FFP charges? | Page 120 | Vital Football

FFP charges?

Pope John XXIII said:
We spent over £100m again
Click to expand...
We bought Turner, Vach, Sels, Dominguez, Elanga, CHO and Sangarre. I recon the bill is closer to £80m than £100m. Add on loans etc let’s call it £100m.
All on minimum of 3 year contract so amortised for P&S purposes it is roughly expenditure of £33m.

For S&P balance sheet BJ all £47M is in this year plus a further £4M Scarpa and probable £35m Mangala. £86m. (+£53m).

Wages decrease significantly and more sales for smaller amounts are possible. (Worrall, Dennis, Bowler etc). I am not saying there is money available to spend but the domesday fire sale scenario is also not a certainty. We do need a striker. Loan fee 24/25 with money going out in 25/26 when we are able to take full hit.
 
Polly 433 said:
We bought Turner, Vach, Sels, Dominguez, Elanga, CHO and Sangarre. I recon the bill is closer to £80m than £100m. Add on loans etc let’s call it £100m.
All on minimum of 3 year contract so amortised for P&S purposes it is roughly expenditure of £33m.

For S&P balance sheet BJ all £47M is in this year plus a further £4M Scarpa and probable £35m Mangala. £86m. (+£53m).

Wages decrease significantly and more sales for smaller amounts are possible. (Worrall, Dennis, Bowler etc). I am not saying there is money available to spend but the domesday fire sale scenario is also not a certainty. We do need a striker. Loan fee 24/25 with money going out in 25/26 when we are able to take full hit.
Click to expand...
Transfermarkt has it closer to 120m

You are forgetting Wood, who was paid for in the summer on these new accounts. There is no amortisation for his fee as it's a one year contract, so 15m

Plus around 45m amortisation of last year's transfers.

Plus 67m wage bill
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Transfermarkt has it closer to 120m

You are forgetting Wood, who was paid for in the summer on these new accounts. There is no amortisation for his fee as it's a one year contract, so 15m

Plus around 45m amortisation of last year's transfers.

Plus 67m wage bill
Click to expand...
When is TV money/money dependent on league position awarded?
 
Polly 433 said:
We bought Turner, Vach, Sels, Dominguez, Elanga, CHO and Sangarre. I recon the bill is closer to £80m than £100m. Add on loans etc let’s call it £100m.
All on minimum of 3 year contract so amortised for P&S purposes it is roughly expenditure of £33m.

For S&P balance sheet BJ all £47M is in this year plus a further £4M Scarpa and probable £35m Mangala. £86m. (+£53m).

Wages decrease significantly and more sales for smaller amounts are possible. (Worrall, Dennis, Bowler etc). I am not saying there is money available to spend but the domesday fire sale scenario is also not a certainty. We do need a striker. Loan fee 24/25 with money going out in 25/26 when we are able to take full hit.
Click to expand...
Mangala, if Lyon make his deal permanent, would be 25m not 35m. Its in the IC's findings.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Transfermarkt has it closer to 120m

You are forgetting Wood, who was paid for in the summer on these new accounts. There is no amortisation for his fee as it's a one year contract, so 15m

Plus around 45m amortisation of last year's transfers.

Plus 67m wage bill
Click to expand...
I accept your point but I take transfermkts figures with pinch of salt. They had total Forest squad on promotion priced at £12m. BJ sold for £47m 18 months later.

Wood I forgot so add his £15m in.

Wages will drop to under £50m but will not get effect in next years figures. Still recon it is not quite as bad as the media and yourself suggest.
 
weejockmcplop said:
Marinakis knows the UK better than people think.
You have to be more subtle than blowing stuff up here. Employ hackers to go after the computer systems instead.
www.bbc.co.uk

Greggs shops reopen after payment problem fixed

All of the bakery chain's stores hit by an earlier technical glitch are now trading as normal, Greggs says.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Indeed he does - he went to University here in the UK and has gained his degrees in International Business Administration & Relations here
 
Polly 433 said:
I accept your point but I take transfermkts figures with pinch of salt. They had total Forest squad on promotion priced at £12m. BJ sold for £47m 18 months later.

Wood I forgot so add his £15m in.

Wages will drop to under £50m but will not get effect in next years figures. Still recon it is not quite as bad as the media and yourself suggest.
Click to expand...
According to Wikipedia and NFFC website Wood signed permanently for NFFC in June 2023.
This should mean his cost is in the 2022/23 accounts

I seem to remember that this deal was done early as Newcastle need the money in their 22/23 accounts
 
Yea the double jeopardy argument falls down because they have had a season to get their books balanced and have failed to do so again. It reminds me a little of that argument about speed cameras. Get caught by 3 consecutive cameras and argue it was only one speeding offence because you never slowed down in between them.

The lack of correct statements being made online is infuriating. People are seriously confusing Evertons £17.5m loss on the new charge, with the 6 point deduction they've already got. Then wanting to know why a higher breach by Forest earned less points docked.

Most people think Forests loss was higher than Evertons too, when it was ~£30 mill lower. The breach was higher, and that's quite an important distinction when they want to castigate Forest for breaching the rules. We most likely had lower or similar losses to their own club, but they're happy to see us slapped for it.
 
Polly 433 said:
I accept your point but I take transfermkts figures with pinch of salt. They had total Forest squad on promotion priced at £12m. BJ sold for £47m 18 months later.

Wood I forgot so add his £15m in.

Wages will drop to under £50m but will not get effect in next years figures. Still recon it is not quite as bad as the media and yourself suggest.
Click to expand...
The club estimate 12-17m loss for this year. That would certainly put us over on a 3 year cycle.

However, we don't know if that is overall loss (not accounting for things allowable under P&S) or an outright P&S loss.

So it might be alright, but my instinct these days is to assume it probably is worse than I hope
 
LynxRed said:
Yea the double jeopardy argument falls down because they have had a season to get their books balanced and have failed to do so again. It reminds me a little of that argument about speed cameras. Get caught by 3 consecutive cameras and argue it was only one speeding offence because you never slowed down in between them.

The lack of correct statements being made online is infuriating. People are seriously confusing Evertons £17.5m loss on the new charge, with the 6 point deduction they've already got. Then wanting to know why a higher breach by Forest earned less points docked.

Most people think Forests loss was higher than Evertons too, when it was ~£30 mill lower. The breach was higher, and that's quite an important distinction when they want to castigate Forest for breaching the rules. We most likely had lower or similar losses to their own club, but they're happy to see us slapped for it.
Click to expand...
Unless people have actually read the report, they won't know what they are talking about.
I've run into the same stuff everywhere. To be fair, I was the same until the report came out.
Best just to ignore all the online debate about it.

People still can't get their heads around the fact that we were promoted with a club that was relatively cheap in terms of running costs compared to PL teams so we had all that tv money to spend on players.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
The club estimate 12-17m loss for this year. That would certainly put us over on a 3 year cycle.

However, we don't know if that is overall loss (not accounting for things allowable under P&S) or an outright P&S loss.

So it might be alright, but my instinct these days is to assume it probably is worse than I hope
Click to expand...
Yeah, if its the upper-end, we're looking at £98m debt.

bright side, £20m sale ought to see us right, and we might have a few options (outside of Murillo or MGW) to flog - if we can find buyers before 30 June, and the player wants the deal.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
It's not.

It's one new accounting period out of three.

If you've massively overspent in one season it will continue to be a problem for three
Click to expand...
It shouldn't though, which is the main thrust.
Selling assets is a way of increasing revenue, Everton bought more than they sold in a period where they had to generate more income.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.