The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

So I expect we'll see lots of short term contracts with a 'buy back' clause of £1 or something

There is a Fair Value rule already in play for RPTs so..this could be something in addition or to build on it.

Of course for Football transfers that is wildly subjective.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

there is an easy way to value it for me

1) what's the total max cost of payments to the player over the full length of the contract at the club that owns them 

2) what is the full cost of payments to agents and the selling clubs for the full deal

pro-rata what both of these figures are over the length of the contract to get your monthly/seasonally rate , then pro-rata the rate you come up for the period on loan, that way a club outside of FFP cannot absorb the cost for a club that is inside a FFP region

then it would need at least another club to wash the player for them to do it and gain from it.

which could also be investigated and revalued if it was in a short time period of signing the player, eg the same transfer window.

take away the potential for gain and it will make it more complicated for them to gain the system, by letting a club under FFP borrow a player at a reduced/bargain cost.

 

 

 

[Rob26]

58 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

There is a Fair Value rule already in play for RPTs so..this could be something in addition or to build on it.

Of course for Football transfers that is wildly subjective.

yeah if them sort of deals happened to get around the loans they would just be subject to a different valuation and there is no doubt in my mind that if the saudi club paid a big fee for the player that would be the value they would seek epically if the transfer was fresh in the first season, maybe every year they would reduce it

but that idea of a proposed buy back of £1 wouldn't help the PL club trying to gain the system, the fee they paid would be re-valued and then they get £1 back when the buy back is activated. that would put them at a full loss on the books.  any situation you imagine for a way to gain the system has to end in the PL club having a positive impact on their FFP, compared to signing the player.

a simple way to avoid this is to have FIFA come out and it a rule that no clubs owned by the same entities are allowed to interact with each other professionally in the form of trades or meeting in competitive competitions. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting piece on Norwich.

Once seen as a bit of a model, likewise West Brom. How quickly it can change. West Brom if they don't return this year could be in an interesting position in a range of ways.

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/norwich-city-lost-2744861

They yoyo but unlike Cardiff, Fulham and Bournemouth did so without notably wealthy owners. Same with WBA for the most part.

Small factual correction. The loss limit is of course £61m to this year for them and £39m to next, subject to any FFP changes that may occur. That Upper Loss limit plus allowables.

Baseline is £15m in 3 with no equity, equity takes it anywhere between £15m and £39m, but now £15m and £61m respectively.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

not sure how they are setup around the board, I might be remembering wrong, but I'm sure i've heard a few things on price of football podcast that there is a bit of a power struggle with the share holdings at norwich, so may be a reason why they are not getting people put money into the club as much if its a situation that the long standing shareholders dont want to give away equity and more control for the minority shareholders coughing up money in their place (which if they didnt match they would most likely have to pay him back or convert it to equity for him). 

[Rob26]

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-11-15/roman-abramovichs-hidden-football-deals-during-chelseas-time-at-the-top

lots of dirt here, not sure why its pasted with black background sorry :laugh:

Abramovich’s hidden football deals during Chelsea’s time at the top

Offshore deals with key figures were not recorded in Chelsea’s accounts, despite potentially benefiting the club

Edited November 15, 2023 by Rob26

[chinapig]

5 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-11-15/roman-abramovichs-hidden-football-deals-during-chelseas-time-at-the-top

Abramovich’s hidden football deals during Chelsea’s time at the top

Offshore deals with key figures were not recorded in Chelsea’s accounts, despite potentially benefiting the club

And more detail here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/15/chelsea-fc-face-new-questions-over-how-roman-abramovich-funded-success

[1960maaan]

I wonder if this could muddy the waters even more.

Files show Abramovich used a BVI entity, Leiston Holdings Ltd, to make two loans in 2017 and 2018 to Lee Power, the former Swindon chairman. They came with conditions: Power was to immediately lend the sums onwards to the football club itself. In total, Abramovich lent £1.25m.
The loans themselves also came with intriguing clauses. Should Swindon Town get promoted to League One, the loans would be extended. If they didn't, the loans would be forgiven altogether.
The deal also agreed that Abramovich's offshore company would be entitled to information about the club’s budget, including contracts covering players and staff. In the event, Swindon Town remained in League Two and the loans were written off.
However, the circumstances surrounding Abramovich's offshore payments raise important questions about dual interest, and his involvement in other clubs' financial affairs. Six months ago, we revealed a much larger paper trail between Abramovich and Dutch club Vitesse
 

 

[Rob26]

53 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I wonder if this could muddy the waters even more.

Files show Abramovich used a BVI entity, Leiston Holdings Ltd, to make two loans in 2017 and 2018 to Lee Power, the former Swindon chairman. They came with conditions: Power was to immediately lend the sums onwards to the football club itself. In total, Abramovich lent £1.25m.
The loans themselves also came with intriguing clauses. Should Swindon Town get promoted to League One, the loans would be extended. If they didn't, the loans would be forgiven altogether.
The deal also agreed that Abramovich's offshore company would be entitled to information about the club’s budget, including contracts covering players and staff. In the event, Swindon Town remained in League Two and the loans were written off.
However, the circumstances surrounding Abramovich's offshore payments raise important questions about dual interest, and his involvement in other clubs' financial affairs. Six months ago, we revealed a much larger paper trail between Abramovich and Dutch club Vitesse
 

 

about the same time they also loaned them 3 players too, article describes it as chelsea doing swindon a solid, :laugh: no shit they did them a solid :laugh:

https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/chelsea-fc-transfer-rumours-news/2017/1/11/14238938/swindon-town-chelsea-loan-transfer-colkett-dabo-feruz

[Mr Popodopolous]

Hmm, could the Chelsea and Reading favours come under question too? They begun under Abramovich and I highlighted this in 2021 when they loaned Rahman and Drinkwater when under an embargo/FFP sanctions.

Interesting that Chelsea are coming under scrutiny, they won't be the only one of the top clubs either. If the Man City case breaks the dam and as we know Everton had their Hearing and there are multiple other clubs with at least a case to answer bring it on.

I query Aston Villa for their actions to 2018-19, I query Fulham for their enormous losses albeit if their annual FFP costs were £15m per year that helps to account, I query Nottingham Forest for their large projected Year 3 Covid losses when income had clearly bounced back.

Wolves to 2018? Albeit they've taken harsh medicine this summer. It is more the Mendes link..Swiss Ramble and Kieran Maguire reckoned they were narrowly within the £39m 3 year loss in their promotion year.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[1960maaan]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hmm, could the Chelsea and Reading favours come under question too? They begun under Abramovich and I highlighted this in 2021 when they loaned Rahman and Drinkwater when under an embargo/FFP sanctions

Drinkwater was on £40k a week, they loaned him out to a team under an embargo for under £2k . That never sat well with me. Just looked and Rahman was an International on £20k+ . Just under £80m worth (debatable?) of players under an embargo ? Just not right.

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Drinkwater was on £40k a week, they loaned him out to a team under an embargo for under £2k . That never sat well with me. Just looked and Rahman was an International on £20k+ . Just under £80m worth (debatable?) of players under an embargo ? Just not right.

Kieran Maguire suggested that the wages were paid in full by Chelsea.

Their wage limit was £8.5k per player for new signings, no more than 6, no loan fees, no transfer fees, unsure but probably limits on agents and signing on fees.

I recall reading that Drinkwater was on £120,000 and Rahman £50,000.

At most they could have paid £8,500 and £8,500 or collectively 10%. May have been 0%.

As I mentioned at the time..

Marina Grankovskaia  Chelsea exec 

            

  Kia Joobrachian  Superagent

               

    Dai Yongge  Reading owner

Edited November 15, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

The next key question is, for me anyway.

Be it for Man City, Chelsea, Everton.

Or any of Fulham, Nottingham Forest, or even Aston Villa or Wolves. Two steps.

Firstly:

*Does there need to be some downward adjustment or attempt to downward adjust the profit, or add in costs. 

Then

*Does any adjustment tip a side into FFP default. That is a key question, as e.g. I'm unsure that some of the challenges to Man City, definitely past the first 6-7 years  would necessarily tip them over the £105m plus allowables of PL FFP. Up to 2014, maybe 2016. Thereafter much less so IMO.

Chelsea too, is there sufficient headroom or not?

Edited November 15, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

The last line of this piece is interesting. 

https://www.toffeeweb.com/season/23-24/comment/general/44162.html

For different reasons but I do have historic questions about Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest.

[Rob26]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roman-abramovich-made-secret-7m-payment-to-eden-hazards-agent-wpvz3xz3f

anyone able to unblock this or copy and paste for me? 

here's another article (not blocked) https://www.givemesport.com/chelsea-facing-possible-points-deduction-over-investigation-into-secret-payments/

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The last line of this piece is interesting. 

https://www.toffeeweb.com/season/23-24/comment/general/44162.html

For different reasons but I do have historic questions about Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest.

one reason I think everton may get somewhat of a hand slap if they can blame it all on covid as its probs the one situation they want to give a pass because if they don't it opens up huge cans of worms, along with all the costs that come with it. Its a once in a lifetime situation, i think the waters are muddied enough to probs just get a fine with a stellar legal team, if they went into this breach consulting sports legal teams to try and find as much grey area as they could before they breached it (which you would assume you would do surely if you had their money and half a brain :laugh:)

not that I think that is fair, but do think covid is a get out clause for a lot of things these days, just be glad when it drops off the map for ffp.

I really think covid losses should of been capped at a global figure for all clubs, make it fair, I hope they have something in place for if the situation comes up again where the league sets the allowed losses for any force majeure circumstances and applies it to all clubs in the league.

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roman-abramovich-made-secret-7m-payment-to-eden-hazards-agent-wpvz3xz3f

anyone able to unblock this or copy and paste for me? 

here's another article (not blocked) https://www.givemesport.com/chelsea-facing-possible-points-deduction-over-investigation-into-secret-payments/

one reason I think everton may get somewhat of a hand slap if they can blame it all on covid as its probs the one situation they want to give a pass because if they don't it opens up huge cans of worms, along with all the costs that come with it. Its a once in a lifetime situation, i think the waters are muddied enough to probs just get a fine with a stellar legal team, if they went into this breach consulting sports legal teams to try and find as much grey area as they could before they breached it (which you would assume you would do surely if you had their money and half a brain :laugh:)

not that I think that is fair, but do think covid is a get out clause for a lot of things these days, just be glad when it drops off the map for ffp.

I really think covid losses should of been capped at a global figure for all clubs, make it fair, I hope they have something in place for if the situation comes up again where the league sets the allowed losses for any force majeure circumstances and applies it to all clubs in the league.

I mean I dunno, the thing abour Eveerton is that Derby and Reading didn't get a pass due to Covid.

These were clubs who would FFP wise have run aground irrespective. Everton are in a similar boat if you look at their accounts and look at their actual concrete revenue minus cost loss, before the more speculative stuff about transfer market etc.

They would have failed either to 2020, 2021 (they combined both) or 2022. Not more than one due to principle of reset but you've got to look at the trajectory irrespective of Covid too as happened with Derby and Reading.

I'd also add Stoke and maybe Nottingham Forest too. We took our tough medicine and saved ourselves in the end.

For me, doesn't matter how many clubs Covid or not, if it means 4 or 5 clubs get charged or referred then it is what needs to be done.

The Football League have an initial starting point of £5m, £5m and £2.5m, yes it can rise due to extra claims but I really hope it is applied across the board along with the averaging of 2019-20 and 2020-21 and all clubs in the Championship for the following periods are initially reassessed on that basis:

2019-20...and 2020-21, the combined average 

2021-22

2022-23

2023-24

(The Football League starting point is the £5m x 2 morphs into 1 due to the combined average- so £7.5m in real terms).

Edited November 16, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[1960maaan]

Further to the very dodgy  sounding Swindon story , £1M in loans from Abramovich then written off.

This puts it in an even worse light , I'm guessing it's too late to do anything about it now. If I was a Bury fan I'd be livid.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Also aligned with EFL regs and I assume this potential Swindon loan was in secret?

[1960maaan]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Also aligned with EFL regs and I assume this potential Swindon loan was in secret?

I imagine so, as it went through another company .

Really stinks.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Good news. Seems pressure is growing on the PL to get a grip on Spending Rules.

Long, long overdue.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/nov/16/pressure-grows-on-premier-league-to-crack-down-on-club-spending-breaches

[1960maaan]

[Rob26]

is there anything where you can read about their case in a bit of detail to see what come out in the wash

[Rob26]

anyone know how they come to the figure they were only 19m in breach of ffp when they lost circa triple the allowance at one point,

sounds like a way of not getting into all the covid stuff (with everyone else) but still punishing them for breaching anyways.

[Davefevs]

47 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

anyone know how they come to the figure they were only 19m in breach of ffp when they lost circa triple the allowance at one point,

sounds like a way of not getting into all the covid stuff (with everyone else) but still punishing them for breaching anyways.

Guessing the simple football revenue pre-covid versus during covid were easy to prove, yet the other more subjective things like transfer profit lost, etc were where they tried to pull a fast-one!

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, Rob26 said:

is there anything where you can read about their case in a bit of detail to see what come out in the wash

Yeah, here are the Written Reasons. 41 pages!

https://www.premierleague.com/news/3788486

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Rob26 said:

anyone know how they come to the figure they were only 19m in breach of ffp when they lost circa triple the allowance at one point,

sounds like a way of not getting into all the covid stuff (with everyone else) but still punishing them for breaching anyways.

 

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Guessing the simple football revenue pre-covid versus during covid were easy to prove, yet the other more subjective things like transfer profit lost, etc were where they tried to pull a fast-one!

I agree with that but there did seem to be less in the way of transparency and ability to work backwards than with some of the EFL cases.

With those it showed the P&S losses as a collective that could be checked against the Accounting losses but there were so many items and claims with Everton that it is very difficult to extrapolate what was and wasn't allowed exactly.

Suppose we can guess the academy figures.

In terms of transfer market stuff, still think that should trigger investigations of Nottingham Forest, Stoke. We are fine either way, Fulham are probably fine either way.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

For those who remember..

Nottingham Forest

Pre Tax losses (excluding debt wrote offs in the Profit and Loss)

2018-19- £25m

2019-20- £22m

2020-21- £22m

2021-22- £47m

Remember 2019-20 and 2020-21 were averaged so it's effectively £94m in the period. The challenge is to work backwards to £39m. Yes I've rounded, but am confident the rounding takes me to £94m.

Stoke City

2017-18- £30m

2018-19- £15m

2019-20- £88m

2020-21- £9m

2021-22- £18m

Period to 2020-21, due to combined averages and one PL season meant an Upper Loss limit of £61m or £55.5m.

£93.5m before any allowances or Covid add-backs to 2021 or £81.5m to 2021-22, that unlike the prior one is definitively £39m plus allowables.

Yes I'm rounding again.

The controversy here is as follows:

Nottingham Forest

Had relatively sensible £8-9m in each of the genuine 2 Covid seasons...but then had a forecast of £12m in the year where stadiums had reopened etc!

Stoke City

They broke down their losses a bit further than Nottingham Forest, the problem wasn't the transparency it was the content...

Year 1 aka 2019-20

£38m but that £38m includes some £30m in Impairment of Player Registration valuations..which they sought go exclude as a Covid add-back. Which also relieves a cost in subsequent years.

£8m of more regular costs is fine.

Year 2 aka 2020-21

Again transparency but they have sought to add-back to reduce their losses some £11m of lost transfer profit.

The other £7m of more normal Covid losses looks alright to me.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Agree Mr Pop.  I wonder whether our 22-23 accounts will have any notes like Stoke’s or Forest’s did.

I still recall meeting RG on the weekend after Forest had published their accounts with the transfer “losses” included.  I mentioned these to him and his reply was “have they now”!

[Mr Popodopolous]

That is intriguing Dave, I wonder.

I would have hoped we would be analysing all accounts in the public domain either to use in our favour or to push back to the League abour other clubs and their creative at best Covid arguments. Ideally the latter really.

The thing is it makes no odds unless we are planning on a huge mega spree in January because the Covid allowances drop off after this season and even after the Scott sale, look at our new approach.

My belief is thst post the Semenyo sale we are aok to 2023 even if we use the bare minimum of £5m average and £2.5m.

Let alone 2022 or 2024.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[CityReds]

Sorry for the off current topic question, Is there a calculation for inflation do teams adjust for it? I believe the limit for losses in EPL is £105m over 3 years which is the same since it came in almost 10 years ago? You chuck in COVID and 11% inflation that’s surely going to hit both footballing and non-footballing income unexpectedly and therefore clubs ability to keep within limits