The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

This deal all seems both in some ways legitimate but very convenient st the same time. Birmingham.

*Inheriting a position of £50m aggregated pre tax losses over the prior 2 seasons.

*Not one but two managers sacked during a season. Adds to the cost.

*Bellingham money yes but signings too.

*Jordan James being seriously looked at by Atalanta and maybe some other English and Italian clubs.

*The sponsorship done by a Related Party...

*...Valuation done by a relatively new Club Partner.

Edited January 26 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Needs challenging or adjudication on IMO.

[Davefevs]

[Mr Popodopolous]

Well well 

Ornstein has implied that Aston Villa must sell by the end of their Reporting Period to comply with P&S.

Not looked in depth yet but I would have thought the bigger issue would be to end of 2024-25 because of the Grealish deal.. ie a possible crunch more likely then not now.

I would also query Bournemouth and Fulham and how they seem to be gliding clear.

Edited January 29 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

The Leicester situation is confusing too..still.

1) Maresca has stated a number of times that they need to sell to add.

2) The media etc keep saying Sensi is but one step away but they haven't sold anyone yet. (Iversen loaned out, Smithies retires, Thomas returned but was loaned out again Friday and Casadei was recalled by Chelsea).

3) Maresca has stated that they don't have to sell anyone.

Is it that they're right on £83m? If there is a deficit that needs to be filled...

...Bit of poker being played by all sides probably but certain bits don't stack.

[Rob26]

On 26/01/2024 at 16:02, Mr Popodopolous said:

This deal all seems both in some ways legitimate but very convenient st the same time. Birmingham.

*Inheriting a position of £50m aggregated pre tax losses over the prior 2 seasons.

*Not one but two managers sacked during a season. Adds to the cost.

*Bellingham money yes but signings too.

*Jordan James being seriously looked at by Atalanta and maybe some other English and Italian clubs.

*The sponsorship done by a Related Party...

*...Valuation done by a relatively new Club Partner.

chances are they have paid someone to give them the answer they want :laugh:, hopefully they are not advising them on ffp fiddles, as I imagine they may land themselves in bother, 

[Mr Popodopolous]

If Birmingham, Cardiff, Leicester, QPR or anyone are over in their Projections in March they should be docked points there and then IMO.

No player sale(s) materialised for Leicester yet..The others have some quite heavy prior losses feeding in, well so do Leicester from 2021-22 tbh.

Edited January 29 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

On 26/01/2024 at 15:22, ExiledAjax said:

All I can tell you and @W-S-M Seagull is that Birmingham obtained a third party valuation which was benchmarked to multiple other deals.

If the EFL do question it then they will be presented with that valuation report. 

Provided by the valuer who valued Pride Park for Mel Morris? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 26/01/2024 at 15:22, ExiledAjax said:

All I can tell you and @W-S-M Seagull is that Birmingham obtained a third party valuation which was benchmarked to multiple other deals.

If the EFL do question it then they will be presented with that valuation report. 

To return to this point.

A partner of Birmingham.

Secondly comparable Championship deals? Unsure there are any or many. What criteria?

I wish we had relegated that arrogant lot in 2017. Plus we should restrict their allocation in future as their club kept us to 2k in December and fans were clamouring for more on Twitter.

Valuer v Valuer at EFL could be one way to go.

Edited January 29 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

If true, this could help to return some sanity to the game or begin the process.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13020029/Premier-League-clubs-delay-signing-new-contracts-breaching-spending-rules.html

Edited January 29 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If true, this could help to return some sanity to the game or begin the process.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13020029/Premier-League-clubs-delay-signing-new-contracts-breaching-spending-rules.html

I'm no accountant but I thought expenditure had to be allocated to the accounts for the relevant financial year. So if a player is paid a sum next year that in respect of this year that sum should appear in this year's accounts.

If that makes any sense!

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm no accountant but I thought expenditure had to be allocated to the accounts for the relevant financial year. So if a player is paid a sum next year that in respect of this year that sum should appear in this year's accounts.

If that makes any sense!

Ah yes, good point..backdating??

I was just looking at it from an initial potential stalling of the market.

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A partner of Birmingham.

A partner who they've engaged to "...develop a long-term strategy to maximise the commercial value of St. Andrew’s and the Club’s training grounds". Providing a valuation of the naming rights is doing just that isn't it? I'm not sure there's really much to see there.

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Secondly comparable Championship deals? Unsure there are any or many. What criteria?

The valuation is benchmarked against 8 recent deals, including the ones you've already mentioned. Does it take a slightly aggressive/optimistic/American view of what the potential value is? Yes probably it does. Does that mean it's not the fair market value? Not automatically no.

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I wish we had relegated that arrogant lot in 2017. Plus we should restrict their allocation in future as their club kept us to 2k in December and fans were clamouring for more on Twitter.

With this comment I think you let slip your  bias Pop. I respect you greatly for your knowledge and tenacity with financial issues in the game, but here I think maybe take a breath and look at the deal without the noise of Twitter, or feelings of injustice around ticket allocations, clouding your excellent judgement.

[Mr Popodopolous]

23 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

A partner who they've engaged to "...develop a long-term strategy to maximise the commercial value of St. Andrew’s and the Club’s training grounds". Providing a valuation of the naming rights is doing just that isn't it? I'm not sure there's really much to see there.

The arms length element though, EA?

Question I guess is what came first, their valuation or the Partnership. ie did they value then get on board, or did they get on board then value.

23 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The valuation is benchmarked against 8 recent deals, including the ones you've already mentioned. Does it take a slightly aggressive/optimistic/American view of what the potential value is? Yes probably it does. Does that mean it's not the fair market value? Not automatically no.

It's all so subjective isn't it, Fair Market Value.

8 recent deals, I read some of it Friday but struggling to see on the face of it how the base figure at the very least is justified. The other areas are novel and creative.

Over a decade in the Championship, moderate non matchday revenue, attendances just returned to 20k or so this year..ground at most recent valuation worth £20-21m.

Think sale and leaseback in May 2019 was £22.6m or something but there was a small devaluation subsequently, would have to double check that element.

Slightly aggressive view gives grounds for a 2nd valuation IMO ie an EFL hired firm. Then let an Independent Disciplinary Commission decide if needed.

23 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

With this comment I think you let slip your  bias Pop. I respect you greatly for your knowledge and tenacity with financial issues in the game, but here I think maybe take a breath and look at the deal without the noise of Twitter, or feelings of injustice around ticket allocations, clouding your excellent judgement.

This is fair and thanks EA. I don't particularly like Birmingham, the arrogance at AG in August one example, also one of my first memories was the 1999 all but relegation game- but I do question despite this and will re-read the document I posted the baseline valuation certainly..The bonuses and incentives are a separate issue but it seems toppy for the level.

Potential value or growth of this is separate again but how that fits into RPT P&S regs hmm.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Birmingham actually did a naming rights deal in summer 2018, approaching the P&S deadline. TTA (Trillion Trophy Asia) or similar.

Was clearly with that in mind, was restated I'm sure.

Clearly these owners are more professional than their last owners, the external valuation could prove a key difference too but some kind of weighting for division or similar could be useful..benchmarking.

Edited January 29 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Always hard to know for sure but Maresca still stating that departure(s) needed in order to add.

I wonder about just how close they might be to £83m adjusted Upper Loss limit to this year.

[W-S-M Seagull]

On 29/01/2024 at 17:07, Mr Popodopolous said:

To return to this point.

A partner of Birmingham.

Secondly comparable Championship deals? Unsure there are any or many. What criteria?

I wish we had relegated that arrogant lot in 2017. Plus we should restrict their allocation in future as their club kept us to 2k in December and fans were clamouring for more on Twitter.

Valuer v Valuer at EFL could be one way to go.

I have issues with party related sponsorship deals. Bet365 and Stoke for example.

But I think my original concern about this deal was more so about the bit where they'd get extra money for X amount of followers or engagements or whatever. That's something I've not seen before? And it looks like a loophole to get money into the club. 

For example, what's stopping say Pula from sponsoring us and saying "if Conway scores a goal and his gif gets X amount of engagements then bcfc will recieve 1 million pounds"? 

I just don't like it. It's open to abuse and probably goes against the objectives of the rules, especially as it's essentially their own owners offering these rewards. It's the owners essentially investing money into the club through the back door. 

Edited January 31 by W-S-M Seagull

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I have issues with party related sponsorship deals. Bet365 and Stoke for example.

But I think my original concern about this deal was more so about the bit where they'd get extra money for X amount of followers or engagements or whatever. That's something I've not seen before? And it looks like a loophole to get money into the club. 

For example, what's stopping say Pula from sponsoring us and saying "if Conway scores a goal and his gif gets X amount of engagements then bcfc will recieve 1 million pounds"? 

I just don't like it. It's open to abuse and probably goes against the objectives of the rules, especially as it's essentially their own owners offering these rewards. It's the owners essentially investing money into the club through the back door. 

I do strongly agree on this, but the baseline looks high as well doesn't it..£5-5.5m per season for in recent years a bottom half Championship club with attracted averaging 20k and below. A stadium worth £22.6m in 2019.

Yeah it needs some proper analysis by an external body really. Was it £100k per 20m "impressions" going up to £3m? Seems suspect..I suppose they would argue that Brady has put them on the map.

[Mr Popodopolous]

You may have already seen it @W-S-M Seagull

Looks toppy don't we think?

[W-S-M Seagull]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You may have already seen it @W-S-M Seagull

Looks toppy don't we think?

Out of interest, how much sponsorship money do we get? 

5-6 million for Birmingham seems very optimistic to be considered fair value. 

The social media performance is something that really bothers me. It's creative but I think it goes against the spirit of the regulations. 

Edited January 31 by W-S-M Seagull

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Out of interest, how much sponsorship money do we get? 

5-6 million for Birmingham seems very optimistic to be considered fair value. 

The social media performance is something that really bothers me. I think it goes against the spirit of the regulations. 

We don't disclose individual sponsors as far as I'm aware but in some ways given all the commercial use of AG, the recent Cup runs to an extent, the multisport use we should be able to match and outperform them for such a deal.

I would definitely say the base fee feels somewhat optimistic and bullish yes.

Hard to say isn't it, other clubs may have similar but then again may not..most don't lay out their deal in the way that Birmingham have done.

A generous slant is that it is innovative and creative, less so that it is a fudge.

According to this, it (£100k per 20m Verified Impressions, up to £3m) is cheap in Industry terms but given he is a Birmingham fan I'd want a 2nd and 3rd opinion..

https://almajir.net/2024/01/30/editorial-building-a-dream/

Does he, do Birmingham fans come across as arrogant? Hard to say...

As a club they allocated us and I assume many others 2k this year..I certainly don't see that we should exceed it in the League.

Edited January 31 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Here we go @W-S-M Seagull

From the football specific accounts in 2022-23, this doesn't include the AGL Commercial Revenue which appears in the BCFC Holdings.

Other Commercial and Retail Income seems like the main category.

[W-S-M Seagull]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Here we go @W-S-M Seagull

From the football specific accounts in 2022-23, this doesn't include the AGL Commercial Revenue which appears in the BCFC Holdings.

Other Commercial and Retail Income seems like the main category.

Thanks Mr P. Much appreciated. 

If you take away the retail income, whatever that is then it seems their sponsorship deal is very bloated compared to what we recieve. Although of course their deal does include naming rights etc where as we don't have that. 

In life I'm of the opinion that if something doesn't feel right, it usually isn't and this doesn't feel right. 

They've tried to frame it as Knighthead are sponsoring Brum to raise brand awareness of Knighthead. Bullshit. I personally don't think that them being associated with Brum is going to raise the brand by upto 9 million in brand value a year. 

This bit sticks out to me "as well as inject revenue into the club" which basically means to me, inject money into the club to get around the rules about how much an owner can inject into a club.

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

34 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We don't disclose individual sponsors as far as I'm aware but in some ways given all the commercial use of AG, the recent Cup runs to an extent, the multisport use we should be able to match and outperform them for such a deal.

I would definitely say the base fee feels somewhat optimistic and bullish yes.

Hard to say isn't it, other clubs may have similar but then again may not..most don't lay out their deal in the way that Birmingham have done.

A generous slant is that it is innovative and creative, less so that it is a fudge.

According to this, it (£100k per 20m Verified Impressions, up to £3m) is cheap in Industry terms but given he is a Birmingham fan I'd want a 2nd and 3rd opinion..

https://almajir.net/2024/01/30/editorial-building-a-dream/

Does he, do Birmingham fans come across as arrogant? Hard to say...I'd defo cut their allocations to what they give us in future years.

He's saying it's fair value but then said the below... 

I spent a short amount of time looking on Google for comparative deals in the division to see just how impressive the club deal is and the two I found quickly only go to show the Knighthead deal is massive in comparison to what other clubs have managed to get.

[Rob26]

let them try it on, anyone can get expert testimony to make your side of the story sound credible. its what you pay them for, to use their credentials to back up how your framing something. if they count on getting everything they may find themselves in bother and will have to deal with it like anyone else.

who are their comparable? have they said or released the report? chances are they are deals done in the prem or something 

8 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Out of interest, how much sponsorship money do we get? 

5-6 million for Birmingham seems very optimistic to be considered fair value. 

The social media performance is something that really bothers me. It's creative but I think it goes against the spirit of the regulations. 

I know for us we had just north of 7m for all our commercial income, we get approx. 5k+ more fans in every game and are a slightly bigger club in recent years than them in performances and spotlight, so we should really be the top end for their comparisons, and I'd argue maybe we shouldn't be compared at all.

we are sponsored by a betting company UNIBET, which I would assume are the better payers in our league. 

we are plus 5m on the last accounts to their last accounts without a stadium naming deal, so for them to have a deal that pays them for every position they include from their place at relegation zone, that is just for stadium naming rights that would add lets say 6-9m to the commercial revenue seems to be top heavy no matter how they frame it.

epically when you consider the 2m+ from last year included all of their sponsorship without the ground name included.

if the ground name sponsorship was worth so much more than shirts etc every club would have that as well. 

we were the first club to do this when our stadium was new calling it the cellnet stadium, if it was worth that much to change the name of the ground surely we would value considerable payments like this over the fans moaning about the ground name changing. 

[Rob26]

anyone able to grab and copy and paste the full thing up here, guessing one of you are subscribers to SR

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Small enough?

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/opinion/the-premier-league-needs-to-change-its-financial-rules-for-the-fans-more-than-the-clubs

We've had to do this for years and not just us by any stretch..Sell and trade players with some FFP angle in particular Academy Players.

Edited January 31 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

yeah and FFP is made to encourage this, because the more transfer worthy first team pro's are developed is good for the game 

it's also forcing these big clubs to make decisions and share these players with other clubs, rather than hoarding them and paying them to stay rather than play for others.

the only way you could get around it is by placing values on these players, but guess what it will add profit to the accounts before a deal is done and we will have endless FFP cases where the club states we never made a loss because we think this player is now worth 25m, this ones worth 20m, this ones worth 10m and we paid no fee's for them.

the way they do it now is much better than opening that can of worms.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Thanks Mr P. Much appreciated. 

If you take away the retail income, whatever that is then it seems their sponsorship deal is very bloated compared to what we recieve. Although of course their deal does include naming rights etc where as we don't have that. 

In life I'm of the opinion that if something doesn't feel right, it usually isn't and this doesn't feel right. 

They've tried to frame it as Knighthead are sponsoring Brum to raise brand awareness of Knighthead. Bullshit. I personally don't think that them being associated with Brum is going to raise the brand by upto 9 million in brand value a year. 

This bit sticks out to me "as well as inject revenue into the club" which basically means to me, inject money into the club to get around the rules about how much an owner can inject into a club.

 

No problem, it's hard to pin down as it all comes under Commercial Revenue and similar categories.

Agreed. Naming Rights could add but I'm sure Sheffield Wednesday had naming rights under Chansiri albeit for some stands or Related Party Sponsorship and that was £1-1.5m per season. They were non-trading companies but the EFL were fine with it as it was Fair Value or similar.

Agreed.

Ha. It's a reach..maybe the Tom Brady angle in mind or maybe they're anticipating promotion to the PL sooner rather than later. As that blogger wrote "The future is very, very bright".

Agreed. Good spot that..injections are of course captured under Fair Market Value rules.

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

He's saying it's fair value but then said the below... 

I spent a short amount of time looking on Google for comparative deals in the division to see just how impressive the club deal is and the two I found quickly only go to show the Knighthead deal is massive in comparison to what other clubs have managed to get.

Yeah. It doesn't fully stack does it.

Even QPR, which is an RPT btw is lower  by far.

Perhaps there is an element of belief in future growth, but it doesn't stack. Future Projections vs present Value and Benchmarking.