FFP what's the timeline?

[Mr Popodopolous]

34 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I agree…will be interesting how we communicate this in the books and the summary to fans.  Suggests we’ve gone more down the Forest route.

 

I think Stoke helpfully broke it down item by item, perhaps we will lay it out that way, by category.

I think such a ruling is quite fortunate if it has indeed got the final sign off because I don't see how anyone can add-back a transfer profit, cost saving whatever that would have occured but for Covid- how does a club prove that yes, there would have been active interest in players x, y and z.

Okay perhaps Nagy and Eliasson could have got a fee and more respectively but beyond that...Diedhiou? Possibly although we were clearly keen on keeping him given what Ashton said pre Norwich Jan 2021.

On the flipside, as well as Scott, Benarous, Semenyo, Conway, and then new players such as Tanner if he gets back on it, Wilson if he hits his straps but definitely Atkinson all offer some hope of value for the future.

Maybe even Williams too if he fully gets over his injury issues and shines week in, week out? He's only 25, players can still grow from that age.

Possibly even Massengo were he to sign a new deal and really commit.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[GrahamC]

47 minutes ago, Magger1 said:

No graham the players that are out of contract haven’t been visited yet but as was said at meeting these players will first have to earn a new contract and as it stands championship wage contracts have dipped by 20-30% so it will be at a reduced wage 

Cheers, you’re right.

I was trying to say I think we will think long & hard before making offers to any of those out of contract & in all likelihood even that will almost certainly be at reduced terms, but reading what I said back, that wasn’t clear.

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think Stoke helpfully broke it down item by item, perhaps we will lay it out that way, by category.

I think such a ruling is quite fortunate if it has indeed got the final sign off because I don't see how anyone can add-back a transfer profit, cost saving whatever that would have occured but for Covid- how does a club prove that yes, there would have been active interest in players x, y and z.

Okay perhaps Nagy and Eliasson could have got a fee and more respectively but beyond that...Diedhiou? Possibly although we were clearly keen on keeping him given what Ashton said pre Norwich Jan 2021.

On the flipside, as well as Scott, Benarous, Semenyo, Conway, and then new players such as Tanner if he gets back on it, Wilson if he bits his straps but definitely Atkinson all offer some hope of value for the future.

Maybe even Williams too if he fully gets over his injury issues and shines week in, week out? He's only 25, players can still grow from that age.

Stoke was more of an impairment / new valuation model, than Forest’s lost transfer revenue.

I’m no accountant, and I guess there are pros and cons to each approach.  Re the Stoke method, revaluing the assets down would create a loss in the books but allows them to write off that loss for covid.  It means should they sell those players, they gain the benefit of any fee being taken against a new and lower book value, meaning future year’s transfer profit could be more.

With Forest’s method it’s not changing the current book value of any players, so any sales in future will be against the existing amortisation profile.

Arghhh, swings and roundabouts i guess.

[Mr Popodopolous]

34 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Stoke was more of an impairment / new valuation model, than Forest’s lost transfer revenue.

I’m no accountant, and I guess there are pros and cons to each approach.  Re the Stoke method, revaluing the assets down would create a loss in the books but allows them to write off that loss for covid.  It means should they sell those players, they gain the benefit of any fee being taken against a new and lower book value, meaning future year’s transfer profit could be more.

With Forest’s method it’s not changing the current book value of any players, so any sales in future will be against the existing amortisation profile.

Arghhh, swings and roundabouts i guess.

Stoke did both, at least in 2020-21 they also sought to add £11m or thereabouts in lost transfer profits/cost savings. I do agree though a much bigger emphasis on Impairment and exclusion of this.

Agreed although I heard that they could not make a profit on said impaired players, dunno how true but they would have to for FFP sell them at no net gain, no net loss- Stoke that is.

Agreed.

Agreed- definitely that.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Stoke did both, at least in 2020-21 they also sought to add £11m or thereabouts in lost transfer profits/cost savings. I do agree though a much bigger emphasis on Impairment and exclusion of this.

Agreed although I heard that they could not make a profit on said impaired players, dunno bow true but they would have to for FFP sell them at no net gain, no net loss- Stoke that is.

Agreed.

Agreed- definitely that.

Ah, yes, so they did….ta.

Let’s hope we see this detail in ours.

Its gonna completely screw my amortisation spreadsheet!!

Edited October 28, 2022 by Davefevs

[Davefevs]

One other point, I guess you need to do the Stoke approach if you’ve got homegrown players that you’ve sold for less than you expected, who of course you can’t impair because they have no value in the books.