|
Post by Sfance on May 27, 2021 10:35:19 GMT
Clearly TS’s raise last year wasn’t quite enough.
|
|
|
Post by lagwafis on May 27, 2021 10:35:56 GMT
If the family wanted to throw a big whack of dough into the club again would one way around ffp be saying that they are sponsoring the front of the shirts this season for £42 million? Didn't Man City get in trouble for overstating their sponsorship? From what I remember it has to reflect a fair market value in relation to the level you play at and similiar deals to other clubs around you. So, if the average shirt sponsorship is £1 million a season (I'm making that up - no idea what it would be in the Championship) then £42 million wouldn't be realistic.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on May 27, 2021 10:39:13 GMT
Who is the highest paid director? Only Scholes gets paid via the club, the other directors get paid by Bet 365.
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on May 27, 2021 10:57:01 GMT
Who is the highest paid director? Only Scholes gets paid via the club, the other directors get paid by Bet 365. Would Richard Smith not be paid by the club too?
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on May 27, 2021 11:01:42 GMT
Only Scholes gets paid via the club, the other directors get paid by Bet 365. Would Richard Smith not be paid by the club too? There's a note in the accounts that says the other directors get paid by Hillside Limited & Bet365 Group Limited.
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on May 27, 2021 11:06:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on May 27, 2021 11:09:14 GMT
If the family wanted to throw a big whack of dough into the club again would one way around ffp be saying that they are sponsoring the front of the shirts this season for £42 million? Didn't Man City get in trouble for overstating their sponsorship? From what I remember it has to reflect a fair market value in relation to the level you play at and similiar deals to other clubs around you. So, if the average shirt sponsorship is £1 million a season (I'm making that up - no idea what it would be in the Championship) then £42 million wouldn't be realistic. So what about a 100 year shirt sponsorship deal with a value of £150m and all paid up front with a 12 month termination and payback clause inserted? 😀
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on May 27, 2021 11:09:20 GMT
Our wage bill in 2020 was nearly half what it was in 2018. So our inflated wage bill is not the main headline in the losses.
|
|
|
Post by femark on May 27, 2021 11:10:00 GMT
How are the Coates’ so blind re Scholes? It’s ridiculous. Because they all just blame the managers. Not to mention episodes such as Rowett going over Scholes' head to get the McClean deal done.Not heard that one before. Where was it reported?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on May 27, 2021 11:13:10 GMT
Could we not agree deals with players and staff where:-
Part A of the contract for footballing activities - 10% of the total cost paid by the Club and
Part B if the contract for BET365 activities - 90% of the total cost paid by BET365.
Accounting accounting and then accounting 😀
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on May 27, 2021 11:13:46 GMT
Because they all just blame the managers. Not to mention episodes such as Rowett going over Scholes' head to get the McClean deal done.Not heard that one before. Where was it reported? It's been common knowledge since that season, it was confirmed in the article in the Athletic that revealed a lot about the inside of the club. Scholes was reluctant to sign off on a long term deal and fee for McClean but Rowett was adamant he wanted him so went above Scholes and got Jonathan to sign off on the deal.
|
|
|
Post by theonlooker on May 27, 2021 11:18:30 GMT
I know who it is....
|
|
|
87M Loss
May 27, 2021 11:32:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by themistocles on May 27, 2021 11:32:03 GMT
There's isn't a company in the world that would stick with a CEO having lost 87m in a year...
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on May 27, 2021 11:39:20 GMT
There's isn't a company in the world that would stick with a CEO having lost 87m in a year... I'm not defending Scholes but we all know football doesn't work in the same way as normal business. Like I've said previously, the board all blame previous managers not themselves and definitely not Scholes. He's here for the long run, for whatever reasons they may be the owners fully trust him in his position of Chief Executive of the football club.
|
|
|
Post by northernstokie on May 27, 2021 13:04:42 GMT
If we do get done by FFP does that then refresh us for the next 3 years?
|
|
|
87M Loss
May 27, 2021 13:19:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by followyoudown on May 27, 2021 13:19:03 GMT
Didn't Man City get in trouble for overstating their sponsorship? From what I remember it has to reflect a fair market value in relation to the level you play at and similiar deals to other clubs around you. So, if the average shirt sponsorship is £1 million a season (I'm making that up - no idea what it would be in the Championship) then £42 million wouldn't be realistic. So what about a 100 year shirt sponsorship deal with a value of £150m and all paid up front with a 12 month termination and payback clause inserted? 😀 Boring accounting lesson for you it wouldn't improve ffp we could only include £1.5m per year as income the rest would go as advance payment / deferred income to be released at £1.5m per year (wont mention discounting as that would really bore your tits off )
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on May 27, 2021 13:41:29 GMT
|
|
|
87M Loss
May 27, 2021 13:51:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by Gods on May 27, 2021 13:51:02 GMT
I've been saying for about 3 years now for anyone who cares to listen that this is the only story in town!
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on May 27, 2021 13:55:19 GMT
Presumably this is a typo on there and it should say "Don't" Either way I can't see it being true otherwise what are the EFL doing fighting Derby over their Amortisation treatment if it doesn't count anyway plus this is from the EFL website
|
|
|
87M Loss
May 27, 2021 14:07:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Goonie on May 27, 2021 14:07:16 GMT
So, in short, are we fragged or not?
|
|
|
87M Loss
May 27, 2021 14:32:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by followyoudown on May 27, 2021 14:32:20 GMT
Presumably this is a typo on there and it should say "Don't" Either way I can't see it being true otherwise what are the EFL doing fighting Derby over their Amortisation treatment if it doesn't count anyway plus this is from the EFL website Yeah its garbage otherwise it means the £13m a year loss could just be spent on wages. The loss is so high though we will be in breach of ffp for the next two years regardless presumably you only get punished once though ?
|
|
|
Post by drfishy on May 27, 2021 14:51:27 GMT
The numbers are truely terrible - although we are using Covid as the reason most people can see through what we are doing. As others have said perhaps it is a case of clearing the decks declaring all our losses now expecting lots of other clubs to do likewise and we all take the penalties that the EFL deem fair, so survival next season may be all we can hope for. It feels all wrong but if we are allowed to do this TS has played a blinder.
|
|
|
87M Loss
May 27, 2021 15:14:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by thehoof on May 27, 2021 15:14:06 GMT
Presumably this is a typo on there and it should say "Don't" Either way I can't see it being true otherwise what are the EFL doing fighting Derby over their Amortisation treatment if it doesn't count anyway plus this is from the EFL website No , depreciation and amortisation would not be included as part of the loss because the players ( whom the depreciation is against) are not treated as INTANGIBLE)- my concern is how much of the additional write down charge ( I think it’s around £47m) will be accepted as being the direct result of COVID having knocked resale and transfer values for 6. We can hardly point to exceeding or even recovering NBV’s ( other than Arnie) of other players we’ve sold. So long as the additional impairment is not regarded as excessive, then TS may well have played a blinder. If it is considered “over the top” by the Authorities, then we would have some more explaining to do.
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on May 27, 2021 15:52:06 GMT
It's a crazy state of affairs really. Every club's aim is to climb as high in the league pyramid as they can. The problem being that somebody's going to get relegated every season with a squad full of overpaid and underperforming players - it's an inevitability of the gulf between Premiership and Championship incomes. To then have FFP rules that explicitly punish those clubs for the gulf between their former and current incomes is a real kick in the balls.
We're not alone of course, you only have to look at the list of clubs that became a financial basket case after not getting re-promoted before the parachute payments ran out. On the basis that FFP was supposed to bring financial stability to the game, but all it's doing is pushing clubs to the wall, it has to be torn up.
|
|
|
Post by stokeyank on May 27, 2021 15:58:37 GMT
Our "Non recurring income (cost)" spiked over 40 million! So whatever that line is hurt us this year, along with the expected overall decline in matchday revenue from broadcast rights.
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on May 27, 2021 16:01:53 GMT
Our "Non recurring income (cost)" spiked over 40 million! So whatever that line is hurt us this year, along with the expected overall decline in matchday revenue from broadcast rights. Is that the write down in player value?
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on May 27, 2021 16:02:37 GMT
Presumably this is a typo on there and it should say "Don't" Either way I can't see it being true otherwise what are the EFL doing fighting Derby over their Amortisation treatment if it doesn't count anyway plus this is from the EFL website No , depreciation and amortisation would not be included as part of the loss because the players ( whom the depreciation is against) are not treated as INTANGIBLE)- my concern is how much of the additional write down charge ( I think it’s around £47m) will be accepted as being the direct result of COVID having knocked resale and transfer values for 6. We can hardly point to exceeding or even recovering NBV’s ( other than Arnie) of other players we’ve sold. So long as the additional impairment is not regarded as excessive, then TS may well have played a blinder. If it is considered “over the top” by the Authorities, then we would have some more explaining to do. They are included as part of the loss. If they were excluded, transfer dealings would not be part of FFP which would be nonsense. At the moment we are massively in breach of the rules pre-Covid even if the £38 million for Covid exceptional write offs is allowed. As others have said we would have to make a £25 million profit in 2020/21 to meet the requirement. As our turnover allowing for Covid would be around £45 million and we had at least a £10 million player depreciation charge this looks impossible. To be honest, it is hard to see how we could have avoided breaching FFP with the amount of transfer spending we had to write off. The hope is that there are other Covid allowances agreed with the EFL. If not we must be gambling a number of clubs are in the same position, though our numbers are extreme, and we can limp through next season. The only good news is that we will start 2022/23 with a clean slate - all the expensive contracts ended and all of our transfer spending written off.
|
|
|
87M Loss
May 27, 2021 16:14:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by heworksardtho on May 27, 2021 16:14:21 GMT
Loose change to the Coates family
|
|
|
87M Loss
May 27, 2021 16:14:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by theonlooker on May 27, 2021 16:14:57 GMT
No , depreciation and amortisation would not be included as part of the loss because the players ( whom the depreciation is against) are not treated as INTANGIBLE)- my concern is how much of the additional write down charge ( I think it’s around £47m) will be accepted as being the direct result of COVID having knocked resale and transfer values for 6. We can hardly point to exceeding or even recovering NBV’s ( other than Arnie) of other players we’ve sold. So long as the additional impairment is not regarded as excessive, then TS may well have played a blinder. If it is considered “over the top” by the Authorities, then we would have some more explaining to do. They are included as part of the loss. If they were excluded, transfer dealings would not be part of FFP which would be nonsense. At the moment we are massively in breach of the rules pre-Covid even if the £38 million for Covid exceptional write offs is allowed. As others have said we would have to make a £25 million profit in 2020/21 to meet the requirement. As our turnover allowing for Covid would be around £45 million and we had at least a £10 million player depreciation charge this looks impossible. To be honest, it is hard to see how we could have avoided breaching FFP with the amount of transfer spending we had to write off. The hope is that there are other Covid allowances agreed with the EFL. If not we must be gambling a number of clubs are in the same position, though our numbers are extreme, and we can limp through next season. The only good news is that we will start 2022/23 with a clean slate - all the expensive contracts ended and all of our transfer spending written off. 2022 is only good news if our three card trick pays off, else it will be virtually null and void when we start the season on -12.
|
|
|
87M Loss
May 27, 2021 16:15:11 GMT
via mobile
Gods likes this
Post by heworksardtho on May 27, 2021 16:15:11 GMT
I've been saying for about 3 years now for anyone who cares to listen that this is the only story in town! I refuse to listen 🎧 😉
|
|