Finances

[Ghost of Clough]

34 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Still £2.5m to write off over the term.

 

Davies was £0.5m. Hudd was £2m. 

[Carnero]

47 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The £20m increase in amortisation charge

Reading through some of that report then I wouldn't be surprised if the £25m amortisation charge was actually in 2018/19 and simply mis-typed as 2020. I don't see how else we could be making such a huge forecast loss for 2018/19.

Why on earth would they have been interested in 2019/20 amortisation when we were being investigated for the 3 years ending 2017/18?

[DCFC1388]

If we are really that close to P&S limits, we would have known that last summer surely which begs the question why/how we paid so much for Bielik? 

The club knows more than we do but i cant see us spending big on Bielik if we are really that close

[Gritty]

17 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

If we are really that close to P&S limits, we would have known that last summer surely which begs the question why/how we paid so much for Bielik? 

The club knows more than we do but i cant see us spending big on Bielik if we are really that close

I never understood the finances behind that. 

The fact that even with a stadium sale we appear to be in such financial dire straits for next season or two is very sobering.

 

[Abu Derby]

It would appear that the reason for these large losses is the fact that we have spent big money on players who have been average at best. This has been going on for far too long. We then offload the very same players for peanuts or give them away for free. 
If I were Mel, I’d be looking at the common factor in all of this - the scouting and recruitment department. Why isn’t this being completely reformed?

Clubs such as Brentford, Sheffield Utd, Leeds, Wolves etc have each got it bang on without spending as much as we have in the past. 
When Arthur Cox and Jim Smith we’re here they pulled out the hat some beauties that didn’t cost the earth. 
In my view, along with the academy recruitment, this is of the utmost importance. Get it right, then the club moves forward with impetus.  
I would say without a moment’s hesitation that Simon Clough could spot a player far better than the guy’s we have now. 

[Reggie Greenwood]

1 minute ago, Abu Derby said:

It would appear that the reason for these large losses is the fact that we have spent big money on players who have been average at best. This has been going on for far too long. We then offload the very same players for peanuts or give them away for free. 
If I were Mel, I’d be looking at the common factor in all of this - the scouting and recruitment department. Why isn’t this being completely reformed?

Clubs such as Brentford, Sheffield Utd, Leeds, Wolves etc have each got it bang on without spending as much as we have in the past. 
When Arthur Cox and Jim Smith we’re here they pulled out the hat some beauties that didn’t cost the earth. 
In my view, along with the academy recruitment, this is of the utmost importance. Get it right, then the club moves forward with impetus.  
I would say without a moment’s hesitation that Simon Clough could spot a player far better than the guy’s we have now. 

Like Connor Sammon ?

[Abu Derby]

Just now, Reggie Greenwood said:

Like Connor Sammon ?

By and large I think that you know that the majority of players signed were excellent value for money. Name a club who hasn’t signed a dud. 

[Reggie Greenwood]

Just now, Abu Derby said:

By and large I think that you know that the majority of players signed were excellent value for money. Name a club who hasn’t signed a dud. 

Think if you went through them all maybe 50/50 some good some rubbish. For every Martin , Bryson and Forsyth they were matched by Sammon ,Cywzka , Doyle etc 

All about opinions ?

[Ghost of Clough]

45 minutes ago, Carnero said:

Reading through some of that report then I wouldn't be surprised if the £25m amortisation charge was actually in 2018/19 and simply mis-typed as 2020. I don't see how else we could be making such a huge forecast loss for 2018/19.

Why on earth would they have been interested in 2019/20 amortisation when we were being investigated for the 3 years ending 2017/18?

It says £6.5m for 17/18, £4.6m for 18/19 and £25.1m for 19/20. If the book values of Johnson, Butterfield and Blackman were still close to their original fees then it would make sense.

Using 2018 P&S losses as a base point:
                  £7,207,000

Minus the profit on stadium/players/managers, and add the amortisation from 2018:
                  £7,207,000 - £39,940,387 - £3,719,424 - £1,850,000 + £6,540,038
            =  -£31,762,773

Account for the confirmed amortisation and stadium rent in 2019:
                -£31,762,773 - 4,600,000 - 1,139,726
            =  -£37,502,499

Plus a rough estimate on change to wages:
                -£37,502,499 + £6,000,000
            =  -£31,502,499 

The forecasted losses in 18/19 look about right to me.

 

I think the EFL brought up the 19/20 amortisation to query the policy, wondering why we had such big fluctuations in amortisation charges. 

[GB SPORTS]

4 hours ago, Millenniumram said:

Think I saw something saying there’s going to be discussions over a salary cap in Autumn with a view to putting one in place next season. Personally, I hate the idea of that as well. It’s just more and more restrictions. I’d rather have neither P&S or a salary cap, just go back to how things used to be where clubs could spend what their owners could afford to. The key for me is making sure the owners aren’t dodgy and leave a club in trouble when they sell up. As a poster above alluded to, the most important thing is improving the fit and proper test.

Absolutely with one qualification a squad size cap I have been advocating this for about 17 years now.

You can have x players (qualifying) x+1 and the 1 goes out on a free loan with the parent registration club picking up the salary .

Under 21's don't count towards the squad

Season long loans only. A system will need to be determined on how to dole out the surplus squad players.(draft?)

There is a flaw unfortunately every professional league has to buy into it.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It says £6.5m for 17/18, £4.6m for 18/19 and £25.1m for 19/20. If the book values of Johnson, Butterfield and Blackman were still close to their original fees then it would make sense.

Using 2018 P&S losses as a base point:
                  £7,207,000

Minus the profit on stadium/players/managers, and add the amortisation from 2018:
                  £7,207,000 - £39,940,387 - £3,719,424 - £1,850,000 + £6,540,038
            =  -£31,762,773

Account for the confirmed amortisation and stadium rent in 2019:
                -£31,762,773 - 4,600,000 - 1,139,726
            =  -£37,502,499

Plus a rough estimate on change to wages:
                -£37,502,499 + £6,000,000
            =  -£31,502,499 

The forecasted losses in 18/19 look about right to me.

 

I think the EFL brought up the 19/20 amortisation to query the policy, wondering why we had such big fluctuations in amortisation charges. 

Excuse my extreme thickness but why is the stadium profit being addedto the £7.2m as a loss? 

[Carnero]

8 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Excuse my extreme thickness but why is the stadium profit being addedto the £7.2m as a loss? 

P&S profit of £7.2m for 17/18 so for 18/19 he's removing the one-off profit on the stadium.

"Using 2018 P&S losses as a base point" should have said P&S profits.

[Ghost of Clough]

10 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Excuse my extreme thickness but why is the stadium profit being addedto the £7.2m as a loss? 

I should have said £7.2m profit. [Without the stadium sale it would have been a £32.8m loss]

[Carnero]

26 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

If the book values of Johnson, Butterfield and Blackman were still close to their original fees then it would make sense.

Well that would be very silly seeing as we're supposed to be making an assessment of their transfer value every 6 months!

[Carnero]

37 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I think the EFL brought up the 19/20 amortisation to query the policy, wondering why we had such big fluctuations in amortisation charges. 

How would they have known the amortisation charge for the year ended 30 June 2020 was £25m when the dialogue took place in April & May 2019?

[Sith Happens]

42 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

Think if you went through them all maybe 50/50 some good some rubbish. For every Martin , Bryson and Forsyth they were matched by Sammon ,Cywzka , Doyle etc 

All about opinions ?

Fans were chanting 'sign him up ' about cywka when he was on loan.  He was a free transfer and while he was unable to maintain his early form, the nil pounds we spent on a transfer fee was excellent value during the first half of the following season, he was superb.

Admitted in the long run it didn't work out, probably as much down to clough's appalling radio interview in which he publicly slammed him for losing the ball.

I'd say the scouting was spot on, it was the subsequent mis management of him that was wrong

 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 minute ago, Carnero said:

How would they have known the amortisation charge for the year ended 30 June 2020 was £25m when the dialogue took place in April & May 2019?

Good question. I can only assume it’s part of the forecasted figures which the EFL requested to see - a consequence of being close to the limit and under an embargo?
The EFL queried why the amortisation charges against 9 players differed in 18/19 and 19/20, when it usually remains the same for other clubs.

[G STAR RAM]

9 minutes ago, Carnero said:

How would they have known the amortisation charge for the year ended 30 June 2020 was £25m when the dialogue took place in April & May 2019?

Estimated figures for 19/20 will have been supplied to the EFL.

They would have used the 19/20 figures to try and prove we were not consistently applying the accounting policy.

[Will Hughes Hair]

The amortisation question referred to on p30 is a query from the EFL dated April 2019 around the PS1 submission for the 2018/19 season (i.e a forecast of the likely 2019 accounts - which have still not been submitted).

Why on earth would that submission contains details of a dynamically assessed amortisation 'plan' for a future season (2019/20) where we wouldn't even know (because of sales and purchases that were yet to happen) which players we might be dynamically amortising?

I'd be confident the 31.5m loss in the 2018/19 PS1 included the 25.1m amortisation cost.

[RamNut]

8 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Fans were chanting 'sign him up ' about cywka when he was on loan. 

I liked cywka.
Scored a great goal for Barnsley against us.