Summer window and FFP

[bcfc01]

34 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Nobody is mentioning Callum O'Dowda who is out of contract and probably on £15,000 per week. @Davefevs?

Do we think NP will leep him? Somehow I doubt it unless a significant salary drop.

COD gives the team balance, but thats about it really. He isn't much of a threat to the opposition and hasn't really progressed since he was signed. 

He has to be near the top of the list to go, been here too long with little effect.

As an aside, its a shame about Palmer as he is a great talent and has high potential, but doesn't seem capable of learning from his mistakes, which has stalled his progress. Massengo is in danger of going the same way imo, although his 100% commitment, application and work ethic makes him worth persevering with and offering him a new contract. All this talk of him being worth 20m is pie in the sky, he's not progressed anywhere near enough for a quarter of that value imo (bit controversial maybe).

 

[Mr Chappers]

12 hours ago, Waconda said:

£5 - £10m more realistic. IMO.

I would say a modest up front fee with add ons. He may be promising with high energy, but error prone, gives the ball away far too often, one assist, no goals. The market is far from buoyant right now, except for top talent.

[Mr Chappers]

If you think logically, next summer his value is £0.00. We are not in a good financial position, so (hopefully) won’t be offering high wages, therefore logic says that if we get an acceptable offer, he will be sold, bringing in money, but more importantly, reducing the wage bill. Unless there is a bidding war, we will not be in a strong bargaining position.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Mr Chappers

[Silvio Dante]

23 hours ago, bcfc01 said:

COD gives the team balance, but thats about it really. He isn't much of a threat to the opposition and hasn't really progressed since he was signed. 

He has to be near the top of the list to go, been here too long with little effect.

As an aside, its a shame about Palmer as he is a great talent and has high potential, but doesn't seem capable of learning from his mistakes, which has stalled his progress. Massengo is in danger of going the same way imo, although his 100% commitment, application and work ethic makes him worth persevering with and offering him a new contract. All this talk of him being worth 20m is pie in the sky, he's not progressed anywhere near enough for a quarter of that value imo (bit controversial maybe).

 

I do think there is a tendency for us to overvalue Massengo as a fan base. A few things lead to that - Monaco, Massive Hair, Personality. I think we want him to be so good that it clouds what he is. If he was called Harry Masters with a short back and sides and a surly attitude, we wouldn’t talk him up as much.

So, what is he?

Hes a very energetic midfielder with bags of potential. However presently he’s exceptional at nothing (see goals, assists etc). What he’s good at is high energy pressing, and on occasions passing after that. The problem is the press can be misdirected (that’s inexperience to be honest), and he can go “headless chicken” as a result.

There is enough in him with his background, age and potential for clubs to take a “punt” at £5-£8m, which is where bids were in the summer. I think that’s market rate still. The issue, as you say, is if he doesn’t learn how to not go headless chicken (and that’s with a high pedigree academy background), he may just fade away.

Personally, I think the best thing for his career is another couple of years here in view of the above.

[HiddenGem7]

Pearson would be mad to renew COD's contract imo.  He has very very rarely contributed effectively, and his stats back it up - 9 goals in 155 apps is absolutely woeful for an advanced player, and his assist stats are almost as bad.  If we need a left sided attacking player, we need to look elsewhere, simple as.

[Davefevs]

22 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Personally, I think the best thing for his career is another couple of years here in view of the above.

Me too.

[bcfc01]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

I do think there is a tendency for us to overvalue Massengo as a fan base. A few things lead to that - Monaco, Massive Hair, Personality. I think we want him to be so good that it clouds what he is. If he was called Harry Masters with a short back and sides and a surly attitude, we wouldn’t talk him up as much.

So, what is he?

Hes a very energetic midfielder with bags of potential. However presently he’s exceptional at nothing (see goals, assists etc). What he’s good at is high energy pressing, and on occasions passing after that. The problem is the press can be misdirected (that’s inexperience to be honest), and he can go “headless chicken” as a result.

There is enough in him with his background, age and potential for clubs to take a “punt” at £5-£8m, which is where bids were in the summer. I think that’s market rate still. The issue, as you say, is if he doesn’t learn how to not go headless chicken (and that’s with a high pedigree academy background), he may just fade away.

Personally, I think the best thing for his career is another couple of years here in view of the above.

 

37 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Still only 20, it is easy to forget. He needs a couple more years I agree. The number of games he has for such a young player is really positive for his development. Has much still to add to his game, and he has to (decision making /giving ball away) , but he is eager to learn and has many attributes. He does rather need to settle his future though, as that must impact on such a young persons mind. Though we may just have to take any offer that exceeds £5M for obvious reasons. 

Agree with both.

Just to say that he's already played over 100 games for City with a right mix of performance ranging from a headless chicken liability to brilliant.

He really needs to get his contract sorted, get some consistency going and fulfill his undoubted potential next season.

I wouldn't want to see him moved, but as it stands anything north of 5m should be accepted imo.

 

 

[1960maaan]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

I do think there is a tendency for us to overvalue Massengo as a fan base. A few things lead to that - Monaco, Massive Hair, Personality. I think we want him to be so good that it clouds what he is. If he was called Harry Masters with a short back and sides and a surly attitude, we wouldn’t talk him up as much.

So, what is he?

Hes a very energetic midfielder with bags of potential. However presently he’s exceptional at nothing (see goals, assists etc). What he’s good at is high energy pressing, and on occasions passing after that. The problem is the press can be misdirected (that’s inexperience to be honest), and he can go “headless chicken” as a result.

There is enough in him with his background, age and potential for clubs to take a “punt” at £5-£8m, which is where bids were in the summer. I think that’s market rate still. The issue, as you say, is if he doesn’t learn how to not go headless chicken (and that’s with a high pedigree academy background), he may just fade away.

Personally, I think the best thing for his career is another couple of years here in view of the above.

Can't disagree with anything you say. 
I said again Saturday, we could do with someone to take hold of him and slow him down a little. Everything seems to be at 100 MPH. 
He does learn though, and clearly works hard. When he cam, skilful but light weight. Went away and clearly came back much stronger, but a bit Bull in a chunk shop. He's eased off a bit but still tends to rush. He has the skill and technical ability, he just needs to start to affect the games more.

Here's where the highlighted bit is spot on, but there are many things going on and there will be lots of voices in his ear. I doubt many would argue playing games is the best way to learn, and he will get games here. TBF it's the only reason we got him in the first place. He seems grounded and has his family here, but. You get the argument that it's a short career, take the money when you can etc. He could double or treble his wages with a move, and we can't compete . 
I can see a few Clubs trying it on in the Summer. Contract etc, and it's well known that we have money worries. That could force the price down. I would imagine a big threat could be a relegated Prem team that dangles a promise of games & wages.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 19/03/2022 at 17:52, HappyClapper said:

Genuinely interested in what people think. Those with a close eye on the finances @Davefevs @Mr Popodopolous and others have given figures showing we are sailing close to the wind FFP wise for next season but then things improve. Gould you would imagine is in contact with the EFL trying to get extra allowances and has already stated that we may get a 6 point deduction. We’ve made some cost savings so seem to be just about ok.

Rambling a bit, but my point is this. Is it worth spending in the summer (not outrageously) but enough to get some championship ready players in key positions and whatever league1/2 players we believe have a high ceiling. The market is likely to be depressed and we could potentially improve the squad considerably without a massive outlay. It would also show some ambition to our more talented players who we would like to stay and grow with us.

We might fall foul of FFP by a relatively small amount, and would a points deduction be worth it in the medium term. (I’m assuming it would only be 6 points at worst).

Seems to me that there might be a reasonable business case for it, but then I’m not a billionaire!

Dave has covered a lot of the detail, so I won't rehash that but a 5-6 point deduction say I don't think we'd necessarily go down...a concern I have would also be would we be subject to some kind of Business Plan for 2022/23 at least? Precedent says yes...or a soft embargo at best. The problem with the Business Plan is that it can but it also maybe case by case to a degree, restrict ability as well as signings, to even renew existing players if wages and other terms exceed- say we had a wage limit of £12k per week and Kalas was on £20k per week- renewal on existing terms would create an instant problem. 

In short, I'd prefer us to avoid falling foul if at all possible. On the plus side the principle of reset means that instead of our prior 2 seasons FFP losses- just for arguments sake being- say £15m and £17m, both would reset to £13m in FFP terms and it'd leave us with a £13m target in 2023/24- the breach if it arises I expect would be in the period ending 2022/23 (ie combined average of 2019/20 and 2020/21, results for 2021/22 and then results for 2022/23). So many out of contract in summer 2023 that I doubt we'd fail again- and the other good side is that if you can then undershoot in 2022/23, it would be a reset of say £13m, £13m and then you sell someone and lose 'only' £10m...immediately you can lose in FFP terms £16m in 2023/24. I'd still rather we didn't fall foul though, think on balance it could be bad- plus it'd be a huge volte face from SL given his prior probity on these issues.

On 19/03/2022 at 23:27, fgrsimon said:

Has it been decided fully how much loss can be written off due to Covid yet? We can't be the only club to have made a huge loss from 2020-2021, I read somewhere that Stoke lost a lot more than us?  Others must be similar to ourselves with no PP I would have thought  (Cardiff, Boro, Forest maybe?) 

Currently at £5m x 2 ie an average of £5m across the 2019/20 and 2020/21, with a further £2.5m this season.

Stoke are ones to watch for a range of reasons...they seem to be throwing the kitchen sink at compliance, first they claimed that they had £38m in Covid losses in 2019/20 (out of pre tax losses of £88m- of this they tried to write off £30m in Player amortisation- although it's a little bit complicated as to how to reallocate), then they appear to have 'sold' the stadium AND Training Ground to Bet365 in May 2021- the former alone is stated at £70.25m sale price, although I have a range of questions there- I also assume they will try and argue for further Covid write offs in 2020/21, oh and they still haven't released their accounts for last season yet- took advantage and have until 28th May 2021 to put them into Companies House...thought the Covid extra time to submit had passed. There is a lot to unpack there...

One more bit @HappyClapper

A worst case scenario IMO would be if we released all those we released- ie everyone aside from Martin who has renewed then found we still had a multi million FFP hole to fill. 5-6 pts, some kinda business plan- we would then need to raise fresh income to avoid a breach, and that likely would mean selling one of our young stars. Sell one and we may have headroom not just to stave it off but to strengthen a little albeit within limits.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, billywedlock said:

Stoke maybe the club to legally challenge parachute payments . Or at least the inability to match the spending ( I did a lot of work on sporting competition some years ago . It looks very very much open to challenge to me ) . They just paid off a huge chunk of debt . I have zero issue with  clubs paying their bills . At least until a salary cap arrives , and it does need to , along with squad size restrictions , all age groups . Football can become sustainable if it really wants to be . 

If Stoke push the issue in particular of Parachute Payments, it could get interesting in the medium to longer term- yes it sounds like a discrepancy. Large chunk of debt is all good- great owners and the Coates family tick an awful lot of boxes, but that can't exonerate the FFP question mark in the interests of fairness in the here and now.

My solution would be slightly different...say a Championship club- okay two quick calculations. It would enhance stability in theory while at the same time slashing the advantage of the relegated clubs in a sense.

Championship regular club A- Income £24.5-25m

This is inclusive of Solidarity Payments of £4.5-5m in a year.

Parachute Club B- Year 1- Regular Income £24.5-25m but...

The difference is a gap of £35-40m in Parachute Payments. They don't get Solidarity of course given the Parachute issue. Net gap of Parachute - Solidarity in Year 1 might be £35-40m. Stripped of TV and Solidarity both fall in and around £20m.

One solution I have wondered about is, what happens if only the amount equal to Solidarity Payments goes through Profit and Loss for FFP. There is nothing to stop an owner pouring in cash which isn't P&L- transfer payables constitute cash after all, not amortisation and the base income which is what FFP is measured on ion many ways- the Profit and Loss account- only includes the £4.5-5m in Solidarity- the relegated club themselves need to cut cloth from Day 1 basically, the EFL are on their back about compliance with the existing season in the majority of cases. This could have a deflationary effect on fees and wages and smooth that cliff edge a bit. Do a little experiment, strip out the gap from a range of yoyo clubs- in particular a side like Fulham and the difference would be drastic and fairly instant.

Totally agree, quite easy to become sustainable- wages and fees a huge problem, particularly wages.

[Mr Popodopolous]

There's one more bit that I forgot about @HappyClapper but tbh anyone with an interest.

I've alluded to it before, mentioned it in fact but there ae two bits that are less spoken about and new ie incoming respectively.

Less Spoken about bit

If a clubs losses over a given period exceed the Lower Threshold- £15m- and ours like most of the League almost certainly will, they have to submit to the League by the end of March Future Financial Information. About general funding but also covers FFP.

Quote

1.13        T means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period ending in the year in which assessment pursuant to Rules 2.2 to 2.9 takes place, and:

1.13.4    T+1 means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately following T; and

1.13.5    T+2 means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately following T+1.

Especially the last two bits- it is ordinarily spoken of, or reported in terms of the prior 3 years or at most the prior 2 and the current season. However there is a further dimension...

Quote

2.5          If the aggregation of a Club’s Earnings Before Tax for T-1 and T-2 (or in the case of Season 2020/21 T-2 and T-3) results in a loss, any consideration from Related Party Transactions having been adjusted (if appropriate) pursuant to Rule 2.3, then the Club must submit to the Secretary its P&S Calculation.

2.8          If the P&S Calculation results in a loss that exceeds the Lower Loss Threshold, then the following shall apply:

2.8.1      the Club shall provide, by 31 March in the relevant Season, Future Financial Information to cover the period commencing from its last accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the 2006 Act) until the end of T+2 and a calculation of estimated aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax until the end of T+2 based on that Future Financial Information;

That would be £5m- most clubs will fall foul of this. Therefore most clubs need to put in what's in 2.8.1.

They will know or should know what is coming down the track...have an idea of it anyway!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appendix-5-financial-fair-play-regulations/

I applaud the greater transparency from the EFL. Chances are that well it's highly likely that our aggregate numbers will exceed that Lower Loss Threshold of £5m. If so we will need to stick in our Projected FFP Numbers for next season and perhaps 2023/24!  That being the case the EFL can monitor backwards, present and even into the future!

The second bit which was discussed on here but is new all the same- and tbh given the past, present and future aspects already existed should have been in place sometime ago, is one of the regulations introduced in mid February with the Covid amendment bits...

This bit below could really be quite important and yet a logical innovation in terms of P&S monitoring requirements.

Quote

Introduction of Monitoring for Forecasted Breaches

With a priority to ensure future compliance with the P&S rules, Clubs have agreed that where a breach is forecasted in future years then the League should have the ability to impose a business plan or appropriate monitoring requirements.

Trevor Birch, EFL Chief Executive said:

“Over the past two years of unprecedented challenges and upheaval, the priority of the EFL has been to support Clubs practically wherever possible while maintaining the ongoing integrity of our competitions and the League as a collective. I’m pleased to say that the changes agreed by Clubs will help them manage ongoing financial issues in the short term, while providing the League with additional powers to assist Clubs in complying with their P&S obligations going forward.”

https://www.efl.com/news/2022/february/meeting-of-efl-championship-clubs/

Essentially, where a breach is forecast- see T+1 and T+2, the wording is quite interesting- I believe a lot of fans, perhaps even some clubs would not concur- "assist Clubs in complying"- it basically means the EFL can step in if a club are set to breach and impose a Business Plan with an eye on expenditure and presumably targets if they are set to be in deficit that season, dunno if it also applies to the season after next- targets linked to points deductions would be a logical step too. You need a majority of 16/24 Championship clubs- used to be 18- to carry a motion, it would be interesting to see who voted for and against!

Edited March 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous