The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

Will stick to this thread on it but still trying to work out the technicalities of it, or even some of the basics but by way of an example.

If the CFRP having reviewed the info from the CRFU decided they did not like a certain practice, especially in the context of P&S compliance, what powers of review or challenge would they have?

Bear in mind that a club and the League may have discussed these in a prior period- a good example would be Stoke, could the CRFP in  effect challenge or override that agreement?

Or indeed us if they found- and this would have to apply to all who did the practice- the transfer add-back theoretically rumoured idea to be a stretch.

@Hxj @ExiledAjax both seem to know the law.

In other words how final and binding is EFL sign-off, green light etc in this context? If transfer add-backs was deemed dicy under FRS 102 eg...a lot of unanswered questions really as to how far their powers go, in P&S context certainly.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

What I can’t see is where the disparity comes in the accounts of CCFC.

additions of £38m align with Transfermarkt:

convert € to £.

However, I thought Sala was £15m(ish) not €6m (£5m).  It shouldn’t make any difference whether it’s £15m over 3 instalments (£5 each)…you book it into the accounts as £15m and amortise accordingly.

Nothing in 2020 accounts re Sala???

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

What I can’t see is where the disparity comes in the accounts of CCFC.

additions of £38m align with Transfermarkt:

convert € to £.

However, I thought Sala was £15m(ish) not €6m (£5m).  It shouldn’t make any difference whether it’s £15m over 3 instalments (£5 each)…you book it into the accounts as £15m and amortise accordingly.

Nothing in 2020 accounts re Sala???

I think it maybe tucked away under Provisions somewhere but will go and double check.

Notes 28 and 30. Possible thst the £19m could also include costs of litigation, interest if applicable etc.

I could be wrong but they possibly have sought to include the fee in full as a provision in 2018-19 accounts...therefore absorbed in a PL season of £100m TV revenue and intend to reverse if they win the case.

Cake and eat it much??

[Davefevs]

I don’t think the provision statement covers it if I’m being honest. Unless they are saying we’ve restated his fee to £5m because they aren’t paying £15m!!  But why would Transfermarkt have the fee at £5m (€6m)?

If it was £5m plus addons, then why have all the CAS stuff said £15m fee???

Weird!!!

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t think the provision statement covers it if I’m being honest. Unless they are saying we’ve restated his fee to £5m because they aren’t paying £15m!!  But why would Transfermarkt have the fee at £5m (€6m)?

If it was £5m plus addons, then why have all the CAS stuff said £15m fee???

Weird!!!

Apologies, I missed that bit. That is a very weird discrepancy- definitely recall the £15m being declared. Possibly the 1st instalment but...That's an impressive spot.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had another quick look. I wonder about Nottingham Forest to 2022 although a lot may depend on their Covid losses and what was permitted and the Carvalho sale.

As we know, £39m loss limit etc. I reckon Nottingham Forest and their FFP allowances are maybe £6m per season. Covid sees 2019-20 and 2020-21 averaged and halved.

2018-19

Pre-tax loss- £26,629,000

This was both despite and inclusive of a profit on disposal of players of £10,558,000.

2019-20 and 2020-21

Pre-tax loss £17,365,500

Plus as we know, the loan write offs are if past precedent is anything to go by excluded from FFP- there was £5m x 2 in these years so we are on pre tax losses of £48,994,500 once averaging etc.

Although the accounts were 13 months for 2020-21 so this adds some extra costs that won't be reflected moving forward.

Average transfer profit in these years £12,787,500- this is the losses following and inclusive of the transfer profit.

Of course if their Covid claimed add-backs are allowed to count in full then  this gives plenty of breathing space- and I estimate a pre tax loss of £29m last season plus any promotion bonuses which appear to be excluded from FFP but nothing cast iron on this. Perhaps over £30m even in pre-tax losses if EFL accept all arguments.

Their Covid argued losses and 2021-22 projected ones seems dodgy to me!

Can only assume that a lot of the third year one related to some arguments around player trading- speculative and dubious I think.

As with Stoke, potentially us and who knows who else it appears to fly in the face of the EFL voted on limits. Is there an argument that the CRFB should look to challenge excess Covid losses if the excess is the difference beyween compliance and failure? By challenge I mean an IDC or similar to adjudicate.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

One item of Stoke's 2021 accounts there appears to be inadequate disclosure on, set against some other clubs who did this in the past anyway.

The whole provision for Onerous contracts- does it fall into the 2020-21 or the 2021-22 accounts?

On the flipside if the £9m is charged to the Operating Expenses or included in wages in 2020-21 that is a one off cost that won't be repeated and should yield some savings too from accelerating the cost.

Whereas if you look at Norwich or Newcastle a few years back there was a corresponding entry pertaining to wages or operating expenses. Everton showed something too.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Taking Forest, these were my simplified figs done before the change to covid allowances.  I did two, one with the loan write offs included, one without.

their 21/22 accounts are gonna be quite crucial.  Unlike us who are more than fine to end of 21/22, Forest could be quite close.

To 22/23 will be hard to predict because of promotion and a big change of £s in / out.

 

 

 

[Davefevs]

Re Stoke, I think the onerous contracts bit is recognising at an earlier / earliest point possible that a player needs to be impaired, so impairment goes through in this year rather than next year, when it is next year when the asset is actually disposed of.

For City because our year is to 31st May, impairing Nagy in 20/21:

but his asset is still part of the disposals in 21/22, as he didn’t leave until 23rd Aug 2021.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Taking Forest, these were my simplified figs done before the change to covid allowances.  I did two, one with the loan write offs included, one without.

their 21/22 accounts are gonna be quite crucial.  Unlike us who are more than fine to end of 21/22, Forest could be quite close.

To 22/23 will be hard to predict because of promotion and a big change of £s in / out.

 

 

 

Thanks. Think they should be fine to 2022-23 given the £100m (give or take) rise in TV revenue and the increased loss limits in the PL- either an Upper Loss Limit of £61m or £55.5m.

It does though beg the question, as to whether they let alone Fulham could have breached to last season on the way up- and if so what will be done about it and by whom. (Nottingham Forest have iirc claimed they are compliant btw).

Or if not breached properly then complied but only through dubious means that need challenge.

As we know though, just because a club or ownership claims compliance doesn't make it so- Cardiff in 2016 for their January embargo, the dispute with Derby etc.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Re Stoke, I think the onerous contracts bit is recognising at an earlier / earliest point possible that a player needs to be impaired, so impairment goes through in this year rather than next year, when it is next year when the asset is actually disposed of.

For City because our year is to 31st May, impairing Nagy in 20/21:

but his asset is still part of the disposals in 21/22, as he didn’t leave until 23rd Aug 2021.

Possibly that with Stoke although what I am trying to work out is whether the onerous contracts provision should appear in 2020-21 or 2021-22 wages/Operating Costs. This can have a crucial impact upon FFP and could add a bit of credence to their claims of wages falling drastically etc.

[Davefevs]

I’m saying they might have been close / over for cycle ending 2021-22, not all the way through to end of 2022-23.  Although the extra scope of covid allowances probably means they weren’t.  So, I’m saying they were in a worse position than us up to end of last season, but promotion means “all bets off” now.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Small update on Cardiff, have read that they have 22 registered players as per EFL squad lists so can add one more under their embargo, subject to the relevant criteria no fees etc.

I am struggling to see how though given their squad (Wiki) shows 29 and a further 5 out on loan- and almost all of whom qualify under Professional Standing??

[Mr Popodopolous]

Strikes me that they comfortably exceed 23 of Professional Standing anyway, as that rule basically means anyone who has made a sub appearance except in JPT.

The rule about Established Players, that may enable them to sign one or two under the restrictions but I don't see how that is applicable here? Other non P&S embargoes have surely fallen under Professional Standing rules?

[Davefevs]

25 man squad list and it’s rules are pretty much an irrelevance when it comes to embargoes.  As you say the rules for “professional standing” (and “Established player” although shouldn’t need to worry about this here) trump that, so I can only imagine the person who wrote that either isn’t clued up on the rules or knows that different embargo rules are in play here.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

25 man squad list and it’s rules are pretty much an irrelevance when it comes to embargoes.  As you say the rules for “professional standing” (and “Established player” although shouldn’t need to worry about this here) trump that, so I can only imagine the person who wrote that either isn’t clued up on the rules or knows that different embargo rules are in play here.

It was their local media/paper!

A sign of the times or what.

I agree with your analysis btw.

Colwill though U21 definitely I remember last season. Daley-Campbell they signed from Leicester, surely?

Isaak Davies surely another, played more than once sure there are more too. Ollie Tanner signed but played?

Plus Wiki says

24 players have made at least one appearance at Championship level.

And a further 4 have made 1 Cup appearance.

That's 28? 24 bare minimum. There was a 29th, a young player but he's out on loan.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Reported too that Coventry have paid 5/6 instalments to HMRC.

One more and they'll be back in line, embargo lifted and suggested that it'll be ahead of the January window.

That's time to pay, how Derby managed to get away with it for so long, well- that debt will have spiralled in that period.

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.goodisonnews.com/2022/12/21/everton-ffp-update-emerges-ahead-of-january-transfer-window/

When we consider the sort of restrictions WE are under, a club allowed to assign £170-220m to Covid, given no loss on say top gate receipts, European revenue- appalling. What sort of Governance by the Premier League is this?

Fairly disgusting tbh. The difference in governance standards for the same rules.

(Everton posted pre tax losses of £13,070,000 in 2018, £111,845,000 in 2019, £139m in 2020 and £121m in 2021).

Covid, FFP allowances and new stadium sure- Upper Loss Limit £105m plus all of these.

Pre tax losses of £254m once Covid average factored in.

To last season, that £13.07m drops off to be larger last season probably.

@chinapig @Davefevs @downendcity @ExiledAjax @CyderInACan

How the (wanky) other half live in FFP terms eh. FFP which such T.V. money and loss limits shouldn't be failable anyway, strongly suspect Leicester's losses are markedly lower than Everton's but they seemed to have been restricted badly.

Oh and Everton's wage bill rose £28m to 2020-21 from Covid year 1 to 2, no mitigation there.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Just browsing the PL handbook, can’t see anything about breaches resulting in points deductions, just registration embargoes.

The covid allowances look exactly the same as EFL guidelines.

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Just browsing the PL handbook, can’t see anything about breaches resulting in points deductions, just registration embargoes.

The covid allowances look exactly the same as EFL guidelines.

Thanks Dave. Even then it's a pretty pathetic embargo given the amount that a) They appear to have been able to write off to Covid and b) Spend on players as a result.

Their wage bill rising by nearly 20 pct in the full year of Covid-19 is a factor that is far from mitigating.

Two full backs for a combined fee of £29m in January 2022, then El Ghazi and Van De Beek on loan, Alli albeit on a free initially.

Yes Digne sold and Richarlison by end of June 2022.

Benitez appointed summer 2021, not cheap- let alone sacking him and replacing wirh Lampard in January.

James sold in summer and I suppose departures on free transfers, Begovic, Townsend, Rondon free and Gray for £1.7m- which is a fee.

This summer:

Tarkowski in- Free.

McNeil- Burnley- £20m

Onana- Lille- £33m

Maupay- Brighton- £15m

Garner- Man Utd- £15.5m

Gueye- PSG- £2m

Range of players out on loan and some will have left on frees but no big fee yet- huge fudge there, PL just seem to have rolled over and accepted absurd Covid losses.

I was looking at Leicester the other day. They argued £50m in 2 years which for lost TV, PL, matchday and European revenue in 2020-21 seems eminently reasonable. Not per year but as a whole. Newcastle under £50m, Aston Villa a little over, a range of similar clubs within a similar range of losses.

Then you have Everton who seem to be adding that theirs are at the lower level as high as the 3 above combined or maybe a third higher if at the higher level.

Covid losses the same? Thanks will have a read, found very little detail in 2022-23 handbook.

Edited December 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Pertaining to our level, the accounts for Birmingham (both club and PLC), Millwall (Holdings and Club) and Bet365- thesr include numbers from 29th March 2021 until 30th March 2022 for Stoke- are due out and remain due out, by the end of the year.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Part of me wonders if we should just appease the FFP gods if required and agree to some points deduction.

Okay I'm being a bit flippant but it seems to have done Reading no harm.

Deduction, suspended further deduction, embargo(es) and Business( Plan since summer 2020.

Not as if they sold Joao is it. Able to this year loan in Hendrick (Newcastle, the parent club covering most of wages), Loum (Porto- probably fringe) and Fornah (midfield- young).

That is the CM, Rahman fully covered by Chelsea LWB Ghana international.

Last year him and Drinkwater, not bad at all. Again costs covered by Chelsea.

They also have 35 pts from 24 games as it stands. Not bad at all given the outgoing players.

We otoh seem to be strangled by it despite a) An almost certainly higher income than Reading and b) No actual breach yet.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Part of me wonders if we should just appease the FFP gods if required and agree to some points deduction.

Okay I'm being a bit flippant but it seems to have done Reading no harm.

Deduction, suspended further deduction, embargo(es) and Business( Plan since summer 2020.

Not as if they sold Joao is it. Able to this year loan in Hendrick (Newcastle, the parent club covering most of wages), Loum (Porto- probably fringe) and Fornah (midfield- young).

That is the CM, Rahman fully covered by Chelsea LWB Ghana international.

Last year him and Drinkwater, not bad at all. Again costs covered by Chelsea.

They also have 35 pts from 24 games as it stands. Not bad at all given the outgoing players.

We otoh seem to be strangled by it despite a) An almost certainly higher income than Reading and b) No actual breach yet.

We have appeased them…and not got any points deducted either.

In a season where every point might be crucial, might even come down to GD, why would we do what you suggest.

[Mr Popodopolous]

28 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We have appeased them…and not got any points deducted either.

In a season where every point might be crucial, might even come down to GD, why would we do what you suggest.

I still think the new Independent body will have something to say about it in due course. If it is transfer add-backs that is seeing us compliant. It strikes me as being a flimsy argument and I would objectively if it is our argument refer it for adjudication.

A certain level of flippancy on my part but it seems not to have done Reading any harm. I struggle to see how they are seemingly compliant with some of the loan signings, a lower income and their business plan.

Other than that what is our current plan to avoid exceeding £39m? Covid losses for regular evenue seem fine but leave us struggling.

For me anything for any club exceeding £39m to 2022 or 2023 is either a deduction or a referral to IDC or CRFB. Then the IDC or CRFB will decide.

I suppose my overall point is, that comparing us and Reading it feels like we are being penalised for doing the correct thing. Relative to expenditure, type of signing efc.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

For me anything for any club exceeding £39m to 2022 or 2023 is either a deduction or a referral to IDC or CRFB. Then the IDC or CRFB will decide.

Tbh, that’s where the lower limit should come in…over £15m, review by the new compliance group.  Might mean they’re very busy though.  Or introduce a figure in the middle, say over £30m.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Tbh, that’s where the lower limit should come in…over £15m, review by the new compliance group.  Might mean they’re very busy though.  Or introduce a figure in the middle, say over £30m.

Ah yes, I forget about this sometimes.

That means the £15m figure cor the future monitoring and staying within.

I suppose I am just a bit hypervigolant as without anything official from League, club or even media outlets all angles and scenarios must be considered.

Bit daft of me really as neither you nor me perhaps anyone on here can do anything about it- if we get referred or if other clubs get referred for adjudication well that's just one of those things.

Or indeed if we are cleared or if we are at least strictly reviewed and then cleared there is little we can do about it I guess- it would happen or wouldn't happen as the case maybe.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

West Brom have taken out a £20m loan from MSD. Secured I believe, says it's over 4 years..

Their Parachute Payments end this season- if they stay down its down to £8-9m tops in EFL and related distributions, will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Other thing, inevitably some WBA fans think that if the club defaulted they could/would take ownership, MSD that is, simply by dint of defaulting and ownership or control transferring.

Of course that is theoretically possible subject to the Loan Agreement but given their Loan arrangements wirh other clubs that is a major issue surely. That can't be permitted?

[ScottishRed]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

West Brom have taken out a £20m loan from MSD. Secured I believe, says it's over 4 years..

Their Parachute Payments end this season- if they stay down its down to £8-9m tops in EFL and related distributions, will be interesting to see how it plays out.

In addition to that, and it may have been covered previously, the majority shareholder took  a loan of £5m from the club to support another of his businesses. 

He has already missed the initial repayment date which has since been rescheduled for this Saturday 31/12. 

Interesting.

Edited December 28, 2022 by ScottishRed

[Bristol Rob]

As per the earlier posts.