|
FFP
Jan 17, 2020 18:15:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 18:15:34 GMT
I don't actually agree with the statement I have underlined. If a club runs itself properly during its time in the Prem then relegation should not be overly difficult to cope with. See my post just above this one - basically it was the numbers of players who were bought in our later years in the Prem who were worth well below what we paid for them and on wages which meant that they became virtually unsaleable. That meant that there was no chance that we could avoid FFP problems after relegation. Several clubs in recent years have not hit huge problems after relegation from the Prem and many of them have bounced back fairly quickly. At one time I would have put money on us being able to do the same - but the serial problems of overpaying for moderate players (and putting those moderate players on long & expensive contracts)at the tail end of Hughes' reign scuppered any chance of an easy time (as regards FFP) in the first few years of the Championship for as long as those long and expensive contracts remain in force. Many including myself said before relegation "The deadwood will kill us" If many on our forum could forsee this how the hell did the professionals at the helm not. Well you could apply that to many decisions that have been made, really. But us fans are just thick, and just don't 'get' football, eh?
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 17, 2020 18:19:28 GMT
Post by thebet365 on Jan 17, 2020 18:19:28 GMT
I’m really behind on all this. Can someone please summarise this to me (as if I’m a 5 year old). Why are we loaning players out rather than flogging them (other than because people don’t want to buy them)? oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/293228/ffp-cash
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 17, 2020 19:13:24 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 19:13:24 GMT
But it is the amount of money Coates has spent poorly (well it isn't really Coates it is the family company of which he is a very minor shareholder) over the past few years which has brought us to this point. Had bet365 spent less in subsidising the club during the Prem years OR had the money been better spent, we would not be in the difficulties we are in now. Scholes has to take a huge portion of the blame for what has happened. Any investor in a business (even a small investor such as me or anyone with a pension fund invested in stocks and shares ) has to hope that the Chief Executive of each of the companies in which they invest, is doing their job properly. It is becoming very apparent that Scholes has not been running the financial aspect of the club properly. All organisations, be they football leagues, stock exchanges etc. etc. have rules. People in charge of Companies, Football clubs etc. have to be aware of and comply with, those rules or face disaster. Leeds didn't, Birmingham didn't, it appears Derby didn't and, if we are not careful it may turn out that we didn't. No point in bitching about the rules - if you can't accept the rules of a competiton, don't enter! I was amazed at how small last years loss was following relegation, teams like Derby and Birmingham are still suffering from their financial meltdowns following relegation many years later, it seems we wrote off much off the dross in the last premiership accounts, having made a profit the year before, this along with the automatic wage cuts seems to have given space for the ill fated attempt to gain promotion at the first attempt. This is the key area. If we have written off the big problems, then we might not be quite in as big a pickle as some believe. If that is the case then TS had good foresight - or just followed sound accounting practice.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 19:29:19 GMT
EDIT: MON does seem to be aware of the actions needed to put right the mistakes of recent years. His background and understanding of finance is probably just as important as his managerial ability at present. I would be interested to know what his financial qualifications are. Did he gain qualifications in finance and business areas, or was it more along the "Financial Advisor" lines?
Bookies became Turf Accountants. "The insurance man" or "The man from the Pru" became a "Financial Advisor".
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 17, 2020 19:29:53 GMT
I was amazed at how small last years loss was following relegation, teams like Derby and Birmingham are still suffering from their financial meltdowns following relegation many years later, it seems we wrote off much off the dross in the last premiership accounts, having made a profit the year before, this along with the automatic wage cuts seems to have given space for the ill fated attempt to gain promotion at the first attempt. This is the key area. If we have written off the big problems, then we might not be quite in as big a pickle as some believe. If that is the case then TS had good foresight - or just followed sound accounting practice. We didn’t write off all the dross because we couldn’t afford to. We did as much as we could but it is still costing us £15 million a season in write offs before wages. We also have another £15 million a year for the next couple of years due to Rowett and Jones’ spending. So this season and next we will have to find £30 million before we pay the wages.
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 17, 2020 19:31:43 GMT
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 17, 2020 19:31:43 GMT
It is the ridiculous amounts paid (when we were in the Prem) for players who a) were not worth anything close to what we paid for them and b) who were on high wages, combined with long contracts, which made them virtually unsaleable when we got relegated, which started our demise. There should be no need for huge NET spending when a team gets relegated from the Prem. ALL players should either see their wages reduced dramatically because of relegation with the rest being sold for good money or released at the end of their contracts. The money raised by such sales and the wages freed up SHOULD mean that purchases of players to build a promotion push can be funded without hardly any NET spend. This simply didn't happen at Stoke. The only decent player sold was Shaqiri - and he was sold for a fraction of his true value because of the bizarre relegation clause in his contract which prevented us making a profit. The other players who were (at the time) saleable for good money were Allen and Butland - and for reasons best known to ourselves - we priced them too high, without considering the effect this would have on our profitability. The inability to sell Imbula, Berahino and others (who had to be loaned out or paid to do very little) completed the fisaco not forgetting the bizarre decision to offer Bauer an extended contract when it was not clear that our manager would even want to play him. I don't lay all the blame directly at the door of Peter Coates. Scholes as Chief Exec has to take the major share of the blame - although Peter Coates and the rest of the board are guilty of not terminating Scholes' contract. I don't think the board actually realised the depth of the doo doo that we were in. They knew mistakes had been made but they never realised just how big those mistakes were - and thus those mistakes were compounded by the buying spree (on the wrong type and quality of player) of the first summer after relegation. EDIT: MON does seem to be aware of the actions needed to put right the mistakes of recent years. His background and understanding of finance is probably just as important as his managerial ability at present. But PL hangover is only half the problem. The Rowett and Jones sprees will cost us £15 million a season of write offs for 2 more years.
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 17, 2020 19:34:32 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 19:34:32 GMT
This is the key area. If we have written off the big problems, then we might not be quite in as big a pickle as some believe. If that is the case then TS had good foresight - or just followed sound accounting practice. We didn’t write off all the dross because we couldn’t afford to. Well I think that is exactly what we all thought, but those last financial statements published, suggested otherwise.
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 17, 2020 23:08:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by followyoudown on Jan 17, 2020 23:08:43 GMT
I was amazed at how small last years loss was following relegation, teams like Derby and Birmingham are still suffering from their financial meltdowns following relegation many years later, it seems we wrote off much off the dross in the last premiership accounts, having made a profit the year before, this along with the automatic wage cuts seems to have given space for the ill fated attempt to gain promotion at the first attempt. This is the key area. If we have written off the big problems, then we might not be quite in as big a pickle as some believe. If that is the case then TS had good foresight - or just followed sound accounting practice. Its there in black and white in the accounts £29m impairment in 31/5/18 accounts has to Wimmer, Imbula, probably Saido and maybe even Badou other than that only Allen we paid significant fee for as Shaq and Ramadan were sold. Bruno, Pieters etc were pretty small fees.
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 17, 2020 23:12:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by followyoudown on Jan 17, 2020 23:12:15 GMT
This is the key area. If we have written off the big problems, then we might not be quite in as big a pickle as some believe. If that is the case then TS had good foresight - or just followed sound accounting practice. We didn’t write off all the dross because we couldn’t afford to. We did as much as we could but it is still costing us £15 million a season in write offs before wages. We also have another £15 million a year for the next couple of years due to Rowett and Jones’ spending. So this season and next we will have to find £30 million before we pay the wages. £29m write off by my maths is Wimmer, Imbula and probably Saido and maybe even Badou. This isnt money by the way either it all cash already paid out just the accounting catching up with it.
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 18, 2020 0:05:23 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2020 0:05:23 GMT
This is the key area. If we have written off the big problems, then we might not be quite in as big a pickle as some believe. If that is the case then TS had good foresight - or just followed sound accounting practice. Its there in black and white in the accounts £29m impairment in 31/5/18 accounts has to Wimmer, Imbula, probably Saido and maybe even Badou other than that only Allen we paid significant fee for as Shaq and Ramadan were sold. Bruno, Pieters etc were pretty small fees. You can preach this until the cows come home. Others on here want to hear that we are fucked and with FFP we are probably looking at going into Administration.
To suggest that TS got something right?
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 18, 2020 0:22:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Jan 18, 2020 0:22:23 GMT
Reading that Derby statement, if what they say is true there is no way they won't succeed in disputing any adverse ruling by the EFL, since the latters conduct seems to be totally inequitable.
FFP will be gone soon
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2020 0:54:19 GMT
What would happen if, come the end of the season, a group of clubs were awaiting court appeals. Appeals that might affect the relegation places. Maybe the same could occur at the top end of the table.
Have the EFL created a monster that they can't control?
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 18, 2020 18:33:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by stokeykez on Jan 18, 2020 18:33:15 GMT
The difference between prem money and champ money is the prob. Whilst the premier league is an entity in it's own right it will always remain problematic. The leagues need to be owned equally and the tv money is in proportion to that league. Its like you can only succeed if you have a failing position in the prem, chelsea and others have made massive losses yet ffp doesnt touch them
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2020 18:40:27 GMT
Reading that Derby statement, if what they say is true there is no way they won't succeed in disputing any adverse ruling by the EFL, since the latters conduct seems to be totally inequitable. FFP will be gone soon I agree. I can see a situation where a season starts (or should start), and the teams in the leagues are awaiting court decisions.
If it hasn't failed already, it surely will.
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 18, 2020 19:27:19 GMT
Goonie likes this
Post by markby on Jan 18, 2020 19:27:19 GMT
Reading that Derby statement, if what they say is true there is no way they won't succeed in disputing any adverse ruling by the EFL, since the latters conduct seems to be totally inequitable. FFP will be gone soon I agree. I can see a situation where a season starts (or should start), and the teams in the leagues are awaiting court decisions.
If it hasn't failed already, it surely will.
FFP has been around in one form or another for several years, with modifications along the way to take account of changing circumstances (eg sale and lease-back of stadia etc).
The big test was QPR, where the stakes were huge on both sides. In the end, it was a "draw" - the EFL imposed a huge fine, but it wasn't as much as it might have been according to the scale, and QPR were allowed a long period to repay it.
It was felt that that was as far as the EFL could go - any further and QPR would probably have challeneged it in the Courts, with the possibility that FFP be deemed unlawful.
Subsequently, the rules were amended, both to allow for points deductions (formerly the penalties were all financial), but also to secure them further against future legal challenge. The fact that Brum were subsequently deducted points without contesting it suggests that the EFL are on firmer ground legally.
Of course Derby are making loud noises about taking the EFL to court, and it may proceed. But I think this may be bluff and bluster, since they appear to be basing their case on the fact that the EFL approved the sale and lease back of Pride Park. However, while that may be permitted in principle, it wasn't a "blank cheque", whereby DCFC could fill in any figure they liked (£80m for a ground they'd previously listed in the books as being worth £41m!)
And as for DCFC saying that £80m was an "independent" valuation, this was by a valuer chosen by Mel Morris, who was paid by Mel Morris, and was working to value a property to be sold by one company connected with Mel Morris to another company connected with, well, you can guess who....
To paraphrase Jim Royle: "Independent my arse".
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 18, 2020 21:36:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Jan 18, 2020 21:36:31 GMT
I agree. I can see a situation where a season starts (or should start), and the teams in the leagues are awaiting court decisions.
If it hasn't failed already, it surely will.
FFP has been around in one form or another for several years, with modifications along the way to take account of changing circumstances (eg sale and lease-back of stadia etc).
The big test was QPR, where the stakes were huge on both sides. In the end, it was a "draw" - the EFL imposed a huge fine, but it wasn't as much as it might have been according to the scale, and QPR were allowed a long period to repay it.
It was felt that that was as far as the EFL could go - any further and QPR would probably have challeneged it in the Courts, with the possibility that FFP be deemed unlawful.
Subsequently, the rules were amended, both to allow for points deductions (formerly the penalties were all financial), but also to secure them further against future legal challenge. The fact that Brum were subsequently deducted points without contesting it suggests that the EFL are on firmer ground legally.
Of course Derby are making loud noises about taking the EFL to court, and it may proceed. But I think this may be bluff and bluster, since they appear to be basing their case on the fact that the EFL approved the sale and lease back of Pride Park. However, while that may be permitted in principle, it wasn't a "blank cheque", whereby DCFC could fill in any figure they liked (£80m for a ground they'd previously listed in the books as being worth £41m!)
And as for DCFC saying that £80m was an "independent" valuation, this was by a valuer chosen by Mel Morris, who was paid by Mel Morris, and was working to value a property to be sold by one company connected with Mel Morris to another company connected with, well, you can guess who....
To paraphrase Jim Royle: "Independent my arse".
On a sale and lease back you could justify a high premium for the purchase of the ground on the basis of a large annual rent payment which nevertheless ensures a huge chunk of investment with the loss by way of rent being spread over many years and not resulting in a breach of ffp. Any accountants out there please tell me of any reason why any club couldn't do this, and thereby ensure a big cash injection
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 18, 2020 21:43:24 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2020 21:43:24 GMT
FFP has been around in one form or another for several years, with modifications along the way to take account of changing circumstances (eg sale and lease-back of stadia etc).
The big test was QPR, where the stakes were huge on both sides. In the end, it was a "draw" - the EFL imposed a huge fine, but it wasn't as much as it might have been according to the scale, and QPR were allowed a long period to repay it.
It was felt that that was as far as the EFL could go - any further and QPR would probably have challeneged it in the Courts, with the possibility that FFP be deemed unlawful.
Subsequently, the rules were amended, both to allow for points deductions (formerly the penalties were all financial), but also to secure them further against future legal challenge. The fact that Brum were subsequently deducted points without contesting it suggests that the EFL are on firmer ground legally.
Of course Derby are making loud noises about taking the EFL to court, and it may proceed. But I think this may be bluff and bluster, since they appear to be basing their case on the fact that the EFL approved the sale and lease back of Pride Park. However, while that may be permitted in principle, it wasn't a "blank cheque", whereby DCFC could fill in any figure they liked (£80m for a ground they'd previously listed in the books as being worth £41m!)
And as for DCFC saying that £80m was an "independent" valuation, this was by a valuer chosen by Mel Morris, who was paid by Mel Morris, and was working to value a property to be sold by one company connected with Mel Morris to another company connected with, well, you can guess who....
To paraphrase Jim Royle: "Independent my arse".
On a sale and lease back you could justify a high premium for the purchase of the ground on the basis of a large annual rent payment which nevertheless ensures a huge chunk of investment with the loss by way of rent being spread over many years and not resulting in a breach of ffp. Any accountants out there please tell me of any reason why any club couldn't do this, and thereby ensure a big cash injection I'm not sure that I fully understand what you are suggesting here. SCFC do not own the stadium though.
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 18, 2020 22:00:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Jan 18, 2020 22:00:45 GMT
On a sale and lease back you could justify a high premium for the purchase of the ground on the basis of a large annual rent payment which nevertheless ensures a huge chunk of investment with the loss by way of rent being spread over many years and not resulting in a breach of ffp. Any accountants out there please tell me of any reason why any club couldn't do this, and thereby ensure a big cash injection I'm not sure that I fully understand what you are suggesting here. SCFC do not own the stadium though. I'm thinking clubs generally. If derby for instance had sold their ground for 80 million, with a leaseback, but the lease was on favourable terms to the company that bought the ground, by way of a healthy annual rent payment, then the sale price can be justified and the payments that would be due over the term of the lease, those losses are spread over the years of the lease, i assume the rental payments due under the lease don't show as one lump sum liability in the accounts, rather only that years' payment is a liability in the accounts for that year? Then who are the EFL to say the ground was overpriced? Sorry, tired and a bit drunk, just thinking how ridiculous it is to try to enforce rules to stop people from investing in a football club
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 18, 2020 22:10:19 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2020 22:10:19 GMT
I'm not sure that I fully understand what you are suggesting here. SCFC do not own the stadium though. I'm thinking clubs generally. If derby for instance had sold their ground for 80 million, with a leaseback, but the lease was on favourable terms to the company that bought the ground, by way of a healthy annual rent payment, then the sale price can be justified and the payments that would be due over the term of the lease, those losses are spread over the years of the lease, i assume the rental payments due under the lease don't show as one lump sum liability in the accounts, rather only that years' payment is a liability in the accounts for that year? Then who are the EFL to say the ground was overpriced? Sorry, tired and a bit drunk, just thinking how ridiculous it is to try to enforce rules to stop people from investing in a football club Ok, I'm with you now.
I wonder how watertight the EFL made this FFP policy. They obviously made provision against "connected" or "not at arms length" transactions - but legally it is surely a bit of a minefield with a good bit of room for good legals to have fun with.
At this stage, who knows? We will find out. My gut feeling is that the EFL have over reached themselves, and this whole thing is going to bite them back.
|
|
|
FFP
Jan 24, 2020 9:33:34 GMT
Post by chigstoke on Jan 24, 2020 9:33:34 GMT
Villa the next ones now, Premier League now looking into their stadium sale. Checking valuations and terms of lease. Could face points deduction. I'd guess at a fine though personally.
They could do with staying up as well, otherwise the EFL are going to be having an absolute field day if they go down, along with Derby, Wednesday and Brum.
|
|
|
FFP
Feb 5, 2020 20:40:34 GMT
Goonie likes this
Post by FullerMagic on Feb 5, 2020 20:40:34 GMT
Stoke City are one Championship club who are “dismayed” at the situation, following their relegation from the Premier League in 2018. The feeling within their boardroom is that they could be punished in the future for showing ambition: while the owners – the Coates family – could easily underwrite any financial losses, they are effectively barred from doing so.
Tony Scholes, Stoke’s chief executive, told Telegraph Sport: “We’ve found it sad and quite unseemly that clubs are attacking each other over a set of rules which appear to be ill-conceived. The situation is a mess and it needs sorting out quickly.
“The rules do absolutely nothing to address the key issues, which are sustainability at clubs or the cliff edge between the Premier League and the rest. In fact, they make it worse.
“The battles should take place on the pitch, but clubs are trying to win them away from the pitch to get points deductions for rivals.
“There is hypocrisy everywhere and what the situation needs is for clubs to be honest about the objective and prepared to compromise to reach the solution.
“From our point of view at Stoke, we have a set of local owners who are prepared to invest in their local club in a manner which doesn’t jeopardise the future. But the rules that are in place block that happening.”
|
|
|
FFP
Feb 5, 2020 21:28:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Feb 5, 2020 21:28:53 GMT
It's a joke. Something will give soon,at the very latest when Mel Morris has his day in court, the EFL will be screwed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 21:33:59 GMT
We can piss and moan all we like.
We handed over 50M to an idiot and asked a comparative child to fix it.
West Brom were relegated the very same season, are more solvent than we are, had a complete clear out and look a good bet to return to the top flight whilst making a profit on transfers.
It's 100% our fault.
|
|
|
FFP
Feb 5, 2020 22:03:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by Championship Potter on Feb 5, 2020 22:03:04 GMT
Whole thing is a farce. If a club has an investor that is prepared to underwrite any losses what’s the issue? Should just have a vetting process whereby the FA get themselves comfortable that any potential investor is trustworthy and then there would be no financial issues. This would also stop bad money coming from overseas investors that may run a mile when things go pear shaped.
|
|
|
FFP
Feb 5, 2020 22:22:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by mattador78 on Feb 5, 2020 22:22:15 GMT
We can piss and moan all we like. We handed over 50M to an idiot and asked a comparative child to fix it. West Brom were relegated the very same season, are more solvent than we are, had a complete clear out and look a good bet to return to the top flight whilst making a profit on transfers. It's 100% our fault. Don’t disagree with any of that but we have the resources to attempt to rectify that but will be punished if we try as the league doesn’t produce enough revenue for the clubs on their own due to inflated wages and transfer fees.
|
|
|
FFP
Feb 5, 2020 23:15:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Feb 5, 2020 23:15:13 GMT
Chief executive speak for
“I’ve made a royal fuck up here and need to deflect the blame elsewhere as if we get fined under FFP or worse their is no manager to blame , and it might finally find me out as being clueless at the one thing I was supposed To be good at .”
Also seems like someone else has it in for us reading between the lines .
|
|
|
FFP
Feb 5, 2020 23:33:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by Royal Donut on Feb 5, 2020 23:33:11 GMT
FFP is great, it keeps season tickets high,not us just in general,up and down the country. So the rich person owning the club cant help the poor person in the cheapest seats.
|
|
|
FFP
Feb 6, 2020 16:36:14 GMT
Post by cheekymatt71 on Feb 6, 2020 16:36:14 GMT
That is absolute bollocks from Tony Scholes and Stoke.
Peter Coates was at the forefront of FFP rules. He helped to create them and preached for self-sufficiency for a number of years.
Its complete hypocrisy to now claim the rules are wrong just because it doesnt suit our current situation.
Sorry but that is complete bullshit from Stoke
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on Feb 6, 2020 16:43:23 GMT
That is absolute bollocks from Tony Scholes and Stoke. Peter Coates was at the forefront of FFP rules. He helped to create them and preached for self-sufficiency for a number of years. Its complete hypocrisy to now claim the rules are wrong just because it doesnt suit our current situation. Sorry but that is complete bullshit from Stoke Technically it is self sufficiency the owners can afford it so we are self sufficient apple.news/A0wfyTdiGSI6ZvSj1RZv9hAI mean look there’s only two or three on there richer than the Coates family but apparently we can’t sustain our club
|
|
|
FFP
Feb 10, 2020 21:42:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by slicko on Feb 10, 2020 21:42:40 GMT
Are we in the clear after the January Fire Sale?
|
|