Do we start afresh now with P&S / FFP?

[Shez]

On 01/08/2020 at 11:11, pazowl55 said:

It does go on three year rolling, but are you sure that if we are punished for FFP over a 3 year period then it doesn't reset that 3 year rolling period as I am sure I read that it did.

 

It's a 'rolling' 3 year period...which means every year there is accountability for the previous 3 years....there's no such thing as a reset. Would imagine cost cutting to continue as to not fall foul again

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

20 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

Fortunately I was slightly wrong. It's potentially £93M, not £115M, but even so. As someone else mentioned, newly relegated teams don't tend to do that well, but it's not the point. The money is still there and it's just creating an even wider gap in my opinion.

 

Out of the three to come down, I feel Norwich will fair the best. I can see Watford struggling and Bournemouth maybe play-offs at best.

The problem is that this widening gap and huge discrepancies in income / allowable losses will just fuel the spiral of the going wages in the championship, the whole parachute payment system is flawed.  And whilst I have no love for parry, his comments recently about these payments being a cancer in the EFL are 100% spot on 

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

1 minute ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

The problem is that this widening gap and huge discrepancies in income / allowable losses will just fuel the spiral of the going wages in the championship, the whole parachute payment system is flawed.  And whilst I have no love for parry, his comments recently about these payments being a cancer in the EFL are 100% spot on 

Solutions should include:

 

Championship clubs register 23 man squads at start of season which can only be supplemented by academy players, and only revised at end of January transfer window.

 

Parachute payments to be excluded from P&s submission and relegated clubs to submit a budget at start of season within a max £35m loss "excluding parachute payment income" 

 

Wage cap for any play signed whilst in championship or a max of £40k p/w.

[pazowl55]

32 minutes ago, Shez said:

 

It's a 'rolling' 3 year period...which means every year there is accountability for the previous 3 years....there's no such thing as a reset. Would imagine cost cutting to continue as to not fall foul again

Birmingham had theres reset didnt they.

If you get a points deduction I believe it does.

So this years accounts would be our year one.

[Guest Grandad]

1 minute ago, pazowl55 said:

Birmingham had theres reset didnt they.

If you get a points deduction I believe it does.

So this years accounts would be our year one.

No

[pazowl55]

13 minutes ago, Grandad said:

No

How does it work then?

 

And what does this mean?

Edited August 3, 2020 by pazowl55

[striker]

42 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

Birmingham had theres reset didnt they.

If you get a points deduction I believe it does.

So this years accounts would be our year one.

Best put the ground sale in this year then so we start with a £38m profit 

[Nero]

1 hour ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

Fortunately I was slightly wrong. It's potentially £93M, not £115M, but even so. As someone else mentioned, newly relegated teams don't tend to do that well, but it's not the point. The money is still there and it's just creating an even wider gap in my opinion.

 

Out of the three to come down, I feel Norwich will fair the best. I can see Watford struggling and Bournemouth maybe play-offs at best.

 

More chance going up if you lose the pay offs. It was done before this years promotions etc.

 

[Nero]

Here's another chart of the last 18 teams to be promoted - it might be of interest.

Green are the teams that were being financially doped via parachute payments when they went up.

Red are the team that were not, but of them, only Leeds, United and Huddersfield and arguably BHA have done it 'clean'.

If Fulham go up it would be 12 under the influence, 2 overspent FFP and 4 Clean. 

It puts our wrongdoing in a bit of context.

 

1

 

[pazowl55]

51 minutes ago, striker said:

Best put the ground sale in this year then so we start with a £38m profit 

 

[Nero]

Apologies if anyone has posted a chart. 

Estimated 18/19 Accounting Loss of £27,500,000 plus profit of £37,500,000 from ground sale.

Might be a mil out here and there. You get the drift.

 

If we can get more than £7m on non FFP spend in the three year period we would be under.

 

Either way EFL will impose a financial adherence business plan on us as they did Birmingham and allow us to spend to that, with the caveat that they will dock points if we move from it.

 

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

1 hour ago, Nero said:

Apologies if anyone has posted a chart. 

Estimated 18/19 Accounting Loss of £27,500,000 plus profit of £37,500,000 from ground sale.

Might be a mil out here and there. You get the drift.

 

If we can get more than £7m on non FFP spend in the three year period we would be under.

 

Either way EFL will impose a financial adherence business plan on us as they did Birmingham and allow us to spend to that, with the caveat that they will dock points if we move from it.

 

Sounds about right, I estimated the 2018/19 loss between £23-£26m based on 12 months rather than 14 (and Rhodes loan to Norwich saving his wages for a year, + any loan fee?). Looking at before deductions of allowed spend a cumulative loss of £40 - £45m so maybe just within the £39m

Edited August 3, 2020 by wellbeaten-the-owl

[Nero]

1 minute ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Sounds about right, I estimated the 2018/19 loss between £23-£26m based on 12 months rather than 14 (and Rhodes loan to Norwich saving his wages for a year, + any loan fee?). Looking at before deductions of allowed spend a cumulative loss of £40 - £45m so maybe just within the £39m

Glad that it seems to be in the ballpark. Still bloody a ridiculous number, even though the rules are garbage - we had to comply.

 

Next year we get rid of a 20m loss in the three year rolling ave and we should have had a better year - but income must be waaaaay down now like everyone else. No way can the £39m be kept in place - and it will never come back in that form. 

[Guest Grandad]

3 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

How does it work then?

 

And what does this mean?

 

It works as per the tweet you posted. Not reset (ie back to Zero)

[Guest Grandad]

 

All of this speculation on the accounts could be avoided if we bloody submitted them

 

We've made 1 submission in the last 880 days.

[adelphi1867]

On 01/08/2020 at 11:01, @owlstalk said:

 

If the ground sale is permitted and we can start splashing the cash I fully expect other clubs to lose their minds and go all lawsuity OR just do the same that we did

 

Reyt mess

That is the last thing we should do.

Spend what ever money we have more wisely? yes with out doubt.

Spend what "Cash" we have on building the business side of the club, not the 1st team.

[Guest]

Just now, Grandad said:

 

It works as per the tweet you posted. Not reset (ie back to Zero)

 

But that's what Maguire's post intimates?

EG: We have been punished for 3 years up to and including 2017-18. At which point he is saying the clock is reset. So you 1 would be 2018-19 - a £13M loss allowable before sanctions are taken that don't include a points penalty (such as soft embargo, guided business plan) as points penalties are only applied after year 3 if £39M is breached.

 

If the clock is reset as that suggests then our year 1 is 2018-19 and will potentially be a profit if it includes the stadium sale. But that's not how I though it worked.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Grandad said:

 

All of this speculation on the accounts could be avoided if we bloody submitted them

 

We've made 1 submission in the last 880 days.

 

Not sure that would stop the speculation - the EFL ruled against what our last submitted accounts showed.

[Guest Grandad]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

 

But that's what Maguire's post intimates?

EG: We have been punished for 3 years up to and including 2017-18. At which point he is saying the clock is reset. So you 1 would be 2018-19 - a £13M loss allowable before sanctions are taken that don't include a points penalty (such as soft embargo, guided business plan) as points penalties are only applied after year 3 if £39M is breached.

 

If the clock is reset as that suggests then our year 1 is 2018-19 and will potentially be a profit if it includes the stadium sale. But that's not how I though it worked.

 

Nor me

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Nero said:

Here's another chart of the last 18 teams to be promoted - it might be of interest.

Green are the teams that were being financially doped via parachute payments when they went up.

Red are the team that were not, but of them, only Leeds, United and Huddersfield and arguably BHA have done it 'clean'.

If Fulham go up it would be 12 under the influence, 2 overspent FFP and 4 Clean. 

It puts our wrongdoing in a bit of context.

 

1

 

 

How did Brighton do it 'clean'? 

They made a loss of £36M the season they were promoted, £23M the year before and £7M the year before that. 3-season loss totaling £66M.