Ghost of Clough Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 It looks like "Covid costs" are excluded from P&S for the 19/20 and 20/21 seasons. Lost revenue due to no fans in the stadium is easy to calculate. However, the rules may also allow for impairment of players (a part of most amortisation policies) due to clubs to receiving the fees the otherwise would have done when selling players. We may be very fortunate and have a much better P&S return due to impairing the likes of Bielik, Waghorn, Lawrence, Wisdom, Marriott, Jozefzoon and Malone who probably all have multi-million pound values on the balance sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said: It looks like "Covid costs" are excluded from P&S for the 19/20 and 20/21 seasons. Lost revenue due to no fans in the stadium is easy to calculate. However, the rules may also allow for impairment of players (a part of most amortisation policies) due to clubs to receiving the fees the otherwise would have done when selling players. We may be very fortunate and have a much better P&S return due to impairing the likes of Bielik, Waghorn, Lawrence, Wisdom, Marriott, Jozefzoon and Malone who probably all have multi-million pound values on the balance sheet. sounds positive to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 20 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said: It looks like "Covid costs" are excluded from P&S for the 19/20 and 20/21 seasons. Lost revenue due to no fans in the stadium is easy to calculate. However, the rules may also allow for impairment of players (a part of most amortisation policies) due to clubs to receiving the fees the otherwise would have done when selling players. We may be very fortunate and have a much better P&S return due to impairing the likes of Bielik, Waghorn, Lawrence, Wisdom, Marriott, Jozefzoon and Malone who probably all have multi-million pound values on the balance sheet. Good to hear this. I’m wondering what magnitude of difference new sponsorship deals/naming rights brought by the new owners might make to spending power? Do others have any idea? (I did wonder whether stadium naming rights would help with P&S given that the club does not own the stadium. But maybe that depends on the terms in which it was sold/leased back ) would be wonderful if some deals we to be announced at the same time as the takeover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shipley Ram Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 21 hours ago, Spanish said: sounds positive to me Sound like an argument and a lawyer payday to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFC27 Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 FFP need to be scrapped and owners coming in with vast wealth should have to personally guarantee the wages of staff players etc, so they can’t just walk away like the Wigan owners did. It would simplify things and put a full stop to owners leaving clubs in debt. if you sign a player for £5m and sign on a 4 year contract either they should put that into a trust for the club the club then pays the players, that way the club never owes money to players and their wages are paid or you agree to an FFP model but clubs that can genuinely afford to buy quality shouldn’t have to rely on what’s coming in. FFP does nothing but just makes the big clubs stay rich and the poorer clubs stay poor. Man City wouldn’t have been able to do what they have done if they started now. The aim of FFP is to stop clubs going under. Why make it so complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 33 minutes ago, DCFC27 said: FFP need to be scrapped and owners coming in with vast wealth should have to personally guarantee the wages of staff players etc, so they can’t just walk away like the Wigan owners did. It would simplify things and put a full stop to owners leaving clubs in debt. if you sign a player for £5m and sign on a 4 year contract either they should put that into a trust for the club the club then pays the players, that way the club never owes money to players and their wages are paid or you agree to an FFP model but clubs that can genuinely afford to buy quality shouldn’t have to rely on what’s coming in. FFP does nothing but just makes the big clubs stay rich and the poorer clubs stay poor. Man City wouldn’t have been able to do what they have done if they started now. The aim of FFP is to stop clubs going under. Why make it so complicated. Guarantees can be worthless if they have to be supported by liquid assets you may as well demand that the future expenditure is cash held in escrow which is never going to happen. In Mel's case he would put up the ground as security (it is independently valued) which really provides no defence against going bust. The genie is out of the bottle and all these imaginary controls are useless. I don't know what can be done now to make the future of clubs more secure but where we are is worthless. This is pretty much raw capitalism (not a political point) and money talks. Unless World football puts an effective control in place over limiting asset purchases then I can't see it changing Without FFP rich clubs stay rich and poor ones poor. Professional football is not fair and anybody in the top league can do pretty much what they want. I believe the point of FFP was to stop the HRMC being out of pocket originally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 2 hours ago, DCFC27 said: FFP need to be scrapped and owners coming in with vast wealth should have to personally guarantee the wages of staff players etc, so they can’t just walk away like the Wigan owners did. It would simplify things and put a full stop to owners leaving clubs in debt. if you sign a player for £5m and sign on a 4 year contract either they should put that into a trust for the club the club then pays the players, that way the club never owes money to players and their wages are paid or you agree to an FFP model but clubs that can genuinely afford to buy quality shouldn’t have to rely on what’s coming in. FFP does nothing but just makes the big clubs stay rich and the poorer clubs stay poor. Man City wouldn’t have been able to do what they have done if they started now. The aim of FFP is to stop clubs going under. Why make it so complicated. Can it be seen to be working. My concern is that this league is now dominated by recently relegated clubs with parachute money. Why should a new owner not just be limited to the same amount that relegated clubs get over season. This is a different kind of level playing field. In other walks of life you can pump money in for quick progress. Talk of WBA players not being paid on time. More or less a nonsense in some ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hathersage Ram Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 3 hours ago, DCFC27 said: FFP need to be scrapped and owners coming in with vast wealth should have to personally guarantee the wages of staff players etc, so they can’t just walk away like the Wigan owners did. It would simplify things and put a full stop to owners leaving clubs in debt. if you sign a player for £5m and sign on a 4 year contract either they should put that into a trust for the club the club then pays the players, that way the club never owes money to players and their wages are paid or you agree to an FFP model but clubs that can genuinely afford to buy quality shouldn’t have to rely on what’s coming in. FFP does nothing but just makes the big clubs stay rich and the poorer clubs stay poor. Man City wouldn’t have been able to do what they have done if they started now. The aim of FFP is to stop clubs going under. Why make it so complicated. I don't think I heard anything this ridiculous for years. "Sign a player on a 4 year contract and put that into trust" lol . Not sure you understand the principles of limited liability and how business's work. It's totally impractical and logistically a minefield of legalities etc. I am no lover of FFP, but please be serious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 3 hours ago, Spanish said: I believe the point of FFP was to stop the HRMC being out of pocket originally? According to this dissertation on FFP (link below), UEFA originally said there were 5 objectives. (The last one deals with HMRC/creditors) To introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances To decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit the inflationary effect To encourage clubs to compete within their revenues To encourage long term investments in the youth sector and infrastructure To protect the long term viability of European club football To ensure clubs settle their liabilities on a timely basis (UEFA Protecting the game, 2014) https://esource.dbs.ie/bitstream/handle/10788/2069/mba_darling_a_2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MackworthRamIsGod Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 4 hours ago, Hathersage Ram said: I don't think I heard anything this ridiculous for years. "Sign a player on a 4 year contract and put that into trust" lol . Not sure you understand the principles of limited liability and how business's work. It's totally impractical and logistically a minefield of legalities etc. I am no lover of FFP, but please be serious! Bit harsh, he took the time the time to write a solution to the ridiculous FFP rules, if like me he isnt an accountant then his ideas, like mine, are probably way of the mark. At least he offered a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFC27 Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 5 hours ago, Hathersage Ram said: I don't think I heard anything this ridiculous for years. "Sign a player on a 4 year contract and put that into trust" lol . Not sure you understand the principles of limited liability and how business's work. It's totally impractical and logistically a minefield of legalities etc. I am no lover of FFP, but please be serious! No I just think FFP is obsolete, it’s there to stop teams loosing too much money but they look at it over a 3 year period which can be too late for the likes of Wigan. I don’t believe there should be limited liability when buying a football club, owning a championship club will not make you money, it will loose money and is a hobby for most owners and not a business. When buying players they should put the money in and if they get bored or loose their fortune the wages are paid and the club is left unaffected. This is the radical change needed, it will lead to lower salaries for average players and lower transfer fees as they can’t pay it monthly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
europia Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 8 hours ago, Spanish said: Guarantees can be worthless if they have to be supported by liquid assets you may as well demand that the future expenditure is cash held in escrow which is never going to happen. In Mel's case he would put up the ground as security (it is independently valued) which really provides no defence against going bust. The genie is out of the bottle and all these imaginary controls are useless. I don't know what can be done now to make the future of clubs more secure but where we are is worthless. This is pretty much raw capitalism (not a political point) and money talks. Unless World football puts an effective control in place over limiting asset purchases then I can't see it changing Without FFP rich clubs stay rich and poor ones poor. Professional football is not fair and anybody in the top league can do pretty much what they want. I believe the point of FFP was to stop the HRMC being out of pocket originally? Yep, hence the majority EFL clubs being available for sale to the highest bidder. Some changing hands several times, often to the detriment of the club and fans. Potential new owners from China, USA, Middle East, only needing to meet minimum 'fit and proper' person test set by the EFL, itself a dubiously run authoritative body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 5 hours ago, kevinhectoring said: According to this dissertation on FFP (link below), UEFA originally said there were 5 objectives. (The last one deals with HMRC/creditors) To introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances To decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit the inflationary effect To encourage clubs to compete within their revenues To encourage long term investments in the youth sector and infrastructure To protect the long term viability of European club football To ensure clubs settle their liabilities on a timely basis (UEFA Protecting the game, 2014) https://esource.dbs.ie/bitstream/handle/10788/2069/mba_darling_a_2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y I'm quoting myself which may be against forum etiquette but my spaniel needed feeding so I ran out of time to edit. The point I wanted to make is this. A number of posters have said that FFp is bad for little clubs and good for clubs with very wealthy owners because it does not create a level playing field. The articles on FFP all fully support this. This is why like it or not we really need an owner with big money. I hope we'll soon have one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.