Jump to content

On Tuesday, The Times reports on Wednesday


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, daztheowl said:

So basically, we need stripes back for massive shirt sales, smash the league for higher gate receipts, carabao and FA Cup runs to the finals for TV rights money, and we should be oreyt. 

and win 2 euromillions rollovers on the trot, quite simple actually when you look at it like that.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, londonowl said:

Why? Rhodes transfer fell into 16/17 so it will depend if amortisation was calculated monthly or on an accounting year basis as to how much effect that will have. Only players we paid a fee for in the year were Van Aken and Pelepussy. A couple came in on loan and a couple were released one way or another at the end of the season.

 

Matchday and football revenue will likely have fallen but following 2 successive play-off seasons, our commercial rights would have been more valuable so DC will have had to up his £1.2m contribution to sponsor the ground and shirts. Add to that revenue from D Taxis and the fee elev8 would have had to pay for the shirts.

 

Basic prize money would be £2.33m, up from £2.048.

Solidarity Payment would be £4.55m, up from £4.3m.

 

As matchday income is only in the region of £11m, even a 15% drop in these revenues should be covered by increased payments from EFL and sponsorship. Player sales income was negligible previously anyway so no great loss of income there.

 

Even with the amortisation of existing player registrations, the net effect of player trading in 17/18 should have very little impact on the overall figures when taken in comparison to 16/17.

 

I may be completely wrong but my reading of the figures is that without making any changes at all, we would be around the £40m in losses mark over the last 3 seasons but in March 2019, EFL will be expecting forecasts for 18/19 and it looks like as things stand, we would be a few million the wrong side of things, a not insignificant amount but not something which requires a 'fire sale'.

I thought the Rhodes transfer went through on 1 July 2017 so it didn’t appear at all (apart from 6 months wages from his loan) in the 16/17 accounts.

 

This being the main reason that I think it unrealistic that 17/18 losses be smaller than 16/17.

 

Additionally you have Van Aken, Pelepussy and Boyd plus new contracts for several players.  This cost (increase in wage bill) seems unlikely to have been offset by the likes of Dielna, Emanuelson and McGugan savings.

Edited by HirstWhoScoredIt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, londonowl said:

Obviously I haven't actually read it but anyone quoting our loss of £21m as a means to conclude anything is not really dealing with the facts.

 

That £21m loss in 16/17 equates to a little over £14m once allowable deductions are made. Add that to around £6.6m the year before and you come to around £21m over the 2 seasons. Assuming because of player amortisation, we won't be able to reduce the 16/17 figure for 17/18, even an FFP loss of £18m would still put us within permitted losses.

 

 We lost £14m in 16/17 and let's say a similar amount in 17/18, we will need to show the EFL how we will reduce the losses for 18/19 as they will need to be around the £10/11m mark to stay within the £39m allowable losses at the end of 18/19 season.

 

Leaves us needing to free up around £3m a season. Take Rhodes as easiest example to do this. Let's say we paid £6m for him on a 4-year, £30k a week contract. For accounts, that £6m is amortised over the 4 year contract length at £1.5m a season, £30k a week is another £1.5m a season. If we can get 60-65% of what we paid back for him, that's a £3m accounting loss off the books for FFP.

 

I think there is still going to be room to do some deals, we are not going to be buying £10m players but we've definitely got some wiggle room. Obviously we've already lost a couple of players at the end of last season and doubtless a few fringe players will move on, add this to decreased amortisation from any new, longer contracts plus other allowable deductions for FFP that I haven't accounted for and whilst we are going to be there or thereabouts for FFP, I don't think there's any danger of a mass exodus.

Remind me to never lend you money. I’d probably end up owing you. 

 

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HirstWhoScoredIt said:

I thought the Rhodes transfer went through on 1 July 2017 so it didn’t appear at all (apart from 6 months wages from his loan) in the 16/17 accounts.

 

This being the main reason that I think it unrealistic that 17/18 losses be smaller than 16/17.

 

Additionally you have Van Aken, Pelepussy and Boyd plus new contracts for several players.  This cost (increase in wage bill) seems unlikely to have been offset by the likes of Dielna, Emanuelson and McGugan savings.

If you look at my figures, I estimated an FFP loss of around £40m over last 3 seasons, that allows for an increase in 17/18 and I'm sure there will be one but I don't think it will be as significant an increase as some would have you believe.

 

Moving forward, players we have paid a fee for will get new contracts which allows us to further reduce their annual amortisation as any remaining balance is spread over the new contract length.

 

For example, if Reach was bought for £6m on a 4 year contract, that amortisation will be £1.5m a season. If after 2 years (remaining 'value' £3m), he is given a new 4 year contract, the remaining £3m is then spread over the new 4 year contract with amortisation then being £750k a year, a reduction in losses of £750k a year without selling anyone or actually reducing any costs.

 

As with everything, the devil is in the detail and my only point is that my reading of the situation does not require a fire sale. I guess we will see though because I could be completely wrong. It may also be that DC finds it a better option to sell a couple and reduce future losses through actual income rather than jumping through a million and one hoops to reduce FFP losses in other ways. I don't think he's shown any sign of this yet though and FFP figures have been with the EFL since March, including projections for 17/18 to complete the 3 year cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...