Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 1 minute ago, Markthehorn said: Maybe as they admitted their guilt it’s less than Everton’s? I dunno, maybe. They've been a lot more conciliatory than Everton from the get-go which can help. Written Reasons will tell us more, but the fact the PL haven't updated their own table yet is amateurish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Percy says they're considering an Appeal. 4 points seems light given the turning down of bids for Brennan Johnson but until the Written Reasons are out and the table is updated it is hard to say really. -3 for breach. -3 for circumstances and scale. +2 for exceptional co-operation. They will appeal. They kind of have to appeal really. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markthehorn Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: -3 for breach. -3 for circumstances and scale. +2 for exceptional co-operation. They will appeal. They kind of have to appeal really. Any appeal would be heard after the season has finished apparently! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 2 minutes ago, Markthehorn said: Any appeal would be heard after the season has finished apparently! Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Markthehorn said: Any appeal would be heard after the season has finished apparently! A few days, but it isn't unprecedented. See EFL v Derby and the Interchangeable Fixture Lists, EFL v Wigan (Administration) 2020 or EFL v Macclesfield (also 2020) pertaining to a Suspended Deduction. Edited March 18 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 8 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: -3 for breach. -3 for circumstances and scale. +2 for exceptional co-operation. They will appeal. They kind of have to appeal really. -4 strikes me as light subject to the 2nd -3 and +2 back. Given the size of the EFL deductions..hmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: -4 strikes me as light subject to the 2nd -3 and +2 back. Given the size of the EFL deductions..hmm. The award does plenty of comparison to EFL cases and of course to Everton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 Just now, ExiledAjax said: The award does plenty of comparison to EFL cases and of course to Everton. The Written Reasons will be of interest, whenever they appear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 I love Paddy Power's social media, always good for a joke and a dig. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said: -4 strikes me as light subject to the 2nd -3 and +2 back. Given the size of the EFL deductions..hmm. That's because the Premier League is the best most lenient league in the world! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 (edited) 24 minutes ago, downendcity said: That's because the Premier League is the best most lenient league in the world! Yeah, still looking at the Written Reasons. 4 points for an apparent £34.5m Overspend is very lenient I must say! The Football League are/historically have been quite draconian too. Edited March 18 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markthehorn Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said: Indeed. BBC say any appeal will be rushed through potentially. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68594865 8 April (approximate) - 'Directions hearing' to set a date for an appeal hearing, which will last between one and three days and conclude no later than 24 May. It is likely to be much earlier in Forest's case 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 (edited) The EFL maybe should be going back and looking at Stoke and possibly others in both divisions but Stoke made some massive add-backs for Covid, some categories of which were dodgy to say the least. Edited March 18 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: The ERL.should be going back and looking at Stoke and possibly others in both divisions but Stoke made some massive add-backs for Covid, some categories of which were dodgy to say the least. To save you looking, here’s what they claimed. I recall mentioning this to Richard Gould a day or two after these came out, ie that Forest had detailed their Covid add-backs in their accounts, his reply was “have they now, that’s interesting” Looks like the £9.678m “gap” is the forecast (£12.178m) mins the £2.5m allowance. So maybe they were stricter with the add-backs than I thought. Or maybe Forest took the piss. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Davefevs said: To save you looking, here’s what they claimed. I recall mentioning this to Richard Gould a day or two after these came out, ie that Forest had detailed their Covid add-backs in their accounts, his reply was “have they now, that’s interesting” Looks like the £9.678m “gap” is the forecast (£12.178m) mins the £2.5m allowance. So maybe they were stricter with the add-backs than I thought. Or maybe Forest took the piss. I reckon Nottingham Forest took the piss for sure and Stoke took the piss moreso. Albeit Stoke and their piss taking was mainly in 2019-20 and 2020-21. Dunno quite how it should or would be treated. Plus they didn't go up. Stoke stand out like an absolute sore thumb. The weird thing was it seemed to be accepted at the time and then analysed later...so Nottingham Forest were technically complaint with it in March 2022. Edited March 18 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 The Accounts of Nottingham Forest sound a mess and or all over the place though, FFP aside. Surely that is double counting if they're going on about a £20m Cost of Promotion yet Promotion Bonuses not excluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IdliketoRogerMoore Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 Not sure how true this is but it does show how far behind we are behind the premier relegated clubs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 I don't especially trust Capology and such sites. Albeit the top 3 will be the top 3 in position but not necessarily total amount. I reckon we are between 10th-14th for Football Wage Bills in the division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exAtyeoMax Posted March 19 Report Share Posted March 19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 19 Author Report Share Posted March 19 Here is one that I don't get. Nottingham Forest in brwscy and perhaps lucky to get -4 given the size of the overspend! However Promotion Bonuses it seems are not exempt contrary to popular belief. Period ending 2022 Fulham Pre Tax Losses 2018-19 -£20m (PL) 2019-20 -£48m (Championship, Promoted). Covid Year also. 2020-21 -£93m (PL, main Covid Year). (Combined Average owing to Covid -£70.5m). 2021-22 -£57.5m (Promoted, back to normal save for the now established £2.5m cap). Even if they pass that period however?? -£70.5m and -£57.5m into this season and Promotion Bonuses not included. Upper Loss limit £72m plus Allowables and Covid-19. The challenge is to work backwards from A) £148m to £72m and exclude at least one set of Promotion Bonuses. B) Failing that £128m plus whatever last year to £72m again exclusive of Promotion Bonuses. Bournemouth 2018-19 -£32m (PL) 2019-20 -£60m (PL, relegated, first chunk of Covid). 2020-21 £17m Profit (Year 1 Parachute Payments, main Covid Year) (Combined Average owing to Covid-£21.5m). 2021-22 -£55.5m (Promoted, no notable Covid, Year 2 Parachute Payments). The challenge is to exclude Promotion Bonuses and work backwards from £109m to £72m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 19 Author Report Share Posted March 19 (edited) Then if you go backwards far enough, Aston Villa to 2019 but unsure about 2021, Wolves probably fail, Leeds may not definitely fail. Maybe Fulham twice or even thrice. Edited March 19 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 19 Author Report Share Posted March 19 Surely then if Promotion Bonuses aren't excludable, then settling a debt for a former owner also isn't... There is nothing in the PL Handbook or on the PSR Form about it. 2017-18 -£36.069m 2018-19 -£68.884m 2019-20 -£99.452m 2020-21 -£37.318m (Average -£68.385m). Total before Adjustments but after Averaging. -£173.338m. At the very least they fail to 2019..unless EFL Regs exclude and PL include?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 19 Author Report Share Posted March 19 (edited) Leicester charges could be on their way. https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13089224/leicester-facing-potential-points-deduction-for-alleged-breach-of-premier-leagues-profit-and-sustainability-rules I still maintain that the Forecast should somewhat feed into the real-time situation. This appears to be 2-3 articles merged into 1. Rules 2.2-2.9 Leicester won their case but what of Rules 2, 2.1 and beyond 2.9? Edited March 19 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lim5642 Posted March 19 Report Share Posted March 19 Seemed most appropriate place to post - apologies if not. Saw posted on reddit earlier 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 20 Author Report Share Posted March 20 Sheffield United lost just the £31,453,129 pre tax in their Promotion season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 20 Author Report Share Posted March 20 I think their bigger issue was Cash Flow, there were reports through last season and an Embargo at one point. Having said that had they stayed down FFP to this year would've been interesting. The Profitable PL years would've dropped off, the Upper Loss limit of £61m/£72m down to £39m and Parachute Payments Year 2 to 3 can be a £20-25m drop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Sheffield United lost just the £31,453,129 pre tax in their Promotion season. Wos reckon? £19.995m promotion bonus / costs? Edited March 20 by Davefevs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 20 Author Report Share Posted March 20 6 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Wos reckon? £19.995m promotion bonus / costs? Some reports last year said £8m, feels unlikely that the baseline wage bill is before Promotion Bonuses drops £10-15m in a year. Seen £10-15m suggested too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Some reports last year said £8m, feels unlikely that the baseline wage bill is before Promotion Bonuses drops £10-15m in a year. Seen £10-15m suggested too. I was referring to the line item - admin expenses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 20 Author Report Share Posted March 20 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Davefevs said: I was referring to the line item - admin expenses? Ah yes, thanks. I'll go look again. There were £13.75m the year before a non Promotion year. On their forum they some suggest £10-15m. Often Promotion Bonuses can be included in Total Remuneration otherwise it means Nottingham Forest had a total wage bill in 2021-22 excluding Promotion Bonuses of £57m e.g.. Maybe they did who knows but more likely £37m or so. Edited March 20 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.