|
Post by baconburger on Jan 8, 2024 12:39:12 GMT
Kieran Maguire is the top financial expert in football so I very much doubt it Indeed. It might have something to do with Stoke City being owned by bet365. But salaries of directors, dividends etc have absolutely no bearing on the football club. Do any of our directors claim a salary from the club? And even if they did it wouldn’t be irrelevant to FFP.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Jan 8, 2024 13:03:36 GMT
Indeed. It might have something to do with Stoke City being owned by bet365. But salaries of directors, dividends etc have absolutely no bearing on the football club. Do any of our directors claim a salary from the club? And even if they did it wouldn’t be irrelevant to FFP. Mate I don’t profess to have any clue about company accounts and I agree that the various companies are separate legal entities but they must be inextricably linked and therefore one is relevant to the financial operation of the other. 🤷♂️ But like I say what do I know? I suspect Maguire is better informed.
|
|
|
Post by thepottypotter on Jan 8, 2024 13:22:49 GMT
Reading these accounts, football fans are all becoming accountants whether we like it or not!!
|
|
|
Post by gingerninja on Jan 8, 2024 13:31:40 GMT
So for us laymen, are the accounts generally encouraging?.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Jan 8, 2024 13:32:57 GMT
So, despite Souttar’s sale, we are still losing a hefty chunk of cash each year then?
|
|
|
Post by LH_SCFC on Jan 8, 2024 13:34:47 GMT
Indeed. It might have something to do with Stoke City being owned by bet365. But salaries of directors, dividends etc have absolutely no bearing on the football club. Do any of our directors claim a salary from the club? And even if they did it wouldn’t be irrelevant to FFP. What on earth are you wittering on about?
|
|
|
Post by s7oke on Jan 8, 2024 13:38:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bagnallboothen on Jan 8, 2024 13:38:35 GMT
So, despite Souttar’s sale, we are still losing a hefty chunk of cash each year then? The statement in the Sentinel suggests there is 5.6m to come off FFP wise for ground improvements and thats without deducting the academy etc. All in all FFP wise we're OK, but to answer your question yes, without Souttar overall losses would have been close to £30m (10% of Denise's earnings)
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 8, 2024 13:41:33 GMT
Who are the players that we got rid of that originally cost 60 odd million?
Rowett's lot plus Souttar presumbably?
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 8, 2024 13:49:33 GMT
So, despite Souttar’s sale, we are still losing a hefty chunk of cash each year then? Yup. Owning a football club is a real bad idea if you’ve an aversion to losing money hand over fist. Luckily they don’t seem overly troubled by it. Our FFP position is ok and change is on the horizon, football regulator, new disbursement of revenues, FFP changes that allow greater sustainable investment 🤞etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jan 8, 2024 13:56:15 GMT
So, despite Souttar’s sale, we are still losing a hefty chunk of cash each year then? Don’t all supporters make a financial loss from following their club. As a % of our individual incomes, the Coates family probably make a smaller loss than the rest of us do.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 8, 2024 14:11:21 GMT
So, despite Souttar’s sale, we are still losing a hefty chunk of cash each year then? Don’t all supporters make a financial loss from following their club. As a % of our individual incomes, the Coates family probably make a smaller loss than the rest of us do. Yes and their heartache is probably even greater than ours knowing they’ve been complicit despite their good intentions. Supporting an unfashionable football club is not the most rewarding of hobbies. God only knows why we do it.
|
|
|
Post by BlurtonRed on Jan 8, 2024 14:12:09 GMT
So, despite Souttar’s sale, we are still losing a hefty chunk of cash each year then? Yup. Owning a football club is a real bad idea if you’ve an aversion to losing money hand over fist. Luckily they don’t seem overly troubled by it. Our FFP position is ok and change is on the horizon, football regulator, new disbursement of revenues, FFP changes that allow greater sustainable investment 🤞etc etc. Are changes definitely afoot with FFP? Something needs too be changed
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 8, 2024 14:16:38 GMT
So for us laymen, are the accounts generally encouraging?. They aren't our accounts, they're Bet 365 accounts in the main with a snapshot of ours as at end of March 23 but our official accounts are to May 23. So in Laymen, these don't really mean anything.
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Jan 8, 2024 14:21:15 GMT
My (limited) understanding of FFP seems to be ridiculous: you can lose £39m over a 3 year rolling period which suggests after 12 years a club could be £156m in the red and still not breach FFP!
How is that sustainable? It's just been put there to keep the top clubs where they are and for a lucky few (like we were then blew it!) creep into the upper eschelons every now and then and be thankful
Bonkers!
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 8, 2024 14:25:03 GMT
Yup. Owning a football club is a real bad idea if you’ve an aversion to losing money hand over fist. Luckily they don’t seem overly troubled by it. Our FFP position is ok and change is on the horizon, football regulator, new disbursement of revenues, FFP changes that allow greater sustainable investment 🤞etc etc. Are changes definitely afoot with FFP? Something needs too be changed No hence 🤞. It’s certainly being discussed by people with influence. Sorry for any confusion the other things are definitely afoot. In what timescale I haven’t the foggiest.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 8, 2024 14:26:18 GMT
Who are the players that we got rid of that originally cost 60 odd million? Rowett's lot plus Souttar presumbably? Etebo Ince Smith Fletcher Allen Afobe Doughty All left summer 22
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 8, 2024 14:27:21 GMT
My (limited) understanding of FFP seems to be ridiculous: you can lose £39m over a 3 year rolling period which suggests after 12 years a club could be £156m in the red and still not breach FFP! How is that sustainable? It's just been put there to keep the top clubs where they are and for a lucky few (like we were then blew it!) creep into the upper eschelons every now and then and be thankful Bonkers! It’s not achieving its stated aims. I’m an eternal optimist I’m hoping that wasn’t by design.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 8, 2024 17:09:54 GMT
Just emphasises 1 How supportive the owners have been and how we’d be insolvent without them 2 How poor the recruitment has been 16m revenue in player sales , players that cost £65m mind boggling if it’s right
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Jan 8, 2024 17:18:54 GMT
My (limited) understanding of FFP seems to be ridiculous: you can lose £39m over a 3 year rolling period which suggests after 12 years a club could be £156m in the red and still not breach FFP! How is that sustainable? It's just been put there to keep the top clubs where they are and for a lucky few (like we were then blew it!) creep into the upper eschelons every now and then and be thankful Bonkers! I'm no expert either but I've been saying it for a long time now FFP is a con to stop as you've stated us guys crashing the top table it's a boardline monopoly.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 8, 2024 17:20:56 GMT
Just emphasises 1 How supportive the owners have been and how we’d be insolvent without them 2 How poor the recruitment has been 16m revenue in player sales , players that cost £65m mind boggling if it’s right They’ve loyally stuck with it but let’s not pretend they aren’t complicit in the situation arising at all. Don’t forget they tried to get away with zero net spend the summer before relegation. A fraction of the money they’ve spent since then and it doesn’t happen.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jan 8, 2024 18:23:18 GMT
Yeah my understanding is it's a rolling 3 year total so you can never truly take you're eye off the ball........... so it appears we are within FFP atm but not by much? How creative are our accountants I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by independent on Jan 9, 2024 1:57:17 GMT
Just emphasises 1 How supportive the owners have been and how we’d be insolvent without them 2 How poor the recruitment has been 16m revenue in player sales , players that cost £65m mind boggling if it’s right They’ve loyally stuck with it but let’s not pretend they aren’t complicit in the situation arising at all. Don’t forget they tried to get away with zero net spend the summer before relegation. A fraction of the money they’ve spent since then and it doesn’t happen. Maybe, Maybe not. If the value that we were able to recover from the purchases we actually did make is any indication then it is quite possible that we would have wound up in an even worse situation than we did. Who knows? It would be interesting to see how much of an annual loss it takes to stay in the Premier League, I'm sure that the Coates would willingly finance it. However, I think that to attract top quality players to an unfashionable area and club, you would have to pay well over the odds and long term contracts. The only model that makes sense is to identify and buy talented players before others do, and hopefully like Brighton and Southampton sell them on to bigger clubs at a large profit. The trick is to keep repeating the process.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 9, 2024 9:47:37 GMT
My (limited) understanding of FFP seems to be ridiculous: you can lose £39m over a 3 year rolling period which suggests after 12 years a club could be £156m in the red and still not breach FFP! How is that sustainable? It's just been put there to keep the top clubs where they are and for a lucky few (like we were then blew it!) creep into the upper eschelons every now and then and be thankful Bonkers! I'm no expert either but I've been saying it for a long time now FFP is a con to stop as you've stated us guys crashing the top table it's a boardline monopoly. I believe the poster is saying that even with FFP clubs are having to load themselves with unsustainable debt to just carry on operating. Scrap FFP, as you suggest, and in order to compete with the big boys clubs would load themselves with even higher levels of debt, the big boys would just up the ante and eventually the smaller clubs would go into administration with huge debts that will never get paid off. Scrap FFP and you give the big boys licence to engage in a chequebook war which they will win and happily drive others clubs out of existence. The idea that the bigg clubs benefit from FFP is nonsense - they would be the first in line to get it scrapped because they know they would the ones who would emerge relatively unscathed from the carnage.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 9, 2024 10:11:29 GMT
They’ve loyally stuck with it but let’s not pretend they aren’t complicit in the situation arising at all. Don’t forget they tried to get away with zero net spend the summer before relegation. A fraction of the money they’ve spent since then and it doesn’t happen. Maybe, Maybe not. If the value that we were able to recover from the purchases we actually did make is any indication then it is quite possible that we would have wound up in an even worse situation than we did. Who knows? It would be interesting to see how much of an annual loss it takes to stay in the Premier League, I'm sure that the Coates would willingly finance it. However, I think that to attract top quality players to an unfashionable area and club, you would have to pay well over the odds and long term contracts. The only model that makes sense is to identify and buy talented players before others do, and hopefully like Brighton and Southampton sell them on to bigger clubs at a large profit. The trick is to keep repeating the process. I don’t think there’s that much of a trick to keeping repeating the process. Keep doing the right profile of deals and accept a fairly high failure rate. Ensure contracts are no so generous as to make the players you sign difficult to move on if they do fail. It’s no use doing 6 deals and squealing when 3 of them don’t make the grade. People expectations of the ratio of success/failure rates in football player trading are completely unrealistic and have never been achieved anywhere by anyone.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Jan 9, 2024 11:01:30 GMT
I'm no expert either but I've been saying it for a long time now FFP is a con to stop as you've stated us guys crashing the top table it's a boardline monopoly. I believe the poster is saying that even with FFP clubs are having to load themselves with unsustainable debt to just carry on operating. Scrap FFP, as you suggest, and in order to compete with the big boys clubs would load themselves with even higher levels of debt, the big boys would just up the ante and eventually the smaller clubs would go into administration with huge debts that will never get paid off. Scrap FFP and you give the big boys licence to engage in a chequebook war which they will win and happily drive others clubs out of existence. The idea that the bigg clubs benefit from FFP is nonsense - they would be the first in line to get it scrapped because they know they would the ones who would emerge relatively unscathed from the carnage. Well whatever he was saying he liked my post so maybe we agree, but devils advocate clubs still go bust even with FFP clubs still get billions in dept with FFP so what's the point of it I'll stick with the monopoly and protection of the "elite" rather than its for the greater good.
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Jan 9, 2024 11:10:14 GMT
My (limited) understanding of FFP seems to be ridiculous: you can lose £39m over a 3 year rolling period which suggests after 12 years a club could be £156m in the red and still not breach FFP! How is that sustainable? It's just been put there to keep the top clubs where they are and for a lucky few (like we were then blew it!) creep into the upper eschelons every now and then and be thankful Bonkers! I'm no expert either but I've been saying it for a long time now FFP is a con to stop as you've stated us guys crashing the top table it's a boardline monopoly. On the contrary you could argue that because our owners seem willing to put in / write off the £13m of FFP losses every year that gives us a massive advantage over most of our competitors in the Championship whose owners are unwilling or more likely unable to find that £13m per year.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 9, 2024 11:46:59 GMT
I believe the poster is saying that even with FFP clubs are having to load themselves with unsustainable debt to just carry on operating. Scrap FFP, as you suggest, and in order to compete with the big boys clubs would load themselves with even higher levels of debt, the big boys would just up the ante and eventually the smaller clubs would go into administration with huge debts that will never get paid off. Scrap FFP and you give the big boys licence to engage in a chequebook war which they will win and happily drive others clubs out of existence. The idea that the bigg clubs benefit from FFP is nonsense - they would be the first in line to get it scrapped because they know they would the ones who would emerge relatively unscathed from the carnage. Well whatever he was saying he liked my post so maybe we agree, but devils advocate clubs still go bust even with FFP clubs still get billions in dept with FFP so what's the point of it I'll stick with the monopoly and protection of the "elite" rather than its for the greater good. FFP is designed to limit the level of debt. As a result it's actually quite rare for clubs to go into administration. Remove the constraints and the big boys will spend even more money than they do at the moment and the smaller clubs will either get left further behind or go bust engaging in a futile attempt to keep up. Those who believe scrapping FFP will level the playing field naively believe the big boys will voluntarily cap their own expenditure and allow others to catch up. That simply won't happen - they will just up the ante and drive their competitors out of business. If you don't get that you don't get how capitalism works. Football isn't a free market because a genuine free market doesn't have a problem with companies going bust. FFP is designed to stop the big fish from gobbling up the little fish by driving them out of business. The big fish want rid of FFP and an unfettered free market because they know full well they will be the ones who will come out on top. The only reason they have the inconvenience of having to compete with the little fish is because FFP prevents them from eradicating the competition through economic warfare. Remove FFP and that is precisely what they will do. If you want to understand what will happen keep an eye on Chelsea. They are currently £1billion in debt and trying desperately to get back into the big 6. Which is now a big 7 since Newcastle crashed the party and they also have the likes of Villa and Brighton making a challenge. To break back in they are going to have to find even more money because they are no longer competing in Europe which reduces their international exposure, reduces revenue and makes the best players think twice about going there. They are behaving exactly like a wannabe club in an FFP free league - spending money they don't have in a futile attempt to be back in with the big boys. If they don't get back in there in a couple of years they will go bust - or drive another club out of the top six and have them go bust instead.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 9, 2024 12:39:48 GMT
Well whatever he was saying he liked my post so maybe we agree, but devils advocate clubs still go bust even with FFP clubs still get billions in dept with FFP so what's the point of it I'll stick with the monopoly and protection of the "elite" rather than its for the greater good. FFP is designed to limit the level of debt. As a result it's actually quite rare for clubs to go into administration. Remove the constraints and the big boys will spend even more money than they do at the moment and the smaller clubs will either get left further behind or go bust engaging in a futile attempt to keep up. Those who believe scrapping FFP will level the playing field naively believe the big boys will voluntarily cap their own expenditure and allow others to catch up. That simply won't happen - they will just up the ante and drive their competitors out of business. If you don't get that you don't get how capitalism works. Football isn't a free market because a genuine free market doesn't have a problem with companies going bust. FFP is designed to stop the big fish from gobbling up the little fish by driving them out of business. The big fish want rid of FFP and an unfettered free market because they know full well they will be the ones who will come out on top. The only reason they have the inconvenience of having to compete with the little fish is because FFP prevents them from eradicating the competition through economic warfare. Remove FFP and that is precisely what they will do. If you want to understand what will happen keep an eye on Chelsea. They are currently £1billion in debt and trying desperately to get back into the big 6. Which is now a big 7 since Newcastle crashed the party and they also have the likes of Villa and Brighton making a challenge. To break back in they are going to have to find even more money because they are no longer competing in Europe which reduces their international exposure, reduces revenue and makes the best players think twice about going there. They are behaving exactly like a wannabe club in an FFP free league - spending money they don't have in a futile attempt to be back in with the big boys. If they don't get back in there in a couple of years they will go bust - or drive another club out of the top six and have them go bust instead. Agree with most of that but FFP can be adapted and rules can be changed to try to eradicate the “unintended” (I hope) consequences. The game shouldn’t deny itself sustainable investment and rules about how many players clubs can have registered can be limited as can player loans. Not saying things will go that way because it’s virtually the polar opposite to what the premier league have proposed as a settlement reset to get out in front of the new football regulator. I’m not sure why the game seeks to prevent rich men’s folly instead of mitigating its consequences. It’s anti competitive and anti aspiration but then that’s an easy position for a Stoke fan to take up.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Jan 9, 2024 12:49:37 GMT
I'm no expert either but I've been saying it for a long time now FFP is a con to stop as you've stated us guys crashing the top table it's a boardline monopoly. On the contrary you could argue that because our owners seem willing to put in / write off the £13m of FFP losses every year that gives us a massive advantage over most of our competitors in the Championship whose owners are unwilling or more likely unable to find that £13m per year. Not as massive as it could be without the restraint of trade. Clubs and owners unfortunately come and go and nothing has changed only the opportunity for a smaller club to complete.
|
|