|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 8, 2022 21:58:29 GMT
I saw a Reading fan who said that the Coates family have been taking the piss for years...I wouldn't go that far but I think Stoke are certainly acting similarly to Mel Morris. I don't see how anybody can write that without acknowledging what a disaster FFP is for anybody except rules pedants. Look at who is being demonised: the Coates family, Mel Morris, Steve Gibson. All local, well meaning owners whose only interest is the success of their club and who have shown their willingness to meaningfully support the club's spending time and time again by debt write offs etc. You're putting them up there with some blood soaked dictator who buys a football as part of a sportswashing project. It's completely back to front. It's PL2 by the back door. It needs to end. You probably won't agree but I'd add Steve Lansdown as relatively local to that list. I actually think that at a European level ie Euro competition level the rules have had some merit but the Parachute Payments make it exceedingly contradictory at our level- that plus the higher loss limit- and I am not but a Reading fan I read was. Or a Barnsley fan, it's on a Barnsley forum I think. It's an unworthy comparison. Coates family as John Percy put in an article "one of the best local owners in the game". Or words to that effect. I get pretty passionate about FFP and can be quite ott but at the same time I am full on about enforcement- including my own club as it stands we won't be spending this summer, might have to sell a player or gain some sell on clauses to spend a bit. Those are the rules but as long as they're equally enforced for all. I am sure other clubs might be pushing the EFL hard about Stoke e.g. and rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 8, 2022 23:08:43 GMT
FFP in all its guises needs binning now!
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 8, 2022 23:39:26 GMT
FFP in all its guises needs binning now! Tbh, you won't like the latest proposals then! Although it'll affect a great many clubs mine included... A wage and amortisation cap of 70% of turnover although non football wages may not be included.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Apr 9, 2022 0:28:30 GMT
They could but payment and expense would be different so we would still have to book the cost even if we never paid it, don't know how it affects naming rights etc either - it could be that is excluded anyway as spending on facilities is I believe so could be the same for rent, I'm sure BIP will be along soon to clear it up for us No reason rental costs shouldn't count towards P&S- you can't book a large profit on disposal and it remain cost free thereafter- not just you, any club. Kieran Maguire intimated a while back well before this transaction that in the event of a peppercorn or daft rent, the EFL would push back and seek out a Fair Rent for P&S purposes and substitute it in- this was in 2019 when Hillsborough appeared to show no rent after SWFC sold it. Whether it's paper or real I am not bothered but it is definitely an Operating Expense and not listed among the excludable items. In a sense it doesn't matter if the rent is cash or not- not to me anyway or if it's loaned and paid back and a money-go-round, so long as it's there for P&S purposes included within the costs then paper or real I couldn't care less. Through Profit and Loss not Loans or similar- rent as an Operating Expense and included within the Profit and Loss, the FFP calcs then whatever form beyond that doesn't concern me at Now I know why I was not cut out to be an accountant. Can you explain this is in lay terms?
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 9, 2022 0:38:20 GMT
No reason rental costs shouldn't count towards P&S- you can't book a large profit on disposal and it remain cost free thereafter- not just you, any club. Kieran Maguire intimated a while back well before this transaction that in the event of a peppercorn or daft rent, the EFL would push back and seek out a Fair Rent for P&S purposes and substitute it in- this was in 2019 when Hillsborough appeared to show no rent after SWFC sold it. Whether it's paper or real I am not bothered but it is definitely an Operating Expense and not listed among the excludable items. In a sense it doesn't matter if the rent is cash or not- not to me anyway or if it's loaned and paid back and a money-go-round, so long as it's there for P&S purposes included within the costs then paper or real I couldn't care less. Through Profit and Loss not Loans or similar- rent as an Operating Expense and included within the Profit and Loss, the FFP calcs then whatever form beyond that doesn't concern me at Now I know why I was not cut out to be an accountant. Can you explain this is in lay terms? For me it only really matters from an FFP perspective but I'll try. Basically if there is a profit on a sale and leaseback, it follows- well IMO anyway- that there should be a rent with a reasonable yield. Most clubs have it after all, Derby are a notable exception at £1.1m for an £81m transaction but most of the others do align- 4.5-5%, maybe slightly more, maybe slightly less. I went on a bit of a ramble there but it can be included in Operating Expenses- seen it on a few other clubs accounts but for all I care as long as it is included, the expense is booked as another poster put it then in other words as long as it counts towards FFP I am not bothered how it is done but basically the business renting pays the rent but some of these transactions are paper- for example if there is debt of a certain amount this can perhaps be written off in exchange for a fixed asset of equal value. Offset. Not saying Stoke have done this btw but I believe at least one club did. There actually looked to be some kinda cash in the accounts. It's one of those things I am better at understanding than explaining really! Basically if it says say rent £4m per year, I am not bothered whether an entity- in this case Stoke- actually pay £4m cash a year or whether they just put a number on the balance sheet that says £4m per year. Or whether they get loaned the £4m to pay back as loans don't usually go through Profit and Loss but the rent most often does.
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Apr 9, 2022 2:28:01 GMT
They could but payment and expense would be different so we would still have to book the cost even if we never paid it, don't know how it affects naming rights etc either - it could be that is excluded anyway as spending on facilities is I believe so could be the same for rent, I'm sure BIP will be along soon to clear it up for us No reason rental costs shouldn't count towards P&S- you can't book a large profit on disposal and it remain cost free thereafter- not just you, any club. Kieran Maguire intimated a while back well before this transaction that in the event of a peppercorn or daft rent, the EFL would push back and seek out a Fair Rent for P&S purposes and substitute it in- this was in 2019 when Hillsborough appeared to show no rent after SWFC sold it. Whether it's paper or real I am not bothered but it is definitely an Operating Expense and not listed among the excludable items. In a sense it doesn't matter if the rent is cash or not- not to me anyway or if it's loaned and paid back and a money-go-round, so long as it's there for P&S purposes included within the costs then paper or real I couldn't care less. Through Profit and Loss not Loans or similar- rent as an Operating Expense and included within the Profit and Loss, the FFP calcs then whatever form beyond that doesn't concern me at all. Why should it bother you? why should it matter to you? Why should it concern you? Are you FFP? Lol, ey its ok mate, I'm guessing you just want a level playing field. Ah well, as you were, crack on mate. I haven't got a fucking clue about financial shit anyway 😅
|
|
|
Post by Fred Ferret on Apr 9, 2022 7:25:30 GMT
I don't see how anybody can write that without acknowledging what a disaster FFP is for anybody except rules pedants. Look at who is being demonised: the Coates family, Mel Morris, Steve Gibson. All local, well meaning owners whose only interest is the success of their club and who have shown their willingness to meaningfully support the club's spending time and time again by debt write offs etc. You're putting them up there with some blood soaked dictator who buys a football as part of a sportswashing project. It's completely back to front. It's PL2 by the back door. It needs to end. You probably won't agree but I'd add Steve Lansdown as relatively local to that list. I actually think that at a European level ie Euro competition level the rules have had some merit but the Parachute Payments make it exceedingly contradictory at our level- that plus the higher loss limit- and I am not but a Reading fan I read was. Or a Barnsley fan, it's on a Barnsley forum I think. It's an unworthy comparison. Coates family as John Percy put in an article "one of the best local owners in the game". Or words to that effect. I get pretty passionate about FFP and can be quite ott but at the same time I am full on about enforcement- including my own club as it stands we won't be spending this summer, might have to sell a player or gain some sell on clauses to spend a bit. Those are the rules but as long as they're equally enforced for all. I am sure other clubs might be pushing the EFL hard about Stoke e.g. and rightly so. Dear, oh dear ... and so it continues. Yawn
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 9, 2022 10:17:32 GMT
I thought spending on facilities was excluded for ffp wasn't sure if that included stadiums be surprised if it didn't otherwise it makes it difficult for any club to upgrade facilities nevermind build a complete new ground like Brentford, booking a profit on disposal of a ground in no different than booking a profit on a sale of a player really aim of FFP is to make sure you only spend money you have within the limits of the rules. I agree on the rent as I said its booked as expense regardless of whether or if its paid. Yes agreed- it is. Although often (but not always) expenditure on facilities would be under Tangible Fixed Assets ad the section of that marked additions- and it would start to depreciate when it hits the balance sheet, is completed whatever criteria. The depreciation is what would go through Profit and Loss, not the initial expenditure- it might also be found in cash flow under Purchase of Tangible Fixed Assets. Everton did it slightly differently with their ground, was included in the Profit and Loss account but it would or should be excluded in any event. Rent for a sale and leaseback certainly I wouldn't put into that category. Agreed. Booked as expense and I'd say counting towards FFP but whether any cash changes hands is up to the individuals involved. Mate I read and prepare accounts for a living I was just talking simplistically, not sure you are right on rent being included in ffp I checked the stoke accounts they are prepared under FRS102 which is basically the old uk gaap with some of the ifrs changes, I only deal with full IFRS or FRS101 under that and without seeing the contract there is no doubt this lease would have to be recognised as a right of use asset (which is pretty much the old finance lease accounting) under IFRS 16 so will never go through rent but instead depreciation, I doubt FRS102 is different unless there is some exemption for companies consolidated as part of the same set of group accounts, I know there is no such exemption for companies with same ultimate parent company who are not consolidated except at parent company level. Sorry to everyone for boring accounting post
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Apr 9, 2022 10:59:47 GMT
I don't see how anybody can write that without acknowledging what a disaster FFP is for anybody except rules pedants. Look at who is being demonised: the Coates family, Mel Morris, Steve Gibson. All local, well meaning owners whose only interest is the success of their club and who have shown their willingness to meaningfully support the club's spending time and time again by debt write offs etc. You're putting them up there with some blood soaked dictator who buys a football as part of a sportswashing project. It's completely back to front. It's PL2 by the back door. It needs to end. You probably won't agree but I'd add Steve Lansdown as relatively local to that list. I actually think that at a European level ie Euro competition level the rules have had some merit but the Parachute Payments make it exceedingly contradictory at our level- that plus the higher loss limit- and I am not but a Reading fan I read was. Or a Barnsley fan, it's on a Barnsley forum I think. It's an unworthy comparison. Coates family as John Percy put in an article "one of the best local owners in the game". Or words to that effect. I get pretty passionate about FFP and can be quite ott but at the same time I am full on about enforcement- including my own club as it stands we won't be spending this summer, might have to sell a player or gain some sell on clauses to spend a bit. Those are the rules but as long as they're equally enforced for all. I am sure other clubs might be pushing the EFL hard about Stoke e.g. and rightly so. Holy cow! Are you still wondering around other club's message boards? Does Bristol Shitty have a fans forum? If not, I suggest you start one and then the 3 of you can delight yourselves by exchanging thoughts about your own club.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Apr 9, 2022 11:03:36 GMT
No reason rental costs shouldn't count towards P&S- you can't book a large profit on disposal and it remain cost free thereafter- not just you, any club. Kieran Maguire intimated a while back well before this transaction that in the event of a peppercorn or daft rent, the EFL would push back and seek out a Fair Rent for P&S purposes and substitute it in- this was in 2019 when Hillsborough appeared to show no rent after SWFC sold it. Whether it's paper or real I am not bothered but it is definitely an Operating Expense and not listed among the excludable items. In a sense it doesn't matter if the rent is cash or not- not to me anyway or if it's loaned and paid back and a money-go-round, so long as it's there for P&S purposes included within the costs then paper or real I couldn't care less. Through Profit and Loss not Loans or similar- rent as an Operating Expense and included within the Profit and Loss, the FFP calcs then whatever form beyond that doesn't concern me at all. Why should it bother you? why should it matter to you? Why should it concern you? Are you FFP? Lol, ey its ok mate, I'm guessing you just want a level playing field. Ah well, as you were, crack on mate. I haven't got a fucking clue about financial shit anyway 😅 The real problem is there is no one else on the Bristol City message board, so he roams the internet searching for someone to talk to. I keep telling him/her to change their username.... Perhaps BristolShittyRestInPeace would be a more apt moniker?
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Apr 9, 2022 12:23:19 GMT
Why should it bother you? why should it matter to you? Why should it concern you? Are you FFP? Lol, ey its ok mate, I'm guessing you just want a level playing field. Ah well, as you were, crack on mate. I haven't got a fucking clue about financial shit anyway 😅 The real problem is there is no one else on the Bristol City message board, so he roams the internet searching for someone to talk to. I keep telling him/her to change their username.... Perhaps BristolShittyRestInPeace would be a more apt moniker? It did occur to me he/she might just want someone to talk to. That's why I relented and said its ok mate. And it is a free country with freedom of speech, so I guess there's no harm in it. "BristolShittyRestinPeace"... lol.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Apr 13, 2022 8:38:16 GMT
Not sure why it is £88m, the £70m and £5m have to be averaged. £30 +15 + £38 = £83m. The EFL decision on £5m was made recently but previously the EFL had stated Covid losses in the accounts would be allowed without suggesting a limit. Not clear which interpretation holds but good chance of a successful challenge I would argue as the costs had been in urged before the decision and the revenue and it is hard to see how with this backdrop the revenue and furlough items won’t be allowed. The fall in player values is much more open to challenge but again hard to imagine the impact is zero. Assuming the stadium deal is accepted and given what I know of the club’s approach to its accounting, I believe it will be. (One of the reasons the PL hired Tony Scholes was because they believed Stoke City to be so well run), Stoke will be fine with the £5m limit if the excluded costs are close to £6million a season. 2021/22 won’t be an issue as the club has cleaned up its balance sheet and sold Nathan Collins so all the signs are we will have money to spend next season. You're right of course. I forgot to average all told! Challenge if you want, I'd suggest that the EFL should charge Stoke based on the February agreed numbers if it is required and then an embargo will follow because teams charged with breaching FFP automatically fall under an embargo and that can last many months. The accounts would not be agreed and without agreed accounts the EFL don't have to accept the numbers do they? Again I point out Estoppel. Estoppel does not bind or tie the hands of the EFL now on past numbers- the DCFC and SWFC cases certainly proved this point and upheld their right to revisit down the line. Well for FFP purposes, they can simply exclude the excess that clubs put in. Charge the clubs and embargo those who defy I reckon for the duration of the case(s). Money to spend? Debatable- Parachute Payments gone, that's a big hit to income, rent as a cost even if not a cash cost will be added, and the EFL have the right to impose pre-emptive business plans on clubs forecast to hit trouble now. Voted in by clubs in. The profit on disposal is also a big one off gain and the loss limit falls from £55.5m to 2021 to £39m thereafter. What you are advocating is special pleading- I am more moderate than some, saw a Reading fan who said that the Coates family have been taking the piss for years. A Barnsley fan online said no better owner wise than the Russian or Saudi owners owing to gambling addiction issues in society. I wouldn't go that far but I think Stoke are certainly acting similarly to Mel Morris. I am not advocating special pleading. The revenue losses are there in black and white and it seems odd to cap them at £5 million, surely some clubs have higher turnover so will lose more? And to impose this in 2022 having not set a limit at the time seems to be particularly unfair. Anyway, you are right that most experts seem to think £7m is a likely deduction, in which case even with £5 million a year for Covid, Stoke are in the clear or worst case might get a slap on the wrist. Given the EFL does a full financial review with each club at least twice a season, all of this must have been known for some time - without the stadium deal Stoke would have been in clear breach and this would have led to sanctions of some form - the club were the most active in the division in the January window which is a clear sign all was approved. I don't think there is any chance of the stadium deal being successfully challenged, the club will have bought the best possible advice, they are watertight and very conservative on their accounting and have clearly been working on this issue for some time, maybe as long as 2 years. It sets up Stoke City pretty well for a world of salary caps as the balance sheet has been completely cleaned up and revenue is towards the top end of the division. (There must be a risk the PFA will veto the deal of course as it does mean lower wages across the EFL). However, the EFL has now got itself into a position where clubs are more sustainable but have almost no chance of surviving in the Premier League as the wage gap will now be almost insurmountable, or at least it will be for clubs without owners able to spend large amounts of money after promotion - the new PL/EFL deal will likely not release the full TV money until year 3 after promotion, which most clubs won't make. I am not sure that is a great situation but it is one I was told Bristol City and several other clubs have been advocating for some time.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 13, 2022 8:45:44 GMT
You're right of course. I forgot to average all told! Challenge if you want, I'd suggest that the EFL should charge Stoke based on the February agreed numbers if it is required and then an embargo will follow because teams charged with breaching FFP automatically fall under an embargo and that can last many months. The accounts would not be agreed and without agreed accounts the EFL don't have to accept the numbers do they? Again I point out Estoppel. Estoppel does not bind or tie the hands of the EFL now on past numbers- the DCFC and SWFC cases certainly proved this point and upheld their right to revisit down the line. Well for FFP purposes, they can simply exclude the excess that clubs put in. Charge the clubs and embargo those who defy I reckon for the duration of the case(s). Money to spend? Debatable- Parachute Payments gone, that's a big hit to income, rent as a cost even if not a cash cost will be added, and the EFL have the right to impose pre-emptive business plans on clubs forecast to hit trouble now. Voted in by clubs in. The profit on disposal is also a big one off gain and the loss limit falls from £55.5m to 2021 to £39m thereafter. What you are advocating is special pleading- I am more moderate than some, saw a Reading fan who said that the Coates family have been taking the piss for years. A Barnsley fan online said no better owner wise than the Russian or Saudi owners owing to gambling addiction issues in society. I wouldn't go that far but I think Stoke are certainly acting similarly to Mel Morris. I am not advocating special pleading. The revenue losses are there in black and white and it seems odd to cap them at £5 million, surely some clubs have higher turnover so will lose more? And to impose this in 2022 having not set a limit at the time seems to be particularly unfair. Anyway, you are right that most experts seem to think £7m is a likely deduction, in which case even with £5 million a year for Covid, Stoke are in the clear or worst case might get a slap on the wrist. Given the EFL does a full financial review with each club at least twice a season, all of this must have been known for some time - without the stadium deal Stoke would have been in clear breach and this would have led to sanctions of some form - the club were the most active in the division in the January window which is a clear sign all was approved. I don't think there is any chance of the stadium deal being successfully challenged, the club will have bought the best possible advice, they are watertight and very conservative on their accounting and have clearly been working on this issue for some time, maybe as long as 2 years. It sets up Stoke City pretty well for a world of salary caps as the balance sheet has been completely cleaned up and revenue is towards the top end of the division. (There must be a risk the PFA will veto the deal of course as it does mean lower wages across the EFL). However, the EFL has now got itself into a position where clubs are more sustainable but have almost no chance of surviving in the Premier League as the wage gap will now be almost insurmountable, or at least it will be for clubs without owners able to spend large amounts of money after promotion - the new PL/EFL deal will likely not release the full TV money until year 3 after promotion, which most clubs won't make. I am not sure that is a great situation but it is one I was told Bristol City and several other clubs have been advocating for some time. Excellent post, the £5m covid losses thing isn't clear but I read it as just an extra allowance to avoid clubs having to pay lawyers, accountants, valuation experts to put costs as being due to covid as virtually every club will fail it otherwise and this takes all but a few outside of ffp punishments because otherwise £5m is 200k tickets at about £25 a ticket so anyone averaging over 9k crowds busts ffp just on this nevermind loss of hospitality, advertising etc etc and all the additional costs of testing etc
|
|
|
Post by iamstokie on Apr 13, 2022 17:58:53 GMT
How will the new rules of 70% of turn over effect us , what is our turnover and wage bill ? , and couldn’t we just get Bet365 increase their sponsorship to increase the turnover ?
|
|
|
Post by bolders on Apr 13, 2022 18:13:13 GMT
How will the new rules of 70% of turn over effect us , what is our turnover and wage bill ? , and couldn’t we just get Bet365 increase their sponsorship to increase the turnover ? No any sponsor has to be within a range that is fair and likely to be offered to other clubs of that size and statue or i think Bet365 would of just gone we are sponsoring the bog paper this season for £100 mill to get round ffp
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Apr 13, 2022 18:53:33 GMT
How will the new rules of 70% of turn over effect us , what is our turnover and wage bill ? , and couldn’t we just get Bet365 increase their sponsorship to increase the turnover ? No any sponsor has to be within a range that is fair and likely to be offered to other clubs of that size and statue or i think Bet365 would of just gone we are sponsoring the bog paper this season for £100 mill to get round ffp Still don't get why bet365 can't give a few fans a load of money, or companies and let them use it to sponsor things for the club. We could sponsor each individual seat in the stadium to allow them to chuck at it what they want 😁
|
|
|
Post by bolders on Apr 13, 2022 19:19:15 GMT
No any sponsor has to be within a range that is fair and likely to be offered to other clubs of that size and statue or i think Bet365 would of just gone we are sponsoring the bog paper this season for £100 mill to get round ffp Still don't get why bet365 can't give a few fans a load of money, or companies and let them use it to sponsor things for the club. We could sponsor each individual seat in the stadium to allow them to chuck at it what they want 😁 Because we are not part of the top 6 and they would fook us for it
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Apr 14, 2022 9:08:13 GMT
Still don't get why bet365 can't give a few fans a load of money, or companies and let them use it to sponsor things for the club. We could sponsor each individual seat in the stadium to allow them to chuck at it what they want 😁 Because we are not part of the top 6 and they would fook us for it Not necessarily, I think that’s just victim mentality. It’s a very simplistic explanation of how big clubs circumvent ffp. It does get challenged by the football authorities but they lawyer up and threaten to take it all the way. Football authorities don’t have confidence in winning the legal battle so they bottle out and penalise the clubs in a way they will accept being penalised without taking action. I’m pretty sure bet365 could do it too if they had a mind to just like many other things the people running the football club are not that bold, risk taking or challenging of authorities.
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Apr 14, 2022 15:06:34 GMT
Bet365 should sponsor a tournament in Saudi Arabia with £100m prize money. The entrants are Stoke City and local U16 teams.
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on Apr 14, 2022 15:10:38 GMT
Bet365 should sponsor a tournament in Saudi Arabia with £100m prize money. The entrants are Stoke City and local U16 teams. But would we win? :-D
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Apr 14, 2022 15:25:08 GMT
How will the new rules of 70% of turn over effect us , what is our turnover and wage bill ? , and couldn’t we just get Bet365 increase their sponsorship to increase the turnover ? Although it will mean the owners can't put many directly into the first team they will still be able to spend on the academy etc which will be important in a world of salary caps, developing players will be vital- I would suggest we are starting now to see the benefit of over a decade of investment in the youth set up. Beyond this, our revenue is amongst the highest in the division (excluding parachutes which are likely to go anyway),largely because our sponsors are among the most generous and our crowds are decent, so we should be in good position to be competitive under the new rules.
|
|
|
Post by iamstokie on Apr 14, 2022 15:30:43 GMT
How will the new rules of 70% of turn over effect us , what is our turnover and wage bill ? , and couldn’t we just get Bet365 increase their sponsorship to increase the turnover ? Although it will mean the owners can't put many directly into the first team they will still be able to spend on the academy etc which will be important in a world of salary caps, developing players will be vital- I would suggest we are starting now to see the benefit of over a decade of investment in the youth set up. Beyond this, our revenue is amongst the highest in the division (excluding parachutes which are likely to go anyway),largely because our sponsors are among the most generous and our crowds are decent, so we should be in good position to be competitive under the new rules. I’m not so sure , wasn’t our last accounts turnover 40mil because 70% of that is 28mil for the wages and any transfers , I think our wages are 30mil at the moment
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Apr 14, 2022 15:36:02 GMT
Although it will mean the owners can't put many directly into the first team they will still be able to spend on the academy etc which will be important in a world of salary caps, developing players will be vital- I would suggest we are starting now to see the benefit of over a decade of investment in the youth set up. Beyond this, our revenue is amongst the highest in the division (excluding parachutes which are likely to go anyway),largely because our sponsors are among the most generous and our crowds are decent, so we should be in good position to be competitive under the new rules. I’m not so sure , wasn’t our last accounts turnover 40mil because 70% of that is 28mil for the wages and any transfers , I think our wages are 30mil at the moment We turn over £40M without selling the ground? We can't sell it again.
|
|
|
Post by ashleyscfc on Apr 14, 2022 16:09:17 GMT
Bet365 should sponsor a tournament in Saudi Arabia with £100m prize money. The entrants are Stoke City and local U16 teams. Dangerball
|
|
|
Post by fraybentos on Apr 14, 2022 16:30:37 GMT
I’m not so sure , wasn’t our last accounts turnover 40mil because 70% of that is 28mil for the wages and any transfers , I think our wages are 30mil at the moment We turn over £40M without selling the ground? We can't sell it again. stadium renaming
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 14, 2022 16:37:53 GMT
Bet365 should sponsor a tournament in Saudi Arabia with £100m prize money. The entrants are Stoke City and local U16 visually impaired teams. I fixed it for you we don't want to take any chances
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Apr 14, 2022 16:59:55 GMT
We turn over £40M without selling the ground? We can't sell it again. stadium renaming The Denise Coates Foundation Stadium. She could pay herself a few million more next year and bung it our way. Sorted.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Apr 14, 2022 17:09:39 GMT
I wonder if sadwhingybristoltwatinpissandwind will be there tomorrow? Or will he still be balls deep in HM Land Registry trying to unearth some 'T' that we haven't crossed or, god forbid, an 'i' we haven't dotted in our finances.
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Apr 14, 2022 17:13:47 GMT
Bet365 should sponsor a tournament in Saudi Arabia with £100m prize money. The entrants are Stoke City and local U16 teams. But would we win? :-D It would put a lot of pressure on the players for sure. Good preparation for a promotion challenge next season.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Apr 14, 2022 21:53:40 GMT
Although it will mean the owners can't put many directly into the first team they will still be able to spend on the academy etc which will be important in a world of salary caps, developing players will be vital- I would suggest we are starting now to see the benefit of over a decade of investment in the youth set up. Beyond this, our revenue is amongst the highest in the division (excluding parachutes which are likely to go anyway),largely because our sponsors are among the most generous and our crowds are decent, so we should be in good position to be competitive under the new rules. I’m not so sure , wasn’t our last accounts turnover 40mil because 70% of that is 28mil for the wages and any transfers , I think our wages are 30mil at the moment Those wages were for 2020/21 and include a dozen or so players who were not playing for us. By next season, all our high earners will have gone and our wages will be within the limits
|
|