1960maaan Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 2 minutes ago, Davefevs said: I’d add Pring to TC and JW. At least he's under contract for a while . I'd like him to sign longer though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 6 Author Report Share Posted May 6 (edited) 17 hours ago, Davefevs said: 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. Thanks Dave. Listening now.. bit curious that Tom Rawcliffe didn't mention Community Trust expenditure? As we and everyone on this thread knows we hope: *Depreciation (Plus Impairment) of Fixed Assets. *Youth Expenditure *Ladies Team Football Expenditure *Community Trust *Plus of course, Amortisation and Impairment of Intangible Assets excluding Player Related. Capital Spend is of course Balance Sheet and or Cash Flow in most instances albeit not always- some of the Everton Stadium expenditure appesred under Profit and Loss but most often it wouldn't hit the P&L anyway Edited May 6 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 7 Author Report Share Posted May 7 Had a quick look at the Swansea Accounts, the Parent ie Swansea City Football 2002. Pulled our a few key points. Their underlying loss was roughly in line with my expectations albeit I expected certain costs to fall more. Such as the wage bill- this barely fell. Amortisation continues to rise a bit. I assume there was a sell on for Piroe although it says nil weirdly for the prior. Anyway sell on and remaining Book value for Piroe would partially explain it but I assumed it would be a bit higher than £9.89m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 7 Report Share Posted May 7 Just Reading left who’ve extended. Have you got the staff numbers for Swansea MrP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 7 Author Report Share Posted May 7 1 hour ago, Davefevs said: Just Reading left who’ve extended. Have you got the staff numbers for Swansea MrP? That extension by Reading, I'm struggling to see what loophole they've used.. Ir wasn't reducing by a day whixh can extend by 3 months. It wasn't extending the Reporting Period to say end of September which would align with end of June. Clubs ans companies got an extra 3 months in the Covid years but that is long gone. Staff numbers Dave. I assume that wheb the club specific Accounts appear that will shed more light. I 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 7 Report Share Posted May 7 7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: That extension by Reading, I'm struggling to see what loophole they've used.. Ir wasn't reducing by a day whixh can extend by 3 months. It wasn't extending the Reporting Period to say end of September which would align with end of June. Clubs ans companies got an extra 3 months in the Covid years but that is long gone. Staff numbers Dave. I assume that wheb the club specific Accounts appear that will shed more light. I Ta, guessing it doesn’t exempt Reading for having to submit in normal timelines, so they’ll have to produce an interim set. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 8 Author Report Share Posted May 8 @Davefevs Swansea club specific out now. Mostly the same but wages and staff members slightly different on quick glance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted May 9 Report Share Posted May 9 On 05/05/2024 at 09:34, Mr Popodopolous said: 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. yeah add ons have to be included in any profit share/sell on %, otherwise you would hear about clubs just making deals 1m with 50m of add ons for his first start to dodge the payments 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 9 Author Report Share Posted May 9 6 minutes ago, Rob26 said: yeah add ons have to be included in any profit share/sell on %, otherwise you would hear about clubs just making deals 1m with 50m of add ons for his first start to dodge the payments Interesting, didn't know that- thanks. Bellingham Baseline Profit was 15% of £63m or similar based on reported fees then there were a clutch of not too difficult to hit add-ons. 15% of those? A bigger issue is Birmingham and their Related Party deal. That seems exorbitant at time of fee for a club who at point of agreement had not been in the PL since 2011 or even the top half of the Championship since 2015-16. Could say ah expensive flashy well attended Ground and Training Ground but St Andrews averaged between 15-20,000, sold for £22m and Wast Hills appears not to he a high end Training facility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 9 Author Report Share Posted May 9 (edited) I may have missed this one @Davefevs @chinapig @Hxj @ExiledAjax https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13396743/Championship-clubs-increase-permitted-lose-three-years-2-5m-following-rise-operational-costs-staff-wages.html Dunno how I feel about this one. Quite a few clubs have started spending a bit again so this seems to reward said expenditure. We cut back and showed restraint quite brutally, surely we didn't vote for this. Seemingly linked to operational and staff costs. Now appears without having read the article in depth to be £41.5m Upper Loss limit in 3 years. Also @downendcity Edited May 9 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 9 Report Share Posted May 9 1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I may have missed this one @Davefevs @chinapig @Hxj @ExiledAjax https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13396743/Championship-clubs-increase-permitted-lose-three-years-2-5m-following-rise-operational-costs-staff-wages.html Dunno how I feel about this one. Quite a few clubs have started spending a bit again so this seems to reward said expenditure. We cut back and showed restraint quite brutally, surely we didn't vote for this. Seemingly linked to operational and staff costs. Now appears without having read the article in depth to be £41.5m Upper Loss limit in 3 years. Also @downendcity Given them £2.5m per year in Tv deal (£7.5m over 3 years) and give them another £2.5m allowance too…£10m in total in effect. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 9 Author Report Share Posted May 9 32 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Given them £2.5m per year in Tv deal (£7.5m over 3 years) and give them another £2.5m allowance too…£10m in total in effect. Seems like it is being framed as more of a offsetting losses this £2.5m however it will ultimately increase by £10m as you say. IMO the £2.5m per year less the potential impact on attendances, ST sales, Matchday Revenue etc caused by he new TV deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted May 9 Report Share Posted May 9 2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Dunno how I feel about this one. Not one to worry about. It's a private members' club. The members can set the rules as they like and can also set the punishments for failure as they see fit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 9 Author Report Share Posted May 9 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Hxj said: Not one to worry about. It's a private members' club. The members can set the rules as they like and can also set the punishments for failure as they see fit. Well yes, if it hits the majority threshold- rising tides lift all boats. It is a shame that the Football League via the CFRP couldn't nail Leicester although we debated this before and you thought that a sanction based on a 3rd year in-season Projection may not be so fair. I wonder why they couldn't refer that to the CFRP this season. Edited May 9 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted May 14 Report Share Posted May 14 chelsea fire sale needed before june, and/or likely they will be purchasing a training ground from themselves https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/man-utd-chelsea-liverpool-ffp-32798200 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 14 Author Report Share Posted May 14 (edited) Chelsea I get, Man United I've been tracking their Accounts with some interest- Q3 is due out soon. Liverpool though?? That is hard to fathom how they could've gone from low risk to risk just like that. Cat 1 Academy, Ladies Team, Community Expenditure also deductible as well as the obvious £11,362,000 and £12,137,000 in Depreciation. Edited May 14 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted May 14 Report Share Posted May 14 i've not checked or looked into the numbers, but I think it was working on the assumptions of next seasons limited, but then factoring in the 5x bottom team spending cap, which maybe why you got liverpool down as good to go to them saying if them rules get passed with the cap in them then they are now close. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 14 Author Report Share Posted May 14 Ah that one thanks, I was still stuck in the 3 year Rolling mindset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted May 16 Report Share Posted May 16 On 14/05/2024 at 10:41, Mr Popodopolous said: Ah that one thanks, I was still stuck in the 3 year Rolling mindset. also thinking about how the media works they are probs fine but good to drag another major supported team into the headline for clicks :laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted May 16 Report Share Posted May 16 (edited) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13425615/Leeds-raise-100MILLION-player-sales-fail-win-promotion-Premier-League.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_dailymailsport think the 100m would only be to balance the books, given you have amortisation and profit from sales to factor in for ffp. how far out do u think they really are Edited May 16 by Rob26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 16 Author Report Share Posted May 16 (edited) Interesting article albeit I'm unsure in respect of some of the workings?? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13425615/Leeds-raise-100MILLION-player-sales-fail-win-promotion-Premier-League.html If it is taking Operating Losses in isolation then it doesn't take account of a) Sales this season and or any loan fees added b) Are they extrapolating in a bit of a lazy way because £20m in Player Impairment may not have been repeated tbis year. Of course there would be a hole to fill, via Player Sales and cost savings plus the future looking element of EFL FFP could pose an issue but £100m just doesn't seem fully accurate. Significant hole yeah but not £100m in sales worth IMO. Edited May 16 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 17 Author Report Share Posted May 17 Norwich could be interesting from an FFP angle now they have lost in the playoffs. Some probable higher earners in Gibson and Giannoulis out of contract this summer granted. What a cost base for a Year 1 Parachute yet non Promoted club?? Costs will have fallen, Transfer Profit up but Parachute Payments down £5-10m. Their Upper Loss limit to this year was £61m plus Allowables. Clearly they should be fine there but.. As we can see Parachute Payments plus regular EFL distributions came to £48m or so..that plus Solidarity will be £12-13m I reckon. That Upper Loss Limit to this year of £61m plus Allowables becomes £39m plus Allowables to 2024-25. Albeit effectively add £2.5m to the headroom for all clubs due to that recent vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 17 Report Share Posted May 17 (edited) @Mr Popodopolous think their recruitment approach of free transfers (maybe on good wages) last summer was very telling. Edited May 17 by Davefevs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted Saturday at 11:33 Author Report Share Posted Saturday at 11:33 21 hours ago, Davefevs said: @Mr Popodopolous think their recruitment approach of free transfers (maybe on good wages) last summer was very telling. I'd say so Dave. An element of contingency planning but not sure how much wages and amortisation fall..£10m maybe? Obviously player sales were £20m plus profit wise but an issue to 2024-25 and perhaps beyond given the T+2 stuff. Parachutes down £5-10m and that on a loss of £27m pre tax. Said it before but neither them or West Brom are historically profligate, not at all- can probably add Swansea to that yet the fact they can run up such losses just because the model is as it is..another indicator that the model is broken. Fulham losing £57m in a Promotion Year yeah that is to be expected even Year 1 of Parachutes. Club like Norwich £27m albeit midtable..big seachange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted Monday at 10:08 Report Share Posted Monday at 10:08 norwich are in a mad place for spending, if delia does not want to lose control (as she has let the other shareholder match her at 40% shares each) she either has to match his outside investment (to avoid his being converted to shares and giving him control), reject his investment or let him borrow the club money. and borrowing the club money could well lead to it being converted to equity if the club cannot pay it out. so be interesting to see how that plays out, as if you were just wanting paying out the club your likley to just sell most your shares rather than let someone match your shares. I suppose depending who owns the other 20% he could maybe get control without her letting him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted Monday at 11:26 Report Share Posted Monday at 11:26 1 hour ago, Rob26 said: norwich are in a mad place for spending, if delia does not want to lose control (as she has let the other shareholder match her at 40% shares each) she either has to match his outside investment (to avoid his being converted to shares and giving him control), reject his investment or let him borrow the club money. and borrowing the club money could well lead to it being converted to equity if the club cannot pay it out. so be interesting to see how that plays out, as if you were just wanting paying out the club your likley to just sell most your shares rather than let someone match your shares. I suppose depending who owns the other 20% he could maybe get control without her letting him. Do you mean borrowing or lending? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted Monday at 21:37 Author Report Share Posted Monday at 21:37 WBA reportedly losing £2m per month covered by the new owner but I think this maybe Cash Losses and or equity. In terms of Losses Before Tax I've seen £30-35m this season suggested a few months back?? That could check out to some extent what with the lack of Parachute Payments into EFL cash, lower Profit on Disposal vs Wages falling, no Bruce sacking repeated etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted Tuesday at 08:51 Report Share Posted Tuesday at 08:51 21 hours ago, Bristol Rob said: Do you mean borrowing or lending? like the club borrowing from the shareholder Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Nottingham Forest Finances 2022/23 Chequeless Reckless SWISS RAMBLE MAY 21 ∙ PREVIEW READ IN APP So Nottingham Forest have retained their status in England’s top flight after two victories in their last three games left them six points clear of the relegation zone. This was achieved despite a 4-point deduction for breaching the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR), which was confirmed after the club was unsuccessful in its appeal, Their fans will believe that justice has been done, as Forest did enough on the pitch to ensure survival, while others might argue that this successful campaign was only made possible by the financial excesses that resulted in the club failing to comply with the PSR targets. Whatever your point of view, let’s take a look at Forest’s accounts for the 2022/23 season, which was a record breaker in many ways, as the club by the Trent saw Premier League football for the first time after 23 long years. Having led the club to promotion, manager Steve Cooper also guided Forest to safety, but the Welshman was dismissed last December, replaced by the experienced Portuguese Nuno Espirito Santo. Profit/(Loss) 2022/23 Forest’s pre-tax loss widened by £21m from £46m to £67m, despite revenue shooting up £125m from £30m to a club record £155m following promotion to the Premier League, as this was eaten up by operating expenses rising £135m in the top flight. In addition, net interest payable significantly increased from £1m to £10m, while profit from player sales dropped from £4m to £3m. The main driver of Forest’s revenue growth was broadcasting, which rose a staggering £113m from £12m to £125m, due to the far more lucrative Premier League deal (ten times as much as in the Championship). There was also good growth in the other revenue streams, especially commercial, which more than doubled from £9.3m to £18.9m, while match day increased by a third, rising £2.8m from £8.2m to £11.0m. However, after so long outside the top flight, Forest had to significantly invest in the squad “to give the team the best opportunity to compete in the Premier League”. As a result, Forest’s wages rose £86m from £59m to £145m, while player amortisation increased by £34m from just £7m to £41m. In addition, other expenses more than doubled from £13m to £28m. Although Forest’s £67m loss is far from ideal, it’s worth noting that this was by no means the worst result in last season’s Premier League, as no fewer than seven clubs posted larger deficits, namely Aston Villa £120m, Tottenham £95m, Chelsea £90m, Leicester City £90m, Everton £89m, Southampton £87m and Newcastle United £73m 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted Wednesday at 16:01 Author Report Share Posted Wednesday at 16:01 This is a little misleading. If only we had a football wage bill higher than Stoke. No our £35-36m includes the £9m+ of Ashton Gate Limited events related stuff and it includes a 13rh month. The true underlying annualised wage bill was £24m or thereabouts and maybe £20-21m this season- £22m tops if we factor in managerial changes etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted Wednesday at 16:08 Author Report Share Posted Wednesday at 16:08 (edited) In fairness to the poster, Kieran Maguire did post the wage bills and ours was when taking the consolidated on face value some £35.951,565. Not all clubs aggregate it out quite like that but our non football big is high due to the number of events. Whereas Stoke e.g. fiddle agree with Bet365 and possibly sponsorship doesn't come with such associated costs. They will have events too but a breakdown would be interesting. Edited Wednesday at 16:11 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.