they might have dodged the same bullet next season too. Clubs are allowed to lose £39m over a rolling three-year period, meaning that with all permitted deductions and exceptions, QPR's losses would need to decrease by roughly £11m in the current campaign to avoid a breach of PSR. This seems improbable, yet the EFL demands that clubs submit their projected accounts by March 1 and this deadline is usually followed by rumours- as was the case with Leicester recently- that certain Club a are in trouble. So far, QPR have elicited nary a whisper". That is somewhat in line with my own thinking numbers wise. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonD Posted April 30 Report Share Posted April 30 On 28/04/2024 at 23:16, Mr Popodopolous said: Interesting snippet on QPR and FFP in the Football League Paper. "Somehow, and it must have been by the skin of their teeth, QPR avoided sanctions. Even more incredibly, they might have dodged the same bullet next season too. Clubs are allowed to lose £39m over a rolling three-year period, meaning that with all permitted deductions and exceptions, QPR's losses would need to decrease by roughly £11m in the current campaign to avoid a breach of PSR. This seems improbable, yet the EFL demands that clubs submit their projected accounts by March 1 and this deadline is usually followed by rumours- as was the case with Leicester recently- that certain Club a are in trouble. So far, QPR have elicited nary a whisper". That is somewhat in line with my own thinking numbers wise. This is pretty much as I said on here when the last season's accounts were released, and in my analysis of the season's before for that matter. The comment about having dodged the same bullet next season is weird, unless he has got his timeline confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 30 Author Report Share Posted April 30 Just now, SimonD said: This is pretty much as I said on here when the last season's accounts were released, and in my analysis of the season's before for that matter. The comment about having dodged the same bullet next season is weird, unless he has got his timeline confused. Possibly, the author in the Football League Paper is conflating real time and retrospective. Still think it could be tight for a few clubs, my understanding is that the EFL can review on real time and after the event..the new and more real time Rules also state that a Call-in Review can be made at any time. One that surprised me, Cardiff and their wage bill fall to last year..hmm. Birmingham seem oddly bullish given -£50m in losses across 2021-22 and 2022-23. Still £11m is quite a swing in one year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 30 Author Report Share Posted April 30 (edited) Swansea lose £17.9m pre tax. This pre dates the Piroe sale, they've published Headline numbers but the full Accounts aren't at CH yet. https://www.swanseacity.com/news/swansea-city-confirm-latest-accounts-3 Sunderland are due today as well. Edited April 30 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 3 Author Report Share Posted May 3 (edited) Sunderland via their website are out, maybe for a day or 2. https://www.safc.com/news/club-news/2024/april/statement-of-accounts I thought their turnover might be a bit higher but then again I wonder of one or two clubs and their turnover are wholly organic and honest let's say. We seem to compare quite favourably to non Parachute clubs, revenue wise at least. We're top 10 in the division minimum wheb we look at Bristol City Holdings and close to top 6 if not in it..can depend in who exactly comes down and stays down and how many Parachute clubs in the division. Using 2022-23 as a base I'll list all Championship clubs last year by Revenue. Reading are yet to make theirs public for some reason. Worth remembering it was a 13 month Period for us so maybe included some events or a Concert that it wouldn't usually? Edited May 3 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 3 Author Report Share Posted May 3 (edited) I did a big list on here ,but managed to lose it somehow.. Anyway looks like we via Bristol City Holdings had the highest non Parachute Income. Albeit 13 months could assist.* *Subject to Reading of course. Edited May 3 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 3 Author Report Share Posted May 3 They genuinely have a cheek Aston Villa. Apparently they would like the PL to raise the 3 Year limit to £135m. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-pushing-controversial-135m-29107660 I strongly suspect in excess of 6 clubs would be compliant so I don't see why turkeys would vote for Christmas..many clubs have taken self-sacrifices or traded to comply. They can try but they need to get 13 other clubs in board, hopefully it will be knocked back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 3 Author Report Share Posted May 3 (edited) Not so very long ago since there was crowing from the Aston Villa end about successful navigation of PSR. Ty Bracey was one, a local paper journalist another. If we have a compliant 7 or above or a comfortable 7 or above vote against I say. Brentford, Brighton, Liverpool, Tottenham, West Ham would be 5 likely. Burnley if they stay up. Potentially Arsenal, Man City although they have competing interests. Wolves could go either way, they may want others to have to do the downsizing they did or they may want to splash more. Man United? Who knows. When would a vote be as well, could depend on who wins the playoffs- Norwich and West Brom possibly wouldn't vote for it, Southampton and Leeds who knows. Leicester surely would. Everton and Nottingham Forest two that could go either way in such a vote. Edited May 3 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 5 Author Report Share Posted May 5 (edited) To expand on my point elsewhere, Birmingham and their highest non Parachute Income is curious. We made £36m or so in 2022-23, Sunderland around £35m- Birmingham were £19-20m in 2022-23. Even putting aside their odd spike in Commercial Revenue with the January deal, which like all RPTs is subject to Fair Value analysis, a rise in income surpassing clubs with a £30m or above income bracket seems difficult to fathom in one year- let alone balancing it with P&S Fair Value Rules. There was a 6 month rise and it also showed them losing money in the 6 months to end of December 2023 which is surprising. There was a rise but not a mega one year on year in the 6 months. Edited May 5 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 5 Author Report Share Posted May 5 Commercial, Broadcasting and Matchday Receipts seem to be relevant categories. Presumably the Segmented loss in q isn't e.g. the Operating Loss but the Loss verbatim..is in HK$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 5 Author Report Share Posted May 5 Bellingham was 15% of Profit, which equates to £9-9.5m. Seen contradictory suggestions but one was that Birmingham also get that % of the add-ons as and when they fall due. That still isn't revenue under P&S however, it bolsters position without a doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 As per Tom Rawcliffe interview on @3 Peaps In A PodCast this morning: FFP reported at BCFC Holdings level (BCFC plus AG) Might be internal recharging, but everything like hospitality goes into FFP / P&S, inc concerts. Wants fans to think of football and stadium as one club 3k for women to break even at AG. (I’m guessing that’s just running the ground for a game) Don’t have a break-even point for men’s. No plans / priorities to renovate / expand Atyeo. And some other stuff we knew re add-backs, inc covid ones. Mentioned that LM said “we need to be ambitious”, so wants money, but we’ll be sensible within budgets. Have loads of FFP headroom. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 Swansea’s accounts lodged at CH, not uploads yet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 32 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Mentioned that LM said “we need to be ambitious”, so wants money, but we’ll be sensible within budgets. Have loads of FFP headroom. How joined up are the key people I wonder? Tinnion wants an aggressive front foot style, Manning seems to prefer 'control '. It's been made clear we don't intend to spend lots this summer but Manning wants more, being particularly desperate to sign Twine. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 39 minutes ago, chinapig said: How joined up are the key people I wonder? Tinnion wants an aggressive front foot style, Manning seems to prefer 'control '. It's been made clear we don't intend to spend lots this summer but Manning wants more, being particularly desperate to sign Twine. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out. @Exiled Robin ran a twitter spaces this morning. My point was our squad next season is gonna be a bit of an unknown until 1) we get to see retained list (end of this week hopefully according to TR and LM), then 2) hiw we deal with ins and outs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 39 minutes ago, Davefevs said: @Exiled Robin ran a twitter spaces this morning. My point was our squad next season is gonna be a bit of an unknown until 1) we get to see retained list (end of this week hopefully according to TR and LM), then 2) hiw we deal with ins and outs. The big ones are Conway and Williams for me. They will understandably in no rush, waiting to see what offers they get, specially TC. That puts us at a disadvantage as to how long we wait, something that Manning eluded to . With luck these will have an idea where they want to be next season, and we can push for decisions. The incomings are easier to target and we can contact Clubs. It would be good if we can get all the business done in time for Pre-season . Not always straight forward . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 Just now, 1960maaan said: The big ones are Conway and Williams for me. They will understandably in no rush, waiting to see what offers they get, specially TC. That puts us at a disadvantage as to how long we wait, something that Manning eluded to . With luck these will have an idea where they want to be next season, and we can push for decisions. The incomings are easier to target and we can contact Clubs. It would be good if we can get all the business done in time for Pre-season . Not always straight forward . I’d add Pring to TC and JW. 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.