The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[1960maaan]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’d add Pring to TC and JW.

At least he's under contract for a while . I'd like him to sign longer though.

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 hours ago, Davefevs said:

As per Tom Rawcliffe interview on @3 Peaps In A PodCast this morning:

FFP reported at BCFC Holdings level (BCFC plus AG)

Might be internal recharging, but everything like hospitality goes into FFP / P&S, inc concerts.

Wants fans to think of football and stadium as one club

3k for women to break even at AG. (I’m guessing that’s just running the ground for a game)

Don’t have a break-even point for men’s.

No plans / priorities to renovate / expand Atyeo.

And some other stuff we knew re add-backs, inc covid ones.

Mentioned that LM said “we need to be ambitious”, so wants money, but we’ll be sensible within budgets.  Have loads of FFP headroom.

 

Thanks Dave. Listening now.. bit curious that Tom Rawcliffe didn't mention Community Trust expenditure?

As we and everyone on this thread knows we hope:

*Depreciation (Plus Impairment) of Fixed Assets.

*Youth Expenditure

*Ladies Team Football Expenditure

*Community Trust

*Plus of course, Amortisation and Impairment of Intangible Assets excluding Player Related.

Capital Spend is of course Balance Sheet and or Cash Flow in most instances albeit not always- some of the Everton Stadium expenditure appesred under Profit and Loss but most often it wouldn't hit the P&L anyway 

Edited May 6 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had a quick look at the Swansea Accounts, the Parent ie Swansea City Football 2002. Pulled our a few key points.

Their underlying loss was roughly in line with my expectations albeit I expected certain costs to fall more.

Such as the wage bill- this barely fell.

Amortisation continues to rise a bit.

I assume there was a sell on for Piroe although it says nil weirdly for the prior. Anyway sell on and remaining Book value for Piroe would partially explain it but I assumed it would be a bit higher than £9.89m.

[Davefevs]

Just Reading left who’ve extended.

Have you got the staff numbers for Swansea MrP?

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Just Reading left who’ve extended.

Have you got the staff numbers for Swansea MrP?

That extension by Reading, I'm struggling to see what loophole they've used.. 

Ir wasn't reducing by a day whixh can extend by 3 months.

It wasn't extending the Reporting Period to say end of September which would align with end of June. 

Clubs ans companies got an extra 3 months in the Covid years but that is long gone.

Staff numbers Dave. I assume that wheb the club specific Accounts appear that will shed more light.

I

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That extension by Reading, I'm struggling to see what loophole they've used.. 

Ir wasn't reducing by a day whixh can extend by 3 months.

It wasn't extending the Reporting Period to say end of September which would align with end of June. 

Clubs ans companies got an extra 3 months in the Covid years but that is long gone.

Staff numbers Dave. I assume that wheb the club specific Accounts appear that will shed more light.

I

Ta, guessing it doesn’t exempt Reading for having to submit in normal timelines, so they’ll have to produce an interim set.

[Mr Popodopolous]

@Davefevs

Swansea club specific out now. Mostly the same but wages and staff members slightly different on  quick glance.

[Rob26]

On 05/05/2024 at 09:34, Mr Popodopolous said:

Bellingham was 15% of Profit, which equates to £9-9.5m.

Seen contradictory suggestions but one was that Birmingham also get that % of the add-ons as and when they fall due. That still isn't revenue under P&S however, it bolsters position without a doubt.

yeah add ons have to be included in any profit share/sell on %, otherwise you would hear about clubs just making deals 1m with 50m of add ons for his first start to dodge the payments

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

yeah add ons have to be included in any profit share/sell on %, otherwise you would hear about clubs just making deals 1m with 50m of add ons for his first start to dodge the payments

Interesting, didn't know that- thanks.

Bellingham Baseline Profit was 15% of £63m or similar based on reported fees then there were a clutch of not too difficult to hit add-ons. 15% of those?

A bigger issue is Birmingham and their Related Party deal. That seems exorbitant at time of fee for a club who at point of agreement had not been in the PL since 2011 or even the top half of the Championship since 2015-16.

Could say ah expensive flashy well attended Ground and Training Ground but St Andrews averaged between 15-20,000, sold for £22m and Wast Hills appears not to he a high end Training facility.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I may have missed this one @Davefevs @chinapig @Hxj  @ExiledAjax

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13396743/Championship-clubs-increase-permitted-lose-three-years-2-5m-following-rise-operational-costs-staff-wages.html

Dunno how I feel about this one. Quite a few clubs have started spending a bit again so this seems to reward said expenditure. We cut back and showed restraint quite brutally, surely we didn't vote for this. Seemingly linked to operational and staff costs.

Now appears without having read the article in depth to be £41.5m Upper Loss limit in 3 years.

Also @downendcity

Edited May 9 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I may have missed this one @Davefevs @chinapig @Hxj  @ExiledAjax

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13396743/Championship-clubs-increase-permitted-lose-three-years-2-5m-following-rise-operational-costs-staff-wages.html

Dunno how I feel about this one. Quite a few clubs have started spending a bit again so this seems to reward said expenditure. We cut back and showed restraint quite brutally, surely we didn't vote for this. Seemingly linked to operational and staff costs.

Now appears without having read the article in depth to be £41.5m Upper Loss limit in 3 years.

Also @downendcity

Given them £2.5m per year in Tv deal (£7.5m over 3 years) and give them another £2.5m allowance too…£10m in total in effect.

[Mr Popodopolous]

32 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Given them £2.5m per year in Tv deal (£7.5m over 3 years) and give them another £2.5m allowance too…£10m in total in effect.

Seems like it is being framed as more of a offsetting losses this £2.5m however it will ultimately increase by £10m as you say.

IMO the £2.5m per year less the potential impact on attendances, ST sales, Matchday Revenue etc caused by he new TV deal.

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Dunno how I feel about this one.

Not one to worry about.  It's a private members' club.  The members can set the rules as they like and can also set the punishments for failure as they see fit.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

40 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Not one to worry about.  It's a private members' club.  The members can set the rules as they like and can also set the punishments for failure as they see fit.

 

Well yes, if it hits the majority threshold- rising tides lift all boats.

It is a shame that the Football League via the CFRP couldn't nail Leicester although we debated this before and you thought that a sanction based on a 3rd year in-season Projection may not be so fair. I wonder why they couldn't refer that to the CFRP this season.

Edited May 9 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

chelsea fire sale needed before june, and/or likely they will be purchasing a training ground from themselves https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/man-utd-chelsea-liverpool-ffp-32798200

[Mr Popodopolous]

Chelsea I get, Man United I've been tracking their Accounts with some interest- Q3 is due out soon.

Liverpool though?? That is hard to fathom how they could've gone from low risk to risk just like that.

Cat 1 Academy, Ladies Team, Community Expenditure also deductible as well as the obvious £11,362,000 and £12,137,000 in Depreciation.

Edited Tuesday at 09:27 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

i've not checked or looked into the numbers, but I think it was working on the assumptions of next seasons limited, but then factoring in the 5x bottom team spending cap, which maybe why you got liverpool down as good to go to them saying if them rules get passed with the cap in them then they are now close.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Ah that one thanks, I was still stuck in the 3 year Rolling mindset.

[Rob26]

On 14/05/2024 at 10:41, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ah that one thanks, I was still stuck in the 3 year Rolling mindset.

also thinking about how the media works they are probs fine but good to drag another major supported team into the headline for clicks :laugh: 

[Rob26]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13425615/Leeds-raise-100MILLION-player-sales-fail-win-promotion-Premier-League.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_dailymailsport

think the 100m would only be to balance the books, given you have amortisation and profit from sales to factor in for ffp.

how far out do u think they really are 

Edited Thursday at 16:08 by Rob26

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting article albeit I'm unsure in respect of some of the workings??

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13425615/Leeds-raise-100MILLION-player-sales-fail-win-promotion-Premier-League.html

If it is taking Operating Losses in isolation then it doesn't take account of a) Sales this season and or any loan fees added b) Are they extrapolating in a bit of a lazy way because £20m in Player Impairment may not have been repeated tbis year.

Of course there would be a hole to fill, via Player Sales and cost savings plus the future looking element of EFL FFP could pose an issue but £100m just doesn't seem fully accurate. Significant hole yeah but not £100m in sales worth IMO.

Edited Thursday at 18:42 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Norwich could be interesting from an FFP angle now they have lost in the playoffs. Some probable higher earners in Gibson and Giannoulis out of contract this summer granted.

What a cost base for a Year 1 Parachute yet non Promoted club??

Costs will have fallen, Transfer Profit up but Parachute Payments down £5-10m.

Their Upper Loss limit to this year was £61m plus Allowables. Clearly they should be fine there but..

As we can see Parachute Payments plus regular EFL distributions came to £48m or so..that plus Solidarity will be £12-13m I reckon.

That Upper Loss Limit to this year of £61m plus Allowables becomes £39m plus Allowables to 2024-25. Albeit effectively add £2.5m to the headroom for all clubs due to that recent vote.

[Davefevs]

@Mr Popodopolous think their recruitment approach of free transfers (maybe on good wages) last summer was very telling.

Edited yesterday at 14:19 by Davefevs

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@Mr Popodopolous think their recruitment approach of free transfers (maybe on good wages) last summer was very telling.

I'd say so Dave. An element of contingency planning but not sure how much wages and amortisation fall..£10m maybe?

Obviously player sales were £20m plus profit wise but an issue to 2024-25 and perhaps beyond given the T+2 stuff.

Parachutes down £5-10m and that on a loss of £27m pre tax.

Said it before but neither them or West Brom are historically profligate, not at all- can probably add Swansea to that yet the fact they can run up such losses just because the model is as it is..another indicator that the model is broken.

Fulham losing £57m in a Promotion Year yeah that is to be expected even Year 1 of Parachutes. Club like Norwich £27m albeit midtable..big seachange.