sage Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 As our turnover rose to £20m this year and our wage bill is approx £11m, how much can we spend on fees and increased wage bill without breaking FFP rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimbeard Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 C'mon Ramblur,or some other clever so and so, hurry up, I want to know this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grantona Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I read somewhere that there is a rule that clubs can only spend 60% of their turnover on wages - but that might apply only to League One and League Two. If the same rule applied, 60% of £20 million is £12 million....so a wage bill of £12 million would be allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 As our turnover rose to £20m this year and our wage bill is approx £11m, how much can we spend on fees and increased wage bill without breaking FFP rules. Depends if we do business the normal way or the "arab" way.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 If we choose the latter, will we get a World Cup ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 As our turnover rose to £20m this year and our wage bill is approx £11m, how much can we spend on fees and increased wage bill without breaking FFP rules. Absolutely impossible to work out,sage.Turnover you quote includes play off revenues-I know some have said Rush/Vicars predicted £20m for next year (I'm wondering if they meant next year to be reported,i.e. this year),but that looks a bit high to me as you can't predict a losing play off final appearance.On the wages,we don't know definitively if this figure represents total wages or players only-if the latter we wouldn't know the figure for non players (in the context of coaching,admin,groundstaff etc). Even if you could use the figures you quote,there's a multitude of additional things on the expenditure side that we don't know. All I can say on FFP is that total allowable losses for next year are £6m,and £5m for the following year (unless revised upwards,which seems likely to me, and I wouldn't rule out a total meltdown of FFP).Without revisions it's the £5m figure we should work towards,because any new contracts would impact on this.A £5m FFP loss for me indicates an allowable headline loss for us of at least £7m,which I'll explain later-a loss we actually made in 12/13.Since 12/13 our turnover would have risen significantly,but our wages might have as well.Even so,I expect this combination to have given a little leeway and the £7m headline loss figure I gave is deliberately conservative-I wouldn't be surprised if we could lose £8m and still comply. Any outgoing players will already have given leeway on wages and if any still under contract were to be sold there'd likely be further leeway (further drop in wages+drop in amortisation +possible book profit,though any book loss takes you in the other direction). Now onto this headline loss v FFP business.Net youth development costs can be removed from a headline loss for FFP purposes,but the trouble is we don't know either the full expenditure or the value of any Prem grant. Tangible fixed asset depreciation may also be removed,but the regs are unclear as to whether all of them apply.They give an example of stadium depreciation (which in itself implies other things are excluded) and in the 12/13 accounts the depreciation of land and buildings (which would nearly all amount to stadium) came in at £1.482m.Total tangible fixed asset depreciation came in at £2.123m,so there's at least a possibility of a further £600k to add to our allowable headline loss there.To arrive at the conservative exemption figure of £2m,I merely added just over £500k for net youth development to stadium depreciation.This figure is almost certainly on the low side,so there's further leeway there probably. In view of all of the above uncertainties,it's impossible to answer your question, so I won't even try . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I read somewhere that there is a rule that clubs can only spend 60% of their turnover on wages - but that might apply only to League One and League Two. If the same rule applied, 60% of £20 million is £12 million....so a wage bill of £12 million would be allowed. Only L1 and L2 use the wage cap,as you suspected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 In view of all of the above uncertainties,it's impossible to answer your question, so I won't even try . Yeah, I was thinking £10million too. Thanks Ramblur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted June 2, 2014 Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 You appear to be (not) saying in the region of £3-4m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted June 2, 2014 Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 So Thorne + Wisdom - Sammon then frees and loans. At best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 You appear to be (not) saying in the region of £3-4m. I couldn't call those figures unrealistic,as they would produce annual amortisation of c£1m,but that does rely on FFP exemption figure being at the higher end and additional wages mopping up savings out of the departure lounge.By the same token,I would call £10m unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 So Thorne + Wisdom - Sammon then frees and loans. At best. Sammon would be interesting as there'd be a possibility of still making a book profit even if selling at a loss (but this would only impact 14/15 figures,and as we've seen new signings would impact further years),and there'd be savings on amortisation and wages .Any new loanees one would expect merely to take up the wages slack of those departing from last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted June 2, 2014 Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 ok Ramblur says we have definitely got £3-4m to spend!! Only joking mate. Thanks for your help. Hopefully this will stop herberts linking us to players costing £5m and/or on £25k a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 ok Ramblur says we have definitely got £3-4m to spend!! Only joking mate. Thanks for your help. Hopefully this will stop herberts linking us to players costing £5m and/or on £25k a week. No problems,sage.Unfortunately it wouldn't stop them if we were to sell a player for big money,although this wouldn't be as straightforward as it might appear at first glance. Unlike some,I'm not convinced that Sammon will be sold,as he's been highly praised by the coaching staff.Myself,I never knock a player that gives 100% whilst playing and supports his mates whilst not in the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Absolutely impossible to work out,sage.Turnover you quote includes play off revenues-I know some have said Rush/Vicars predicted £20m for next year (I'm wondering if they meant next year to be reported,i.e. this year),but that looks a bit high to me as you can't predict a losing play off final appearance.On the wages,we don't know definitively if this figure represents total wages or players only-if the latter we wouldn't know the figure for non players (in the context of coaching,admin,groundstaff etc). Even if you could use the figures you quote,there's a multitude of additional things on the expenditure side that we don't know. All I can say on FFP is that total allowable losses for next year are £6m,and £5m for the following year (unless revised upwards,which seems likely to me, and I wouldn't rule out a total meltdown of FFP).Without revisions it's the £5m figure we should work towards,because any new contracts would impact on this.A £5m FFP loss for me indicates an allowable headline loss for us of at least £7m,which I'll explain later-a loss we actually made in 12/13.Since 12/13 our turnover would have risen significantly,but our wages might have as well.Even so,I expect this combination to have given a little leeway and the £7m headline loss figure I gave is deliberately conservative-I wouldn't be surprised if we could lose £8m and still comply. Any outgoing players will already have given leeway on wages and if any still under contract were to be sold there'd likely be further leeway (further drop in wages+drop in amortisation +possible book profit,though any book loss takes you in the other direction). Now onto this headline loss v FFP business.Net youth development costs can be removed from a headline loss for FFP purposes,but the trouble is we don't know either the full expenditure or the value of any Prem grant. Tangible fixed asset depreciation may also be removed,but the regs are unclear as to whether all of them apply.They give an example of stadium depreciation (which in itself implies other things are excluded) and in the 12/13 accounts the depreciation of land and buildings (which would nearly all amount to stadium) came in at £1.482m.Total tangible fixed asset depreciation came in at £2.123m,so there's at least a possibility of a further £600k to add to our allowable headline loss there.To arrive at the conservative exemption figure of £2m,I merely added just over £500k for net youth development to stadium depreciation.This figure is almost certainly on the low side,so there's further leeway there probably. In view of all of the above uncertainties,it's impossible to answer your question, so I won't even try . A simple 'Don't know...' would've been ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 A simple 'Don't know...' would've been ok. Giving the reasons why might have been even better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Giving the reasons why might have been even better Screw that for a game of soldiers. Just do what I do - lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Screw that for a game of soldiers. Just do what I do - lie. ....and join utch in purgatory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 ....and join utch in purgatory? I don't live anywhere near Staffordshire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R@M Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Sorry if everyone is bored of this, but I have a question. If I have read correctly, tangible assets are included in the FFP. If so, after last season has the squad value not increased by a significant amount? Anyone of note is tied to a fairly lengthy contract, reputations (Hughes, Bryson, Hendrick, Buxton, Forsyth in particular) have improved, not to mention free signings Grant and Martin. Again, if I am right, that 'profit' must be conservatively placed at £15m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.