The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

50 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Weren't AC Milan banned from European competition for a year?

Indeed they were. Europa Leàgue I think, initially UEFA wanted a two year ban but there was some kind of settlement, whereby AC Milan took a 1 year ban and they weren't too bothered as it brought some time to restructure wise.

One aspect I recall that wasn't exactly reported over here was that AC Milan were demanding at the CAS the Balance Sheets of a range of clubs they had suspicions about, maybe that persuaded UEFA that an Agreed Settlement might be best...

Will try and find the articles from the time but they were keen to use them as evidence in their case. They might have been two separate cases but definitely remember AC Milan being keen on comparative evidence at some stage.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I saw a bit about Stoke in the Football League Paper on Sunday, pertaining to FFP.

Alex Neil:

"The fact is that we have got to make sure that by the end of the season we are within the Financial Fair Play rules.

"That's important. But we haven't got a transfer embargo, we can sign players if we want,  but by the end if the season we've gotto make sure we abide by the rules.

"That won't be a concern because whatever we need to do to make sure we stay within the rules, we'll get there".

Three quick takeaways here:

1) Are us and Stoke being treated in exactly the same manner by the EFL in this area? I have my doubts but it could also be self-restraint on our part taken to huge lengths, certainly when set against Stoke

I reckon they have a similar turnover to us post Parachute Payments, this is Year 2 on Championship money yet they signed 6- yes count them, SIX- PL loanees this summer.

2) He references the end of the season. Is an in-season deduction for a breach in fact a paper tiger then? I would say that with a combination of rules, future info and favourable judgements the EFL have what is required to do so now. Done correctly, the new system should enable instant punishment moving forward.

3) 'Whatever it takes' or words to that effect. Does this indicate more attempts at loopholes? They've already sold ground and training ground, while seeking to add back and claim £56-57m in lost revenue and add-backs across 2019-20 and 2020-21. EFL or the new body for this, need to go hard, for the good of the game.

On the one hand, there are some Derby vibes about Stoke, FFP not solvency, otoh they are much more transparent and it definitely won't be a solvency or bill dodging issue. There also appears ro be a fair rent for the 2021 transaction (whether it's paper or cash I'm not so bothered, so long as it is itemised correctly as an expense and so on).

Edited September 5, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Not City related, not even Championship related as such.

Bit of a grudge match today though...Derby v Wycombe at Pride Park.

It's an unlikely rivalry but it rose owing to FFP, Couhig in particular will be unpopular among Derby fans- wonder if that is all settled at last?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Not City or even Championship related but I see Man United lost £115.5m last season!?

A year with no Covid restrictions...

Kudos to Off the Pitch too, for they predicted a loss of £117m- very close that! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Something interesting- or could be nothing- in respect of Stoke and FFP. Noticed a few docs on Companies House.

Plus.

'Philip Norman Rawlins'.

The way I wonder whether FFP might play some kind of role here is in respect of £50m in equity stuck in and how the equity fits into Covid losses with the EFL regs.

Stoke City FC and Stoke City Holdings have the full 5 documents.

 

[chinapig]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Not City or even Championship related but I see Man United lost £115.5m last season!?

A year with no Covid restrictions...

Kudos to Off the Pitch too, for they predicted a loss of £117m- very close that! 

Revenue up (as you would expect post Covid) by £89.1m to £583m.

Wage bill up £61.6m to £384.2m.

Debt up from £419.5m to £514.9m.

Dividends paid £33.6m.

Just as well they won all those trophies last season.

Edited September 22, 2022 by chinapig

[Mr Popodopolous]

To follow up what I mentioned elsewhere .

Had a quick look at Fulham and did it initially in 2017-18, the year of their PL return before the most recent 2, and in that year Parachutes v Solidarity and sure because of them being in the playoffs and winning them maybe add a couple of million but I estimate that season they had a £15m TV revenue advantage that year, or at least the £10-15m bracket.

I estimate a £40-45m gap from 2015-16 to 2017-18.

Meant they could spend £40-45m more on amortisation and wages solely due to the two tier TV revenue system in that period of time. Alternatively, meant £40-45m in Profit on disposal or wage abd amortsation savings that they could otherwise have had to generate.

Might have a look at a few tbh. Will try not to include those in the PL, but ideally relegated and down for 3 seasons and especially if promoted in the final year. Aston Villa and Stoke will be two quite interesting ones IMO.

Edited September 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just checked Aston Villa too.

£80-85m in the 3 year period from 2016-2017 to 2018-19. Granted some of their 2016-17 splurge didn't benefit them that much at all but it gave them oh so much headroom.

Maybe they had a 3 year FFP loss of £33-35m to 2019 so if we work down and adjust accordingly a bit, then their 3 year advantage was 'only' in the £74-81m bracket!

Stoke...another one who despite such advantages have used methods of dubious merit to try and align themselves with FFP.

What a big advantage and again they squandered a good chunk of it, £80-90m more in the period from 2018-19 to 2020-21! This is complicated  by Covid and as such in this instance, the fair test would be to 2021-22 in which case the £80-90m advantage is over 'just' 4 years rather than 3 on one level.

Never wish to hear a Stoke fan, a Cardiff fan as we may have seen in the past, a Fulham fan if they stay down for a few years, an Aston Villa fan likewise if they were to have dropped and stayed down under the current system moan about the unfairness of the Parachute Payments system. Never!

You might be interested in these @Midred I'd never really considered just how big the Parachute gap can be.

Edited September 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Wow, Man United's losses are worse than I thought! Worse than initially reported.

Seems that the £115.5m figure was loss after tax, deferred tax losses made the accounts look better but seems that their actual pre tax loss was £150m??

In a season of full capacity?

UEFA FFP was quite strict at €30m in 3 years, clearly Covid adjustments plus the rollup 2 in 1 and allowances but I do wonder...sure Swiss Ramble's thread will explain all. FFP of course is measured by profit or loss before tax.

 

Edit: He certainly doesn't think they have breached, although can they truly quantify losses of £152m in 2 seasons, that being net of savings. Gross would be £204m across the 2 seasons.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wow, Man United's losses are worse than I thought! Worse than initially reported.

Seems that the £115.5m figure was loss after tax, deferred tax losses made the accounts look better but seems that their actual pre tax loss was £150m??

In a season of full capacity?

UEFA FFP was quite strict at €30m in 3 years, clearly Covid adjustments plus the rollup 2 in 1 and allowances but I do wonder...sure Swiss Ramble's thread will explain all. FFP of course is measured by profit or loss before tax.

 

Edit: He certainly doesn't think they have breached, although can they truly quantify losses of £152m in 2 seasons, that being net of savings. Gross would be £204m across the 2 seasons.

And according to Kieran Maguire the Glazers also paid themselves record dividends. So rewarded for failure on and off the pitch.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Juventus definitely should be up before the beak, I see they lost €254m in 2021-22??

Italy may have had some Covid restrictions sure but more punishment for period ending 2021-22 surely??

They failed and got fined for the period ending 2021-22. Settlemrnt agreements can with UEFA FFP but I wouldn't have thought a loss of that level would be remotely acceptable.

That's a cop out and a half, the Settlement Agreement for those clubs deemed in breach at some point during Covid, appears not even to cover last season??

If it did, Juventus in FFP terms would need to make a profit of €150m over the next 3 seasons, or averaging €50m a season! Bits of the Settlement Agreement don't make much sense.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bristol Rob]

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Birmingham's results are out via HKSE.

Appear to have made a loss of £24-25m last season. (Pre FFP, pre Covid etc).

Fine to 2022 but what about to the current season? Well maybe...that double year averaged into 1, with Bellingham sold in 2020-21 and Adams in 2019-20 should help them.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Plus Newcastle- maybe go there to get some relatively cheap loanees.

Hendrick- On loan at Reading ,reportedly Newcastle covering the bulk of that!

Hayden- Okay Newcastle covering all but £20k per week but not comparable given PL revenue, Parachute Payments, retained profit etc.

Gayle- On £60k per week, Stoke covering just 1/3 of that.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I might add, having had a bit of a closer look.

Birmingham City FC total operating costs for the season seem to be around £45m, maybe at tops £45-50m depending on what the profit on transfer was last season. It's in HK$ of course...

I think from memory, ours was £60m in the 2020-21 season, ie Bristol City Holdings. Birmingham's turnover surely didn't exceed £20m last season, maybe a bit less.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I am looking at other clubs and banging a bit of a drum again. Interested on the thoughts of others as to whether we are getting exact and fair, equal and equitable treatment financially speaking in respect of application of the regulations:

Birmingham

Judging by their 2021-22 accounts via HKSE might fail this season although there maybe exemptions as St Andrews is in a bit of disrepair with some stands unavailable, but anyway they might be on track to fail this season. Some have left ie Pedersen, Sunjic and some Spanish players...Woods too...

However in have come the following!

Ruddy on a free and Chong on an undisclosed albeit long deal spreads amortisation.

Plus loans for:

Sanderson (Wolves)

Trusty (Arsenal)

Longelo (West Ham)

Mejbri (Man United)

Plus a loan for Bielik, a Poland internarional Derby signed from Arsenal pre Covid.

I don't have such an issue with Birmingham when set against the next one...

Stoke

In 2020-21, this was the final year of Parachute Payments, and last season they moved onto Championship revenues. Yes Collins was sold for £12m so £12m in profit them but there was no repeat of the one-off gain in 2020-21 of the Stadium and training ground profit of £32m.

Annual market rent should have been added moving forward FFP purposes too as with all other transactions of this kind and while I believe the wage bill dropped it was £50m in 2020-21.

Stoke traded some players sure and seemingly have made some strong efforts but...added the following.

2021-22- notable additions

Permanent

Wilmot- Watford

Vrancic- Free

Baker- Chelsea

Surridge- Bournemouth (though he was sold in January 2022).

Loan

Ostigard- Brighton (ended January)

Sawyers- WBA (season-long)

Sima- Brighton (season-long)

Harwood-Bellis- Man City (January to summer 2022)

Philogene-Bidace- Aston Villa (January to summer 2022)

Maja- Bordeaux (January to summer 2022).

Moore- Reading (January to summer 2022). Earns about £30k per week at Reading, albeit was a straight swap with Ince!

Unlike with Collins, there can't have been a significant transfer profit this summer. Some perhaps, some savings sure but remember 2nd year post Parachutes plus the cost of replacing O'Neil with Neil and paying off Holden.

2022-23- notable additions

Gayle- Free, Newcastle (reportedly paying £20k per week).

Loan- all season-long

Clarke- Arsenal

Sterling- Chelsea

Kilkenny- Bournemouth

Smallbone- Southampton

Fosu- Brentford

Delap- Man City

Now Stoke don't strike me as a club post Parachutes as being likely to have an income so different to ours.

I am very interested in what people think, in the context of Stoke especially, are we getting a fair crack competition wise??

Or is it that Stoke seem to be getting afforded unfair advantages when set against most of the division. The future monitoring rules to prevent a breach are now in place and I assume that all clubs are subject to them. I believe that we might be under them.

@Davefevs @Hxj 

@billywedlock has mentioned competition law in the past too.

@downendcity @GrahamC A LOT of PL, recent PL or higher division loanees there...must cost a packet no??

@ExiledAjax too

 Not a single loanee for us in 4 windows iirc or 2 years ie since end of summer 2020 window.

Fully cognisant of their facts in terms of their covid claims and attempts to remove costs etc but we are labouring enormously and this contrast is truly stark.

On a side note, though Swansea clearly well-run do they really have a bottom 6 budget?? That was the claim and EFL highlights suggested similar on Saturday. (Not an FFP q, more wow they're overachieving majorly if so).

Edited October 10, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

There will be other examples too. Reading although significantly improved...

...Under a Business Plan with a suspended -6 over them which can be triggered for several reasons but would not mitigate against or substitute a punishment for a further breach, again Stoke are surely taking the piss more than many but...Rafael, Moore and Puscas going in January probably helped too, permanently in 1 case, loan in the other 2. Managed to loan Puscas again this summer.

They did though under the Business Plan last year, add on loan- Olise going for £8-9m profit helped however!

Rahman and Drinkwater from Chelsea (hugely subsidised, maybe gratis).

Dele-Bashiru from Watford, loan again.

Carroll on a short term, cheap freebie.

This year- no big sale yet so how they eat into the inevitable Operating losses Idk...maybe departures did the job in bringing the wage bill down further and remember that the EFL have to approve incoming deals so they must be compliant or set to be! Anyway....

Rahman- Loan, Chelsea. Again hugely subsidised I'd suggest.

Hendrick- Loan, Newcastle. Reportedly Newcastle are paying 2/3 of wages for loanees or departures to the Championship.

Fornah from Nottingham Forest and Loum from Porto. They're very much fringe players tbh those too.

Carroll has also returned on a free.

Reading are no huge culprits post the breach to 2021 of course, but still I wonder about their FFP to 2022-23 given no big player sale yet.

I have a massive issue with the Stoke case and contrast in particular though.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

@Mr Popodopolous. I'm sorry, I don't really understand the question here?

[Mr Popodopolous]

28 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

@Mr Popodopolous. I'm sorry, I don't really understand the question here?

I'll try and clarify EA.

Are we being held to different standards in respect of the same FFP regs- or maybe are Stoke in particular getting better treatment than many?

In terms of monitoring, 'freedom to fail' etc.

Because it strikes me that the power in the transfer market under the same regs is very different.

Will respond to your other points more substantially later @billywedlock but I really do query whether us and then are being held to identical standards in respect of current FFP compliance and monitoring. I also am not sure the group wage bill is quite as low as you say, I am thinking £20-25m for this season once we include tax, NI and everything but it has come down substantially.

Stoke apparently and supposedly cut theirs from £50m > £27m in one season which I find hard to believe...does anyone else believe it?

Edited October 10, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

The Stoke issue is of great significance for all of the points you raise. It is quite clear we are close to our FFP limits based on the inability to sign the players (all) we wanted in the summer. We have made a substantial reduction in our wage bill , based on SL comments , it seems we have halved it vs 2 years ago. But yet we still have Kalas, Wells, JD and Bentley as notable earners, and constrained us from making signings, or even loan signings. I assume going forward we will be aiming for an 18/20M salary budget, but of course spread out over more players, enabling the club to have the squad depth it currently lacks. It is slightly farcical to think of the disparity with the Prem league , which is only getting worse and wider. Whilst getting the top flight to change substantially in terms of income, football should, and needs to make other structural changes. By that, I mean limiting squad sizes through the age groups, because we have a ridiculous amount of player stockpiling at the top. If you reduce this, it forces the players further through the system and down through the leagues. The other area, is loans. There are too many loans (you can say we are guilty of that too) . But the facial situation at Chelsea this summer when Tuchel was claiming he had no players, when the club had spent 100 M on a centre forward the previous year and sent him out on loan, is the tip of the ludicrous loan iceberg. Moving back to short term loans , season long loans allow a team to build a side around a player for a season, is wrong. We have Watford loaning players between the owners teams, again, wrong. Or the Reading scenario with Chelsea. 3 loans , for short periods, 3 months max, allows some coverage in times of difficulty , some development for the player, but does not completely create an imbalance in a squad strength for the teams playing the system . To bing close to home, if we had funds , access to loans, would Scott have ever had the opportunities that he has had ? This is where the instant success , demanded all through the leagues has created a system where there is little patience or incentive to build a team or club. In any case, if football is not going to tear itself apart in this country, there needs to be substantial change to create a more level and competitive sporting environment. It ill only end one way with the current direction. I remain a strong supporter of some important USA sports management ideals. Sporting integrity is essential, despite that being a minor interest of the people making decisions, and why a regulator , who should have been the FA , needs appointing and significant change sought. It is all lip service and until now, zero substance despite the bluster. 

Wonderful post

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Steve L said on RB we are substantially below £20 m and closer to £18m as a wage bill. I assume he was talking total wage bill as he was referencing a salary cap in the Championship. 

I am always a bit cautious about these figures, there are many categories and aspects to the wage bill...Foorball costs portion of AGL + Club in its entirety including Women's, Youth, Non Football staff (will cross over with AGL) + the bonuses then the tax and NI aspect.

In other words do you take the top line or do you take the figure after all of the above as the benchmark. The other bit, was SL referring to the club or the Group?

Think salary cap doesn't necessarily cover non football but happy to look into that side again.

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I am always a bit cautious about these figures, there are many categories and aspects to the wage bill...Foorball costs portion of AGL + Club in its entirety including Women's, Youth, Non Football staff (will cross over with AGL) + the bonuses then the tax and NI aspect.

In other words do you take the top line or do you take the figure after all of the above as the benchmark. The other bit, was SL referring to the club or the Group?

Think salary cap doesn't necessarily cover non football but happy to look into that side again.

If we follow the SCMP logic re salary cap:

Reading the above and taking a football club wage bill of £30.25m (20/21) and expecting that to be reduced last season to £24m (21/22), I can imagine the “qualifying” player wages to be 3/4s of that so around the £18m mark.

That would mean turnover would need to be £20m to be the year 1 90%.  I fully expect that to be the case even when Holding Company hospitality minus direct costs is added to the football club revenue that peaked at £17.7m in 18/19.  That is not to say it might find a new peak.

[ExiledAjax]

34 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Are we being held to different standards in respect of the same FFP regs- or maybe are Stoke in particular getting better treatment than many?

My understanding is that the answer to this is that each club is dealt with individually. So, whilst the same rules and regulations are applied, they may well be applied in a different manner depending on the precise circumstances that each club is in, and on t precise manner that each club explains those circumstances.

So no we should not be held to different standards, but we could be held to the same standards in a different way.

For example Stoke included their £30m "lost transfer revenue" in their actual accounts. We did not, and instead submitted a claim based on similar grounds in a more informal way. So there is a difference in circumstances and method of submission and so there will be a difference, perhaps only slight, in application.

Honestly I don't actually see much wrong in that scenario, even if it ends up with us being disadvantaged.

37 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Because it strikes me that the power in the transfer market under the same regs is very different.

Quite possibly so. But power in the market is subject to forces beyond the financial regulations. Reading take Chelsea's loanees for reasons beyond just being financially able. If Reading are happy to be Chelsea's stud then so be it, but I'm glad we aren't acting as Villa, Wolves or Bournemouth's loan stable.

I agree with @billywedlock's overall assessment of the grand picture of the loan system (and football in general), but I'm not sure I see the issues that you do regarding the particular loans and clubs that you cite.

[Mr Popodopolous]

29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

If we follow the SCMP logic re salary cap:

Reading the above and taking a football club wage bill of £30.25m (20/21) and expecting that to be reduced last season to £24m (21/22), I can imagine the “qualifying” player wages to be 3/4s of that so around the £18m mark.

That would mean turnover would need to be £20m to be the year 1 90%.  I fully expect that to be the case even when Holding Company hospitality minus direct costs is added to the football club revenue that peaked at £17.7m in 18/19.  That is not to say it might find a new peak.

I can sort of agree with that, that is though perhaps an issue for next year onwards and it's inclusive of football wages, amortisation of players and agents fees iirc but there was also some mention of transfer profit.

I still think that once we include everything it's likely £20-25m this season in BCH. All staff, tax, NI, bonuses, pension contributions- the works.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

My understanding is that the answer to this is that each club is dealt with individually. So, whilst the same rules and regulations are applied, they may well be applied in a different manner depending on the precise circumstances that each club is in, and on t precise manner that each club explains those circumstances.

So no we should not be held to different standards, but we could be held to the same standards in a different way.

For example Stoke included their £30m "lost transfer revenue" in their actual accounts. We did not, and instead submitted a claim based on similar grounds in a more informal way. So there is a difference in circumstances and method of submission and so there will be a difference, perhaps only slight, in application.

Honestly I don't actually see much wrong in that scenario, even if it ends up with us being disadvantaged.

Truthfully I'm not that bothered about Reading right now and will explain why in the reply to your 2nd bit. Stoke are my massive bugbear at this moment, the others are sort of secondary or ongoing, for another day.

I strongly suspect that they have a similar turnover to us. Yes the Collins profit has undoubtedly helped and even if we accept the Covid claims in relation to lost transfer profit in Year 2 and Impairment in Year 1 (which should not be), in a post Parachute world with FFP being applied even handedly how on earth are they making all of these additions without restriction.

What Stoke did was slightly different...

In 2019-20, they included £30m impairment as a Covid cost. This has a dual effect of removing it from future obligations and removing a loss on disposal should players depart on a free.

In 2020-21, I think it was around £11m thay they have sought to 'add-backs in lost transfer profit due to Covid 'Yeah we would have sold these players 'but Covid'".

Double bubble!

I do! I very much do.

Because we have done everything reasonable from summer 2021, whereas they have used it witn perhaps some dodgily freed headroom to run forward and sign the players I listed!

Both methods is what they have done and seeking to not just write off but eliminate future impairment aka amortisation is something that Derby stood accused of in one of their many cases. EFL believed that they were seeking to bundle it up with goodwill in the 2019 new group accounts.

Now this is far more transparent but the desired outcome is the same.

6 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Quite possibly so. But power in the market is subject to forces beyond the financial regulations. Reading take Chelsea's loanees for reasons beyond just being financially able. If Reading are happy to be Chelsea's stud then so be it, but I'm glad we aren't acting as Villa, Wolves or Bournemouth's loan stable.

I agree with @billywedlock's overall assessment of the grand picture of the loan system (and football in general), but I'm not sure I see the issues that you do regarding the particular loans and clubs that you cite.

Reading have taken some medicine, -6, a further -6 suspended, this that and the other- Business Plan etc.

Stoke seem like a real line in the sand, on one hand much more transparent, otoh every bit as egregious as Derby.

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I can sort of agree with that, that is though perhaps an issue for next year onwards and it's inclusive of football wages, amortisation of players and agents fees iirc but there was also some mention of transfer profit.

I still think that once we include everything it's likely £20-25m this season in BCH. All staff, tax, NI, bonuses, pension contributions- the works.

If we are under a salary cap methodology in 23/24, then you are right that Amortisation is included in the UEFA method.  Luckily for us, at my current projection (for 23/24) that is only £1.1m and less again in 24/25. It was up in the £13m range previously!  No mean feat to bring that down.

We don’t have to worry about salary cap this season…unless I’ve missed something?

Wages of AG Ltd (BCH) are irrelevant, the UEFA regs specify players and one head coach / manager.  Plus we can add in any transfer profit (Scott and / or Semenyo) as you suggest.  You’d imagine there maybe some watering down of the rules in the Champ, e.g. players under 20 excluded, like for SCMP.

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

If we are under a salary cap methodology in 23/24, then you are right that Amortisation is included in the UEFA method.  Luckily for us, at my current projection (for 23/24) that is only £1.1m and less again in 24/25. It was up in the £13m range previously!  No mean feat to bring that down.

We don’t have to worry about salary cap this season…unless I’ve missed something?

Wages of AG Ltd (BCH) are irrelevant, the UEFA regs specify players and one head coach / manager.  Plus we can add in any transfer profit (Scott and / or Semenyo) as you suggest.  You’d imagine there maybe some watering down of the rules in the Champ, e.g. players under 20 excluded, like for SCMP.

We have done really well with this and could have some decent breathing space moving into next year.

Crossed wires on my part I think.

For next season sure, but the £39m in a 3 season (okay 2 separate and 2 into 1 combined with Covid) is still applicable to this year? Hence why I am including total BCH remuneration inclusive of everything as a starting point for my FFP guesswork to 2022-23.

Yes under 20's being excluded is a good shout.

I actually think that if the current £39m remained until the end of 2023-24 and the salary cap begun in 2024-25 then any or all of Birmingham, Stoke, West Brom, maybe Reading and potentially even Cardiff could have difficulties on the 3 year cycle to 2023-24 if they stay down of course.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Norwich making a £23.6m loss getting relegated.

https://www.canaries.co.uk/content/norwich-city-release-revamped-annual-report

Summary Report:

https://files.canaries.co.uk/canaries/AR2022.pdf

[ExiledAjax]

22 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Norwich making a £23.6m loss getting relegated.

https://www.canaries.co.uk/content/norwich-city-release-revamped-annual-report

Summary Report:

https://files.canaries.co.uk/canaries/AR2022.pdf

Happy to put what I DMd to you in the main thread I guess.

Nice report that really reinforces two things we know 1) being in the PL gets you loads of money and 2) selling players gets you loads of money.

Buendia being booked in 20/21 means £0 transfer profit for them. But then look at staff expenses and you see that when they're in the PL their wages nearly double.

But given the revenue they have a turnover:wage ratio of about 75% in a PL season, compared to 116% in an EFL season. So even though wages are half the income drops so much more that the ratio goes above 100%. Puts our position into perspective. Assuming they've a similar wage bill this season to the last time they were in the Championship they are running a wage bill very roughly 3x what our is!

Interesting stuff on governance reforms although light on detail. Overall though it gives an impression of a well run club that maximises it's current yoyo role.

Also - £6.4m in "loan player income". They loaned out 14 players in 21/22 according to transfermarkt, so very roughly £500k per loan. Tell that to anyone who thinks getting loans from the PL is cheap!!! That's loans from pissing Norwich ffs.

I'd be satisfied with that were I Norwich fan.

Edited October 17, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Also - £6.4m in "loan player income". They loaned out 14 players in 21/22 according to transfermarkt, so very roughly £500k per loan. Tell that to anyone who thinks getting loans from the PL is cheap!!! That's loans from pissing Norwich ffs.

The vast majority of that £6.4m came from:

suggests an average loan fee for Mumba, Hernandez, Hugill, Sinani, McCallum and Cantwell of £1m.

As you say, just why isn’t Nige going for loans to improve us!

@headhunter @Curr Avon - here’s a cracking example of why we can’t afford to get players of sufficient quality on loan.  I fully expect there is wage contribution on top too.  Worth bringing this up on a future FBC pod to balance the rhetoric.