|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Jan 25, 2024 20:18:58 GMT
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 Thank goodness for someone who knows what he's on about. Why are the rest of us numbskulls mithering ourselves silly about things we know jack shit about. The accounts are about one of the few things the Coates have got right over the last few years. And so they should, they can afford to pay the best accountants in the country. Chill out folks the books will balance.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 25, 2024 20:35:58 GMT
£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. Doesn’t work like that, these are not cash flow figures. Suggests both Brown and Tymon have potential add on clauses to get to the full amount.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 25, 2024 20:59:32 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. What is hard to figure is the value of £2.3m in the books for Briwn and Tymon given their length of time at the club. Can only assume most of it must be bonuses for extending contracts.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 25, 2024 21:13:24 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. What is hard to figure is the value of £2.3m in the books for Briwn and Tymon given their length of time at the club. Can only assume most of it must be bonuses for extending contracts. Wonder if the sell on clauses get treated as increased additions cost ?
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 25, 2024 21:33:56 GMT
What is hard to figure is the value of £2.3m in the books for Briwn and Tymon given their length of time at the club. Can only assume most of it must be bonuses for extending contracts. Wonder if the sell on clauses get treated as increased additions cost ? I suppose they have to show up somewhere and not obvious where else
|
|
|
Post by nonameface on Jan 25, 2024 22:31:35 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. What is hard to figure is the value of £2.3m in the books for Briwn and Tymon given their length of time at the club. Can only assume most of it must be bonuses for extending contracts. Would have thought the majority of the book value was on Brown. Tymon's value would have been written down alot as he signed a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 26, 2024 9:57:47 GMT
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 £7/10M headroom even after Summer business who’d a thought it.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 26, 2024 10:24:08 GMT
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 £7/10M headroom even after Summer business who’d a thought it. I have been trying to tell people!
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 26, 2024 10:25:12 GMT
What is hard to figure is the value of £2.3m in the books for Briwn and Tymon given their length of time at the club. Can only assume most of it must be bonuses for extending contracts. Would have thought the majority of the book value was on Brown. Tymon's value would have been written down alot as he signed a long time ago. I agree but in my head I thought we only played £2m for him
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 26, 2024 10:37:43 GMT
Would have thought the majority of the book value was on Brown. Tymon's value would have been written down alot as he signed a long time ago. I agree but in my head I thought we only played £2m for him Very much around about that maybe £2.2M.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 26, 2024 15:18:59 GMT
A few more thoughts after a longer read. As a warning all of this relies on assumptions, especially around the costs excludable from FFP each season and exactly what was agreed with the EFL for the two Covid seasons (2019/20 and 2020/21) which count as one year. Feel free to change the assumptions and see what the implications are.
The 2022/23 accounts just published, make a 3 year FFP (strictly PSR, Profit & Sustainability Rules) window with 2019/20 and the average of the 2 Covid years. This means 2018/19 drops out, the club lost £15.5 million in 2018/19, therefore the loss of £11m in 2022/23 suggests we were at least close to £5m under the FFP limit. Most experts assume £7 to £8m is excludable from the published accounts for the academy, women's team etc. I have used £7.5m for 2018/19, £8m for 2021/22 and £9m for 2022/23 as our non wage costs increased in 2022/23 and these are more likely to be excludable than players' wages. This gives FFP losses of £8m in 2018/19, £10m in 2021/22 and £2m in 2022/23. Assuming we complied with the rules in the 3 years including Covid which ended I 2021/22, the Covid FFP losses are a maximum of £21m - derived by subtracting the £8m of 2018/19 and the £10m of 2021/22 from the allowable total loss of £39m.
For 2022/23, replacing the £8m loss of 2018/19 with £2m, means we were at least £6m under the limit, and probably more as we seem to have been aggressive on writing off player values and paying off "onerous contracts". With the Covid years dropping out and being replaced by the current season, we have allowable losses of £27m (£21m plus the £6m under the limit last season), our strongest position for a while. We know from the 2022/23 accounts, we spent £10.7m this summer and recouped £6.1m less write offs of value of £2.4m, so net £3.7m incoming. With the transfer fees spread over 3 to 4 years, the charge in 2023/24 is around £2.5m plus probably £1.5m from the remaining value of £4.5 of player signed and still at the club at the start of the season. This £4.5 is the lowest figure for a long time, it was more than £80m when we were relegated and before the Covid adjustments.
The club did say we didn't need the profit from Harry Souttar's sale to meet FFP. We don't know how much that was, but we do know profits from sales in 2022/23 were £15,259. While a small part of this was for Joe Bursik, the other major contributor was the sell-on fee from Burnley for Nathan Collins. The split is unknown, we do know in "post-balance sheet events" which covers both summer and winter windows in 2022-23 in the 2022 accounts, the total fees received were £18 million. The difference to £15,259 is presumably agents' fees, loyalty bonuses and any resigning payments when contracts were renewed. If the Souttar fee was not needed then it suggests it may have been less than the £10m reported or the club was further under the FFP limit in previous seasons than we realised, my assumption has always been we were right up against it.
What does it mean going forward? Turnover seems to have stabilised at around £32m, maybe. bit higher with the new TV deal, and wages were down to £30m last season, £6m less than 2021/22. Michael O'Neill did sort out the cost base and in his last transfer window, didn't sign anyone for a fee, though I imagine a couple of his signings came with generous signing on fees. Gate receipts fell to £5m from £5.6m, they were £7 to £8m in the Premier League. This fall was apparently compensated for by an increase of £600k in sponsorship - the Bet365 deal compensates the club for freezing ticket prices.
Assuming we have squeezed wages a bit more this season - several high earners left, we have turnover of £32m, hopefully wages are maybe more like £27m, other costs are hopefully closer to the £23m level of 2021/22, with charges for previous transfers of £4m largely offset by the summer sales, this suggests a loss of £18m before FFP exclusions. Assuming £9m can be excluded, the FFP loss of £9m his would give us headroom of £18m given the £27m figure above. While we need to manage this over the 3 year cycle, it does suggest we do have some flexibility to make one or two bigger moves.
I hope this is useful, obviously some guesswork based on judgement but the story seems to fit the activity we have seen.
|
|
|
Post by theonlooker on Jan 26, 2024 15:21:53 GMT
A few more thoughts after a longer read. As a warning all of this relies on assumptions, especially around the costs excludable from FFP each season and exactly what was agreed with the EFL for the two Covid seasons (2019/20 and 2020/21) which count as one year. Feel free to change the assumptions and see what the implications are. The 2022/23 accounts just published, make a 3 year FFP (strictly PSR, Profit & Sustainability Rules) window with 2019/20 and the average of the 2 Covid years. This means 2018/19 drops out, the club lost £15.5 million in 2018/19, therefore the loss of £11m in 2022/23 suggests we were at least close to £5m under the FFP limit. Most experts assume £7 to £8m is excludable from the published accounts for the academy, women's team etc. I have used £7.5m for 2018/19, £8m for 2021/22 and £9m for 2022/23 as our non wage costs increased in 2022/23 and these are more likely to be excludable than players' wages. This gives FFP losses of £8m in 2018/19, £10m in 2021/22 and £2m in 2022/23. Assuming we complied with the rules in the 3 years including Covid which ended I 2021/22, the Covid FFP losses are a maximum of £21m - derived by subtracting the £8m of 2018/19 and the £10m of 2021/22 from the allowable total loss of £39m. For 2022/23, replacing the £8m loss of 2018/19 with £2m, means we were at least £6m under the limit, and probably more as we seem to have been aggressive on writing off player values and paying off "onerous contracts". With the Covid years dropping out and being replaced by the current season, we have allowable losses of £27m (£21m plus the £6m under the limit last season), our strongest position for a while. We know from the 2022/23 accounts, we spent £10.7m this summer and recouped £6.1m less write offs of value of £2.4m, so net £3.7m incoming. With the transfer fees spread over 3 to 4 years, the charge in 2023/24 is around £2.5m plus probably £1.5m from the remaining value of £4.5 of player signed and still at the club at the start of the season. This £4.5 is the lowest figure for a long time, it was more than £80m when we were relegated and before the Covid adjustments. The club did say we didn't need the profit from Harry Souttar's sale to meet FFP. We don't know how much that was, but we do know profits from sales in 2022/23 were £15,259. While a small part of this was for Joe Bursik, the other major contributor was the sell-on fee from Burnley for Nathan Collins. The split is unknown, we do know in "post-balance sheet events" which covers both summer and winter windows in 2022-23 in the 2022 accounts, the total fees received were £18 million. The difference to £15,259 is presumably agents' fees, loyalty bonuses and any resigning payments when contracts were renewed. If the Souttar fee was not needed then it suggests it may have been less than the £10m reported or the club was further under the FFP limit in previous seasons than we realised, my assumption has always been we were right up against it. What does it mean going forward? Turnover seems to have stabilised at around £32m, maybe. bit higher with the new TV deal, and wages were down to £30m last season, £6m less than 2021/22. Michael O'Neill did sort out the cost base and in his last transfer window, didn't sign anyone for a fee, though I imagine a couple of his signings came with generous signing on fees. Gate receipts fell to £5m from £5.6m, they were £7 to £8m in the Premier League. This fall was apparently compensated for by an increase of £600k in sponsorship - the Bet365 deal compensates the club for freezing ticket prices. Assuming we have squeezed wages a bit more this season - several high earners left, we have turnover of £32m, hopefully wages are maybe more like £27m, other costs are hopefully closer to the £23m level of 2021/22, with charges for previous transfers of £4m largely offset by the summer sales, this suggests a loss of £18m before FFP exclusions. Assuming £9m can be excluded, the FFP loss of £9m his would give us headroom of £18m given the £27m figure above. While we need to manage this over the 3 year cycle, it does suggest we do have some flexibility to make one or two bigger moves. I hope this is useful, obviously some guesswork based on judgement but the story seems to fit the activity we have seen. As always, thank you for the explanation.
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Jan 26, 2024 15:25:31 GMT
These new rules coming in next year might be hard for us to hit.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 26, 2024 15:40:42 GMT
A few more thoughts after a longer read. As a warning all of this relies on assumptions, especially around the costs excludable from FFP each season and exactly what was agreed with the EFL for the two Covid seasons (2019/20 and 2020/21) which count as one year. Feel free to change the assumptions and see what the implications are. The 2022/23 accounts just published, make a 3 year FFP (strictly PSR, Profit & Sustainability Rules) window with 2019/20 and the average of the 2 Covid years. This means 2018/19 drops out, the club lost £15.5 million in 2018/19, therefore the loss of £11m in 2022/23 suggests we were at least close to £5m under the FFP limit. Most experts assume £7 to £8m is excludable from the published accounts for the academy, women's team etc. I have used £7.5m for 2018/19, £8m for 2021/22 and £9m for 2022/23 as our non wage costs increased in 2022/23 and these are more likely to be excludable than players' wages. This gives FFP losses of £8m in 2018/19, £10m in 2021/22 and £2m in 2022/23. Assuming we complied with the rules in the 3 years including Covid which ended I 2021/22, the Covid FFP losses are a maximum of £21m - derived by subtracting the £8m of 2018/19 and the £10m of 2021/22 from the allowable total loss of £39m. For 2022/23, replacing the £8m loss of 2018/19 with £2m, means we were at least £6m under the limit, and probably more as we seem to have been aggressive on writing off player values and paying off "onerous contracts". With the Covid years dropping out and being replaced by the current season, we have allowable losses of £27m (£21m plus the £6m under the limit last season), our strongest position for a while. We know from the 2022/23 accounts, we spent £10.7m this summer and recouped £6.1m less write offs of value of £2.4m, so net £3.7m incoming. With the transfer fees spread over 3 to 4 years, the charge in 2023/24 is around £2.5m plus probably £1.5m from the remaining value of £4.5 of player signed and still at the club at the start of the season. This £4.5 is the lowest figure for a long time, it was more than £80m when we were relegated and before the Covid adjustments. The club did say we didn't need the profit from Harry Souttar's sale to meet FFP. We don't know how much that was, but we do know profits from sales in 2022/23 were £15,259. While a small part of this was for Joe Bursik, the other major contributor was the sell-on fee from Burnley for Nathan Collins. The split is unknown, we do know in "post-balance sheet events" which covers both summer and winter windows in 2022-23 in the 2022 accounts, the total fees received were £18 million. The difference to £15,259 is presumably agents' fees, loyalty bonuses and any resigning payments when contracts were renewed. If the Souttar fee was not needed then it suggests it may have been less than the £10m reported or the club was further under the FFP limit in previous seasons than we realised, my assumption has always been we were right up against it. What does it mean going forward? Turnover seems to have stabilised at around £32m, maybe. bit higher with the new TV deal, and wages were down to £30m last season, £6m less than 2021/22. Michael O'Neill did sort out the cost base and in his last transfer window, didn't sign anyone for a fee, though I imagine a couple of his signings came with generous signing on fees. Gate receipts fell to £5m from £5.6m, they were £7 to £8m in the Premier League. This fall was apparently compensated for by an increase of £600k in sponsorship - the Bet365 deal compensates the club for freezing ticket prices. Assuming we have squeezed wages a bit more this season - several high earners left, we have turnover of £32m, hopefully wages are maybe more like £27m, other costs are hopefully closer to the £23m level of 2021/22, with charges for previous transfers of £4m largely offset by the summer sales, this suggests a loss of £18m before FFP exclusions. Assuming £9m can be excluded, the FFP loss of £9m his would give us headroom of £18m given the £27m figure above. While we need to manage this over the 3 year cycle, it does suggest we do have some flexibility to make one or two bigger moves. I hope this is useful, obviously some guesswork based on judgement but the story seems to fit the activity we have seen. Thanks for your explanation. It’s all obviously devilishly complicated and just goes to show how simpletons reading a headline can be so far out they’re not even on the right planet. Your assumptions if correct are good news because not only would we be comfortably under current FFP allowable losses were well placed to comply with the salary cap that was rumoured at 70% of turnover. I think it all very much vindicates the approach to our business since MON came to the club certainly in terms of when fees have been involved. If we can avoid repeats of the type of Gayle, Wesley, Clarke type deals things are looking up and we can continue to build on our successes in the Summer window which will hopefully lead to improved outcomes on the pitch too.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 26, 2024 15:42:44 GMT
These new rules coming in next year might be hard for us to hit. That’s just a tease. If you can reference anything please do so. I read extensively and I don’t know what they are. I’ve heard a lot of things discussed but no concrete plans.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Jan 26, 2024 15:59:39 GMT
A few more thoughts after a longer read. As a warning all of this relies on assumptions, especially around the costs excludable from FFP each season and exactly what was agreed with the EFL for the two Covid seasons (2019/20 and 2020/21) which count as one year. Feel free to change the assumptions and see what the implications are. The 2022/23 accounts just published, make a 3 year FFP (strictly PSR, Profit & Sustainability Rules) window with 2019/20 and the average of the 2 Covid years. This means 2018/19 drops out, the club lost £15.5 million in 2018/19, therefore the loss of £11m in 2022/23 suggests we were at least close to £5m under the FFP limit. Most experts assume £7 to £8m is excludable from the published accounts for the academy, women's team etc. I have used £7.5m for 2018/19, £8m for 2021/22 and £9m for 2022/23 as our non wage costs increased in 2022/23 and these are more likely to be excludable than players' wages. This gives FFP losses of £8m in 2018/19, £10m in 2021/22 and £2m in 2022/23. Assuming we complied with the rules in the 3 years including Covid which ended I 2021/22, the Covid FFP losses are a maximum of £21m - derived by subtracting the £8m of 2018/19 and the £10m of 2021/22 from the allowable total loss of £39m. For 2022/23, replacing the £8m loss of 2018/19 with £2m, means we were at least £6m under the limit, and probably more as we seem to have been aggressive on writing off player values and paying off "onerous contracts". With the Covid years dropping out and being replaced by the current season, we have allowable losses of £27m (£21m plus the £6m under the limit last season), our strongest position for a while. We know from the 2022/23 accounts, we spent £10.7m this summer and recouped £6.1m less write offs of value of £2.4m, so net £3.7m incoming. With the transfer fees spread over 3 to 4 years, the charge in 2023/24 is around £2.5m plus probably £1.5m from the remaining value of £4.5 of player signed and still at the club at the start of the season. This £4.5 is the lowest figure for a long time, it was more than £80m when we were relegated and before the Covid adjustments. The club did say we didn't need the profit from Harry Souttar's sale to meet FFP. We don't know how much that was, but we do know profits from sales in 2022/23 were £15,259. While a small part of this was for Joe Bursik, the other major contributor was the sell-on fee from Burnley for Nathan Collins. The split is unknown, we do know in "post-balance sheet events" which covers both summer and winter windows in 2022-23 in the 2022 accounts, the total fees received were £18 million. The difference to £15,259 is presumably agents' fees, loyalty bonuses and any resigning payments when contracts were renewed. If the Souttar fee was not needed then it suggests it may have been less than the £10m reported or the club was further under the FFP limit in previous seasons than we realised, my assumption has always been we were right up against it. What does it mean going forward? Turnover seems to have stabilised at around £32m, maybe. bit higher with the new TV deal, and wages were down to £30m last season, £6m less than 2021/22. Michael O'Neill did sort out the cost base and in his last transfer window, didn't sign anyone for a fee, though I imagine a couple of his signings came with generous signing on fees. Gate receipts fell to £5m from £5.6m, they were £7 to £8m in the Premier League. This fall was apparently compensated for by an increase of £600k in sponsorship - the Bet365 deal compensates the club for freezing ticket prices. Assuming we have squeezed wages a bit more this season - several high earners left, we have turnover of £32m, hopefully wages are maybe more like £27m, other costs are hopefully closer to the £23m level of 2021/22, with charges for previous transfers of £4m largely offset by the summer sales, this suggests a loss of £18m before FFP exclusions. Assuming £9m can be excluded, the FFP loss of £9m his would give us headroom of £18m given the £27m figure above. While we need to manage this over the 3 year cycle, it does suggest we do have some flexibility to make one or two bigger moves. I hope this is useful, obviously some guesswork based on judgement but the story seems to fit the activity we have seen. Excellent mate thank you. Even your assumptions are better than the utter made up bullshit some were spouting on here pretending they knew what they were on about. It does seem a bit rosier than it did.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Jan 26, 2024 16:01:13 GMT
These new rules coming in next year might be hard for us to hit. Why?
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Jan 26, 2024 16:09:32 GMT
These new rules coming in next year might be hard for us to hit. Why? I might be wrong but costs of wages and amortised transfer fees have to be 90% of turnover from next year. I must have the rules wrong as that would be pretty much impossible for us on a turnover of £32m.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 26, 2024 16:19:30 GMT
I might be wrong but costs of wages and amortised transfer fees have to be 90% of turnover from next year. I must have the rules wrong as that would be pretty much impossible for us on a turnover of £32m. I don't believe it is approved as yet. All waiting on the PL-EFL deal I suspect. Presumably transfer receipts would be included in the revenue figure.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Jan 26, 2024 17:11:48 GMT
I might be wrong but costs of wages and amortised transfer fees have to be 90% of turnover from next year. I must have the rules wrong as that would be pretty much impossible for us on a turnover of £32m. Ok mate ta.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Jan 27, 2024 11:50:05 GMT
I might be wrong but costs of wages and amortised transfer fees have to be 90% of turnover from next year. I must have the rules wrong as that would be pretty much impossible for us on a turnover of £32m. Will screw most clubs. I suppose that’s kind of the point though. PL clubs can buy Championship players for less money when they are forced to sell. Seemingly, the existing rules don’t favour them enough.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 27, 2024 14:23:47 GMT
I might be wrong but costs of wages and amortised transfer fees have to be 90% of turnover from next year. I must have the rules wrong as that would be pretty much impossible for us on a turnover of £32m. Will screw most clubs. I suppose that’s kind of the point though. PL clubs can buy Championship players for less money when they are forced to sell. Seemingly, the existing rules don’t favour them enough. Might be an idea to actually see what regs are adopted before getting yer knickers in a twist about them.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jan 31, 2024 13:38:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 2, 2024 17:03:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Feb 2, 2024 17:14:43 GMT
|
|