The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Don’t forget we can publish accounts at any point until the 28th Feb 2023, FFP Reporting for cycle ending 22/23 will be based on projections submitted in March 2023.

So even if we publish tomorrow, EFL can’t really confirm anything until March, apart from if 21/22s are so bad we are retrospectively busting the cycle that ended last season, which we know a £28m loss won’t do.  So don’t expect our accounts to be issued with any statement from the EFL, the cycles aren’t aligned.

That's true enough and yeah I wouldn't expect an in-season breach even if the worst did happen- it would be unprecedented.

I'm just keen as always to see how much we have allocated or sought to allocate to transfer add-backs. Definitely our verifiable Covid losses will exceed £5m x 2 and £2.5-m...£15-20m in the combined Covid period and £2.5m last season maybe.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That's true enough and yeah I wouldn't expect an in-season breach even if the worst did happen- it would be unprecedented.

I'm just keen as always to see how much we have allocated or sought to allocate to transfer add-backs. Definitely our verifiable Covid losses will exceed £5m x 2 and £2.5-m...£15-20m in the combined Covid period and £2.5m last season maybe.

We might not ever know…unless the specify each element of allowances.

[Mr Popodopolous]

 

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We might not ever know…unless the specify each element of allowances.

That's true, would be kinda disappointing if not in particular the transfer add-back bit.

If I was to hazard a guess.

Total Net revenue loss ie after cost savings across the two Covid seasons- £15m.

Obviously £2.5m last season.

Transfer add-backs...£30m was mentioned early on. £10m in each of Covid seasons and a further £10m last season?

Therefore takes us to £35m in total.

T-2= £1.5m loss

T-1= £10.5m loss

T...well we can make a P&S Loss of £27m this season.

Mix of pure guesswork and media mentioned numbers.

Or maybe?

All £30m of lost transfer add-backs in the 2 Covid seasons.

Add that to the whole £5m x 2 for FFP and the same again for Covid.

T-2= £1m FFP profit

T-1= £20.5m FFP loss

Therefore the target for 'T' is an FFP Loss not exceeding £19.5m...yes the £2.5m 2021-22 Covid allowance drops off so maybe a little to do.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

33 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

That's true, would be kinda disappointing if not in particular the transfer add-back bit.

If I was to hazard a guess.

Total Net revenue loss ie after cost savings across the two Covid seasons- £15m.

Obviously £2.5m last season.

Transfer add-backs...£30m was mentioned early on. £10m in each of Covid seasons and a further £10m last season?

Therefore takes us to £35m in total.

T-2= £1.5m loss

T-1= £10.5m loss

T...well we can make a P&S Loss of £27m this season.

Mix of pure guesswork and media mentioned numbers.

Or maybe?

All £30m of lost transfer add-backs in the 2 Covid seasons.

Add that to the whole £5m x 2 for FFP and the same again for Covid.

T-2= £1m FFP profit

T-1= £20.5m FFP loss

Therefore the target for 'T' is an FFP Loss not exceeding £19.5m...yes the £2.5m 2021-22 Covid allowance drops off so maybe a little to do.

I think the £30m was based on looking at the previous 5 years:

…total of £80-odd million and then taking 2 years average….£30-odd million.

[Mr Popodopolous]

29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think the £30m was based on looking at the previous 5 years:

…total of £80-odd million and then taking 2 years average….£30-odd million.

Tend to agree. Was having a think about it earlier and came to a roughly similar conclusion.

In a fully functioning market Diedhiou is the obvious and we may well have got more for Nagy and Eliasson but it still seems ropey overall to me, certainly the £30m figure.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

While we wait for the accounts to drop it's all moot ultimately and even then we may not know the full picture depending on what the Bristol City Holdings accounts disclose- or don't!

Still the concept of lost transfer revenue add-backs does interest me, we and some others have done this- as well as Nottingham Forest projecting it, see also Stoke in 2020-21, and in the PL Everton and Aston Villa.

The latter selling Grealish for £100m would probably mitigate against any challenge to that part of their add-backs ie even if challenged they probably would be okay FFP wise due to the aforementioned Grealish sale.

I digress but it's an interesting debate IMO- we certainly used Gain on disposal of Player Registrations (a type of Intangible asset) as away of underpinning our growing cost base within FFP/P&S but Gain on Disposal is not revenue...

"Lost revenues". Gain on disposal is just that, a gain on disposal...I'd also argue that Impairment of Intangible assets..can in no way be classed as a revenue. A cost maybe. A Covid excludable? Very suspect.

Gains on disposal are neither included in Operating Profit nor EBITDA. I question whether add-backs of this nature sit within FRS 102. (The gain on disposal bit, not the lost revenue). Nothing in the regs seems to specify lost profits merely lost revenues.

Of course revenue and profit feed into each other in this instance fee minus book value=gain/loss on disposal but seems difficult to prove I think. Perhaps difficult to disprove as well but who would the onus fall on to prove their case in this scenario- a club or Governing body?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had another quick look at Stoke again and this bit I find interesting. Wasn't really covered on any analysis afaik and indeed wonder if we utilised it in 2021-22, or if any Covid numbers reworked between then and now.

It appears not to have been paid during financial year/season 2020-21 so interested to see how or when it's accounted for...might have to rework my Stoke projections up or down.

Edited November 16, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Not strictly FFP but good news for Coventry.

Looks like SISU are selling up. As we discussed on here before, they probably work to the lower limit or close to- no equity or a minimum between lower and higher limits.

That combined with a club in a fairly good place financially AND doing well on the pitch, could give a new owner a decent platform to push the boat out.

He might also be looking to buy the ground- with Wasps collapsing unsure who owns it tbh.

Edited November 16, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

35 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Not strictly FFP but good news for Coventry.

Looks like SISU are selling up. As we discussed on here before, they probably work to the lower limit or close to- no equity or a minimum between lower and higher limits.

That combined with a club in a fairly good place financially AND doing well on the pitch, could give a new owner a decent platform to push the boat out.

He might also be looking to buy the ground- with Wasps collapsing unsure who owns it tbh.

Ah, I just created a new topic on this.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Norwich the latest to submit their accounts albeit still pending at CH.

Although they usually submit early and was on their site in late October. Made a loss last seadon but well clear of FFP albeit perhaps maybe working at or closer to the lower limit.

3 weeks now since Fans Forum. I do wonder if we are refusing to release until we know or are sufficiently satisfied anyway that the EFL have accepted our Covid numbers in full and without recourse- in particular the specifics of the transfer add-backs.

Granted 103 days until they are legally due out. The later they get them though, the less time for a basis they have for either charged lined up if we don't fix the hole or some sort of target to remain compliant this season.

Put another way, is it possible that our numbers differ from theirs- one is compliant and one isn't. While the accounts not released they don't have a basis to charge if required.

We can't technically be charged for the period ending 2022-23 yet and perhaps not until next summer or next Spring but...if they don't have audited accounts for last season then they can't even line up the basis.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Norwich the latest to submit their accounts, although they usually submit early and was on their site in late October.

3 weeks now since Fans Forum. I do wonder if we are refusing to release until we know or are sufficiently satisfied anyway that the EFL have accepted our Covid numbers- in particular the specifics of the transfer add-backs.

Granted 103 days until they are legally due out. The later they get them though, the less time for a basis they have for either charged lined up if we don't fix the hole or some sort of target to remain compliant this season.

Put another way, is it possible that our numbers differ from theirs- one is compliant and one isn't. While the accounts not released they don't have a basis to charge if required.

We can't technically be charged for the period ending 2022-23 yet and perhaps not until next summer or next Spring but...if they don't have audited accounts for last season then they can't even line up the basis.

I’m not an accountant but the accounts we are waiting on are up to 31st May 2022.

Timeline:

• March 2022 - projected accounts for 21/22 together with prior year actuals from accounts in FFP return format
• May 2022 - end of 21/22’s accounts, plus a period of time to formalise them and send to auditors which we believe has all been done
• tbc - publish accounts
• February 2023 - deadline for publishing accounts
• March 2023 - projected accounts for 22/23 together with prior year actuals from accounts in FFP return format

During this period before release, we know the club have been working with EFL.  I suspect we’ve started to formalise the projections and update the EFL with them, and confirmed that the FFP period to 31st May 2022 was compliant.  I expect our CFO / team to have the skills to have made accurate projections back in March.  There was nothing “major” that happened to impact those estimates in the intervening period.

We will have continued talks re how much we were looking to “allow” for Covid over the previous accounting periods, but the only time those really start to impact upon FFP compliance is when we submit our next set of projections in March 2023.  Those Covid allowances are for the EFL, not the annual accounts, so I don’t see the non-production of our accounts for last season being linked to FFP compliance or the process of calculating “add-backs”.  If we have added anything into the accounts by way of £s (e.g. impaired player asset values) or in the notes (for transparency), that is purely our right as a business.  The accounts don’t need signing off by the EFL.  All the EFL are going to do is await our return in March (having worked with us throughout anyway) and either accept our allowances or not.  I can only assume that our allowances bring us under £39m, by how much only becomes an issue for future year’s compliance.  So if accepted, we move on.  If not, how much do the EFL agree with?  Is that enough to comply with £39m?

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m not an accountant but the accounts we are waiting on are up to 31st May 2022.

Timeline:

• March 2022 - projected accounts for 21/22 together with prior year actuals from accounts in FFP return format
• May 2022 - end of 21/22’s accounts, plus a period of time to formalise them and send to auditors which we believe has all been done
• tbc - publish accounts
• February 2023 - deadline for publishing accounts
• March 2023 - projected accounts for 22/23 together with prior year actuals from accounts in FFP return format

During this period before release, we know the club have been working with EFL.  I suspect we’ve started to formalise the projections and update the EFL with them, and confirmed that the FFP period to 31st May 2022 was compliant.  I expect our CFO / team to have the skills to have made accurate projections back in March.  There was nothing “major” that happened to impact those estimates in the intervening period.

We will have continued talks re how much we were looking to “allow” for Covid over the previous accounting periods, but the only time those really start to impact upon FFP compliance is when we submit our next set of projections in March 2023.  Those Covid allowances are for the EFL, not the annual accounts, so I don’t see the non-production of our accounts for last season being linked to FFP compliance or the process of calculating “add-backs”.  If we have added anything into the accounts by way of £s (e.g. impaired player asset values) or in the notes (for transparency), that is purely our right as a business.  The accounts don’t need signing off by the EFL.  All the EFL are going to do is await our return in March (having worked with us throughout anyway) and either accept our allowances or not.  I can only assume that our allowances bring us under £39m, by how much only becomes an issue for future year’s compliance.  So if accepted, we move on.  If not, how much do the EFL agree with?  Is that enough to comply with £39m?

 

Cheers Dave, I was possibly conflating an issue or two there. I remember one or two Procedural Defences in past cases stating that "If we don't release accounts then we can't be charged" or words to that effect. I certainly am not comparing us to that.

Agree with your post, no issue whatsoever to 2022 as I think we all agree, I'm intrigued as to how losses were £28m last season though as I expect we all are.  What we (or others) put and what rhe EFL accept may diverge.

Wonder why the loss so big though...

*Big impairment

*Provision for onerous contracts

*Some other major exceptional item?

Regarding the EFL I think they will have to take a one and all approach. ie If we get charged then Fulham, Nottingham Forest and Stoke come under scrutiny with a view to charging- whether that's possible with sides who escape to the PL is less clear- in theory it should be...

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Cheers Dave, I was possibly conflating an issue or two there. I remember one or two Procedural Defences in past cases stating that "If we don't release accounts then we can't be charged" or words to that effect. I certainly am not comparing us to that.

Agree with your post, no issue whatsoever to 2022 as I think we all agree, I'm intrigued as to how losses were £28m last season though as I expect we all are.  What we (or others) put and what rhe EFL accept may diverge.

Wonder why the loss so big though...

*Big impairment

*Provision for onerous contracts

*Some other major exceptional item?

Regarding the EFL I think they will have to take a one and all approach. ie If we get charged then Fulham, Nottingham Forest and Stoke come under scrutiny with a view to charging- whether that's possible with sides who escape to the PL is less clear- in theory it should be...

Maybe we’ve impaired all player contracts formally, creating that “missing” £5/6m loss.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Davefevs

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Maybe we’ve impaired all player contracts formally, creating that “missing” £5/6m loss.

Yeah that would accelerate it nicely...the projected hole between the two before additions to the Covid add-backs falls significantly.

Maybe down to a £4-5m hole rather than the absolutely doom saying up to £18m swing required. Maybe £2-3m only. Until we know for sure of course...

I just hope the club's confidence is well-founded.

[Mr Popodopolous]

One thing that would be funny is if the EFL accept just enough of extra revenue losses and crucially the transfer add-backs to see us through to 2022-23.

In other words a combination of that and impairment or provision for onerous contracts saw us okay.

It would be funny as I imagine there would be much gnashing of teeth on Dcfcfans- probably would be an undeserved lifeline in all truth the transfer add-back thing but fun to see their reaction!

I shouldn't and won't be laughing too loud or long as things can still backfire but yeah for that alone it would be funny.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I actually found this Q&A between RamsTrust pertaining to Derby's breaches just before the final decision  last year. Found quite illuminating, especially the process of 'sign-off' or otherwise.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/efl-response-to-ramstrust-questions/

Don't agree with all of the EFL's answers but found the Q&A quite useful.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I still don't see how the Stoke impairment argument- see also Everton and Fulham- is in accordance with the EFL's amortisation and impairment regs either. Granted the last two are PL...

Interesting bit- 1.1.3- about sign-on fees too! Always assumed they could be bundled in with amortisation.

Or rather they maybe can impair if they wish but I still don't see how it can just be written off to Covid and  write off £30m of losses from the year and in total up to £30m in costs from upcoming period...certainly it flies in the face of these regs.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Looking too at the Football League and Premier League regulations it does seem in theory at least that promotion may not now be the escape route it is seen as- there is more detail than there was and it seems more able to carry between the Leagues- as it should have been ever since the regs were harmonised!! Will post the relevant sections.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I still don't see how the Stoke impairment argument- see also Everton and Fulham- is in accordance with the EFL's amortisation and impairment regs either. Granted the last two are PL...

Interesting bit- 1.1.3- about sign-on fees too! Always assumed they could be bundled in with amortisation.

Or rather they maybe can impair if they wish but I still don't see how it can just be written off to Covid and  write off £30m of losses from the year and in total up to £30m in costs from upcoming period...certainly it flies in the face of these regs.

Nope, signing on fees are like a player bonus, therefore are player expenses (wages), nothing to do with asset value and therefore amortisation.

in a recent post I wrote re Tanner / Atkinson, I mistakingly said signing on fees inc in the 2.261m “additions”, when the difference is more likely agent fees.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Nope, signing on fees are like a player bonus, therefore are player expenses (wages), nothing to do with asset value and therefore amortisation.

in a recent post I wrote re Tanner / Atkinson, I mistakingly said signing on fees inc in the 2.261m “additions”, when the difference is more likely agent fees.

Thanks. Always wondered how they were accounted for.

Paid on a one term hit or spread over the contract- or does it very?

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks. Always wondered how they were accounted for.

Paid on a one term hit or spread over the contract- or does it very?

Yeah, can vary.  Sometimes linked to annual contract bonus too.  Seems like it can be a way to make it look like players are all within a wage structure, but given as a bonus on top or at the outset.

Some players would never divulge their wages, others might be open.

Tomlin was alleged to have banded his salary around pissing off his teammates in the process.

[Davefevs]

[Hxj]

I think that there is some 'over-thinking' going on here.  Just because we don't like something doesn't mean that it is wrong.

The position in respect of the amortisation is as follows:

1.  The treatment of intangible assets for accounting purposes have to follow the required accounting standards

2.  Those rules are then modified by the EFL regulations for FFP purposes.

So as regards Stoke the first test is whether or not the amortisation impairment is valid under the relevant accounting standard.  That standard requires you to impair intangible assets to the recoverable amount where the carrying value is less than the recoverable amount.  The recoverable amount is that which you expect to receive from the sale or use of the asset.  Provided Stoke can demonstrate the correctness of the impairment with respect to the accounting standard they meet the first test.

As regards the second point, there is nothing that I have seen in the EFL Regulations which modifies that treatment, so provided the accounting standards are met the write down is entirely acceptable.

Note that paragraph 1.1.17 of the regulations specifically insists on this treatment.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, Hxj said:

I think that there is some 'over-thinking' going on here.  Just because we don't like something doesn't mean that it is wrong.

The position in respect of the amortisation is as follows:

1.  The treatment of intangible assets for accounting purposes have to follow the required accounting standards

2.  Those rules are then modified by the EFL regulations for FFP purposes.

So as regards Stoke the first test is whether or not the amortisation impairment is valid under the relevant accounting standard.  That standard requires you to impair intangible assets to the recoverable amount where the carrying value is less than the recoverable amount.  The recoverable amount is that which you expect to receive from the sale or use of the asset.  Provided Stoke can demonstrate the correctness of the impairment with respect to the accounting standard they meet the first test.

As regards the second point, there is nothing that I have seen in the EFL Regulations which modifies that treatment, so provided the accounting standards are met the write down is entirely acceptable.

Note that paragraph 1.1.17 of the regulations specifically insists on this treatment.

If I am reading this correctly,  and I agree on the 'over-thinking' point without doubt.

My favoured solution for P&S purposes would be to either:

a) Have some restated straight line amortisation for all clubs who have done this. Then let the chips fall where they may.

b) Failing that, just don't allow it for P&S returns- no Covid relief for Impairment of Player Registrations in Covid seasons.

c) Appoint some kind of Commission to adjudicate on the validity of the issue and if the EFL get a favourable verdict then the FFP numbers may change from compliant to breach for Fulham and certainly Stoke. To 2021-22 anyway I expect. Everton almost certainly would.

Still don't fully understand what you mean by..

"As regards the second point, there is nothing that I have seen in the EFL regulations that modifies that treatment, so provided the accounting standards are met the write down is entirely acceptable".

Does this make exclusion from losses more or less acceptable? Even if we accept the concept of the write-down, should it be excluded from P&S calculations?

Stoke signed a bunch of players who turned out to be not that good. A mess of their own making.

"Ooh but Covid meant we couldn't sell- why can't this be excluded from costs"?

More like overspending and a toxic club environment dragging them down messing up their valuation.

Entitled, cynical bunch of tossers at Stoke.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

59 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

My favoured solution for P&S purposes would be to either:

a) Have some restated straight line amortisation for all clubs who have done this. Then let the chips fall where they may.

b) Failing that, just don't allow it for P&S returns- no Covid relief for Impairment of Player Registrations in Covid seasons.

None of this is going to happen.

 

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

c) Appoint some kind of Commission to adjudicate on the validity of the issue and if the EFL get a favourable verdict then the FFP numbers may change from compliant to breach for Fulham and certainly Stoke. To 2021-22 anyway I expect. Everton almost certainly would.

That option is already available to the EFL, or rather the Finance Unit now.

 

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As regards the second point, there is nothing that I have seen in the EFL regulations that modifies that treatment, so provided the accounting standards are met the write down is entirely acceptable"

The rules say use the appropriate accounting standard and then modify where the EFL regulation state that you can/have too.  For example if a player retires early injured then normally you would write off the remaining intangible and the remaining salary costs at the point that they were not going to pay.  The EFL rules modify that to say that you treat the salary as a cost over the remaining period of the contract.  So that is the normal accountancy treatment being modified for FFP purposes.

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Does this make exclusion from losses more or less acceptable? Even if we accept the concept of the write-down, should it be excluded from P&S calculations?

Under the current rules - entirely and yes - under the current rules.  Provided of course that it is correctly calculated within the accounting standards.  Remember that it was previous sentence which resulted in Derby getting penalised.

 

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Stoke signed a bunch of players who turned out to be not that good. A mess of their own making.

"Ooh but Covid meant we couldn't sell- why can't this be excluded from costs"?

Absolutely and they were lucky.

[Mr Popodopolous]

32 minutes ago, Hxj said:

None of this is going to happen.

Prohibited or just unrealistic? Seems fair to me. You're right though I suspect, certainly the League would need to get a favourable judgement for any kind of re-statement probably.

32 minutes ago, Hxj said:

That option is already available to the EFL, or rather the Finance Unit now.

It's not an IDC but another form of Commission isn't it? It's adjudication rather than punishment- I forget the correct term but one of the Derby cases referenced it as an option.

Either way I'd say it needs referral.

32 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The rules say use the appropriate accounting standard and then modify where the EFL regulation state that you can/have too.  For example if a player retires early injured then normally you would write off the remaining intangible and the remaining salary costs at the point that they were not going to pay.  The EFL rules modify that to say that you treat the salary as a cost over the remaining period of the contract.  So that is the normal accountancy treatment being modified for FFP purposes.

Is this not a unilateral and subjective interpretation of the regulations though, by Stoke? I'm struggling to see the FFP/P&S regulation even with Covid amendments that says a club can just exclude millions in amortisation of Player Registrations for Covid particularly given the massive cost saving in upcoming years.

There was certainly no career ending injury in the mass write-down of 2020. All of those players who were there at that stage, none have retired through injury.

I haven't even got onto salary yet although on that note there is a Provision for Onerous Contracts totalling about £9-9.5m in 2020-21 Stoke accounts.

32 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Under the current rules - entirely and yes - under the current rules.  Provided of course that it is correctly calculated within the accounting standards.  Remember that it was previous sentence which resulted in Derby getting penalised.

Not altogether sure that I wrote my part of that post you responded to so well. My fault.

I should have written 'more likely' or 'less likely'.

Trying to get my understand this bit:

*Concept- Accepted. 

*Exclusion from  P&S?

Yes. Does that mean then it's £88m - FFP allowance - Rest of Covid allowance=FFP loss. The remainder of the Covid costs that year were £8m or thereabouts.

Or

£88m-FFP allowance-the £30m impairment and the £8m remainder (yes I know impacts are halved and averaged but one dodgy FFP practice at a time eh. ).

32 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Absolutely and they were lucky.

Still time for this practice to be challenged. Other clubs really need to lodge complaints with the League, Stoke are as dodgy FFP wise as Derby were I'd say.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Should Lansdown try to rally support  of other owners against Stoke? I think he should consider it.

Should he do a Gibson and lodge a formal complaint about perceived serious and cynical breaches or at least attempts to mask FFP issues. My view is maybe.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Prohibited or just unrealistic?

Unrealistic…they produced a set of guidelines…why would they back-track on these? And why now?

26 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Is this not a unilateral and subjective interpretation of the regulations though, by Stoke?

Yes, and their independent people they used.  We can only assume that several months since these accounts were produced, that if the EFL disagreed, Stoke would be under embargo.  Once again we have to look beyond what is FRS102 standards…used in production of the accounts and what allowances the EFL have beyond this in the P&S submission.  For example (a simple example) there’s nothing in the production of the annual accounts that allows a company to “remove Academy costs”, but the rules of P&S absolutely allow it.

29 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Still time for this practice to be challenged. Other clubs really need to lodge complaints with the League, Stoke are as dodgy FFP wise as Derby were I'd say.

Why would other clubs lodge complaints?  They agreed the revised Covid P&S rules.  If they felt the rules unfairly favoured a small number of clubs, e.g, the likes of Stoke, us, etc…why accept the rules?

That is your opinion.  You may be right.  I think there is a huge difference between the ownership of both clubs, and that has a bearing.  From our outside view onwards, the Coates (and Lansdown) ownership and approach to these types of things is to work with the EFL.  Morris’s approach was to work against them.

 

 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Should Lansdown try to rally support against Stoke? I think he should.

Should he do a Gibson and lodge a formal complaint about perceived serious and cynical breaches or at least attempts to mask FFP issues. My view is yes.

How would Lansdown know what Stoke have put into their P&S submission?  Should he?  Nope.

You’re letting your personal opinion of perceived wrong-doing (with no evidence) get the better of you.

Its great that this thread and others have educated ourselves and others of some of the finer details of the financial side of football, but your “crusade” to opine that there is wrong-doing against a set of guidelines that aren’t in the public domain, nor Stoke (or City’s) P&S submissions that aren’t in the public domain either, and suggest someone at City (SL) who has seen the guidelines, but not Stoke’s submission…should lodge a complaint is probably going too far.

It’s probably time to just rely on official comms coming out of clubs and / or EFL.  Due to new rules for P&S as a result of covid, we (as fans, albeit ones who like the financial side) can no longer pick up 3 or 4 years of accounts, pop them into excel, and accurately say a club is in breach of £39m or not.

Sorry if that seems harsh (rude?).

[chinapig]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

From our outside view onwards, the Coates (and Lansdown) ownership and approach to these types of things is to work with the EFL.

And didn't Gould indicate some time ago that we and Stoke were aligned, at least as far as adding back loss of transfer income was concerned?

I certainly don't see any grounds for conflict between us and them in any event.