FFP

[RamNut]

39 minutes ago, Phoenix said:

Also, I believe that when they went into administration,they didn't get a points deduction. That was introduced as a result of Leicester's chicanery. Makes me puke what Leicester got away with.

You would hope that when they won the league they would have honoured those debts.

i'm not sure how a local business owed money would feel when they gave every player a 100k car unless they had paid up debts owed to others first.

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, ramblur said:

Not so sure about this,and this is an example where you'd really have to have a good look through the relevant financial reg,which I've absolutely no intention of doing,as I've already got plenty of problems,without adding to them.

It's quite possible to revalue fixed assets upwards,as we've done in the past with the stadium,creating a 'gain' represented by a revaluation reserve,as part of the capital structure.I simply don't know if you can revalue intangibles to a figure higher than the current carrying value,which your example would imply,as a gain would arise and it would be pointless my trying to work out the accounting implications,when I simply don't know.

I'm not implying upwards revaluation, just that the original transfer value is not written down at all.

 

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, feisty said:

Do you mean we wrote off very little?

Yes, I will look up figures shortly 

[ramblur]

7 minutes ago, feisty said:

I wonder if we have 'overvalued' any players in the books which could hit us under ffp.

Players like johnson, Butterfield, Anya are one's that we paid a lot for and could realise losses on if we haven't downward adjusted their value. 

I assume we can't upward adjust values beyond purchase price to create a  ffp gain (e.g.. value Lowe at 2mn and get a ffp positive impact)

Unfortunately,if we impaired their value,we'd take a hit anyway,so you can't win.

[Gandalf's shin pads]

I have mixed feelings towards FFP. On one one hand I entirely understand the urge to protect against future 'Leeds' or 'Portsmouths' from happening. Nobody wants a repeat of those scenarios. 

However, in a sense FFP was introduced far too late. The gap between rich and poor/big and small clubs was already a chasm by that point and all FFP does, or seems to do, now is cement the current hierarchy in place. 

[ramblur]

Bryson's an interesting case as his carrying value would have been very little,as his value would have been amortised under the old arrangements.I did notice it was a loan with the possibility of a permanent in Jan,which would probably create an FFP gain,if it happened. 

[G STAR RAM]

15 minutes ago, feisty said:

Do you mean we wrote off very little?

Amortisation for the year ended 30 June 2016 was £3.3m, leaving our squad valued at £33m.

Under the old rules that would not even have been enough to cover the amortisation of Vydra plus Johnson alone.

[ramblur]

44 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I'm not implying upwards revaluation, just that the original transfer value is not written down at all.

 

If you've originally amortised down to a residual value of £4m and then revalue up to £8m after x years,then you're bound to have revalued the asset upwards,because the net book value at that point will be under £8m.

[sage]

1 hour ago, ramblur said:

 

Sorry to be a party pooper,sage,but I forgot to mention the obvious possibility that Gary had more money to spend,but couldn't find a target to match his valuation.However,I wasn't aware of Gary's comments on Bryson and would fall in the camp that believes it would be strange to ditch a player you wanted to keep (in preference to several others),just to reduce the squad by 1.My belief in this is further strengthened by the fact that Bryson would appear to have been a good influence around the place.

I consider myself unpooped after the Bryson caveat.

[t'oldu]

1 hour ago, Phoenix said:

Also, I believe that when they went into administration,they didn't get a points deduction. That was introduced as a result of Leicester's chicanery. Makes me puke what Leicester got away with.

We didn't officially go bankrupt either because we had a parent company that took the hit and protected us from administration . This sort of chicanery is no longer allowed either!!

[ramblur]

45 minutes ago, Gandalf's shin pads said:

I have mixed feelings towards FFP. On one one hand I entirely understand the urge to protect against future 'Leeds' or 'Portsmouths' from happening. Nobody wants a repeat of those scenarios. 

However, in a sense FFP was introduced far too late. The gap between rich and poor/big and small clubs was already a chasm by that point and all FFP does, or seems to do, now is cement the current hierarchy in place. 

It was a commendable idea in the first place,but never had a chance of working because of the influence of relegated clubs and a handful of Championship clubs that didn't like the idea of having their ambitions curtailed.It's a sobering thought that the original plan was to taper down to an amount far less than the current £13m,and eventually extrapolate down to break even.

I can't help but feel that the same effect could have been achieved by managing the bench rules more effectively.One might have thought that when the numbers went up through the gears to the current 7,then it should have been an opportunity to introduce youth players,but that doesn't seem to have happened at all.Instead,not only do we now have strong benches,but even more strength in further squad members,which is the thing that has driven wage bills so ridiculously high,when compared to the income the underlying assets are generating (if not promoted).

In what I would call the 'good old days',when there were 2 subs to cater for injuries (which got abused by players feigning injury,but you could just change the ruling to 2 subs,without restrictions),decent managers would make their tactical adjustments on the pitch,because they had to,and I don't remember the game being unenjoyable to watch in those days.

Imo,when the bench was eventually increased to 5 (I think),it should have been 4 + 1 optional youth player. Similarly,when it went up to 7,it should have been 5 + 2 optional youth (my own preference would have been 4 + 3 youth). This would have put an end to the big,expensive squads and given youth a look in.The problem with the situation today is that you could have the commendable twin aims of promotion and the introduction of youth,but the 2 seem to be mutually exclusive, and a manager who might want to introduce youth could feel fan (and maybe ownership) pressure that prevents same. Under my system,such a manager might just be forced to introduce youth (didn't do us any harm with Dave Langan,who I don't think would have had a cat in hell's chance under the current arrangements,nor would Pete Daniel have been given a chance at CH).

Some would point out that it would be optimistic to have 3 youth players at one time ready for the bench,but I did say optional and it would be the same for everyone.It might also focus the mind on youth production,rather than spend,spend,spend.

Before anyone else mentions it,I do see the obvious flaw - relegated clubs wouldn't have it.It's a devil that clubs that aren't even part of the Football League (until dumped there) can have so much influence (or should I say the Premier League).

[G STAR RAM]

46 minutes ago, ramblur said:

If you've originally amortised down to a residual value of £4m and then revalue up to £8m after x years,then you're bound to have revalued the asset upwards,because the net book value at that point will be under £8m.

I think you've either mis-read or misinterpreted, I did point out upwards revaluations are not allowed.

[Gritty]

1 hour ago, ramblur said:

Unfortunately,if we impaired their value,we'd take a hit anyway,so you can't win.

Yes, but if you suddenly realise you've over valued a player, couldn't you revalue a bit one year and a bit the next? I'm sure you're supposed to jump straight to your best guess of value but these valuations are all subjective I assume?

[ramblur]

4 hours ago, feisty said:

Could do with @ramblur help. If we let Butterfield go for say 3mn to 4mn less than we paid for him; does that mean we book a loss of 3mn to 4mn in the accounts and hit our ffp loss figure?

Given Blackman, butters, Camara, Anya all likely to leave at a loss I wonder whether simply selling players is going to cause us issues....

Yes,it is an obvious problem and explains why some haven't been moved on.In your Butterfield example,the situation isn't quite that bad as any amortisation charged to date has to be taken into account,but under the new arrangements I doubt it would be a significant amount (his age,when signing would almost inevitably have led to a high %age RV,and if that weren't the case,we shouldn't have signed him at that price in the first place!).

When Darren gets fit,he might realise that he might not be getting much game time and might be amenable to a mutual contract cancellation ,if fixed up elsewhere (roughly,our compo +wages elsewhere = current wages).Mind you,he may be in Gary's plans,as it only takes a couple of injuries to main strikers to put him back in the plans. Am I right in thinking that players with contracts cancelled can get fixed up outside the windows (I can remember one of ours that went outside the window).

[ramblur]

5 minutes ago, feisty said:

Yes, but if you suddenly realise you've over valued a player, couldn't you revalue a bit one year and a bit the next? I'm sure you're supposed to jump straight to your best guess of value but these valuations are all subjective I assume?

If you're revaluing downwards bit by bit,you're still taking a hit bit by bit,and you can only do this if the player remains on the books (the 'bit by bits' add up).

[ramblur]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not anymore.

The club either set a residual value for the players or re-assess the value of players each year.

Example 

Sign Vyrda for £8m on 4 year contract. Under old rules we would have taken £2m hit each year.

Under new rules we set a residual value (what we think Vydra in the last year of his contract ie what we could sell him for) of £4m, therefore, he will only lose £4m value over his contract so we would take a hit of £1m each year.

Alternatively, at the end of years 1,2 and 3 we think we could get all of transfer money back so value him at £8m still but, his contract expires and he leaves for free, so we take the full £8m hit in year 4.

This is what I was commenting on,and I hardly think I've misunderstood anything here,because if we did what you suggest ,the revaluation to £8m is bound to be an upward revaluation,when measured against book value.

I did notice your later comment that intangibles couldn't be revalued upwards - if that comment was an admission that you're quoted post was invalid,then fair enough.

Maybe you've confused me by talking about the £4m valuation. If you're saying that we never value at £4m,but value at £8m from the off,then I apologise.

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, ramblur said:

This is what I was commenting on,and I hardly think I've misunderstood anything here,because if we did what you suggest ,the revaluation to £8m is bound to be an upward revaluation,when measured against book value.

I did notice your later comment that intangibles couldn't be revalued upwards - if that comment was an admission that you're quoted post was invalid,then fair enough.

Can't see anywhere where I have said revalue him back up to £8m?

[Curtains]

2 hours ago, ramblur said:

Unfortunately not so easy, as this piece is obviously based on a website I linked some time ago,viz 'Financialfairplay.com' ,and there are 2 issues here. The amortisation treatment is now old hat and has since been replaced with residual values.I had an email exchange with the guy behind this site,pointing out that the average exemptions of £500k were low and that he hadn't mentioned one of the bigger ones,infrastructure depreciation (our own stadium depreciation is roughly 3 times this figure alone).I also pointed out that youth development alone could come in far above this figure,and that our total exemptions (by deduction) would appear to have come in at £5m+ in 15/16. In his reply he did mention that he had become aware of the situation regarding exemptions after writing the piece and conceded that Brighton were probably ok because of these considerations.

Thanks for the clarification mate .

IYO are we well within FFP over each 3 year period 

[ramblur]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Can't see anywhere where I have said revalue him back up to £8m?

You've missed the edit to my post,so I apologise. I thought you were originally suggesting that we valued him at £4m,but then changed our minds after 1,2 or 3 years.

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, ramblur said:

You've missed the edit to my post,so I apologise. I thought you were originally suggesting that we valued him at £4m,but then changed our minds after 1,2 or 3 years.

No need to apologise, reading back I can see where the confusion came about.

It was a rushed post hence why I already edited it once!

Should have kept my nose out in first place, only answered as I saw a question aimed at you and was not sure if you was currently posting or not. 

Hope you are well.