Jump to content
alexxxxx

EFL charge Derby over ffp

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

I know they were supposedly given new contracts on reduced terms but not sure what they were?

The 17-18 books they'd still have had decent residual values anyway wouldn't they? Most of the players would

Are the EFL trying to suggest that a £6m player is only worth £3m when 2 years into a 4 year contract? I'd suggest that shows a basic misunderstanding of football economics - Player values only starts to plummet in the last year of their contract

I recall the DET saying 12 month extensions on significantly reduced terms. 
You’re spot on with the rest IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Just a thought exercise

What would happen if you extended a players contract for a single month into the new season? Players' contracts (as far as I know) end at the end of the season merely by convention not through any written rules of the game

If a players contract ended in August and instead of being released they went to another club over the summer for zero fee (like say Johnson and Butterfield) they'd have a residual value at the end of the previous season still right?

Doubt you could claim any residual value at the end of the season in that instance as they could have signed a new deal 6 months prior to the end of the contract as per Bosman ruling. 

The residual value must be related to how transfers work. The first day after transfer deadline day of a new season, a players value in their last year of their contract is very low/zero because they can effectively sign for a new club 1st Jan with no transfer fee. 

Share this post


Link to post

I decided to look at the revenue's of every club currently in the Championship (based on their most recent accounts from a Championship season) - no recent figures for West Brom, Swansea or Luton. West Brom and Swansea's revenue will be similar to Stoke's
A few interesting facts
     - Stoke received more in parachute payments than the combined revenue of Preston, Charlton and Brentford.
     - Stoke also received more in parachute payments than the highest revenue from any club (exc parachute payments)
     - Total parachute payments of £187.5m were given out in the seasons - more than the combined revenue of Preston, Charlton, Brentford, Barnsley, Blackburn, Huddersfield, Bristol, Reading, Millwall, Forest and Birmingham. 
     - Excluding parachute payments, Wigan have the lowest revenue. With the £16.3m the received, they move to within £200k of Sheffield Weds who have the 3rd highest non-PP revenue.

Club Revenue (excluding parachute payments)
1138467862_ClubRevenueExcludingParachutePayments(m).thumb.png.f669248c9e9f46aebfccb4d4273ecd1d.png

Club Revenue (including parachute payments)
599717840_ClubRevenue(m)(2).thumb.png.b3dfac689fa1fb4fcadea7c0a3c4d5e1.png

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I forgot about that section in the accounts. So based on this:
 - the player's value at the end of the contract is zero [same as all other clubs],
 - a contract extension extends the period the transfer fee is paid off [not the only club to do this],
 - impairment (such as injury, change of competition, etc) significantly lowers player value [not the only club to do this].
 - bonuses such as goals, appearances, sell-on fees appear on the balance sheet in the period they occur [same as all other clubs]

However, the only difference is us not amortising on a straight line throughout the contract and possibly not on a straight-line at all. If I've understood correctly, the residual value is the value at the start of the final year of a player's contract, with this remaining amount written off at the end of that year. 

I feel we may come unstuck when we come to the residual values of Blackman, Johnson, Butterfield, Anya and Thorne. Wisdom, Lawrence, Nugent and Vydra may also be questioned due to the difference in amortisation for these players. Amortisation for all other players wouldn't be significantly different over the 3-year period.

Should be significantly lower but not completely written off due to him having some sell-on value at the start of the accounting period.

It is perfecetly acceptable (and quite common accounting practice) to alow for profits that are realised after the end of the accounting year but are known when the accounts have been signed off. So Vydra being sold in August 2018 for a big profit compared to his residual value. Weimann also... in fact maybe that sale was even in the 2017/18 year i cant remember.

We have actually made a profit on quite a few players , apart from those two, Christie, Ince, Lee Grant, Shotton,  Hughes, Hendrick and a few others. Not enough to balance the books for sure but pretty tidy sums coming in as well as going out.

Plus what about Bogle, Lowe , Knight and co. Are they not intangible assets?         

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I decided to look at the revenue's of every club currently in the Championship (based on their most recent accounts from a Championship season) - no recent figures for West Brom, Swansea or Luton. West Brom and Swansea's revenue will be similar to Stoke's
A few interesting facts
     - Stoke received more in parachute payments than the combined revenue of Preston, Charlton and Brentford.
     - Stoke also received more in parachute payments than the highest revenue from any club (exc parachute payments)
     - Total parachute payments of £187.5m were given out in the seasons - more than the combined revenue of Preston, Charlton, Brentford, Barnsley, Blackburn, Huddersfield, Bristol, Reading, Millwall, Forest and Birmingham. 
     - Excluding parachute payments, Wigan have the lowest revenue. With the £16.3m the received, they move to within £200k of Sheffield Weds who have the 3rd highest non-PP revenue.
 

Interesting that Leeds have managed to sort their finances out. They were a basket case for a long time and they should really have the highest non parachute payments revenues whenever a club like Villa or Newcastle doesn't come down to join us.

This is Wigans 7th season outside the Prem though - they don't receive any parachute payments. If we had latest figures for all clubs it would be even worse with Fulham, Cardiff, West Brom, Hull, Boro, Swansea, Stoke, Huddersfield and Sunderland (even if they aren't even in our league anymore) all receiving parachute payments at the moment. Only 3 of the current top 11 are parachute payment teams though, so thats something at least.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, PistoldPete3 said:

It is perfecetly acceptable (and quite common accounting practice) to alow for profits that are realised after the end of the accounting year but are known when the accounts have been signed off. So Vydra being sold in August 2018 for a big profit compared to his residual value. Weimann also... in fact maybe that sale was even in the 2017/18 year i cant remember.

We have actually made a profit on quite a few players , apart from those two, Christie, Ince, Lee Grant, Shotton,  Hughes, Hendrick and a few others. Not enough to balance the books for sure but pretty tidy sums coming in as well as going out.

Plus what about Bogle, Lowe , Knight and co. Are they not intangible assets?         

I didn’t consider Weimann possibly being sold in the 17/18 accounts, but it’s possible due to the date - 3rd July (a day sooner than Ince in the previous summer). 

I thought we made a c£0 ‘profit’ on Shotton? You missed Albentosa and Thomas off your list, and maybe a paper profit on Jerome. Not many in the grand scheme of things when we’ve sold/released about 30 players in the past 5 years. 

Academy graduates have little/no asset value due to not having a transfer fee. The only paper value will be from contracts extensions and similar fees. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GenBr said:

Interesting that Leeds have managed to sort their finances out. They were a basket case for a long time and they should really have the highest non parachute payments revenues whenever a club like Villa or Newcastle doesn't come down to join us.

This is Wigans 7th season outside the Prem though - they don't receive any parachute payments. If we had latest figures for all clubs it would be even worse with Fulham, Cardiff, West Brom, Hull, Boro, Swansea, Stoke, Huddersfield and Sunderland (even if they aren't even in our league anymore) all receiving parachute payments at the moment. Only 3 of the current top 11 are parachute payment teams though, so thats something at least.

Good point about the club's receiving parachute payments. This one is more representative of the current season (estimated figures for West Brom and Swansea, but still no Luton as I have no figures to work from).

Sunderland will be about level with Leeds this season (with their £15.5m parachute payment)

276813718_ClubRevenue(m)(1).thumb.png.7df971fde4162db98358891331eddda3.png

Edited by Ghost of Clough

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Shipley Ram said:

That is interesting - didnt know that. I sometimes wonder if all these teams throwing accusations at us are just doing to deflect attention away from their own dodgy dealings - Leeds  Boro, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

In the 17/18 set of accounts, Cardiff revalued their stadium, adding £26.951m profit to their accounts! Without this they would have failed the P&S period.
Forest wrote off more than £45m worth of loans during the same period, although I don't think this would have any bearing on P&S.
Reading wrote off just over £9m and made a £6.518m profit on the stadium.
As we all know, without the £38m profit of Wednesday's stadium, they would have failed P&S too. Same applies for us.

Bristol, Cardiff and Reading look to have been close to the limit in the period ending 2018. Bristol will be comfortably sage for the following period due to sales, whereas Cardiff have the benefit of a season in the Prem (larger losses permitted). Fulham look to have massively overspent in the period ending 2018 (almost double the losses of Birmingham at c£34m!), so it seems odd nothing has been said about them - that can't surely all be due to promotion bonuses?

As things stand, Wednesday and Reading look to be the closest to the P&S limit for the period ending in 2019. If Birmingham's losses were 'reset' along with their penalty last year then they'll just about be fine. If not they they're the furthest away from meeting the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, richinspain said:

What, after only 73 pages? How are we going to beat the Gorgeous George thread without going off topic or duplicate posts?

By starting the puns.

For example:   this topic is becoming a marathon. Darn, got snickered straightaway. I'll be sent to Mars.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.