Budget

[Hans]

I'm confused as to what the gate receipts from play-offs/potential FFP fines from QPR/Players moving on/New Candy Crush minority stake holder/FFP loss restrictions would affect our budget?

Of course I'm not Sam Rush or the Board, and our ambitions will become clear with the calibre of players we sign during this transfer window, but It's always healthy for conjecture. Id guess around £3-4 million? With the majority of that going on Thorne, some great loan signings, and some young frees.

Thoughts?

[-JW-]

Ramblur had just gone and put his calculator away as well!

[FrostedRam]

All FFP fines go to charity, so these won't affect our budget. Assuming they are enforced ???

[Hans]

All FFP fines go to charity, so these won't affect our budget. Assuming they are enforced ???

I thought there was a debate on whether the fines will go to clubs or charity, or is that written in stone now? Would be better sent to charity anyway, Forest are in desperate need.

[ramblur]

Ramblur had just gone and put his calculator away as well!

Don't swear at me .

[Rev]

If I understand FFP correctly, next season we'll be limited to a 5 million loss. Seeing as we must have made a transfer profit last season (Bray out, Russell and Fozzy in), and still lost 7.1 mill, won't the extra revenue this year just cover those reduced losses? Can't see how a new investor changes this, am I being thick? Any explanation in plain english appreciated.

[North_Stand_Ram]

If I understand FFP correctly, next season we'll be limited to a 5 million loss. Seeing as we must have made a transfer profit last season (Bray out, Russell and Fozzy in), and still lost 7.1 mill, won't the extra revenue this year just cover those reduced losses? Can't see how a new investor changes this, am I being thick? Any explanation in plain english appreciated.

There's talk of it being raised to £10m. The rules and regulations are so unclear, and Rush himself has said that!

[ramblur]

If I understand FFP correctly, next season we'll be limited to a 5 million loss. Seeing as we must have made a transfer profit last season (Bray out, Russell and Fozzy in), and still lost 7.1 mill, won't the extra revenue this year just cover those reduced losses? Can't see how a new investor changes this, am I being thick? Any explanation in plain english appreciated.

FFP allowable losses = £8m for this year and £6m for 14/15. The £7.1m loss related to 12/13,not this year as this figure is not known.I guess you're trying to say that any increased revenue would be needed to meet a required £2m cut in allowable FFP losses.This might have been sound logic if we'd been borderline for 13/14,but I very much doubt it because (in our case particularly,due to depreciation on a revalued stadium) there are some hefty deductions that can be made from the headline loss to arrive at the FFP loss.

 

New investment per se won't affect FFP.

 

No,you're not being thick,far from it.It was a very reasonable question.

[ramblur]

There's talk of it being raised to £10m. The rules and regulations are so unclear, and Rush himself has said that!

If that were to be the case,because of the items that can be removed from the headline loss to arrive at FFP loss (primarily tangible fixed asset depreciation and net youth development expenditure),we could probably make a headline loss in excess of £12m and still comply.

 

I don't think it's the current rules and regulations that are unclear,more that nobody knows if sanctions can/will be imposed.We're fast approaching the situation whereby it would be pretty pointless having FFP.

[Hans]

So it seems it's going to be all out for Thorne, maybe a couple of frees and Champions league teams loan signings?

If I'm McClaren and I have £3 million I'd go straight to WBA for Thorne.

[North_Stand_Ram]

So it seems it's going to be all out for Thorne, maybe a couple of frees and Champions league teams loan signings?

If I'm McClaren and I have £3 million I'd go straight to WBA for Thorne.

Sounds like the plan based on yesterday!

[Rev]

FFP allowable losses = £8m for this year and £6m for 14/15. The £7.1m loss related to 12/13,not this year as this figure is not known.I guess you're trying to say that any increased revenue would be needed to meet a required £2m cut in allowable FFP losses.This might have been sound logic if we'd been borderline for 13/14,but I very much doubt it because (in our case particularly,due to depreciation on a revalued stadium) there are some hefty deductions that can be made from the headline loss to arrive at the FFP loss.

New investment per se won't affect FFP.

No,you're not being thick,far from it.It was a very reasonable question.

Thanks ramblur, thats a little clearer. Is it still the case that mel morris couldn't just chuck millions at the team, if so has his investment merely reduced the losses of the GSE investors?

[Hans]

Thanks ramblur, thats a little clearer. Is it still the case that mel morris couldn't just chuck millions at the team, if so has his investment merely reduced the losses of the GSE investors?

I get it now. So despite the positives of a new owner, FFP prevents silly spending so it's more effective to use the money to even out the losses. I understand from Rush we're aiming to be debt free soon?

[ramblur]

Thanks ramblur, thats a little clearer. Is it still the case that mel morris couldn't just chuck millions at the team, if so has his investment merely reduced the losses of the GSE investors?

Not so much reduced the losses,but more sharing the load in relation to cash losses and capital investment (including players).Anybody could chuck millions (but not that many) at the team,as long as the financial consequences in respect (mainly) of amortisation and wages wouldn't lead to our breaching FFP.

 

It's not transfer fees per se that affect FFP,but fees divided by length/s of contract/s (amortisation).

[ramblur]

I get it now. So despite the positives of a new owner, FFP prevents silly spending so it's more effective to use the money to even out the losses. I understand from Rush we're aiming to be debt free soon?

We'd need to find £15m to pay off the stadium loan for that to happen.

[Hans]

Wouldn't it be effective in diverting more money to pay off the loan quicker then? Or are they already. And would that break FFP rules trying to pay off a stadium loan? Sorry Ramblur, I'm and idiot.

[ramblur]

Wouldn't it be effective in diverting more money to pay off the loan quicker then? Or are they already. And would that break FFP rules trying to pay off a stadium loan? Sorry Ramblur, I'm and idiot.

The thing about the stadium loan is that the interest rate is very low (3% if base rate is still 0.5%),so it might not make sense to repay the loan before the maturity date of 2016 (the investors,collectively,could probably get a better return than this elsewhere in their various businesses in the meantime).Debt repayment would have no impact on FFP other than the positive of reducing debt charges (interest),and thus reducing losses by an equivalent amount.

 

Why's everyone putting themselves down all of a sudden? You're not an idiot-in my book anyone afraid to ask questions would be more of an idiot (though that may be a bit harsh).

[Hans]

The thing about the stadium loan is that the interest rate is very low (3% if base rate is still 0.5%),so it might not make sense to repay the loan before the maturity date of 2016 (the investors,collectively,could probably get a better return than this elsewhere in their various businesses in the meantime).Debt repayment would have no impact on FFP other than the positive of reducing debt charges (interest),and thus reducing losses by an equivalent amount.

 

Why's everyone putting themselves down all of a sudden? You're not an idiot-in my book anyone afraid to ask questions would be more of an idiot (though that may be a bit harsh).

Understood. I'm just horrific at maths haha.

[ramblur]

Understood. I'm just horrific at maths haha.

I'm not so hot at Latin

[eddie]

Don't swear at me .

 

Slide rule or abacus?