|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 15, 2024 11:08:08 GMT
They can, but an issue is that excess owner contribution as the Rules are presently constructed is possibly adjusted out when back in the Championship for P&S purposes and judged on the £39m (plus Allowables) again. A club could rack up £50m losses in League One with a huge owner donation or similar, but would suddenly have to swing right back in line if they go back up making such a loss. Surely the £39m is the only constraint that applies not how the profit has been made? The EFL doesn’t adjust accounts for clubs relegated from the PL so why would it adjust between divisions with different rules? If it did why would L1 have any if its own rules. I read it somewhere, possibly Kieran Maguire mentioned it once. I'm trying to work out how to explain it. If for example a club turnover was I dunno £30m in the Championship and dropped to say £25m on relegation ordinary revenue but the owners made a donation of £20m e.g. that £20m well P&S doesn't include donations save for the equity injection to take it from lower to Upper Losses. On paper the Club Turnover may rise to £45m post Relegation with the £20m injection..but in practice the club may still be judged on the £25m regular turnover irrespective of the £20m donation. It hasn't happened yet so it is hard to say but I have a feeling it may work like that or something like that. Ipswich could have done that but didn't so there must be a reason. Clearly a club wouldn't get penalised in League One for huge donation to bolster the turnover. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
Surely the £39m is the only constraint that applies not how the profit has been made? The EFL doesn’t adjust accounts for clubs relegated from the PL so why would it adjust between divisions with different rules? If it did why would L1 have any if its own rules. I read it somewhere, possibly Kieran Maguire mentioned it once. I'm trying to work out how to explain it. If for example a club turnover was I dunno £30m in the Championship and dropped to say £25m on relegation ordinary revenue but the owners made a donation of £20m e.g. that £20m well P&S doesn't include donations save for the equity injection to take it from lower to Upper Losses. On paper the Club Turnover may rise to £45m post Relegation with the £20m injection..but in practice the club may still be judged on the £25m regular turnover irrespective of the £20m donation. It hasn't happened yet so it is hard to say but I have a feeling it may work like that or something like that. Ipswich could have done that but didn't so there must be a reason. Clearly a club wouldn't get penalised in League One for huge donation to bolster the turnover. Would losses incurred in league 1 be taken into account in a subsequent championship season? Eg, go down to league 1, owner injects money, it's all spent on players. Would that years loss on transfer fee wages, calculated without reference to the owners injection of equity, be carried Forward? |
|
|
|
Post by tommycarlsberg on Apr 15, 2024 11:40:26 GMT
Why do people want Iversen? Bonham was better, it’s all gone tits up since Iversen came in. Not exactly fact is it? After some shaky games in the beginning Iversen has been really good and deserves a lot of credit for his performances. Bonham is a disaster in the box, but is decent on the line. Anyway, Iversen is a much better overall goalkeeper in my opinion. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I actuallt think Iversen is better at everything compared to Bonham.  It's pretty much fact that our form under SS has generally dropped off cliff since January, yes. The team were performing well under him until he brought in the new keeper and his own two lads. Bonham was playing well and didn't deserve to be dropped right away. |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Apr 16, 2024 6:38:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2024 6:40:44 GMT
One of the replies to that tweet.
"And still some idiots want them out"
Maybe if they run the club properly they wouldn't have to put in 12M to cover losses, and that 12M (plus more) would be covered by transfer income etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Apr 16, 2024 8:57:48 GMT
One of the replies to that tweet. "And still some idiots want them out" Maybe if they run the club properly they wouldn't have to put in 12M to cover losses, and that 12M (plus more) would be covered by transfer income etc. tbf this cash injection is for the building work we’ve got planned for the summer , training ground , fans zone and the safe standing |
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Apr 16, 2024 9:05:57 GMT
One of the replies to that tweet. "And still some idiots want them out" Maybe if they run the club properly they wouldn't have to put in 12M to cover losses, and that 12M (plus more) would be covered by transfer income etc. tbf this cash injection is for the building work we’ve got planned for the summer , training ground , fans zone and the safe standing All exempt from FFP calculations thankfully. See what the investment level is like in the squad after the promised competitive budget for this season left us with the 16th highest wage bill in the league and another manager sacked having emptied the fantasy war chest that somehow resulted in a negative net spend over his tenure. |
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Apr 16, 2024 10:40:46 GMT
One of the replies to that tweet. "And still some idiots want them out" Maybe if they run the club properly they wouldn't have to put in 12M to cover losses, and that 12M (plus more) would be covered by transfer income etc. tbf this cash injection is for the building work we’ve got planned for the summer , training ground , fans zone and the safe standing Exactly. Is there another owner who would invest that sort of money into a Championship team scot free? And remember the Coates family are not even the richest owners in the Championship. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2024 10:57:57 GMT
One of the replies to that tweet. "And still some idiots want them out" Maybe if they run the club properly they wouldn't have to put in 12M to cover losses, and that 12M (plus more) would be covered by transfer income etc. Baffles me how so many fans celebrate that the club have invested £150m on transfers since relegation, as if its something to be proud of. Ignoring the fact its been mismanaged from day 1 of relegation. Playing for survival off that level of investment is gross mismanagement by the owners, something they don't get held accountable for enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Not_Nick_H on Apr 16, 2024 11:29:17 GMT
tbf this cash injection is for the building work we’ve got planned for the summer , training ground , fans zone and the safe standing Exactly. Is there another owner who would invest that sort of money into a Championship team scot free? And remember the Coates family are not even the richest owners in the Championship. Out of curiosity, who's the richest - and where are the Coates in the league table? |
|
|
|
Post by wonderwall on Apr 16, 2024 11:30:35 GMT
It’s their own fault they have to keep chucking in.
|
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Apr 16, 2024 11:38:33 GMT
Exactly. Is there another owner who would invest that sort of money into a Championship team scot free? And remember the Coates family are not even the richest owners in the Championship. Out of curiosity, who's the richest - and where are the Coates in the league table? From memory I think it's QPR, followed by Ipswich then Stoke but couldn't name the owners. I think there is a list on wiki. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2024 11:58:46 GMT
Out of curiosity, who's the richest - and where are the Coates in the league table? From memory I think it's QPR, followed by Ipswich then Stoke but couldn't name the owners. I think there is a list on wiki. Qpr is owned by several different businessmen but their majority owner isn't as rich as the Coates. Ipswich is owned by an investment group, so it is never clear how rich their backer is OR how much money will be invested, those things are fluid. Stoke is unique and fortunate to have perhaps the richest owners at this level but who also have a connection with the club. Having rich owners in this league doesn't appear to give you much of an advantage though. That's how it should be. The real issue is the unfair advantage relegated premier league teams are given. Look at the three that came down last season, they've had a great time at our expense this season. In modern times, a relegated premier league team would need to have a brain dead fucking moronic bunch of the most useless, thick, absolutely bastarding negligent bunch of fucking troglodytes in charge of their massive transfer budget to fuck up at least being in contention for promotion from the championship. I mean, what kind of fuckwit could take a premier league team that was only just about relegated, spend 60 million on it, and finish bottom half of the championship? |
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Apr 16, 2024 12:53:35 GMT
From memory I think it's QPR, followed by Ipswich then Stoke but couldn't name the owners. I think there is a list on wiki. Qpr is owned by several different businessmen but their majority owner isn't as rich as the Coates. Ipswich is owned by an investment group, so it is never clear how rich their backer is OR how much money will be invested, those things are fluid. Stoke is unique and fortunate to have perhaps the richest owners at this level but who also have a connection with the club. Having rich owners in this league doesn't appear to give you much of an advantage though. That's how it should be. The real issue is the unfair advantage relegated premier league teams are given. Look at the three that came down last season, they've had a great time at our expense this season. In modern times, a relegated premier league team would need to have a brain dead fucking moronic bunch of the most useless, thick, absolutely bastarding negligent bunch of fucking troglodytes in charge of their massive transfer budget to fuck up at least being in contention for promotion from the championship. I mean, what kind of fuckwit could take a premier league team that was only just about relegated, spend 60 million on it, and finish bottom half of the championship? Stoke is owned by the Coates family which includes Denise who is the wealthiest of the three and if rumours are correct does not like the investing of money in the football club so that argument is not entirely relevant. If the Coates family were to sell I am sure we would be bought by some conglomerate which possibly had as much money as the Coates, certainly as much as Peter and Jon but as at QPR and Ipswich I am sure they would not be investing in the club without it being a interest bearing loan. I find your last sentence by the way quite offensive towards the Coates family. They actually took on a Championship club, their money got the club into the Premier when they decided for the long term health of the club, or to use the in word, its sustainability to try to make it self reliant by reducing their investment. That resulted in relegation and I agree they got some things wrong in the first season. One of those was listening to the fans and getting rid of a manager who had upset the fan base, not because he was doing his job badly. All good intentions but good intentions, just like money, don't bring success. I'm sure they thought their blueprint from 2008 would get them promoted again but things had progressed and changed. |
|
|
|
Post by Glory Hunter on Apr 16, 2024 13:44:16 GMT
One of the replies to that tweet. "And still some idiots want them out" Maybe if they run the club properly they wouldn't have to put in 12M to cover losses, and that 12M (plus more) would be covered by transfer income etc. Almost no clubs break even in any of the 4 leagues over a 3/5 year period, Brighton have done it how you mentioned and they are the massive exception. So we NEED the owners support and few if any would have been so generous. The quote wasn’t by me but it’s right, it’s deluded to want our owners removed. |
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Apr 16, 2024 13:52:58 GMT
Its incredible support for a business in this mess regardless of your view .
We could be in League one next year and they are still investing in the infra structure , truly incredible support
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2024 15:15:58 GMT
Qpr is owned by several different businessmen but their majority owner isn't as rich as the Coates. Ipswich is owned by an investment group, so it is never clear how rich their backer is OR how much money will be invested, those things are fluid. Stoke is unique and fortunate to have perhaps the richest owners at this level but who also have a connection with the club. Having rich owners in this league doesn't appear to give you much of an advantage though. That's how it should be. The real issue is the unfair advantage relegated premier league teams are given. Look at the three that came down last season, they've had a great time at our expense this season. In modern times, a relegated premier league team would need to have a brain dead fucking moronic bunch of the most useless, thick, absolutely bastarding negligent bunch of fucking troglodytes in charge of their massive transfer budget to fuck up at least being in contention for promotion from the championship. I mean, what kind of fuckwit could take a premier league team that was only just about relegated, spend 60 million on it, and finish bottom half of the championship? Stoke is owned by the Coates family which includes Denise who is the wealthiest of the three and if rumours are correct does not like the investing of money in the football club so that argument is not entirely relevant. If the Coates family were to sell I am sure we would be bought by some conglomerate which possibly had as much money as the Coates, certainly as much as Peter and Jon but as at QPR and Ipswich I am sure they would not be investing in the club without it being a interest bearing loan. I find your last sentence by the way quite offensive towards the Coates family. They actually took on a Championship club, their money got the club into the Premier when they decided for the long term health of the club, or to use the in word, its sustainability to try to make it self reliant by reducing their investment. That resulted in relegation and I agree they got some things wrong in the first season. One of those was listening to the fans and getting rid of a manager who had upset the fan base, not because he was doing his job badly. All good intentions but good intentions, just like money, don't bring success. I'm sure they thought their blueprint from 2008 would get them promoted again but things had progressed and changed. My last sentence has nothing to do with the Coates family? I'm not sure how you could have interpreted that? It's clearly about Gary rowett. I've always defended the owners. In recent years anyway, not in the 1990's |
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Apr 16, 2024 15:18:11 GMT
Stoke is owned by the Coates family which includes Denise who is the wealthiest of the three and if rumours are correct does not like the investing of money in the football club so that argument is not entirely relevant. If the Coates family were to sell I am sure we would be bought by some conglomerate which possibly had as much money as the Coates, certainly as much as Peter and Jon but as at QPR and Ipswich I am sure they would not be investing in the club without it being a interest bearing loan. I find your last sentence by the way quite offensive towards the Coates family. They actually took on a Championship club, their money got the club into the Premier when they decided for the long term health of the club, or to use the in word, its sustainability to try to make it self reliant by reducing their investment. That resulted in relegation and I agree they got some things wrong in the first season. One of those was listening to the fans and getting rid of a manager who had upset the fan base, not because he was doing his job badly. All good intentions but good intentions, just like money, don't bring success. I'm sure they thought their blueprint from 2008 would get them promoted again but things had progressed and changed. My last sentence has nothing to do with the Coates family? I'm not sure how you could have interpreted that? 😂😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2024 15:20:04 GMT
My last sentence has nothing to do with the Coates family? I'm not sure how you could have interpreted that? 😂😂 No really, see above. I thought it was clear I was talking about Gary rowett who absolutely destroyed this club |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 16, 2024 17:47:23 GMT
Why do people think we only need 1 CB?
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Apr 16, 2024 17:56:47 GMT
Why do people think we only need 1 CB? We only have two on the books (plus 3 kids none of which are ready yet). Even if we commit to a back 4 you'd want 2 more |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 16, 2024 18:00:26 GMT
Why do people think we only need 1 CB? We only have two on the books (plus 3 kids none of which are ready yet). Even if we commit to a back 4 you'd want 2 more We need 2 starters. Wilmot needs to be sold. Rose as back up. And then maybe even another one. Again not sure how anyone could be happy with seeing Rose or Wilmot playing more than 15 games next season. If that happens we’re in trouble again. Unless it league one. |
|
|
|
Post by independent on Apr 16, 2024 19:16:15 GMT
One of the replies to that tweet. "And still some idiots want them out" Maybe if they run the club properly they wouldn't have to put in 12M to cover losses, and that 12M (plus more) would be covered by transfer income etc. Almost no clubs break even in any of the 4 leagues over a 3/5 year period, Brighton have done it how you mentioned and they are the massive exception. So we NEED the owners support and few if any would have been so generous. The quote wasn’t by me but it’s right, it’s deluded to want our owners removed. Brighton have had a record year and for the first time ever, have repaid some of the money owed to Tony Bloom, since he first invested in 2007. The amount repaid was £30m leaving a debt of over £370m outstanding. So I doubt that Brighton have broken even over the last 5 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Glory Hunter on Apr 18, 2024 11:46:24 GMT
Almost no clubs break even in any of the 4 leagues over a 3/5 year period, Brighton have done it how you mentioned and they are the massive exception. So we NEED the owners support and few if any would have been so generous. The quote wasn’t by me but it’s right, it’s deluded to want our owners removed. Brighton have had a record year and for the first time ever, have repaid some of the money owed to Tony Bloom, since he first invested in 2007. The amount repaid was £30m leaving a debt of over £370m outstanding. So I doubt that Brighton have broken even over the last 5 years. Good point and only emphasises the point i was making. Being able to rely on the consistency of the financial support from our owners is crucial and rare. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Apr 18, 2024 16:17:11 GMT
One of the replies to that tweet. "And still some idiots want them out" Maybe if they run the club properly they wouldn't have to put in 12M to cover losses, and that 12M (plus more) would be covered by transfer income etc. Baffles me how so many fans celebrate that the club have invested £150m on transfers since relegation, as if its something to be proud of. Ignoring the fact its been mismanaged from day 1 of relegation. Playing for survival off that level of investment is gross mismanagement by the owners, something they don't get held accountable for enough. Aren't people focussing a bit too much on fees instead of wages? With the way the accounting works I mean. The craziest rumours (could be bullshit) are Wes on £35k/week. If we'd spent over £5m on a player with a 3-year contract, the transfer fee would have counted for less than that. I'm pretty sure our players are a lot cheaper now than a few years back. The accounts say wages were £49m in 2019, £31m in 2022 and £25m in 2023 (e.g. link). |
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Apr 18, 2024 16:19:21 GMT
Brighton have had a record year and for the first time ever, have repaid some of the money owed to Tony Bloom, since he first invested in 2007. The amount repaid was £30m leaving a debt of over £370m outstanding. So I doubt that Brighton have broken even over the last 5 years. Good point and only emphasises the point i was making. Being able to rely on the consistency of the financial support from our owners is crucial and rare. Brighton have made an 89 mil transfer profit over the last 5 seasons , i’m sure wages would have wiped that out |
|
|
|
Post by jebbstuart on Apr 19, 2024 19:37:52 GMT
The difference is Brighton are a Premier club with multiple sources of income. Stoke really only get income from the Coates family.
Teams like Brighton, Bournemouth and Crystal Palace have a plan Stoke don't seem to be on the same page anymore.
You need a Manager with acumen to build a club, invest in players who play as a unit, win games and compete at the higher levels we did it once just need to find that Manager the rest will follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by independent on Apr 20, 2024 11:00:09 GMT
One of the replies to that tweet. "And still some idiots want them out" Maybe if they run the club properly they wouldn't have to put in 12M to cover losses, and that 12M (plus more) would be covered by transfer income etc. Baffles me how so many fans celebrate that the club have invested £150m on transfers since relegation, as if its something to be proud of. Ignoring the fact its been mismanaged from day 1 of relegation. Playing for survival off that level of investment is gross mismanagement by the owners, something they don't get held accountable for enough. Must admit that I find that hard to believe. Can anyone break it down year by year? Transfer market only lists £99M so that is quite a difference. Does that mean that we haven't wasted £51M? |
|
|
|
Post by mistergumby on Apr 20, 2024 11:17:23 GMT
That should just about cover J-Rods 5 year contract then.  |
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Jul 18, 2024 15:18:54 GMT
I will sound fairly unpopular and justifiably so just for being here but I did wonder when reading the line by Witcoop about needing to sell.
The only two scenarios I can think of are..
1) You have too many in midfield and want to trim it down.
2) There is that obscure FFP rule that I mentioned albeit the next 2 years Forecast. Whether Stoke are one Idk but I expect a few clubs could be. I think Hull definitely have been one.
Loss between £15m and the Upper Loss limit ie 2 Years actual and 1 Year Forecast. I think we were under something similar a couple of years back but the EFL as of 2022 as voted in by the clubs unanimously can look at a forward looking intervention or Monitoring to try and keep a club on the straight and narrow.
On that Point 2, the Football Media do not cover it well for some reason. It is in some ways ground-breaking to be looking at Future Forecast Numbers 2 years ahead of time.
The premise is that a club are Forecasting an overspend in the period ending 2024-25 or 2025-26 and the forecast goes in 31st March at the latest of the existing Season. Or if in the Reasonable Opinion of the League a Club are set to fail the next year or 2 years hence albeit that is open to challenge by a Club.
|
|
