The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Davefevs]

Found Wigan - Phoenix 2021 Ltd, half year only.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Impressive stuff that @Davefevs

The higher cost base probably comes in part from higher event revenue and associated costs but then again if it's football only that perhaps cancels out a bit.

I still look at some clubs and wonder if all clubs are treated equally under the regs:

Stoke

Major losses yet no problem. Starting line-up today contains Delap who scored plus loanees in the form of Clarke (Arsenal), Fosu-Mensah (Brentford) and Smallbone (Southampton). Wilmot signed permanently from Watford in summer 2021 and Baker from Chelsea in January 2022 yet we cannot sign in January unless we sell first seemingly?

Reading

A side who failed FFP and are under a Business Plan with conditions and 6 points suspended are beating Coventry- scorer was a free transfer most recently at Metz, (Ligue 1) plus their line-up today contains Hendrick (Loan, Newcastle), Fornah (Loan Nottingham Forest) and the gift from Chelsea in Rahman.

I wonder about their compliance to this season and maybe even last. Selling Olise maybe did it but what of this season??

Edit- Loum off the bench, loanee from Porto..

They've made good efforts but absolute obligation, exact numbers etc.

We have debated and discussed this in various ways, at varied times but do you think we are getting equal treatment in the context of the regs. I believe it's an open question.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Latest Stoke wages claim. From their forum.

Apparently reduced to 1/3 of what it was, their wage bill.

Basic maths said that is a fall of 2/3...very sketchy on detail but it apparently happened on O'Neil's watch.

Bet365 accounts to end of March 2022 will shed some light but that wage bill is falling all the time.

Then again it's a post on a forum, nothing official.

Edited December 11, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Latest Stoke wages claim. From their forum.

Apparently reduced to 1/3 of what it was, their wage bill.

Basic maths said that is a fall of 2/3...very sketchy on detail but it apparently happened on O'Neil's watch.

Bet365 accounts to end of March 2022 will shed some light but that wage bill is falling all the time.

Then again it's a post on a forum, nothing official.

2/3rd removed…of (what was it?) £94m?  A wage bill in the £30-35m mark will probably be the highest / one of the highest outside of the PP clubs.  With average attendance of 21k, they will still be fighting to control costs.

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

2/3rd removed…of (what was it?) £94m?  A wage bill in the £30-35m mark will probably be the highest / one of the highest outside of the PP clubs.  With average attendance of 21k, they will still be fighting to control costs.

Don't disagree. The claimed speed of fall, indeed the other one too about it being halved in 18 months or so just seems unfathomable to me given what we've seen with us and other clubs trying to get costs down.

All those PL loan signings, plus Wilmot, Vrancic, half a season of Surridge, Gayle- and loans for Sawyers (relegated WBA) and Maja (Ligue 1 Bordeaux) and such claims are far removed. 2021-22 accounts will be interesting.

Edited December 11, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

32 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Don't disagree. The claimed speed of fall, indeed the other one too about it being halved in 18 months or so just seems unfathomable to me given what we've seen with us and other clubs trying to get costs down.

All those PL loan signings, plus Wilmot, Vrancic, half a season of Surridge, Gayle- and loans for Sawyers (relegated WBA) and Maja (Ligue 1 Bordeaux) and such claims are far removed. 2021-22 accounts will be interesting.

Re loans don’t forget the payment terms to the owning club doesn’t have to be wages, could be a loan fee or a combo of loan fee and wages.

Balogun at Boro was allegedly £1m loan fee and £6k (15% of £40k) p.w.  So wage bill can look artificially lower, and perhaps guide us to why some of those “other costs” are non-transparent!

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.efl.com/news/2022/december/club-financial-review-panel-appointed/

The CFRP has been officially appointed today.

@Davefevs @ExiledAjax @Hxj @chinapig @downendcity

Will they have already cleared clubs pertaining to Covid-19 add-backs and claims or is it still an ongoing review process do we know?

That aside, timing coincidental given the whole Football Regulator thing?

Edited December 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

36 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://www.efl.com/news/2022/december/club-financial-review-panel-appointed/

The CFRP has been officially appointed today.

@Davefevs @ExiledAjax @Hxj @chinapig @downendcity

Will they have already cleared clubs pertaining to Covid-19 add-backs and claims or is it still an ongoing review process do we know?

We don’t know, but it will surely be an ongoing process.  Clubs are still submitting 2022 accounts, covid allowances will be with us until the reporting cycle ending 22/23 is finished, which for many clubs won’t be until Feb / Mch / Apr of 2024.  Clubs haven’t even submitted projections for this season yet.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://www.efl.com/news/2022/december/club-financial-review-panel-appointed/

The CFRP has been officially appointed today.

@Davefevs @ExiledAjax @Hxj @chinapig @downendcity

Will they have already cleared clubs pertaining to Covid-19 add-backs and claims or is it still an ongoing review process do we know?

That aside, timing coincidental given the whole Football Regulator thing?

From the article:

"The new CFRP is an independently appointed expert panel, including members with appropriate accountancy, legal and football expertise, selected following an extensive process undertaken by Sport Resolutions, an independent dispute resolution service provider for sport."

In view of the runaround they were given by Derby for far too long, I hope the legal and accounting experts appointed to the CFRP are more astute and streetwise than those previously handling financial reporting.

 

 

[Hxj]

10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Will they have already cleared clubs pertaining to Covid-19 add-backs and claims or is it still an ongoing review process do we know?

8 hours ago, downendcity said:

In view of the runaround they were given by Derby for far too long, I hope the legal and accounting experts appointed to the CFRP are more astute and streetwise than those previously handling financial reporting.

We need to remember that the position has been changed completely.  In prior years the EFL Board was responsible for all of the investigation work and then decided if charges should be made and was then responsible for ensuring that those charges were made out in front of a Disciplinary Commission, made up of ad hoc members.

Now the review and investigation work is carried out by the Club Financial Reporting Unit (CFRU), who make recommendations to the Club Financial Review Panel (CFRP) who make decisions.

Two main advantages.  Firstly the EFL Board are conflicted at all points, they are overseeing their competitors as well as their own clubs.  Secondly with a dedicated unit reviewing and a dedicated panel decision making the processes should be much cleaner and faster.

Much to congratulate the EFL on in this. 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Hxj

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

We need to remember that the position has been changed completely.  In prior years the EFL Board was responsible for all of the investigation work and then decided if charges should be made and was then responsible for ensuring that those charges were made out in front of a Disciplinary Commission, made up of ad hoc members.

Now the review and investigation work is carried out by the Club Financial Reporting Unit (CFRU), who make recommendations to the Club Financial Review Panel (CFRP) who make decisions.

Two main advantages.  Firstly the EFL Board are conflicted at all points, they are overseeing their competitors as well as their own clubs.  Secondly with a dedicated unit reviewing and a dedicated panel decision making the processes should be much cleaner and faster.

Much to congratulate the EFL on in this. 

Absolutely. The Derby situation, in particular, seemed to show that clubs had at their disposal professional advisers who always seemed a step ahead of the administrator/regulator, and while the right outcome was eventually achieved,  it was far too drawn out, during which time the EFL were made to look like mugs by Mel Morris.

Hopefully this new set up will be better equipped to police and enforce financial rules, so that clubs know that they will not able to wriggle out of any attempt to circumvent them and gain an unfair advantage over other teams. 

Of course, it's bound to be Sod's Law that we will be the first club to be dealt with by this new body and will hit for six for overspending on a dozen paper clips!

 

[Davefevs]

Thought I’d add in all teams who have been in the champ for both 21 and 22 years.  Will build as each team submits their accounts.

[Davefevs]

 

[Davefevs]

Cardiff under embargo, not yet on the EFL site…but Coventry are.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/

[1960maaan]

12 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Cardiff under embargo, not yet on the EFL site…but Coventry are.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/

Is this actually potential good news for us ? 
In as much as , as we haven't been mentioned we will definitely be clear of any penalties ?

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Is this actually potential good news for us ? 
In as much as , as we haven't been mentioned we will definitely be clear of any penalties ?

I think it has little relevance to us, just purely they’ve infringed the rules re HMRC Reporting.  Either that’s as simple as it sounds that they’ve not reported HMRC in a timely manner, or it’s non-payment / late payment exception reporting.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 13/12/2022 at 12:22, downendcity said:

Absolutely. The Derby situation, in particular, seemed to show that clubs had at their disposal professional advisers who always seemed a step ahead of the administrator/regulator, and while the right outcome was eventually achieved,  it was far too drawn out, during which time the EFL were made to look like mugs by Mel Morris.

Hopefully this new set up will be better equipped to police and enforce financial rules, so that clubs know that they will not able to wriggle out of any attempt to circumvent them and gain an unfair advantage over other teams. 

Of course, it's bound to be Sod's Law that we will be the first club to be dealt with by this new body and will hit for six for overspending on a dozen paper clips!

 

Covid may have delayed and the previous governance of the League didn't help, ie Harvey. When Parry came in there was more of a concerted push on these issues.

Especially IMO- when it's a straight up overspend yes that is easy to pursue even for someone like Harvey (Birmingham 2018). Whereas when it is bitterly disputed accounting issues ie the amortisation issue, or which year a stadium sale should go in, that inevitably drags and requires lengthy investigation, and eventually a League Arbitration Panel to adjudicate as in the Derby case especially. There were side cases during 2020-21 too which dragged it out.

EFL winning that case eventually was actually a major victory. I would say that it is brave to go against audited accounts, audit sign-off and independent experts, to push back against that as the Football League did isn't the easy option.

They lost the valuation one but I wonder if a better valuer hired by the League could have steered matters in a different direction- he chose stadiums such as Morecambe and other random examples. His assessment was a tabletop one rather than having visited Pride Park and so on.

Having their experts in-house should in theory improve issues.

I also see a distinct parallel with Everton and the Premier League.

Everton may or may not have complied but if £170-220m in alleged Covid impact was properly scrutinised they surely would not have done.

One of the defences I have seen from Everton fans and the club itself referenced it I believe, was auditors and independent experts.

Much like Derby, yet the Football League did not take them at their word belatedly- the Premier League however...

The correct course of action there I believe would be to send it to an Independent Disciplinary Commission to determine in the first instance the validity and then if an adjustment tips them over limits, charge the club and push for the correct sanctions.

In particular, certain categories- if you get a ruling about a certain category in your favour you can then push back against others who did the same.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Cardiff under embargo, not yet on the EFL site…but Coventry are.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/

Pertaining to Cardiff, it might depend on whether they are under a Professional Standing embargo or an Established Player one.

E.g. if they have 22 Established Players then they can add two under the terms and conditions outlined.

If the latter, if they have less than 24  players in terms of that category then they can sign free agents or loanees, within a wage limit and no signing on fees, transfer fees.

If the former, then they comfortably exceed this already so multiple offloads would be required just to add one on a free under the limitations listed.

Unsure how players loaned out are treated in either scenario- Cardiff have  a few e.g. McGuinness at Sheffield Wednesday.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Venkys London Limited accounts are out.

It is hard to re-align as these run from 1st April 2021 to 31st March 2022 and indeed is the Reporting Period for every year but.. 

They will include some of furlough still the final 3 months of 2021-22, as well as Blackburn's Business Interruption claim- but also the final 3 months of the Reporting Period of the 2020-21 Covid wrecked season.

Anyway £2.6-2.7m pre tax profit but this included both the Armstrong sale and the profit on the Training Ground sale and leaseback- maybe the club pre tax losses in the period ending June 30th 2022 would be £10-15m.

Wage bill looks under control, after tax, NI etc £24m maybe..amortisation also seems to be on the slide.

[Mr Popodopolous]

In fact, it's hard to extrapolate but maybe their pre tax losses for last season would fall below £10m. 

Certainly no greater than £15m IMO- can't see Blackburn being in P&S trouble for a little while. They also seem to have a Category 1 Academy which bumps up the allowable costs.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Is this actually potential good news for us ? 
In as much as , as we haven't been mentioned we will definitely be clear of any penalties ?

 

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I think it has little relevance to us, just purely they’ve infringed the rules re HMRC Reporting.  Either that’s as simple as it sounds that they’ve not reported HMRC in a timely manner, or it’s non-payment / late payment exception reporting.

Agreed.

No embargo would applicable to us if at all until March 2023 at the earliest IMO, maybe summer 2023.

In March when the figures go in, if we forecast remaining complaint due to a profit on disposal of players that has not yet materialised then I guess we may remain under embargo until it does- also suspect if would have to fall within the accounts to May 2023 to be applicable. Thereafter it would fall into 2023-24 unless we shifted the Reporting Period. That's an example of Point 2. May be even a forecasted overspend would see an embargo and an order to fix it by end of May or face punishment in 2023-24- that's Point 3.

The EFL regs also seem to offer a bit of detail- it's possible that we and others could be under some kind of pre-emptive Business Plan agreed to keep us within the regs to this season.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

More layers of complexity about the issue too, @1960maaan and @Davefevs I do wonder if we might be under this section right now. Some others too although had this been in play I strongly suspect that certain clubs would not have been able to spend so freely, this rule change only arose in mid February 2022.

Had it been in place years back, how woukd to name two, Fulham and Nottingham Forest spent as they did last season? Maybe going further back Aston Villa in 2018-19 too.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Pertaining to Cardiff, it might depend on whether they are under a Professional Standing embargo or an Established Player one.

E.g. if they have 22 Established Players then they can add two under the terms and conditions outlined.

If the latter, if they have less than 24  players in terms of that category then they can sign free agents or loanees, within a wage limit and no signing on fees, transfer fees.

If the former, then they comfortably exceed this already so multiple offloads would be required just to add one on a free under the limitations listed.

Unsure how players loaned out are treated in either scenario- Cardiff have  a few e.g. McGuinness at Sheffield Wednesday.

Simple explanation:

Breaking Rules like HMRC Reporting - use professional standing rules (which means if you’ve played once you are of professional standing)

Broken FFP Limits - use established players rule (over 21 and played 5 times)

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/embargoes-faqs/

 

[Davefevs]

Re Business Plan - I just see us under Gould being very proactive to make sure we don’t get bitten on the arse.

I’d love to see a few more accounts published than just ours, Boro’s and Norwich’s to see whether clubs have bounced back with crowds, or whether they saw Covid as a “blip period” and have carried on as they did before.  Clubs like Luton spent big for them in the summer.

[Mr Popodopolous]

29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Re Business Plan - I just see us under Gould being very proactive to make sure we don’t get bitten on the arse.

Devil is in the detail for us and many clubs right now isn't it. We or some other club may propose certain Covid add-backs whereas the League or CRFP well who knows.

On the raw numbers we are surely on course to breach this season as it stands- January window or end of May 2023 may change this. The big unknown is what we have claimed in terms of Covid if we are due to be compliant and what maybe deemed acceptable- we just don't know.

29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Id love to see a few more accounts published than just ours, Boro’s and Norwich’s to see whether clubs have bounced back with crowds, or whether they saw Covid as a “blip period” and have carried on as they did before.  Clubs like Luton spent big for them in the summer.

Agreed. I also wonder if treatment has been equal. Stoke I am rather interested in yet they seem to sign PL loanees etc despite a hefty cost base.

Bet365 accounts will show certain numbers up from 31st March 2021-30th March 2022, that's just over 10 months of their 2021-22 accounts and are due out by the end of the year.

Don't think Luton will have issues for a whole, subject of course to higher vs lower limits, equity etc.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

May as well ask you @Davefevs

Do we think we have the headroom to sign anyone in January without outgoings?

Keep reading or hearing "Oh we need to sign a centre back/midfielder/holding midfielder" whoever come January but is it even possible as of now? My gut feeling is probably not if no outgoings but I doubt we know for sure.

[Davefevs]

39 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Don't think Luton will have issues for a whole, subject of course to higher vs lower limits, equity etc.

No, wasn’t suggesting they will, just saying they have spent a fair bit this summer

36 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

May as well ask you @Davefevs

Do we think we have the headroom to sign anyone in January without outgoings?

Keep reading or hearing "Oh we need to sign a centre back/midfielder/holding midfielder" whoever come January but is it even possible as of now? My gut feeling is probably not if no outgoings but I doubt we know for sure.

No, not really…not anyone of significance / first teamer anyway.

[Mr Popodopolous]

In respect of Cardiff, done a little more reading- seems they are fighting on really.

Surely the embargo remains in force during January minimum subject to their appeal- Swiss Federal Court due to rule on it by end of January/early February or is it that proceedings stayed until this is heard?

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/complex-cardiff-city-emiliano-sala-25777421

That bit, proceedings being stayed is speculation on my part but Swiss Federal Court surely the last realistic avenue? If proceedings live then in theory a sanction ie ban may not be enforceable until these exhausted?

Edited December 19, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more note on Cardiff, also read that as expected if they win the case then Provision reversed! I struggle to see how they can include it in a period after 2018-19 or would it be in 2019-20 in the unlikely event they did but the Balance Sheet, maybe the Profit and Loss even would stand to benefit to the tune of £15-20m in the event of a reversal.

If it fell beyond 2018-19 then depending in the year it would either benefit FFP headroom by £15-20m or £7.5-10m. Which seems awful given the Sala tragedy and Cardiff's actions.

Always hard to tell with social media but quite possibly a lot of Cardiff fans don't support their ongoing stance.

Thiufh the money is accounted for in Balance Sheet terms, it is also suggested that it is not there as such.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Possibly sort of FFP related but Blackburn seem willing to stick rather than twist- risk losing Brereton-Diaz on a free in the summer, although they aren't at risk of breaching FFP this or next year IMO.

Of course the payoff would be promotion to the Premier League. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous