Ghost of Clough Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 1 hour ago, SamUltraRam said: That link to what it costs Middlesbrough to run their club was rather frightening https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/money-go-hidden-costs-running-15860716 The costs didn't look that outrageous - it was £9m per year to run the stadium & staff plus £6m for the training facilities/academy & that didn't include paying the players If we are in League One based on those numbers we won't be playing in next season without a new owner even if the players play for nothing £15m to run their stadium and training facility... more than their turnover ? As things stand, we go into next season owning Bielik, Bird, Knight and Sibley. All four will be gone if relegated, whether that's because we need the money or simply because they're too good for that league. Rooney potentially leaving would bring in some compensation too. That'll more than cover any potential shortfall. Relegation will cost us up to £10m in revenue: TV (PL funds) - £8.1m (17/18) vs £2.5m Match receipts - £9.1m (17/18) vs £7.5m Sponsorship - £5.0m (17/18) vs £3m Other - £7.4m (17/18) In League 1, our operating costs will continue to be cut, but still retain Cat 1 status. None wage costs in 17/18 were about £22m. Of which, about £10m was for the academy and stadium. My initial guess is a £6m loss in L1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 1 hour ago, IslandExile said: Errrrrr....... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60847179 What????!!!! It doesn't break EFL rules so they are basically fine with clubs overspending providing they have rich enough owners to keep putting in the dosh. So much for a commitment to sustainability! jono 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alty_Ram Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 2 minutes ago, angieram said: It doesn't break EFL rules so they are basically fine with clubs overspending providing they have rich enough owners to keep putting in the dosh. So much for a commitment to sustainability! Well quite. I thought the whole purpose was to stop clubs over-committing financially as the benefactor model = bad and unsustainable in their eyes. I suppose that the only bright side is that if we get an owner with a bit of budget to try and help along the rebuild of our woefully understrength squad then there is no reason that they can't do that as long as it isn't run up as debt per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtoileSportiveDeDerby Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 12 minutes ago, angieram said: It doesn't break EFL rules so they are basically fine with clubs overspending providing they have rich enough owners to keep putting in the dosh. So much for a commitment to sustainability! I know jack about accounting but this seems as dodgy as what MM was up to. May be he needed a better accountant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rammeister Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 30 minutes ago, Rev said: Well, at least I now know of 3 people who've got me on ignore. 4. Rev, RAM1966, IslandExile and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 1 hour ago, atherstoneram said: If we were still in administration why would the EFL loosen the strings, nothing has changed. They will be more concerned that we can prove financially we can complete next season. If the administrators can't prove that then we will be expelled from the league. What is actually barmy is the EFL stopping us from renewing contracts of the younger players because if we did extend all of them and we went bust then the EFL gets to sell those same players which raises lots of money instead there is no one hardly to sell. i-Ram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 34 minutes ago, angieram said: It doesn't break EFL rules so they are basically fine with clubs overspending providing they have rich enough owners to keep putting in the dosh. So much for a commitment to sustainability! I don't get it. I'm not as close to some as to the EFL's FFP rules. But how can a club with so much debt just be allowed to write it off? If that's fine under FFP, then surely all clubs with wealthy owners will be doing it? Why go to elaborate means of selling stadiums to yourself? IslandExile 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 https://au.indeed.com/career-advice/resumes-cover-letters/how-to-write-an-expression-of-interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IslandExile Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 45 minutes ago, angieram said: It doesn't break EFL rules so they are basically fine with clubs overspending providing they have rich enough owners to keep putting in the dosh. So much for a commitment to sustainability! It's just wrong. In fact it's nuts. It's as though the FFP measures were just thrown together with very little thought about the consequences and repercussions. EFL not fit for purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 10 minutes ago, Big Bad Bob said: I don't get it. I'm not as close to some as to the EFL's FFP rules. But how can a club with so much debt just be allowed to write it off? If that's fine under FFP, then surely all clubs with wealthy owners will be doing it? Why go to elaborate means of selling stadiums to yourself? Writing off debt is a good thing from football perspective. This doesn't count towards P&S, with the exception of accounting for the maximum allowance per season (£39m over 3 years for most clubs, more for seasons in PL). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nogbad van 50 Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said: £15m to run their stadium and training facility... more than their turnover ? As things stand, we go into next season owning Bielik, Bird, Knight and Sibley. All four will be gone if relegated, whether that's because we need the money or simply because they're too good for that league. Rooney potentially leaving would bring in some compensation too. That'll more than cover any potential shortfall. Relegation will cost us up to £10m in revenue: TV (PL funds) - £8.1m (17/18) vs £2.5m Match receipts - £9.1m (17/18) vs £7.5m Sponsorship - £5.0m (17/18) vs £3m Other - £7.4m (17/18) In League 1, our operating costs will continue to be cut, but still retain Cat 1 status. None wage costs in 17/18 were about £22m. Of which, about £10m was for the academy and stadium. My initial guess is a £6m loss in L1. Don’t we still owe Arsenal £8m for Bielik? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 18 minutes ago, Big Bad Bob said: I don't get it. I'm not as close to some as to the EFL's FFP rules. But how can a club with so much debt just be allowed to write it off? If that's fine under FFP, then surely all clubs with wealthy owners will be doing it? Why go to elaborate means of selling stadiums to yourself? As I understand it, FFP is all about profit and loss not assets and liabilities. So, you could have a massive debt but, provided you are able to service it, it's OK for FFP/P&S. Even better for FFP/P&S if the lender just writes it off. With regard to selling the stadium to yourself, I guess the big difference between us and Stoke is that either their owners are far wealthier or far more generous that Mel. By buying the stadium owners still retain some kind of asset rather than just writing off a loan but, hasn't that loophole now been closed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 1 hour ago, Rev said: Well, at least I now know of 3 people who've got me on ignore. I would be amazed if 3 people had you on ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 14 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: As I understand it, FFP is all about profit and loss not assets and liabilities. So, you could have a massive debt but, provided you are able to service it, it's OK for FFP/P&S. Even better for FFP/P&S if the lender just writes it off. With regard to selling the stadium to yourself, I guess the big difference between us and Stoke is that either their owners are far wealthier or far more generous that Mel. By buying the stadium owners still retain some kind of asset rather than just writing off a loan but, hasn't that loophole now been closed? Yes, Stoke did it just a few weeks before the change. The woman who owns Bet365 is way, way wealthier than Mel. She's probably making money faster than she can spend it. Mel was a comparative pauper. Tamworthram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B4ev6is Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 16 minutes ago, nogbad van 50 said: Don’t we still owe Arsenal £8m for Bielik? Appently some of it been paid off but how much I dont know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1977 Ram Raider Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 34 minutes ago, IslandExile said: It's just wrong. In fact it's nuts. It's as though the FFP measures were just thrown together with very little thought about the consequences and repercussions. EFL not fit for purpose. EFL certainly not FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 19 minutes ago, nogbad van 50 said: Don’t we still owe Arsenal £8m for Bielik? Are we paying in instalments of 50p? jimtastic56 and nogbad van 50 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elwood P Dowd Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 1 hour ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said: I know jack about accounting but this seems as dodgy as what MM was up to. May be he needed a better accountant. No its fine Example Suppose you owe me £10,000 but you have no cash so we arrange that I have a £10,000 share in the value of your house. EtoileSportiveDeDerby 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Ram Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 10 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said: No its fine Example Suppose you owe me £10,000 but you have no cash so we arrange that I have a £10,000 share in the value of your house. How does that work if you owe £1m and the house is only worth £100k? RAM1966 and jono 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 31 minutes ago, nogbad van 50 said: Don’t we still owe Arsenal £8m for Bielik? No. What we owe someone doesn't detract from us owning his registration, the same way you own your home even with a mortgage. On the day we entered administration, we had £8.4m still to pay for the transfers of Bielik AND Jozwiak. At least £2.5m of this was Jozwiak, about £2m has apparently paid off for Bielik already, and some of the remaining £3.9m may actually be for performance related add-ons such as appearances or promotion. richinspain and nogbad van 50 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now