The Office (UK): Ipswich Town edition

[Lanterne Rouge]

52 minutes ago, Loosey Boy said:

Exactly that @GrahamC - think they have a right to win every week!

Lets hope we stick to them on Tuesday night 

Let`s hope today`s game has taken a lot out of them, mentally more than anything.

[cidercity1987]

https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/576421/david-burns-appears-to-have-deleted-his-twitter-account-now

What you been up to @djb6162?

 

[exAtyeoMax]

https://www.itfc.co.uk/news/2024/march/22/press-release-bright-path-sports/

 

[Highburnred]

£105,000,000 for 40% they better get promoted if they’re valued the club at more than £260 million 

[exAtyeoMax]

21 minutes ago, Highburnred said:

£105,000,000 for 40% they better get promoted if they’re valued the club at more than £260 million 

is that dodgy?

[Highburnred]

7 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

is that dodgy?

I don’t have a clue better ask @Mr Popodopolous

Edited March 22 by Highburnred
Name wrong

[Alessandro]

Phrased as investment “up to” - so presume that’s staggered over a period or even subject to clauses, promotion etc?

Either way, even if they don’t go up this season, that’s Ipswich propelled to a higher level of spending that we could never match. 

And another championship club getting serious investment - despite us advertising for it, doesn’t seem anyone is interested? Bit depressing. 

[1960maaan]

1 hour ago, Highburnred said:

£105,000,000 for 40% they better get promoted if they’re valued the club at more than £260 million 

Strikes me as more than a little bit suspicious . 
The ground isn't all that special , their training ground is over 20 years old . To add perspective ...

"The takeover of the Championship club (WBA) , worth a reported £60m, to acquire Guochuan Lai's 87.8 per cent majority shareholding has been approved by the EFL."

I believe WBA has a Cat 1 academy , Ipswich Cat 2. 
Ipswich's ground is bigger by 4k .

I don't get that WBA value can be £68m ish and Ipswich £262m . 

@Mr Popodopolous is this a little like Derby valuing their old ground at £80m ? 

[Bedred31]

And I’ve never really understood how buying a 40% share = investment. Presumably the purchase money goes primarily to whoever previously owned the 40%. Instead, the idea seems to be that if someone gives you £100m, then ‘you’ automatically become £100m more valuable, whereupon 40% more shares are magically created to represent this increase in value and given to the outfit who gifted the £100m. Which looks suspiciously like a fairly basic form of financial support. This is not an anti- Ipswich rant, as many clubs seem to do it, not least our own SL. If there’s one lesson from this, it’s that money always follows success, and that if SL really wants to realise his investment and get his money out, then starving the squad and driving down towards League 1 may not be the best commercial strategy.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Ipswich loss has gone up to £18m.

They publish their P&S Returns however but Related Party Preference Shares is an odd one. Doesn't appear on the P&S form unless that contributes to the equality £8m x 3 in any cycle.

Edited March 23 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, Highburnred said:

I don’t have a clue better ask @Mr Popodopolous

Don't see how it makes any difference to P&S Regs. £39m plus Allowables set against £24m in equity ie the first £24m in any given 3 Year Period.

That aside it seems inordinately and oddly high.

[fgrsimon]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Don't see how it makes any difference to P&S Regs. £39m plus Allowables set against £24m in equity ie the first £24m in any given 3 Year Period.

That aside it seems inordinately and oddly high.

I agree don't think it affects FFP/PSR. It's just a case that if someone thinks that a 40% share in Ipswich is worth £110 million then that's their choice and their potential loss. I can think of a lot less risky options than investing in a football club!

[exAtyeoMax]

4 hours ago, fgrsimon said:

I agree don't think it affects FFP/PSR. It's just a case that if someone thinks that a 40% share in Ipswich is worth £110 million then that's their choice and their potential loss. I can think of a lot less risky options than investing in a football club!

My first thought was Donald Trump! Overestimating the value of an asset for some reason

[CodeRed]

12 hours ago, Bedred31 said:

If there’s one lesson from this, it’s that money always follows success, and that if SL really wants to realise his investment and get his money out, then starving the squad and driving down towards League 1 may not be the best commercial strategy.

Exactly, someone looks at Bristol City - they're going nowhere, poor leadership on and off the pitch.....let's throw our money in there ???

The quote from the new Ipswich investor was " we invest in people and the management team at Ipswich are doing a fantastic job"

Is someone investing £100M in Tinnion ??!

 

[Davefevs]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ipswich loss has gone up to £18m.

They publish their P&S Returns however but Related Party Preference Shares is an odd one. Doesn't appear on the P&S form unless that contributes to the equality £8m x 3 in any cycle.

The highlights (?) for me were:

• £18.2m loss which is bloody high in Lg1
• Grown revenue off the back of increasing crowds and commercial deals
• Costs growing exponentially (revenue up £8m but costs up £13.5m)
• Wages up by circa 50%
• £8m spent on transfer fees in Lg1 / book value £16m

Basically they won came second in Lg1 operating like a mid-table budget Championship side!  That sounds a bit churlish, it probably is, but anything other than promotion last season would be failure.  Hats off to them this season in taking that squad to the verge of another promotion.  They are going for it!

@Dan11

Not having a go at you or some of your more educated posters on TWTD, because you already knew that Ashton was talking horseshit with his “net neutral” claims, but I hope someone remembers that and asks him to square that off at your next fans forum.

I didn’t expect losses to be that big, I thought the revenue increases would probably cover most of the increased costs, so another £6m increase in losses is surprising.

Interesting to know internally whether this is a two season gamble or not?

[Dan11]

44 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The highlights (?) for me were:

• £18.2m loss which is bloody high in Lg1
• Grown revenue off the back of increasing crowds and commercial deals
• Costs growing exponentially (revenue up £8m but costs up £13.5m)
• Wages up by circa 50%
• £8m spent on transfer fees in Lg1 / book value £16m

Basically they won came second in Lg1 operating like a mid-table budget Championship side!  That sounds a bit churlish, it probably is, but anything other than promotion last season would be failure.  Hats off to them this season in taking that squad to the verge of another promotion.  They are going for it!

@Dan11

Not having a go at you or some of your more educated posters on TWTD, because you already knew that Ashton was talking horseshit with his “net neutral” claims, but I hope someone remembers that and asks him to square that off at your next fans forum.

I didn’t expect losses to be that big, I thought the revenue increases would probably cover most of the increased costs, so another £6m increase in losses is surprising.

Interesting to know internally whether this is a two season gamble or not?

GC2020 have been very aggressive and willing to spend money since coming in. Costs falling outside FFP have risen from £3.3m in 2020/21 to £6.8m in 2022/23. They've really put money into every area of the club - youth development, community engagement, women's team and the playing squad. But it's all paid off because they've really mobilised and re-engaged the fan base - not many clubs could generate £21.7m revenue in L1, but they've squeezed every penny out of us. Every facet of the club has improved and you can visibly see it. They have big plans for the training ground this summer too. I think the £105m valuation for 40% of the club shows you how their investment has paid off! (even if I do think it is nuts at this stage). 

The FFP reconciliation is the most interesting part for me. £20.6m loss over the last 3 seasons with a measly £1.9m of it (thanks Marcus Evans) being for 2020/21. So on a rolling 3 year basis, that means we can lose up to £20.3m this season and be within the £39m limit. I'd expect revenue to well in excess of £30m this year and we've spent fairly sensibly with £4m on assets like Taylor (3 year deal), Al-Hamadi (4 year deal) and Hirst (4 year deal). Of course other playing costs will also have gone up but I'd expect us to be well within £20.3m and therefore in no desperate need to flog anyone before 30th June 2024. If we don't go up, I think we are all resigned to losing Davis, but we should be able to negotiate a better deal post 1st July. 

*Edit* - and your mid table Champ club in L1 is spot on. As we discussed before, we've really used the SCMP rules in L1 to our advantage to build a squad at that level that we felt could compete at this level too. 

Edited March 23 by Dan11

[Davefevs]

@Dan11 yep all makes sense.  Wrote on TWTD ages back that I didn’t see FFP being an issue.  Good to see a club transparent with the “FFP allowables” too.

The bit I’m intrigued by is the “upto £105m”…as @Alessandro says above that appears to be performance related, or else the words “upto” wouldn’t be used.  I reckon some form of “promotion” bonus, ie investing in a PL-bound club makes the price x, but if it gets to tye PL, then price y.  New investors aren’t risking an overvaluation, Ipswich not setting a stupid price.  All very “Dragons Den”!

@headhunter a “promotion dividend” - sell cheaper, but include a “bonus”…where did we hear that this week!

[Dan11]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

@Dan11 yep all makes sense.  Wrote on TWTD ages back that I didn’t see FFP being an issue.  Good to see a club transparent with the “FFP allowables” too.

The bit I’m intrigued by is the “upto £105m”…as @Alessandro says above that appears to be performance related, or else the words “upto” wouldn’t be used.  I reckon some form of “promotion” bonus, ie investing in a PL-bound club makes the price x, but if it gets to tye PL, then price y.  New investors aren’t risking an overvaluation, Ipswich not setting a stupid price.  All very “Dragons Den”!

@headhunter a “promotion dividend” - sell cheaper, but include a “bonus”…where did we hear that this week!

Yeah, I imagine you are right. There must be some contingencies in the deal. I could certainly think of less risky ways to spend £105m but hopefully for us it pays off for them!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Marcus Evans was a bit Mke Ashleyesque in his latter days (from the outside) in that his failure to spend anything of note left a bit of a golden legacy from an FFP perspective for a while at least for new owners/investors.

[W-S-M Seagull]

23 hours ago, Alessandro said:

Either way, even if they don’t go up this season, that’s Ipswich propelled to a higher level of spending that we could never match. 

Not really. They are still bound by ffp. 

[Alessandro]

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

Not really. They are still bound by ffp. 

Of course - but gives them the funds to push FFP to the limit.

Look at us, we must have a nice buffer in our FFP, but if Lansdown uses the revenue from Scott and Semenyo, for example, to pay for wages and other running costs, instead of ploughing back into squad, that FFP buffer means nothing.

Ipswich can afford to spend what they earn, and Ashton will no doubt be maxing those revenue streams, all the while there is little jeopardy over the funds.

Can they not also use it for development, academy etc? Go cat 1 and use the funds to outgun other clubs in area for best youngsters etc etc. 

Edited March 23 by Alessandro

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

Of course - but gives them the funds to push FFP to the limit.

Look at us, we must have a nice buffer in our FFP, but if Lansdown uses the revenue from Scott and Semenyo, for example, to pay for wages and other running costs, instead of ploughing back into squad, that FFP buffer means nothing.

Ipswich can afford to spend what they earn, and Ashton will no doubt be maxing those revenue streams, all the while there is little jeopardy over the funds.

Can they not also use it for development, academy etc? Go cat 1 and use the funds to outgun other clubs in area for best youngsters etc etc. 

Cat 1 takes some time, always wonder why we haven't gone for it.

Academy Expenditure of course exempt from FFP/P&S. (The item of Related Party Preference Shares is curious). Infrsdfure, Cat 1- Cash Flow it can all help to build matters yes.

We have by my reckoning £10m of unused headroom to this year and £15m, maybe £15-20m but closer to £15m than £20m probably.

We could do more Commercially too I'm sure. We do very well but resting on laurels we can't do that. I reckon US Owners or Investors would look to turbocharge it here.

[Davefevs]

31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Cat 1 takes some time, always wonder why we haven't gone for it.

Academy Expenditure of course exempt from FFP/P&S. (The item of Related Party Preference Shares is curious). Infrsdfure, Cat 1- Cash Flow it can all help to build matters yes.

We have by my reckoning £10m of unused headroom to this year and £15m, maybe £15-20m but closer to £15m than £20m probably.

We could do more Commercially too I'm sure. We do very well but resting on laurels we can't do that. I reckon US Owners or Investors would look to turbocharge it here.

The answer was given at the latest fans forum.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The answer was given at the latest fans forum.

I'll go back and re-read, thanks.

There must be some Tangible benefits to it.

Edited March 24 by Mr Popodopolous

[1960maaan]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'll go back and check, thanks.

There must be some Tangible benefits to it.

I think they said the extra cost would out weigh the benefits 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, 1960maaan said:

I think they said the extra cost would out weigh the benefits 

Isn't there some sort if Privilege for Cat 1 in terms of recruitment or an I getting mixed up with EPPP? I'll be honest I don't know enough about this element and we are doing quite fine without it but it seems like a Selling Point.

Quantuma seemed very keen to keep it during Derby administration (being able to when in that financial position really is curious but that's another issue).

[1960maaan]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Isn't there some sort if Privilege for Cat 1 in terms of recruitment or an I getting mixed up with EPPP? I'll be honest I don't know enough about this element and we are doing quite fine without it but it seems like a Selling Point.

Quantuma seemed very keen to keep it during Derby administration (being able to when in that financial position really is curious but that's another issue).

I think there may be some perceived glory, but I'm sure they said that there wasn't a great deal extra to be gained . The costs moving it to Cat A look to be almost double . Loads more staff needed and more hours schooling the kids, though I think we wouldn't need the indoor pitch as the Rugby may qualify .  The compensation when leaving an academy is more as you go from 3 to 2 to 1 .
So it seems it's a balance , I saw an article where Watford wanted to drop from applying for Cat one , down to Cat 3 to save money, I think that was around 2014.

[Mr Popodopolous]

59 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I think there may be some perceived glory, but I'm sure they said that there wasn't a great deal extra to be gained . The costs moving it to Cat A look to be almost double . Loads more staff needed and more hours schooling the kids, though I think we wouldn't need the indoor pitch as the Rugby may qualify .  The compensation when leaving an academy is more as you go from 3 to 2 to 1 .
So it seems it's a balance , I saw an article where Watford wanted to drop from applying for Cat one , down to Cat 3 to save money, I think that was around 2014.

Thanks.

The way I see it, granted not an area I look into too much is that:

*FFP exempt.

*More attractive to prospective players, coaches etc.

*Possibly could help us under EPPP Rules.

*Maybe more attractive to prospective investors.

Granted if we are looking to be as self-reliant as possible then it is a nice to have but ideally it strikes me as having advantages for sure. Subject to willingness or ability of SL or the owner to push on with it and that isn't a criticism of him, just a fact.

[Dan11]

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Marcus Evans was a bit Mke Ashleyesque in his latter days (from the outside) in that his failure to spend anything of note left a bit of a golden legacy from an FFP perspective for a while at least for new owners/investors.

Yeah that is fair.

The truth is that he bought us at a time when we were hovering around the play-offs and there wasn't an abundance of cash knocking about in the Championship. He came in with no plan and thought he could simply spend cash on players quickly, get us promoted and make a nice profit. Then he appointed Roy Keane - big mistake. From there onwards it was a complete car crash. Within a few years, the whole landscape of the division had changed and he was suddenly a relative pauper with no plan, his fingers burned and little appetite to invest in the club. The game became too rich for him. Hard to really criticise him for that but we were just in a period of stasis for several years where he deludedly hoped he could fluke a PL promotion with minimal investment (and McCarthy nearly managed it which was a hinderance in the end as it gave him further false hope) The state of the whole club was a disgrace by the end to be honest and we were pretty much on life support. 

[Davefevs]

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks.

The way I see it, granted not an area I look into too much is that:

*FFP exempt.

*More attractive to prospective players, coaches etc.

*Possibly could help us under EPPP Rules.

*Maybe more attractive to prospective investors.

Granted if we are looking to be as self-reliant as possible then it is a nice to have but ideally it strikes me as having advantages for sure. Subject to willingness or ability of SL or the owner to push on with it and that isn't a criticism of him, just a fact.

The other, probably biggest reason, is that they’d have to have an u21 squad of necessary quality to compete in PL2, and that would mean not being able to loan out, which the club feels develops players quickly.  It’s alright for the PL teams to have huge numbers of u21s, some go out on loan, some stay in u21s.