|
87M Loss
Mar 31, 2021 22:35:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by ChesterStokie on Mar 31, 2021 22:35:03 GMT
I’ve also seen reported no redundancies or haven’t used the furlough scheme either over the last 12 months👏. bet they've taken a fair chunk of furlough via the punters though! And sadly a whole load of unemployment benefit, job seekers allowance, universal credit (or whatever these things are called these days).
|
|
|
87M Loss
Mar 31, 2021 22:35:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by theoptimist on Mar 31, 2021 22:35:35 GMT
Accountancy is a mysterious and wonderful thing - we will be fine. Hope you're right ..... we just need to learn quickly how to spend effectively.
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Mar 31, 2021 22:42:25 GMT
Accountancy is a mysterious and wonderful thing - we will be fine. Hope you're right ..... we just need to learn quickly how to spend effectively. I’m sure the Coates family are saying the same. Mind bogglingly rich as they are I’m sure they hate to see money wasted to the level some of our former managers have achieved.
|
|
|
87M Loss
Mar 31, 2021 23:00:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by ChesterStokie on Mar 31, 2021 23:00:26 GMT
It reads that way. I have no idea what it all means and don’t understand how it works but it sounds positive for sure. I'm hoping in simplistic terms the £43M will be written off the player values, Wimmer, Benik at al. and most of it blamed on Covid losses so that its discounted by the EFL. I can't believe that we downgraded an additional £43M on top of the usual amortized amount without being pretty sure the EFL were going to suck it up. If that's what has happened then we have a transfer kitty this summer. Why is everyone suddenly so confident we’re in the clear on FFP? Pete Smith certainly doesn’t say so in that article. How much of that £43m player impairment can really honestly and truthfully be attributable to Covid-19? Those players were worth f*** all even before Covid-19. I suppose we can give it a go but that doesn’t mean we’ll get away with it!
|
|
|
87M Loss
Apr 1, 2021 0:06:10 GMT
via mobile
Post by northernstokie on Apr 1, 2021 0:06:10 GMT
I'm hoping in simplistic terms the £43M will be written off the player values, Wimmer, Benik at al. and most of it blamed on Covid losses so that its discounted by the EFL. I can't believe that we downgraded an additional £43M on top of the usual amortized amount without being pretty sure the EFL were going to suck it up. If that's what has happened then we have a transfer kitty this summer. Why is everyone suddenly so confident we’re in the clear on FFP? Pete Smith certainly doesn’t say so in that article. How much of that £43m player impairment can really honestly and truthfully be attributable to Covid-19? Those players were worth f*** all even before Covid-19. I suppose we can give it a go but that doesn’t mean we’ll get away with it! O'Neil seems to hint we are away and he is a specialist in the subject.
|
|
|
Post by independent on Apr 1, 2021 1:47:27 GMT
Hopefully we are. We still owe over £170 million to the club's owners.Obviously this is interest free and not going to be called in, but it shows you how much money we've wasted over the years. And that is without counting the TV money we received in the Premiership. I think we are lucky to have the owners we have and the sensible manager we have. What he could have done with the money we wasted especially over the last 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by yyy on Apr 1, 2021 6:21:16 GMT
Suppose that's what happens when you're willing to spend the cash but hire cheap & cheerful managers to spend it
|
|
|
87M Loss
Apr 1, 2021 6:27:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by davejohnno1 on Apr 1, 2021 6:27:51 GMT
It is but I think they’ve been creative with it from reading this? It's a brilliant bit of accounting if it passes P&S. It's exactly what I was hoping for if all those fees have been downgraded. The importance of the role Tony Scholes plays?
|
|
|
87M Loss
Apr 1, 2021 6:28:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by chiswickpotter on Apr 1, 2021 6:28:20 GMT
I'm hoping in simplistic terms the £43M will be written off the player values, Wimmer, Benik at al. and most of it blamed on Covid losses so that its discounted by the EFL. I can't believe that we downgraded an additional £43M on top of the usual amortized amount without being pretty sure the EFL were going to suck it up. If that's what has happened then we have a transfer kitty this summer. Why is everyone suddenly so confident we’re in the clear on FFP? Pete Smith certainly doesn’t say so in that article. How much of that £43m player impairment can really honestly and truthfully be attributable to Covid-19? Those players were worth f*** all even before Covid-19. I suppose we can give it a go but that doesn’t mean we’ll get away with it! Report suggests discussions have been held with EFL. Hard to imagine such a big number which on its own (just the £43 million never mind the whole loss) would lead to a 12 points deduction would not have been approved. Doesn’t mean we are out of the woods as we will still need to shift players and the loan group remain a burden but it does mean we won’t be forced to sell to meet FFP targets
|
|
|
87M Loss
Apr 1, 2021 7:14:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by theoptimist on Apr 1, 2021 7:14:01 GMT
It's a brilliant bit of accounting if it passes P&S. It's exactly what I was hoping for if all those fees have been downgraded. The importance of the role Tony Scholes plays? I suspect they get the adults from 365 over for this work.
|
|
|
87M Loss
Apr 1, 2021 7:24:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by gingerninja on Apr 1, 2021 7:24:50 GMT
Summer transfer splurge it is then!!
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Apr 1, 2021 7:46:10 GMT
Why is everyone suddenly so confident we’re in the clear on FFP? Pete Smith certainly doesn’t say so in that article. How much of that £43m player impairment can really honestly and truthfully be attributable to Covid-19? Those players were worth f*** all even before Covid-19. I suppose we can give it a go but that doesn’t mean we’ll get away with it! Report suggests discussions have been held with EFL. Hard to imagine such a big number which on its own (just the £43 million never mind the whole loss) would lead to a 12 points deduction would not have been approved. Doesn’t mean we are out of the woods as we will still need to shift players and the loan group remain a burden but it does mean we won’t be forced to sell to meet FFP targets Even without the Impairment it's a 44 Million loss which breaks normal FFP rules. There must be more Covid concessions in the FFP rules.
|
|
|
87M Loss
Apr 1, 2021 8:18:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by followyoudown on Apr 1, 2021 8:18:07 GMT
Report suggests discussions have been held with EFL. Hard to imagine such a big number which on its own (just the £43 million never mind the whole loss) would lead to a 12 points deduction would not have been approved. Doesn’t mean we are out of the woods as we will still need to shift players and the loan group remain a burden but it does mean we won’t be forced to sell to meet FFP targets Even without the Impairment it's a 44 Million loss which breaks normal FFP rules. There must be more Covid concessions in the FFP rules. Add back costs of testing, making everything covid secure, loss of fans and hospitality etc. Report also suggests £30m amortisation of players during on top of £43m impairment, the £30m seems high maybe includes something for Imbula and Saido ?
|
|
|
87M Loss
Apr 1, 2021 8:25:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by followyoudown on Apr 1, 2021 8:25:50 GMT
It's a brilliant bit of accounting if it passes P&S. It's exactly what I was hoping for if all those fees have been downgraded. The importance of the role Tony Scholes plays? It's fairly standard accounting the auditors wouldn't have signed the accounts without something going through, the big question is whether the EFL accept it.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Apr 1, 2021 8:38:42 GMT
Even without the Impairment it's a 44 Million loss which breaks normal FFP rules. There must be more Covid concessions in the FFP rules. Add back costs of testing, making everything covid secure, loss of fans and hospitality etc. Report also suggests £30m amortisation of players during on top of £43m impairment, the £30m seems high maybe includes something for Imbula and Saido ? I know they'll be a bit creative but remember these are year ended 31st May 20, there won't have been any testing, covid secure etc as we were almost fully locked down late March to early June. Ammortisation was 29 Milllion the previous year and we only sold Pieters who would have been worth nothing on the balance sheet, and added Lindsay & Tommy Smith.
|
|
|
87M Loss
Apr 1, 2021 8:41:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by walton corner on Apr 1, 2021 8:41:46 GMT
Hopefully ffp can get ditched soon ...surely the richest clubs are pushing for this .....it’s got to change ...the money we could be spending would help poorer clubs we purchase from survive/make them more secure
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Apr 1, 2021 8:49:59 GMT
The importance of the role Tony Scholes plays? It's fairly standard accounting the auditors wouldn't have signed the accounts without something going through, the big question is whether the EFL accept it. If Tony Scholes has managed the club finances to the extent that we write off player values whilst FFP rules are relaxed due to the pandemic to put us in a stronger position once the rules are back in place (or removed) then he's done his job, probably very well, given the stormy waters we've had to steer through. It is abundantly clear we are a manager led club. Scholes is there simply to ensure any deal is within the capabilities of the club to afford and if we can afford it, the manager gets the player he wants. It seems a bit unfair to blame him for absolutely everything and then, when there are signs that he's actually done his job well, to dismiss any credit as standard accounting and "no big deal".
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 1, 2021 8:58:46 GMT
It's fairly standard accounting the auditors wouldn't have signed the accounts without something going through, the big question is whether the EFL accept it. If Tony Scholes has managed the club finances to the extent that we write off player values whilst FFP rules are relaxed due to the pandemic to put us in a stronger position once the rules are back in place (or removed) then he's done his job, probably very well, given the stormy waters we've had to steer through. It is abundantly clear we are a manager led club. Scholes is there simply to ensure any deal is within the capabilities of the club to afford and if we can afford it, the manager gets the player he wants. It seems a bit unfair to blame him for absolutely everything and then, when there are signs that he's actually done his job well, to dismiss any credit as standard accounting and "no big deal". If he's done that, lets make him club accountant and not CEO and use his talents where they clearly lie
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Apr 1, 2021 9:14:26 GMT
It's fairly standard accounting the auditors wouldn't have signed the accounts without something going through, the big question is whether the EFL accept it. If Tony Scholes has managed the club finances to the extent that we write off player values whilst FFP rules are relaxed due to the pandemic to put us in a stronger position once the rules are back in place (or removed) then he's done his job, probably very well, given the stormy waters we've had to steer through. It is abundantly clear we are a manager led club. Scholes is there simply to ensure any deal is within the capabilities of the club to afford and if we can afford it, the manager gets the player he wants. It seems a bit unfair to blame him for absolutely everything and then, when there are signs that he's actually done his job well, to dismiss any credit as standard accounting and "no big deal". Dave i actually agree its smart practice but the point is surely the fact we needed to do is a total indictment of the last few yeas fiscal performance , Recruitment contract and asset management its a truly catastrophic number for a business our size , way greater than the total value of the business . I also wouldn't bet against FFP / EFL investigation and possible penalty when the others see it you can bet a few calls will be going in to say Investigate investigate and it won't look clever at all then, so lets see if it washes through covid will clearly help but there will be others looking to set bear traps and i think understandably so So credit for the accounting yes but a true and total indictment of the financial performance under this chief executive over the last five years, no debate over recruitment ,influence , role etc its a truly horrendous financial picture i cant think any other CFO / CEO would survive it , its the modern day equivalent of congratulating Captan Smith for finding one of the life boats
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Apr 1, 2021 9:43:07 GMT
Doing a bit of guess-work and knowing there are still 2 years left on most of the contracts from the Prem League era - a lot are expiring in 2022
30M per year standard amortisation
43M impairment.
That would suggest there is only about 15M to 30M left on the balance sheet as player assets. This is NOT the market value of the squad because the likes of Campbell, Collins, Souttar will have 0 book velue.
So our annual amortisation will be 7M to 15M for the next couple of years with no new signings.
However our wages bill is still going to be around 70M over that period and without parachute payments our revenue will drop by another 15M next year down to less than 40M.
So we are still on course to have a loss of around 40M in the current financial with other things being equal. Still well above FFP levels.
We are still massively in breach of FFP and will be for the next 2 years without major exceptions given because of COVID.
Scholes may have washed out some of the bad news in these accounts, but there is still a lot more bad news to come UNTIL 2022 when we can remove a lot of contracted players wages off the books.
|
|
|
87M Loss
Apr 1, 2021 10:04:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by chiswickpotter on Apr 1, 2021 10:04:12 GMT
The importance of the role Tony Scholes plays? It's fairly standard accounting the auditors wouldn't have signed the accounts without something going through, the big question is whether the EFL accept it. It’s anything but standard accounting, the pandemic has posed problems never raised before. Lot of work needed to defend proposed write offs. If these numbers avoid FFP then Stoke City will probably have gained more than any other club in PL and EFL. Fingers crossed
|
|
|
87M Loss
Apr 1, 2021 10:11:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by chiswickpotter on Apr 1, 2021 10:11:26 GMT
Report suggests discussions have been held with EFL. Hard to imagine such a big number which on its own (just the £43 million never mind the whole loss) would lead to a 12 points deduction would not have been approved. Doesn’t mean we are out of the woods as we will still need to shift players and the loan group remain a burden but it does mean we won’t be forced to sell to meet FFP targets Even without the Impairment it's a 44 Million loss which breaks normal FFP rules. There must be more Covid concessions in the FFP rules. I agree. It must have been agreed with the EFL as they monitor these numbers and a 12 point deduction would put us in the relegation mix. A huge loss to end of May is odd unless we were very conservative about accounting for parachutes/TV as a bulk of this came in after the restart
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Apr 1, 2021 11:22:58 GMT
Even without the Impairment it's a 44 Million loss which breaks normal FFP rules. There must be more Covid concessions in the FFP rules. I agree. It must have been agreed with the EFL as they monitor these numbers and a 12 point deduction would put us in the relegation mix. A huge loss to end of May is odd unless we were very conservative about accounting for parachutes/TV as a bulk of this came in after the restart i agree i dont think we have heard the end of this points wise but if they punish us they will have to do so many other's and it will seem they are ignoring the pandemic , question is will the other others be able to generate enough noise to position us a " exploiting the situation " as opposed to being victims of it
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Apr 1, 2021 11:46:47 GMT
I agree. It must have been agreed with the EFL as they monitor these numbers and a 12 point deduction would put us in the relegation mix. A huge loss to end of May is odd unless we were very conservative about accounting for parachutes/TV as a bulk of this came in after the restart i agree i dont think we have heard the end of this points wise but if they punish us they will have to do so many other's and it will seem they are ignoring the pandemic , question is will the other others be able to generate enough noise to position us a " exploiting the situation " as opposed to being victims of it Logic would suggest that quite a few other clubs are sailing VERY close to the wind regarding FFP. If say, for arguments sake 10 clubs are in breach and they stick to their guns and give points deductions to all, then come the new season, nearly half the teams are in the minus straight away. So whats the point of dishing out all the points deductions? 2 mini leagues effectively as I see it. (Please remember Im as thick as a whale omelette so if this is nonsense then tell me)
|
|
|
87M Loss
Apr 1, 2021 14:10:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by followyoudown on Apr 1, 2021 14:10:49 GMT
It's fairly standard accounting the auditors wouldn't have signed the accounts without something going through, the big question is whether the EFL accept it. If Tony Scholes has managed the club finances to the extent that we write off player values whilst FFP rules are relaxed due to the pandemic to put us in a stronger position once the rules are back in place (or removed) then he's done his job, probably very well, given the stormy waters we've had to steer through. It is abundantly clear we are a manager led club. Scholes is there simply to ensure any deal is within the capabilities of the club to afford and if we can afford it, the manager gets the player he wants. It seems a bit unfair to blame him for absolutely everything and then, when there are signs that he's actually done his job well, to dismiss any credit as standard accounting and "no big deal". It would be unfair except I have always been very clear he has never been at fault for the signings as those are not his decisions, so I am happy with my take.
|
|
|
87M Loss
Apr 1, 2021 14:22:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by followyoudown on Apr 1, 2021 14:22:08 GMT
It's fairly standard accounting the auditors wouldn't have signed the accounts without something going through, the big question is whether the EFL accept it. It’s anything but standard accounting, the pandemic has posed problems never raised before. Lot of work needed to defend proposed write offs. If these numbers avoid FFP then Stoke City will probably have gained more than any other club in PL and EFL. Fingers crossed The pandemic has certainly posed problems but as someone who prepares annual accounts a standard audit question in any year is is there any indication of impairment of assets (considering how crap a number of signings were ans the length of contract and the fees paid - that has been there for a number of years !), for the 31/3/20 accounts I prepared there was a number of extra hoops to jump through specifically related to covid. The write offs themselves are easy to defend there literally appears to be no market for some of our players so putting them to zero or near zero auditors would have no issue with, whether they qualify for ffp exemption is almost certainly not something the auditors would be asked or allowed to pass an opinion on.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Apr 1, 2021 14:34:18 GMT
It’s anything but standard accounting, the pandemic has posed problems never raised before. Lot of work needed to defend proposed write offs. If these numbers avoid FFP then Stoke City will probably have gained more than any other club in PL and EFL. Fingers crossed The pandemic has certainly posed problems but as someone who prepares annual accounts a standard audit question in any year is is there any indication of impairment of assets (considering how crap a number of signings were ans the length of contract and the fees paid - that has been there for a number of years !), for the 31/3/20 accounts I prepared there was a number of extra hoops to jump through specifically related to covid. The write offs themselves are easy to defend there literally appears to be no market for some of our players so putting them to zero or near zero auditors would have no issue with, whether they qualify for ffp exemption is almost certainly not something the auditors would be asked or allowed to pass an opinion on. Interesting...... so in laymans terms are we in an OK/comfortable position or do we still need to be cautious? Im a bit poo with figures and stuff
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Apr 1, 2021 15:12:45 GMT
It’s anything but standard accounting, the pandemic has posed problems never raised before. Lot of work needed to defend proposed write offs. If these numbers avoid FFP then Stoke City will probably have gained more than any other club in PL and EFL. Fingers crossed The pandemic has certainly posed problems but as someone who prepares annual accounts a standard audit question in any year is is there any indication of impairment of assets (considering how crap a number of signings were ans the length of contract and the fees paid - that has been there for a number of years !), for the 31/3/20 accounts I prepared there was a number of extra hoops to jump through specifically related to covid. The write offs themselves are easy to defend there literally appears to be no market for some of our players so putting them to zero or near zero auditors would have no issue with, whether they qualify for ffp exemption is almost certainly not something the auditors would be asked or allowed to pass an opinion on. Some very complex arguments. Assumptions feeding in on possible paths of pandemic, likely economic recovery, how other countries will fare, scale of rescue package for the game, future crowds and broadcasting revenues etc. Profit and sustainability rules extended to four years from three so even agreeing the timeframe to consider for valuation has been challenged. It has taken months of extra work to get through football club audits, real challenges with some of the largest clubs
|
|
|
Post by alsagerstokie on Apr 1, 2021 16:12:02 GMT
Im off topic but 10 minutes from where i live in Alsager. If anyome knows a place called Hassall Green. Has anyone seen Denise new complex being built. I walk past it most nights. Jeez its fucking huge. Whereabouts is it? May go for a walk that way and nose 😂 Betchton Lane go up past Wilbrahams arms pub Alsager. A road right on the junction. Go down that road and you will soon see the many entrances. I cant be the only one to have seen it.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 1, 2021 16:14:57 GMT
Whereabouts is it? May go for a walk that way and nose 😂 Betchton Lane go up past Wilbrahams arms pub Alsager. A road right on the junction. Go down that road and you will soon see the many entrances. I cant be the only one to have seen it. Oh no I've seen people moaning about it on the Facebook groups around here but I don't really know the area at all. Will go for a walk down the canal at the weekend I think
|
|