The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Davefevs]

Just now, chinapig said:

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.

They certainly garnered each other’s support on the overall “covid allowances” and costs of the collapsed transfer market.

If they were a small group of beneficiaries, the other 60+ clubs would’ve seen through it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

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

More time to better assess the impact of Covid on the market. Of course the specifics of these guidelines are quite important. In theory they could raise issues yes but the specifics of the type of and conditionality of the approval can also be important.

Only the clubs and EFL will the finer detail.

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

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 

Independent advice in a case like this I'm sceptical about just how independent it is. Stoke hired the independent advisers, Stoke presumably paid for the independent advisers therefore...

Agreed FRS 102 isn't everything but this seems an unusual and opportunistic accounting treatment that only a handful of clubs (that we know of) appear to have utilised.

If loads have done it or have done transfer add-backs then it's a lot more acceptable.

I wonder if they could though- surely it takes investigation over the medium to longer term for a case like this. The timeframe of some past cases shows it wasnt as quick as it should have been. Derbt could and did trade normally until Jan 2020 albeit with a couple of short term embargoes.

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

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.

 

 

Depends how many clubs have argued this sort of thing. From what we can see publicly and yes that maybe at odds with the reality, not many have.

The only thing we all easily know about publicly agreed was the initial £5m x 2 and £2.5m. The rest is conjecture as to what has and hasn't bren agreed- or what categories are deemed permissible or still should be tested.

More open yes but there was a little snippet in one of the cases that said EFL advice or working with them let us say was not able to override the regulations.

In other words if the EFL permitted something and the advice turned out to be wrong, the club could be the ones to carry the can. I'd have to trawl through old cases...see if it's findable.

In terms of Stoke v Derby it's more I mean the cheek of it, the range of loopholes. Find it highly dubious.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The only thing we all easily know about publicly agreed was the initial £5m x 2 and £2.5m. The rest is conjecture as to what has and hasn't bren agreed- or what categories are deemed permissible or still should be tested.

No, we know that it is possible from the published rules that sums greater that these amounts can be claimed with the right supporting evidence.  There is a difference between a summary comms issued by the EFL on 17th Feb 2022 and the full minutes of that meeting and guidelines issued to each club.  The rules have been updated and include more detail than that summary statement.

 

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

From what we can see publicly and yes that maybe at odds with the reality, not many have.

Have any clubs?

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No, we know that it is possible from the published rules that sums greater that these amounts can be claimed with the right supporting evidence.  There is a difference between a summary comms issued by the EFL on 17th Feb 2022 and the full minutes of that meeting and guidelines issued to each club.  The rules have been updated and include more detail than that summary statement.

Supporting evidence can argue a case and definitely there will be more detail 'in-house' ie between clubs and the League but don't think it can amount to a final determination. The closest category I can find is Review Applications but whether it's applicable here I'm unsure.

21 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Have any clubs?

On a basic level so far we know of...Fulham and their impairment, Nottingham Forest and their transfer add-backs and Stoke and their Impairment and transfer add-backs.

I suppose loads of others may have done this internally. Maybe nobody will fail P&S to 2021-22 and 2022-23.

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Supporting evidence can argue a case and definitely there will be more detail 'in-house' ie between clubs and the League but don't think it can amount to a final determination. The closest category I can find is Review Applications but whether it's applicable here I'm unsure.

the internal process for receiving any P&S submission is an unknown for us, let alone where there are covid numbers to exclude.

On a basic level so far we know of...Fulham and their impairment, Nottingham Forest and their transfer add-backs and Stoke and their Impairment and transfer add-backs.

sorry, I thought you meant have any clubs complained.

I suppose loads of others may have done this internally. Maybe nobody will fail P&S to 2021-22 and 2022-23.

As I’ve said before I suspect clubs would rather just include a mention of Covid impacts in their Strategic Report, rather than go overt with actual numbers.  Stoke’s 19/20 accounts, signed off on 29/3/21, before the new rules were in place, looks like an attempt to get ahead of the curve (maybe influence others?), but you wonder if they’d known they could do covertly, whether they might’ve taken a less disclosed approach.

 

FWIW I’ve asked the EFL to share their guidance on add-backs.  I’m not expecting a response!!!

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

FWIW I’ve asked the EFL to share their guidance on add-backs.  I’m not expecting a response!!!

Fair play! Let's hope they shed some light but it's doubtful as you say.

As to your other point, won't quote the whole post but yes I should take a bit of a step back in respect of specific allegations- however I still consider the transfer add-backs and the concept of excluding Impairment of Player Registrations due to Covid as being open to question both under FFP regs and maybe in certain aspects under accounting standards (FRS 102). Neither sit well with me as concepts on the face of it.

Think it's fair to estimate as a starting point for Stoke e.g. and for Fulham and Nottingham Forest to an extent- in the case of Fulham they did reference the £20.9m Impairment as a perceived Covid cost. Strategic Report referencing however may be the way.

I might send them an e-mail too the EFL, about whether policies fit consistently.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Another observation is that specific to us, the club, them sending mixed messages doesn't help. I get that this situation is fluid, complex and open to interpretation but:

1) Claims such as the wage bill down by 1/3, is liable to blur lines at best and potentially misleading (to fans I mean).

2) Especially when the starting point for FFP is the bottom figure, the consolidated wage bill that includes everything. Yes not the club in isolation or the playing squad in isolation- or the figure afaik net of NI or say matchday staff.

3) See also The claims that were perhaps out of context mamely the wage bill was now at £20m or even halved or between £15-20m. Feeds into point 1 again. What is a strict definition of the wage bill.

4) In August when both Gould and SL came our with differing messages on FFP in the space of a few days.

There are valid grounds for criticism of the club here. As well as praise namely the disclosure of the headline loss at Fans Forum, the early release of accounts well before the end of February.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Another observation is that specific to us, the club, them sending mixed messages doesn't help. I get that this situation is fluid, complex and open to interpretation but:

1) Claims such as the wage bill down by 1/3, is liable to blur lines at best and potentially misleading (to fans I mean).

2) Especially when the starting point for FFP is the bottom figure, the consolidated wage bill that includes everything. Yes not the club in isolation or the playing squad in isolation- or the figure afaik net of NI or say matchday staff.

3) See also The claims that our of nowhere saw the wage bill stated at £20m or even halved or between £15-20m. Feeds into point 1 again.

4) In August when both Gould and SL came our with differing messages on FFP in the space of a few days.

There are valid grounds for criticism of the club here. As well as praise namely the disclosure of the headline loss at Fans Forum, the early release of accounts well before the end of February.

Agree to an extent…but I’ll give them benefit of the doubt because was also around the time of lots of conversation re UEFA salary cap rules coming in.  That salary cap is likely to be much more closely linked to player costs.  Going back to my early days of looking at FFP, 5/6 years ago (!!!) I assumed Holdings company rather than just BCFC was hugely advantageous to us…but over time I’m not sure it is really.

Complete speculation from me, but you could forgive the EFL wanting to quickly get the current P&S stuff done and dusted without anyone punished and usher in the new rules as a nice blank sheet of paper to work from going forward.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Agree to an extent…but I’ll give them benefit of the doubt because was also around the time of lots of conversation re UEFA salary cap rules coming in.  That salary cap is likely to be much more closely linked to player costs.

That's true, fair. Context of August but my own view even at that time and clearly I'm just a fan on the forum was that it'd be completely incongruous for the League just to say "Ah you know what, forget it to 2022-23 as the system changes anyway in 2023-24". I do get it though and there was uncertainty.

Can see that, some of the numbers mooted still feel a bit toppy and on the optimistic side though.

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Going back to my early days of looking at FFP, 5/6 years ago (!!!) I assumed Holdings company rather than just BCFC was hugely advantageous to us…but over time I’m not sure it is really.

I think it probably computes out over time proportionally speaking. The revenue is undoubtedly higher in Holdings although the cost base is lower and profit and loss a bit superior...

...Although regular FFP allowances will also be lower with the club accounts in isolation. Big gap in depreciation alone some years. Plus a lower revenue base- both have pros and cons though with Holdings more money to waste I guess as we've seen!!

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Complete speculation from me, but you could forgive the EFL wanting to quickly get the current P&S stuff done and dusted without anyone punished and usher in the new rules as a nice blank sheet of paper to work from going forward.

Agree, that could be the way that it proceeds in the next year or 2.

Another thought that occurs is that IF Everton emerge unscathed wirh most revenue, add-backs and claims of £170m from 2019-20 and 2020-21 then how can pretty much anyone be punished.

Both Premier League and Championship see governed by P&S after all- would there be any scope for a case against the PL for failure to enforce the same regs.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I might also add, if they (the League- ie in this instance the Football League) are found to have been excessively sympathetic or lenient to clubs, any clubs that is.

Well it wouldn't surprise me if that was open to legal challenge down the pipe, the EFL working too closely I mean if it turned out that had happened.

As a regulator they should not he steering a club out of the shit for want of a better term. Not saying that it's happened here but covering all bases...could have happened with PL and Everton.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Again read an interesting claim about Stoke. SCFC- or as I call them Stoke Cheaters FC.

Anyway. Apparently their wage bill fell 50 pct in O'Neil's time there...in the season in whixh he joined it was £54m...

Unsure if it means it's 50 pct lower now or this referred to last season but it really puts our efforts into perspective if it's anywhere near true.

£50m in 2020-21, for their consolidated wage bill and ours was £35m.

Now theirs is/was reportedly £27m and ours is £30m- as of last season!!

Our efforts really don't look all that, in that context. Plenty of devil in the detail of course...

...For example how was the Provision for Onerous Contracts in 2020-21 factored in? That's not FFP excludable- it was provided for but unsure if it was utilised, but was about £9m in any event.

Might it be £27m plus that- which accelerates some of it into that year and out of subsequent years.

Might the £27m be players only or football side only but not include the other Operating Costs and wages- similar to our potential debate between Club and Holdings.

Still no Stoke accounts but their local journo said wages down by half.

I suppose how it worked here was...

1) Do a huge write-down of £42-43m in 2019-20 and of that £30m was assigned to Covid. That's £30m in costs removed. The initial £12-13m seemed like regular impairment and may have been made prior to the Pandemic.

2) Think there was a further £3m in 2020-21- wasn't specified as a  Covid cost.

3) This enables a player to depart the club without incurring an Impairment loss or a genrtal loss on disposal provided of course that their departure is equal to that of the remaining book value- or to leave on a free should the departure not yield any fee. No impairment loss, impairment eliminated.

4) The £9m in onerous contracts would be included in costs but frontloaded presumably- and probably less than the costs of fulfilling it over the timeframe of the remaining contract. At minimum it brings it forward but presumably these or some of these would be relating to players that were under contract but who left in 2021-22 in particular summer 2021.

I now estimate bszed on the remainjng book vakue and subsequent additions, that their annual cost of amortisation (player registrations) to be maybe £5-6m as of last season. Wages who knows.

For context amortisation was £30m in 2019-20 and that didn't include the £30m in Covid and £12-13m in general player impairment.

It's definitely clever accounting but...

Edited November 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I know we're not so big on speculation now @Davefevs @chinapig @ExiledAjax

Still interesting to debate, do we actually believe Stoke cut wage bill that quickly? The reporter didn't put hard numbers out but as mentioned did say down by half though the precise period wasn't made clear either.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

I’d go by what is in the accounts:

Stoke City FC Ltd:

19/20 - £52.663m (834 employees)

20/21 - £47.983m (662 employees) no crowds

I suspect employees numbers will be back up again when they submit last season’s accounts.

Looking quickly at Transfermarkt, I don’t see too many players leaving in the summer of 2021 to see a huge decrease for the period of last season (21/22), e.g. Wimmer

However a few players left in last summer that might reduce 22/23s wage bill, e.g. Afobe.

But I’d suggest this is journalistic license from the PL budget of £94m at end of 2018, rather than recent years halving!

I don’t read “onerous contracts” as wages being written off either, I think you’re leaping to the wrong conclusions there.  I read it as impairment, which they’ve already given detail on (whether you agree with it or not).

[Mr Popodopolous]

Thanks. I'll try and find the quote in question too, for context etc.

It's a huge claim isn't it- if they actually mean that now the wage bill is as low as £27m. Journalistic license or poor interpretation is also quite possible- not many local journos are financial pundits too! I'll reserve judgement until their actual accounrs ate out as there are too many missing pieces at this stage.

That would be a new one as onerous contracts has down the years been wage related- maybe Stoke are applying it differently but that's the wage side usually. Onerous contracts is impairment of amortisation or of wages?

Unlike us there seems not to be a several million gap in wages between club and Holdings. Less events maybe? No real idea.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Little bit of speculation I saw on Twitter but one Reading fan asked if they might have breached their Business Plan.

Relevant snippets below, from the Decision itself and from the Budget.

[Mr Popodopolous]

This is interesting, an interview with Rick Parry and it pertains to possible reform.

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/stoke-city-parachute-payments-efl

Just on the Stoke stuff, for anyone from there lurking:

1) Some of my words were perhaps ott but is there a case to answer? I don't think that unusually large Covid numbers can just be waved through

2) It's not just Stoke I criticise, I have in the past been very critical of Derby, at times Sheffield Wednesday, fairly furious about Aston Villa and have not been afraid to speculate on my own club and their FFP compliance or what the add-backs might be and wherher they may be in accordance with FFP and even FRS 102 itself- so I'm not biased.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Well no I am biased I suppose. I am biased against clubs of any kind who either breach FFP or who use unusual means to try to achieve compliance.

My club aren't exempt from this but it's conjecture at this stage unlike past cases.

As it is with Stoke, Fulham, Nottingham Forest.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

The relevance to P&S remains to be seen but the following clubs accounts- directly or otherwise, are due out by the end of 2022.

*Via Bet365, we should see Stoke City's numbers to end of March 2022 at least. The detail underpinning these possibly not so much.

*Millwall- made up to end of June 2022.

*Via Venkys London Limited, Blackburn's accounts to end of March 2022.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just a thought too.

On one level I get the idea of giving everyone a 'Pass' owing to Covid and the transition between the old and new system across 2021-22 and 2022-23...but good Governance dictates that probably shouldn't happen. FFP objectives dictate that it probably shouldn't happen too- the objectives were iirc:

1) To punish those who infringe.

2) To maintain/restore confidence in the League etc.

3) To make sure that those who legitimately complied don't get penalised for doing so.

There may have been a fourth too. Wasn't worded this way of course but good Governance IMO dictates that where questions exist for periods ending 2021-22 (not us) and 2022-23 (potentially could be us and others) the EFL pursue the issue.

Am sure btw, that some of the IDCs and sanctioning sections are along these lines. I recall reading it but unsure which case!

Edited November 25, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I find this snippet of the Derby v EFL appeal last Spring ie 2021 quite interesting in relation to transfer add-backs.

Paragraph 76 seems to fly in the face of permitting potential transfer add-backs.

"No right to sell a player's registration, merely an expectation contingent on..."

The IDC 1 back in 2020 seemed to favour this treatment or Derby's argunent. The LAP however, it cut little ice for them disregarding as it did 'Appeal to common sense' 'Specifics of the Football transfer market' etc.

The question is therefore, are internal add-backs bound by FRS 102? I believe that under FRS 102 transfer add-backs well pretty dodgy ground for any clubs who did that but FRS 102 if it isn't applicable to internal P&S add-backs then it isn't  a relevant consideration here.

I believe it's up for debate. Not decided or settled one way or the other.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I find this snippet of the Derby v EFL appeal last Spring ie 2021 quite interesting in relation to transfer add-backs.

Paragraph 76 seems to fly in the face of permitting potential transfer add-backs.

"No right to sell a player's registration, merely an expectation contingent on..."

The IDC 1 back in 2020 seemed to favour this treatment or Derby's argunent. The LAP however, it cut little ice for them disregarding as it did 'Appeal to common sense' 'Specifics of the Football transfer market' etc.

The question is therefore, are internal add-backs bound by FRS 102? I believe that under FRS 102 transfer add-backs well pretty dodgy ground for any clubs who did that but FRS 102 if it isn't applicable to internal P&S add-backs then it isn't  a relevant consideration here.

I’m not sure I’m talking about the right / same thing here, but don’t forget Derby we’re trying to amortise differently, ie not straight line, nor to £0m, because they said they’d always sell before that point.  We’ve seen that isn’t the case, with players leaving Derby for free, e.g. Lawrence.

We've seen Stoke impair, which is fine from an FRS102 perspective.  The only question you have (imho) is whether they should be allowed to offset the loss for P&S.  it is written in their accounts (same in ours) that they can revalue downwards.  I think Derby were keen to value upwards too at some point!!!  Ultimately they were looking to “try it on”!

So I don’t think this is about add-backs per se, and if it is, it’s not the same (imho), there’s was about systematically trying to reduce their amount of amortisation in their books.  We don’t even know the scope of “add-backs” so we can’t be sure they are the same if you think this is referring to the same.

[Mr Popodopolous]

24 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m not sure I’m talking about the right / same thing here, but don’t forget Derby we’re trying to amortise differently, ie not straight line, nor to £0m, because they said they’d always sell before that point.  We’ve seen that isn’t the case, with players leaving Derby for free, e.g. Lawrence.

We've seen Stoke impair, which is fine from an FRS102 perspective.  The only question you have (imho) is whether they should be allowed to offset the loss for P&S.  it is written in their accounts (same in ours) that they can revalue downwards.  I think Derby were keen to value upwards too at some point!!!  Ultimately they were looking to “try it on”!

So I don’t think this is about add-backs per se, and if it is, it’s not the same (imho), there’s was about systematically trying to reduce their amount of amortisation in their books.  We don’t even know the scope of “add-backs” so we can’t be sure they are the same if you think this is referring to the same.

This is fair, am seeking to cover all possibilities, bases and angles however. No accusations to any clubs at this point in time.

Yes Derby were clearly trying it on and non compliant with FRS 102. The way in which they amortised and am expectation that they would always sell by Year 3 at the latest.

We, Stoke and everyone else are straight line but my slight concern has come from the idea about expectation of sale, the possible common thread there. Wondering if that LAP paragraph could set a precedent, probably not.

Impairment fine as a concept (though strictly speaking there maybe criteria but we've seen many clubs disregard these and just use it to make upcoming FFP easier). Whenever a club relegated from the PL for example. It's subjective I guess but can be abused- see Aston Villa in 2015-16...To 2018-19.

1) Villa Park impaired along with some other Tangible assets and Intangible assets.

2) Absolutely fine but based on a strict  definition of Impairment, subsequent actions perhaps should not have been.

3) Villa Park and perhaps some others seemed to be reclassified as an Investment Property post relegation. This was at Fair Value which was commensurate with the Impairment of 2015-16.

4) Sometime in 2018 probably, it seemed to be reclassified back to Tangible Assets and presumably revalued upwards.

5) Even if we accept that the £56.7m valuation was fair, was not the Carrying Value too low- based on the 2015-16 write-down it was sold roughly in 2018-19 for its probable Carrying Value pre Impairment.

Dodgy as hell.

Back to more routine. Based on that, I wouldn't haul up Stoke or anyone for the mere act of impairment therefore but whether such items should be excluded from costs due to Covid well I dunno.

This is true we don't know for sure. Not talking about us specifically but ones where we have seen it listed include Aston Villa, Everton, Fulham, Nottingham Forest and Stoke. Some more transparently than others.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Talking of Everton, sounds like the PL have let them off big time if the Esk is right.

Given that P&S is across both divisions, does Everton seemingly getting off the hook set a precedent for the rest?

Edited November 25, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Pre tax losses- Everton FC

2018-19..£111.845m

2019-20 and 2020-21..£260.7m (rounded)- halved for Covid that'd be £130.35m.

2021-22..£72m (subject to the estimates of the Esk).

This is prior to FFP and Covid deductions but the challenge is to legitimately get this down to £105m!!

Pre tax losses once rounded etc, before all of this, £314.195m.

Would be rather perverse if the Football League started charging clubs for much lesser add-backs and or breaches.

(Everton claimed £170m across the 2 Covid years- potentially rising to £220m).

The quantifiable losses were about £81-82m iirc.

The rest they were arguing for in impairment, lost player sales and cost savings of these etc- speculative basically. They outlined some of the other items but not all.

Covid claims and add-backs- Everton FC

Edited November 25, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

39 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Impairment fine as a concept (though strictly speaking there maybe criteria but we've seen many clubs disregard these and just use it to make upcoming FFP easier). Whenever a club relegated from the PL for example. It's subjective I guess but can be abused- see Aston Villa in 2015-16...To 2018-19

Two sides to it though isn’t there?

Firstly, Relegation doesn’t necessarily mean a player’s value goes down, nor that it goes down greater than the amortised value either.

Secondly, club’s aren’t allowed to increase values for promotion, player improves, etc either.

So, I don’t think I’d accuse clubs of disregarding the criteria per se.

Plus, you’d start to see claims of players being impaired more in good P&L years to allow them to sell for a greater transfer profit in future years.

Think it’s one to accept the accounting principle for what it is…it’s well established.  It the what’s allowed for covid that creates the debate.

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Two sides to it though isn’t there?

Firstly, Relegation doesn’t necessarily mean a player’s value goes down, nor that it goes down greater than the amortised value either.

Secondly, club’s aren’t allowed to increase values for promotion, player improves, etc either.

So, I don’t think I’d accuse clubs of disregarding the criteria per se.

Plus, you’d start to see claims of players being impaired more in good P&L years to allow them to sell for a greater transfer profit in future years.

Think it’s one to accept the accounting principle for what it is…it’s well established.  It the what’s allowed for covid that creates the debate.

Agreed but it is a nice convenient thing for a club relegated to big bath it into the year of relegation. Not uncommon and Intangibles cannot be revalued upwards unless they specifically have that policy. I suppose impairment can be reversed but that's quite rare.

Agreed. Although the Aston Villa impairment of Tangible Assets on relegation and how it came to be sold at a good profit is still quite dodgy, FFP wise at minimum.

That is a fairly unusual case though and we are going back years now.

Yeah agreed that largely speaking impairment of Intangibles is normal although the EFL bit seemed to specify some criteria. Agreement that Covid add-backs the big thing and what should or shouldn't count the debating point.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

I don’t really care about the Tangible Assets at this point…that ship has sailed.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t really care about the Tangible Assets at this point…that ship has sailed.

I fear it may have yes. All the same it's dubious the Aston Villa stuff.

[Mr Popodopolous]

What about the Everton stuff?

Two different governing bodies yes but same and in theory harmonised regs across both Leagues/divisions.

Any leverage for us or others at this level, to use Everton as a precedent?

My overall guess is 'Probably not' but then again...

Edited November 25, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

PPS. Everton fans bleating about austerity don't make me laugh.

The Case for

1) Richarlison sold- yes. Though accounted for in 2021-22 surely.

2) Digne before that back in January.

3) Limited expenditure in summer 2021 which also saw James Rodriguez sold. Begovic, Townsend, Gray, Rondon, all on frees except for Gray who cost £1.5m.

4) Ancelotti compensation will have helped.

5) Loaned out Kean

The Case against

1) Benitez in will not have been cheap!

2) For all the outgoings during rh3 season, in January they:

a) Signed Patterson for £12m

b) Mykolenko for £17m

c) Alli on a free but with fee to rise based on conditions met, presumably picked up decent wages.

d) Loaned in El Ghazi from Aston Villa and Van de Beek from Man United.

3) Sacked Benitez- that costs!

4) Is Lampard cheap?

Then this summer:

Sold Allan and loaned some others. Kean remains in Turin. Possibly a sale to be triggered tnis season.

Otoh

1) Tarkowski- Free but decent wages?

2) McNeil- £20m

3) Onana- £33m

4) Maupay- £15m

5) Garner- £15.5m

6) Gueye- £2m

Loaned in Coady from Wolves and Vinagre from Sporting.

Are they aligned wirh FFP I wonder at all times? Let alone under a strict business plan to ensure compliance or have they been? Doesn't look like it to me!

This is kid gloves treatment.

If they are £105,000,001 they should be charged I believe.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous