|
Post by independent on Jan 11, 2024 23:21:26 GMT
To make such losses however it is dressed up is shocking for a team as low in the table as we have been and shows the madness of football finances at this level. The players are rewarded far above their merit and it can`t go on forever. Perhaps if the saudi league takes away some of the gloss of the premier league or the European super league takes off then some realism will come back into the game. Most of our losses were caused by long term contracts that we gave players when we were in the Premier League. When we got relegated our income went down over £200m over our first 3 years in the Championship and probably about £400m over a 5 year period. You must be one of the few people who know how we avoid losses in those circumstances. Our League position has mainly been caused by us trying to get our finances right. Selling our best players and getting rid of £60m worth of players for about £16m hasn't helped, but it had to be done.
|
|
i1da
Academy Starlet
Posts: 141
|
Post by i1da on Jan 12, 2024 18:56:05 GMT
Bloody Communists can't differentiate between an employed CEO (Astra-Zeneca) who may own some stock and someone who owns the company like Denise Coates. If you have built something from nothing, you are entitled to take every penny you want to out of the company. It's yours.
|
|
i1da
Academy Starlet
Posts: 141
|
Post by i1da on Jan 12, 2024 19:01:24 GMT
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. If the objective is to limit debt for the club, simple added rule wil sort it .... Owners can put as much money as they like into the club, but they can only do it through issuing additional shares and cannot do it via loans, guarantees etc.
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Jan 12, 2024 19:37:18 GMT
I expect the club pre tax loss to be a bit lower.
You can roughly extrapolate as it contains roughly 10 months of 2022-23 and 2 of 2021-22 albeit the TV distribution timings are key.
No issue with Stoke at the present..my big bugbear is and always was the Covid period and whether an advantage was gained through gaming the system. All clubs who had large Covid transfer market related losses should be reviewed but that wouldn't affect the present for most, but the recent past.
£7m in FFP allowances per year wouldn't surprise.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 12, 2024 21:08:04 GMT
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. If the objective is to limit debt for the club, simple added rule wil sort it .... Owners can put as much money as they like into the club, but they can only do it through issuing additional shares and cannot do it via loans, guarantees etc. Tbh that’s a bit naive that could be done and an owner could still leave the club with impossible ongoing liabilities but that’s already been broached and I believe solved via forward funding models where owners have to fund all future liabilities to invest beyond a given point. So yeah you want to sign a player for £15M and you’re already at your limit you must not only fund the transfer fee but you must fund and held in some sort of bond/escrow all future liabilities relating to that transaction wages NI pension contributions the works. This has all already been discussed by people of influence at the upper echelons of the game. They know is solvable. Is there a will to allow the game this investment in tightly controlled circumstances?
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jan 12, 2024 21:46:38 GMT
I expect the club pre tax loss to be a bit lower. You can roughly extrapolate as it contains roughly 10 months of 2022-23 and 2 of 2021-22 albeit the TV distribution timings are key. No issue with Stoke at the present..my big bugbear is and always was the Covid period and whether an advantage was gained through gaming the system. All clubs who had large Covid transfer market related losses should be reviewed but that wouldn't affect the present for most, but the recent past. £7m in FFP allowances per year wouldn't surprise. Hey man, we were selling PPE during Covid - that’s where that money came from…
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 25, 2024 12:10:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on Jan 25, 2024 12:12:07 GMT
Comfortably within the yearly average FFP loss then.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 25, 2024 12:25:43 GMT
Who will we sell this time to stay within FFP?
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on Jan 25, 2024 12:39:07 GMT
Who will we sell this time to stay within FFP? We won't need to, doesn't it allow around £13.9m a season losses?
|
|
|
Post by theonlooker on Jan 25, 2024 12:39:53 GMT
Keyboards sizzling in Bristol...
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 25, 2024 12:42:01 GMT
Just looking at the analysis in the Sentinel when the Bet365 accounts came out, looks there was at least some hope the club losses may be a touch lower for FFP purposes Wriggle room is going to be at a premium going forward - for everyone in this league. www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/stoke-city-financial-fair-play-9024918“The big problem we’ve got when we’re analysing Stoke’s financial results in the Championship is the two Covid years in the middle,” he said. “We don’t know what the Financial Fair Play settlement was in those years. “But in terms of the FFP cycle, the final loss for 2018/19 was £15m and that will be replaced in the rolling calculation by the figure from 2022/23. It says a £12m loss in the bet365 accounts – but the loss in the bet365 accounts last year was £26m and it ended up as £18m in the club accounts so there is a chance that £12m will come down too. I think it’s something to do with the timing of revenue or payments, like from TV or the EFL, which happen later in the season. The revenue grows faster than the costs later in the season. “So if, like last year, it comes down by £8m or so and you compare that end figure to the £15m from 2018/19, it looks really positive. Then for the current season we’re in, 2023/24, the Covid years drop out of the calculation and it looks like the club is on a positive track.”
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 25, 2024 13:27:21 GMT
Who will we sell this time to stay within FFP? We won't need to, doesn't it allow around £13.9m a season losses? But if we made 11m in losses with 13m in profit from sales wouldn’t it have been a 24m loss? Sorry if I’m being dim.
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on Jan 25, 2024 13:32:08 GMT
We won't need to, doesn't it allow around £13.9m a season losses? But if we made 11m in losses with 13m in profit from sales wouldn’t it have been a 24m loss? Sorry if I’m being dim. It does say the player sales last Jan were reinvested in to the playing squad in the summer though, it's all very murky and I'm sure the poster who is well up with all of this will have a much better grasp on it.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 25, 2024 13:54:26 GMT
There's a note at the bottom of the accounts - Post balance sheet events
We've spent 10.7 Million on player registrations and Sold 6.1 Million who had a value of 2.3 Million.
So 3.8 Million profit on sales and the 10.7 Million will be spread over 3 years on average so 3.57 Million cost, So we pretty much broke even* on transfer costs before wages.
* Presuming they've included all summer transfers in the Note to accounts.
|
|
|
Post by femark on Jan 25, 2024 14:14:19 GMT
We won't need to, doesn't it allow around £13.9m a season losses? But if we made 11m in losses with 13m in profit from sales wouldn’t it have been a 24m loss? Sorry if I’m being dim. The final figure is 11m loss. 24m potential loss is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by femark on Jan 25, 2024 14:22:22 GMT
It is worth noting that this is the general annual accounts and not the data submitted in regards to FFP. We are able to write off spend on youth, women's team etc which will also help the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by bagnallboothen on Jan 25, 2024 14:24:32 GMT
It is worth noting that this is the general annual accounts and not the data submitted in regards to FFP. We are able to write off spend on youth, women's team etc which will also help the bottom line. Sure it says we've spent £8m on facilities so that comes off straighaway. If that's true we've probably broke around even for FFP terms.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 25, 2024 14:29:28 GMT
But if we made 11m in losses with 13m in profit from sales wouldn’t it have been a 24m loss? Sorry if I’m being dim. The final figure is 11m loss. 24m potential loss is irrelevant. It's not if we need 13m of sales each year for it not be that?
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 25, 2024 14:58:39 GMT
It is worth noting that this is the general annual accounts and not the data submitted in regards to FFP. We are able to write off spend on youth, women's team etc which will also help the bottom line. Sure it says we've spent £8m on facilities so that comes off straighaway. If that's true we've probably broke around even for FFP terms. The 8 million on facilties goes nowhere near the P & L, that's a balance sheet spend on fixed assets, ie Improvements.
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Jan 25, 2024 15:00:55 GMT
Sure it says we've spent £8m on facilities so that comes off straighaway. If that's true we've probably broke around even for FFP terms. The 8 million on facilties goes nowhere near the P & L, that's a balance sheet spend on fixed assets, ie Improvements. They’ll be some. I’m guessing depreciation on these assets can be removed.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 25, 2024 15:08:45 GMT
The 8 million on facilties goes nowhere near the P & L, that's a balance sheet spend on fixed assets, ie Improvements. They’ll be some. I’m guessing depreciation on these assets can be removed. Well it all gets a bit murky tbh because we don't actually own the ground and training ground anymore we rent it so the spend and on it and resulting depreciation should no longer be anything to do with us. These are the holding accounts which I think lumps both the club and ground accounts together. It's virtually impossible to work out what our ffp accounts look like, hence record losses yet not broke the 39 Million rule somehow
|
|
|
Post by femark on Jan 25, 2024 15:17:33 GMT
The final figure is 11m loss. 24m potential loss is irrelevant. It's not if we need 13m of sales each year for it not be that? Championship clubs are simply not sustainable. Day to day costs outstrip profits regardless of player trading.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 25, 2024 15:52:10 GMT
The final figure is 11m loss. 24m potential loss is irrelevant. It's not if we need 13m of sales each year for it not be that? But the £11m is not the FFP loss, the FFP figure is more likely £2 to £3m. It also looks as though we accelerated player amortisation, the £4.2m of write offs seems high on an asset base of £6.9m
|
|
|
Post by nonameface on Jan 25, 2024 19:35:52 GMT
There's a note at the bottom of the accounts - Post balance sheet events We've spent 10.7 Million on player registrations and Sold 6.1 Million who had a value of 2.3 Million. So 3.8 Million profit on sales and the 10.7 Million will be spread over 3 years on average so 3.57 Million cost, So we pretty much broke even* on transfer costs before wages. * Presuming they've included all summer transfers in the Note to accounts. £6.1m on Tymon and Brown and Taylor? £350k Taylor £2m? Tymon £3.75m? Brown We've got less for Tymon or Brown than many think.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Jan 25, 2024 19:54:08 GMT
So to a thicko on all this kind of stuff, how can Stoke generate more income in the future other than selling any assets?
Our season tickets have been frozen since the dinosaurs were around
We sponsor our own stadium so don’t know how much we allow for that
What other sponsors and income can we generate?
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Jan 25, 2024 19:59:20 GMT
There's a note at the bottom of the accounts - Post balance sheet events We've spent 10.7 Million on player registrations and Sold 6.1 Million who had a value of 2.3 Million. So 3.8 Million profit on sales and the 10.7 Million will be spread over 3 years on average so 3.57 Million cost, So we pretty much broke even* on transfer costs before wages. * Presuming they've included all summer transfers in the Note to accounts. £6.1m on Tymon and Brown and Taylor? £350k Taylor £2m? Tymon £3.75m? Brown We've got less for Tymon or Brown than many think. Tymon Brown & Taylor will be on next years figures
|
|
|
Post by stayingupforbigbazza on Jan 25, 2024 20:02:47 GMT
We won't need to, doesn't it allow around £13.9m a season losses? But if we made 11m in losses with 13m in profit from sales wouldn’t it have been a 24m loss? Sorry if I’m being dim. No You're not being dim. The true operating loss is £26.3 mill. Profit on players of £15.3 mill reduces the loss to £11.0 mill. So we do need to sell some one at a profit. Just depends on how much the operating loss will be reduced by in the current year.. Don't know enough about FFP to comment on it.
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Jan 25, 2024 20:04:23 GMT
But if we made 11m in losses with 13m in profit from sales wouldn’t it have been a 24m loss? Sorry if I’m being dim. No You're not being dim. The true trading loss is £26.3 mill. Profit on players of £15.3 mill reduces the loss to £11.0 mill. So we do need to sell some one at a profit. Just depends on how much the trading loss will be reduced by in the current year.. Don't know enough about FFP to comment on it. and some think the souttar money didn’t go towards clearing ffp 😂🤣😂
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jan 25, 2024 20:10:49 GMT
There's a note at the bottom of the accounts - Post balance sheet events We've spent 10.7 Million on player registrations and Sold 6.1 Million who had a value of 2.3 Million. So 3.8 Million profit on sales and the 10.7 Million will be spread over 3 years on average so 3.57 Million cost, So we pretty much broke even* on transfer costs before wages. * Presuming they've included all summer transfers in the Note to accounts. £6.1m on Tymon and Brown and Taylor? £350k Taylor £2m? Tymon £3.75m? Brown We've got less for Tymon or Brown than many think. Could be the up front fee received with other instalments still to be received.
|
|