FFP amendments - covid allowances

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Although Gould and Lansdown could be a bit more candid still ie point out the potential aspects of a Business Plan, possible squad size limits or perhaps even a preemptive Business Plan, a change that I highlighted Thursday.

All that said, there is no doubt (to date) that we are being a lot more transparent than a lot of other clubs who might have problems now or in the near future.

If they want to level with us over the possible downsides, then they need to do so in full...or as far as possible anyway.

I think next March is a likely deadline to fix things, two windows. If you can forecast a breach ahead of time, then it stands to reason that you can dock points during the season of the breach if not in line by then.

I’m guessing end of summer window (ins and outs) we’d know where we are.

If we were to just let O’Dowda, Martin, Simpson, Cundy, Klose, King go as OOC, that’s probably £1.5m saved off the bat.

Tying Massengo down til 2025, spreads his amortisation over 3 years and saves £0.5m next season, less any wage increase he gets.

Tying Kalas down til 2025, spreads his amortisation over 3 years and save £1.3m next season, plus we probably reduce his wages too.

By the summer we will know the situation with both of these two.  We have either clawed back somewhere between £1.5m-£2.0m…or they’re leaving and with their transfer fees, FFP disappears.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m guessing end of summer window (ins and outs) we’d know where we are.

If we were to just let O’Dowda, Martin, Simpson, Cundy, Klose, King go as OOC, that’s probably £1.5m saved off the bat.

Tying Massengo down til 2025, spreads his amortisation over 3 years and saves £0.5m next season, less any wage increase he gets.

Tying Kalas down til 2025, spreads his amortisation over 3 years and save £1.3m next season, plus we probably reduce his wages too.

By the summer we will know the situation with both of these two.  We have either clawed back somewhere between £1.5m-£2.0m…or they’re leaving and with their transfer fees, FFP disappears.

Yeah, although I always thought the amortisation fell by £4-5m not £7m and the real big surge in savings would be summer 2023.

The only problem with extensions and smoothing is that if not done soon, then it theoretically could be too late- as @AnotherDerbyFan can confirm, Marriott was extended possibly with amortisation in mind...until he wasn't. In short, if their wage now comes in above a Business Plan allowance by the time that Business Plan arises then it might be too late. See also Richards at Reading- not so much his initial contract but what he was worth, he went to Bayern on a free. Chances are that Olise would have yielded a bigger fee if not for his buyout clause- an extension to protect his value either through a raised or removed buyout clause and then a relatively quick sale would have been one way to go there but again was at odds with the Business Plan I expect., Pretty sure the EFL in fact blocked the Marriott extension and fresh terms could not be agreed.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah, although I always thought the amortisation fell by £4-5m not £7m and the real big surge in savings would be summer 2023.

The only problem with extensions and smoothing is that if not done soon, then it theoretically could be too late- as @AnotherDerbyFan can confirm, Marriott was extended possibly with amortisation in mind...until he wasn't. In short, if their wage now comes in above a Business Plan allowance by the time that Business Plan arises then it might be too late. See also Richards at Reading- not so much his initial contract but what he was worth, he went to Bayern on a free. Chances are that Olise would have yielded a bigger fee if not for his buyout clause- an extension to protect his value either through a raised or removed buyout clause and then a relatively quick sale would have been one way to go there but again was at odds with the Business Plan I expect., Pretty sure the EFL in fact blocked the Marriott extension and fresh terms could not be agreed.

I honestly don’t feel we will be on a restrictive business plan, more likely close monitoring.  Don’t forget Derby might pass FFP, but they had a shed load of historic debt they couldn’t service, including staged payments to Arsenal, £26m to HMRC etc…their issue was more serious, it was real, there and then, not like our projected position in 15 months time…which I’m sure might even be projected to be within £39m because of this summer’s plan.  We can easily prove how contract extensions for Kalas or Massengo improve our position.  We are paying people on time, etc.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I honestly don’t feel we will be on a restrictive business plan, more likely close monitoring.  Don’t forget Derby might pass FFP, but they had a shed load of historic debt they couldn’t service, including staged payments to Arsenal, £26m to HMRC etc…their issue was more serious, it was real, there and then, not like our projected position in 15 months time…which I’m sure might even be projected to be within £39m because of this summer’s plan.  We can easily prove how contract extensions for Kalas or Massengo improve our position.  We are paying people on time, etc.

I hope so...possible that all of the external issues played a role but our position might be closer to Reading (not in terms of breach but in terms of cooperation etc) so you know I'm shall we say risk averse in that area.

The other issue that's just come to mind, although that's for another day is that if we had a theoretical hole of £x to fill after releasing players going into 2022/23, then were allowed to sign say 6 players on a cap of £6k per week per player, and we did on 12 month deals then that without bothering not to round, is another £1.8m added to a theoretical hole. Could it be a case of sell someone before freedom to move on contracts, in the market etc?

Edited February 18, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I hope so...possible that all of the external issues played a role but our position might be closer to Reading (not in terms of breach but in terms of cooperation etc) so you know I'm shall we say risk averse in that area.

The other issue that's just come to mind, although that's for another day is that if we had a theoretical hole of £x to fill after releasing players, then were allowed to sign say 6 players on a cap of £6k per week per player, and we did on 12 month deals then that without bothering not to round, is another £1.8m added to a theoretical hole. Could it be sell someone before freedom to move on contracts, in the market etc?

Reading were £18.8m over for period ending 20/21.  We are nothing like in that ballpark.  Assume their unaudited projections included some element of exclusions for covid losses.  I wonder how they’re doing this season too.

17/28 21m loss (less say £6m allowance) £15m loss

18/19 30m loss (ditto) £24m loss

19/20 42m loss (ditto) £36m loss halved = £18m loss

20/21 ???

Without covid allowances they could only suffered a £6m loss last season (£0 after £6m allowance)…so they must’ve claimed some form of covid adjustment?

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Reading were £18.8m over for period ending 20/21.  We are nothing like in that ballpark.  Assume their unaudited projections included some element of exclusions for covid losses.  I wonder how they’re doing this season too.

17/28 21m loss (less say £6m allowance) £15m loss

18/19 30m loss (ditto) £24m loss

19/20 42m loss (ditto) £36m loss halved = £18m loss

20/21 ???

Without covid allowances they could only suffered a £6m loss last season (£0 after £6m allowance)…so they must’ve claimed some form of covid adjustment?

Ah with Reading, my understanding is that from 2018/19 onwards, it's Renhe Sports Management that we use for their P&S results- their accounts will be very interesting to see, from the Covid adjustment perspective.

Their calculations for this season could be complex, based on the principle of reset- to me it's far better to reset the aggregate 2 prior years if they exceed or are equal to £26m but it seems that the EFL do it for each individual year...which can throw up some very strange results. SwissRamble reckons £5m per season on allowables, but principle of reset could mean a theoretical £19-20m P&S loss allowed for this season, but of course if they hit that they make it very difficult for themselves next year as they'd need to get down to a £6-7m loss in 2022/23.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ah with Reading, my understanding is that from 2018/19 onwards, it's Renhe Sports Management that we use for their P&S results- their accounts will be very interesting to see, from the Covid adjustment perspective.

Their calculations for this season could be complex, based on the principle of reset- to me it's far better to reset the aggregate 2 prior years if they exceed or are equal to £26m but it seems that the EFL do it for each individual year...which can throw up some very strange results. SwissRamble reckons £5m per season on allowables, but principle of reset could mean a theoretical £19-20m P&S loss allowed for this season, but of course if they hit that they make it very difficult for themselves next year as they'd need to get down to a £6-7m loss in 2022/23.

Ah ok….ta.

2018 £30m loss

So not sure it’s any better really!

[BLRed]

Surely now we have had good income this season (Match day Income etc) compared to previous two seasons, we could see revenue streams hit the highs again of pre-covid (I believe they were in the region of 30mill)
 

add to that, there will be a number of players that will be dropped from the wage bill:

simpson - released

odowda - year option not extended and released.
palmer - moved out on a permanent

baker - possible retirement

 

add to that the possible big sales of:

bentley - likeliest to go imo

massengo - think we should keep but contract new dependant

semenyo - will stay

scott - will stay

 

i think there are numerous ways in which we avoid the failings of ffp
 

 

 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Ah ok….ta.

2018 £30m loss

So not sure it’s any better really!

According to what I read, it was 2017/18 as club and then Renhe thereafter...but I don't know if it is correct- if it is either one all the way through then a £13m cap it is!

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, BLRed said:

Surely now we have had good income this season (Match day Income etc) compared to previous two seasons, we could see revenue streams hit the highs again of pre-covid (I believe they were in the region of 30mill)
 

add to that, there will be a number of players that will be dropped from the wage bill:

simpson - released

odowda - year option not extended and released.
palmer - moved out on a permanent

baker - possible retirement

 

add to that the possible big sales of:

bentley - likeliest to go imo

massengo - think we should keep but contract new dependant

semenyo - will stay

scott - will stay

 

i think there are numerous ways in which we avoid the failings of ffp
 

 

 

 

 

There was Omicron and a steady reopening so I dunno about that- remember too that the financial year 2018/19 included a) 2 Concerts and b) The World Cup Fan Village in full flow...switching betweeen WfH and the office will have hit corporate events too- not just here but across the board.

Oh it's no lost cause, could just be a problem but not guaranteed yet- all of the above will help certainly.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

@Mr Popodopolous @Davefevs

According to Parry, clubs can apply for a larger Covid allowance. £5m is just the maximum which  goes "without verification".

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

@Mr Popodopolous @Davefevs

According to Parry, clubs can apply for a larger Covid allowance. £5m is just the maximum which  goes "without verification".

Interesting thanks. Do you have a link to a source for that?

If so I can see the process getting a tad complicated. Does the EFL even have the capacity to verify claims for instance?

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

@Mr Popodopolous @Davefevs

According to Parry, clubs can apply for a larger Covid allowance. £5m is just the maximum which  goes "without verification".

Thanks. Why the EFL didn't put that in their initial statement is difficult to fathom. It's quite a key item!

I assume and hope the it would rule out something like the £30m Stoke thing but I've always said, the following seems fair:

*Gate Receipts

*ST Revenue

*Commercial Revenue- matchday

*Commercial Revenue- non matchday

*Possibly Corporate revenue

*TV Revenue written back (ie rebates).

*For those who could, the costs of not utilising furlough.

Read an interesting post on Dcfcfans, I don't agree on Impairment vs amortisation of Villa in 2015/16, Derby could legitimately have Impaired Player Registrations through P&L at any time but counted in full towards P&S. They accounted for it in the usual way, see also Stoke in 2017/18.

What was interesting however was the bit about Aston Villa impairing TANGIBLE Assets. The fact they Impaired in 2016 on relegation then got a new valuation in 2018 or 2019 is very sketchy indeed. I'd forgotten about that but that, with the reclassification from Tangible Asset to Investment property back to Tangible Asset...surprised that the EFL fine with that!! Either the valuation or the profit is too high there I think.

Forgot to add, sure everyone reading it knows by now.

Save for a few limited examples, Impairment of Player Intangibles is accounted for under FFP, other Intangibles no.

Tangible Assets absolutely not and this is where my big issue with the Aston Villa one arises. Cake and eat it?

Edited February 19, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[AnotherDerbyFan]

3 hours ago, chinapig said:

Interesting thanks. Do you have a link to a source for that?

If so I can see the process getting a tad complicated. Does the EFL even have the capacity to verify claims for instance?

Private email. The EFL don't have the capacity to check reports at all, nevermind 'minor' details.

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks. Why the EFL didn't put that in their initial statement is difficult to fathom. It's quite a key item!

Definitely. Would have saved a lot of uproar and wouldn't reflect as badly on the EFL.

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I assume and hope the it would rule out something like the £30m Stoke thing but I've always said, the following seems fair:

*Gate Receipts

*ST Revenue

*Commercial Revenue- matchday

*Commercial Revenue- non matchday

*Possibly Corporate revenue

*TV Revenue written back (ie rebates).

*For those who could, the costs of not utilising furlough.

Could easily define what is allowable. Even if that was as basic as the difference in match and commercial income compared with 18/19.

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Read an interesting post on Dcfcfans, I don't agree on Impairment vs amortisation of Villa in 2015/16, Derby could legitimately have Impaired Player Registrations through P&L at any time but counted in full towards P&S. They accounted for it in the usual way, see also Stoke in 2017/18.

I think that argument is against Parry's "every club uses straight-line' comment.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 19/02/2022 at 14:18, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Could easily define what is allowable. Even if that was as basic as the difference in match and commercial income compared with 18/19.

Yes, agreed although off pitch commercial revenue? Pride Park I assume like Ashton Gate and I expect a lot of grounds will have had non match day commercial revenue- ie concerts, trade shows etc? I'd also add, do we take the gross fall in revenue or revenue lost minus costs saved for every club? Few arguments either way IMO.

On 19/02/2022 at 14:18, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I think that argument is against Parry's "every club uses straight-line' comment.

I mean, Impairment is a definite part of amortisation. If done correctly, it counts against P&S so I'm unsure that a club should be penalised for that aspect...If eg a club Impairs by £30m, that is double edged as it excludes future costs but adds £30m to the P&S loss for that year- but I can enable a club to profit on disposal later. Triple edged if anything!

On the other hand, if they have a direct line to Parry perhaps they could hone in on the Villa TANGIBLE Asset Impairment in 2015/16 and how this perhaps helped their P&S in 2019. They'd need to do their homework but it feels wrong to me, in the context of the 2019 Villa Park sale and leaseback.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[cidered abroad]

@Mr Popodopolous @Davefevs

Have we had any income from the use of the stadium for Covid Vaccinations that will help to reduce the losses?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Hope so! Although I can't see any specific reference in the 2020/21 accounts, maybe it would appear in 2021/22 or maybe it's already been accounted for somehow under one of the usual categories.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Might also add, in amongst my FFP modelling, my worst case scenario came with a hole of somewhere between £11-14m next season. Put another way, to 2023 it'd be a £50-53m 3 year FFP loss set against £39m after deductions and allowances etc.

Chances are we won't hit those heights but translated into points deduction, that would be 8-9 points. That was assuming some quite conservative and cautious projections- pessimistic ones even.

Things like zero profit on transfers this or next season, that the Covid allowances £5m only over 2019/20, 2020/21 seasons etc.

Also assumed that Simpson, Klose, Cundy, King, O'Dowda and Martin all go and are not replaced externally. Any new signings would add to the cost base after all.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Sorry to jump on Derby yet again but here is a false equivalence and a half- I don't read DCFCFans much these days but from the administration thread, I assume it is referencing us...

Some of what we see on there is mind bending, it makes the mind boggle but anyway- this post caught the eye. It's painful reading some of the general takes on there at times but anyway...

Quote

Yes was thinking of the Fosbury flop... just because it is unique (and I don't think anything that Parry says is true anyway) doesn't mean to say it's wrong.   Having said that, Derby's amortisation method was wrong in that it was unduly optimistic, especially given how rubbish our transfer dealings turned out to be .And now many other clubs have the same problem..they relied on an assumption that they could sell players at a profit but as it turns out they can't. But that doesn't mean it was against any rule.  

That's a big false equivalence. IF he means us (Pistoldpete for those who read it periodically), then our model is that we can trade and that is fine- until it isn't. If we can't fill the FFP hole, then we get a points deduction, and I haven't seen any of our fans although maybe I'm not looking far enough, arguing that our add back of hypothetical player transfer profits would be valid- it just wouldn't and I think most understand that point.

That's a poor policy choice and we will have to suck up a deduction and business plan etc if we fail, a world away from choosing a novel amortisation method and selling a stadium and still whinging, and whinging and whinging some more about being penalised for overspending, complaining about vendettas against the club, Mel Morris etc.

Don't even get me started on the banging on about the tax loss sale...if someone could point out where specifically in the accounts it helped Middlesbrough to swerve FFP I'd be grateful, not one Derby fan has in approaching 3 years that I've seen.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

42 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sorry to jump on Derby yet again but here is a false equivalence and a half- I don't read DCFCFans much these days but from the administration thread, I assume it is referencing us...

Some of what we see on there is mind bending, it makes the mind boggle but anyway- this post caught the eye. It's painful reading some of the general takes on there at times but anyway...

That's a big false equivalence. IF he means us (Pistoldpete for those who read it periodically), then our model is that we can trade and that is fine- until it isn't. If we can't fill the FFP hole, then we get a points deduction, and I haven't seen any of our fans although maybe I'm not looking far enough, arguing that our add back of hypothetical player transfer profits would be valid- it just wouldn't and I think most understand that point.

That's a poor policy choice and we will have to suck up a deduction and business plan etc if we fail, a world away from choosing a novel amortisation method and selling a stadium and still whinging, and whinging and whinging some more about being penalised for overspending, complaining about vendettas against the club, Mel Morris etc.

Don't even get me started on the banging on about the tax loss sale...if someone could point out where specifically in the accounts it helped Middlesbrough to swerve FFP I'd be grateful, not one Derby fan has in approaching 3 years that I've seen.

False equivalence is the correct term. Many of us are, and have been for a while, critical of Steve for allowing Ashton to mess up our finances while telling us what a great job he was doing. There aren't many, if any, arguing against and we didn't suddenly realise there was an issue when the latest accounts were published.

I and others have dismissed Gould's claim that we missed out on £30m in fees as special pleading and hypothetical nonsense. Again, I don't recall anybody responding that he was justified.

But at least Gould has acknowledged that we may have to accept a points deduction etc. and we are not heading for administration. Incompetent yes, cheating no.

Contrast with Derby fans cheering Morris on as he cheated then tried to avoid the consequences by dragging the process out as long as possible, laughing that he had the EFL on strings etc. right up to the point he put them into administration. Then it all became the EFL's fault.

So identically different then.

 

[Davefevs]

Some of their fans are now getting desperate to drag other clubs down with them, to try to cover the mess they are in.

Thought we were gonna get a PB last week?  What’s the hold-up?

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Some of their fans are now getting desperate to drag other clubs down with them, to try to cover the mess they are in.

Thought we were gonna get a PB last week?  What’s the hold-up?

And what a mess it is/has been!

Nearly as many reasons for appearing on the EFL Embargo Reporting Service as the other 71 combined!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/

The odd thing is that even in administration, 16.2 and the Profit and Sustainability bit are very easy to rectify given that the P&S has been dealt with between 2015/16-2020/21! Or should be.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Some of their fans are now getting desperate to drag other clubs down with them, to try to cover the mess they are in.

Thought we were gonna get a PB last week?  What’s the hold-up?

Apparently the only barrier is the claim from Boro. Oh, hang on ...

[Mr Popodopolous]

An amusing thread- check the date!

Still not lifted. 

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/37743-has-the-transfer-embargo-been-lifted/

To think some were worried about the summer window...

Okay I can laugh, we can laugh but on a serious note two or three of those are really easy to solve as soon as the P&S issues to 2021 were settled. The fact that they haven't been is odd.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Been looking again, certainly my higher estimates of £11-14m look less likely now.

Still could be a deduction overspend of maybe between £4-9m...which equates to and these are regularly amended, but points range wise it's...

Quote

£0-2m=3 points

£2-4m=4 points

£4-6m=5 points

£6-8m=6 points

£8-10m=7 points

£10-12.5m=8 points

£12.5-15m=9 points

In excess of £15m=12 points.

From memory sliding scale wise is the above. Probably if it goes badly and comes down to it, a deduction not exceeding 7 pts but hopefully lower or nothing at all- and we still have time to rectify of course!

We don't really need to concern ourselves with the £10m or above IMO. The one I highlighted likely is the worst case scenario overspend wise.

May also get one back for intent to comply and good behaviour/cooperation, but then again if we didn't sell even though we knew we would breach, would the EFL push for another 3- see the Birmingham 2nd case in 2020 relating to the Business Plan. Add 3 and subtract 1 or just add 2 for shorthand in theory.

I'm not saying that this will happen, I'm just speculating based on scenarios- but if we don't take the correct action in time, we will overspend.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

54 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Been looking again, certainly my higher estimates of £11-14m look less likely now.

Still could be a deduction overspend of maybe between £4-9m...which equates to and these are regularly amended, but points range wise it's...

From memory sliding scale wise is the above. Probably if it goes badly and comes down to it, a deduction not exceeding 7 pts but hopefully lower or nothing at all- and we still have time to rectify of course!

We don't really need to concern ourselves with the £10m or above IMO. The one I highlighted likely is the worst case scenario overspend wise.

May also get one back for intent to comply and good behaviour/cooperation, but then again if we didn't sell even though we knew we would breach, would the EFL push for another 3- see the Birmingham 2nd case in 2020 relating to the Business Plan. Add 3 and subtract 1 or just add 2 for shorthand in theory.

I'm not saying that this will happen, I'm just speculating based on scenarios- but if we don't take the correct action in time, we will overspend.

But as per our DMs that seems to be based on not reducing the wage bill this summer (or in Jan window latest either).  That is pretty unlikely.  We have contracts ending, other deals to thrash out which will either result is selling a player / players of value, or smoothing their amortisation.

My estimates do not include any transfer profit either.

I’m pretty sure we will make financially prudent decisions to avoid any points deduction.

We have 15 months to remedy, which include two windows.

As per what someone told me, three players have been told they should look for new clubs this summer…and that’s besides Bakinson and Moore who Pearson has already been open about.  Without naming those players, I imagine we might still have to contribute part of their wages for their remaining year for two of them, but would still represent a very useful cost saving.

I’m not saying shifting players is easy, but moving them on, even having to pay part of their salary for a year is how we need to reduce costs.

[Mr Popodopolous]

56 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But as per our DMs that seems to be based on not reducing the wage bill this summer (or in Jan window latest either).  That is pretty unlikely.  We have contracts ending, other deals to thrash out which will either result is selling a player / players of value, or smoothing their amortisation.

My estimates do not include any transfer profit either.

I’m pretty sure we will make financially prudent decisions to avoid any points deduction.

We have 15 months to remedy, which include two windows.

As per what someone told me, three players have been told they should look for new clubs this summer…and that’s besides Bakinson and Moore who Pearson has already been open about.  Without naming those players, I imagine we might still have to contribute part of their wages for their remaining year for two of them, but would still represent a very useful cost saving.

I’m not saying shifting players is easy, but moving them on, even having to pay part of their salary for a year is how we need to reduce costs.

Indeed, agree with the bulk of this- by my reckoning this could be with a partial reduction of the wage bill or all out of contract go, to not be replaced as the £2m fall- if that is excessively conservative I'm happy. I can rework my numbers in a couple of ways too.

Like I say, I've got about 4 different scenarios and I am talking worst case here- maybe that we don't fall foul at all. By my reckoning a sell on clause at the amounts touted for both Kelly and Webster would steer us out of danger- because after this season we can control our destiny a lot more if required in this sense.

15 months...I mean there is always the possibility of in-season breaches but two windows definitely. That would certainly help a lot if we can partially pay therefore partially save and as you say we will need to be creative, partial payment of player wages could be one way- I think most could guess two of them but won't be asking further.

Of course too, the more that we can legitimately put down to Covid- I am modelling based on the £5m in 2 years for my last post- and £2.5m this- the better off we will be. Same goes for every club of course.

In conclusion, I don't think when push comes to shove we will breach.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Okay what I put on the main FFP thread the other day.

Basically without bothering to round, we are fine to 2021 and comfortably fine to 2022 I would say.

To 2023...it depends on how you interpret the below.

Kieran Maguire via Football Insider- £5m x 2 and obviously £2.5m this year.

https://www.footballinsider247.com/west-brom-will-be-delighted-after-12-5m-confirmation-maguire/

In short and without bothering to round etc, I would suggest it is either...

Quote

2019/20- An estimated £2-3m/£5m=£5m

2020/21- Well I'd suggest a £5m loss could be comfortably claimed=£5m

£8m put down to Covid.

Or an average of £5m in each year over the 2 years weighted however it suits the club so...

Quote

£2-3m in Year 1

£7-8m in Year 2

Both seem quite realistic given the fall in income- and same goes for most clubs, in this case it would be £10m over the 2 seasons.

The net difference for us would be an £8m Covid offset in 2019/20 and 2020/21 or a £10m one...without bothering to round the net impact would be £1-1.5m in the rolling losses (up to £2-3m, halved).

Not as good as my best case scenario which had us writing off say £18m in losses but better than my worst...possibly in one of the middle two.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

A quick extrapolation with rounding ie not precise numbers suggests that for that period...

Quote

£48m accounting loss in 2019/20 and 2020/21

Minus £10m (£5m per season) in regular P&S costs.

Minus £7-10m in Covid costs

Halved

In other words, before bothering to dive into the more precise bits this scenario using the article in the above post as a guide suggests a P&S loss- ie starting point for the next cycle- of £14-15.5m in the Covid seasons.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Okay what I put on the main FFP thread the other day.

Basically without bothering to round, we are fine to 2021 and comfortably fine to 2022 I would say.

To 2023...it depends on how you interpret the below.

Kieran Maguire via Football Insider- £5m x 2 and obviously £2.5m this year.

https://www.footballinsider247.com/west-brom-will-be-delighted-after-12-5m-confirmation-maguire/

In short and without bothering to round etc, I would suggest it is either...

£8m put down to Covid.

Or an average of £5m in each year over the 2 years weighted however it suits the club so...

Both seem quite realistic given the fall in income- and same goes for most clubs, in this case it would be £10m over the 2 seasons.

The net difference for us would be an £8m Covid offset in 2019/20 and 2020/21 or a £10m one...without bothering to round the net impact would be £1-1.5m in the rolling losses (up to £2-3m, halved).

Not as good as my best case scenario which had us writing off say £18m in losses but better than my worst...possibly in one of the middle two.

As you know I don’t do a range, just a single, regularly updates set of “guesses”!

Under the old method - fully claim revenues lost, I had £2.400m and £10.435m (both halved) - I guess I could add £2.500m to this now?  I reckon we are pretty much on the £39m with that.

Under the new (5/5/2.5) method I have £2.400m, £5.000m (both halved) and £2.500m.  Under this method we are £2.5m over the £39m.