| Just revisiting the “Simms†debacle 10:23 - Jul 12 with 11265 views | TalkingBlues |
for a brief moment, to all those suggesting we couldn’t compete with Coventry cos they had just received £20 million (it wasn’t, that was a figure in €, so roughly £17 million) do you still think we can’t compete on the money front?
£47 million pumped in already by the Pension mob and plenty more available. |  |
| |  |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:09 - Jul 12 with 1685 views | jayessess |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 12:44 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
No. it's not revenue, but in League 1 (unless my understanding is incorrect) we could basically pump as much money into the club as we liked via share purchases and spend said money, regardless of who we sold, without impacting any kind of financial regulations in the league. Championship is different, but given our losses last year will now likely be reported as nil, or even showing a profit due to the £30 million share purchases, I assume that would allow any "loss allowances" accrued and unused to be put forward to the next couple of seasons (3 year rolling loss regs) thus allowing us to lose more money this year and next, thus greater spending power, even without player sales.
Man City are a perfect example of FFP failings, the Donald Trump of the football world, they've done what they liked for years, breached FFP 100's of times, without any meaningful punishment. |
- In League One you could increase your SCMP limit via new investment, not via loans. Not relevant in the Championship though, where SCMP doesn't apply.
- Investment isn't revenue means investment doesn't offset your losses for the purposes of FFP. Or any business really. If I buy a loss-making corner shop and put £50m in its business account it hasn't become a profit-making corner shop.
- The charges that Manchester City have faced over the years are about them (a) pretending that investment was revenue (b) keeping expenses off their books, to minimise their on paper losses. There would be no reason to do those things if they could just drop £1bn into the football club.
- And sure, we could just breach FFP and take our chances that the rules just won't be applied to us. But our accountants and lawyers would be much cheaper than City's. You could also ask Reading and Derby how great an idea that is. [Post edited 12 Jul 2023 14:11]
|  |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:14 - Jul 12 with 1638 views | BiGDonnie |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 12:44 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
No. it's not revenue, but in League 1 (unless my understanding is incorrect) we could basically pump as much money into the club as we liked via share purchases and spend said money, regardless of who we sold, without impacting any kind of financial regulations in the league. Championship is different, but given our losses last year will now likely be reported as nil, or even showing a profit due to the £30 million share purchases, I assume that would allow any "loss allowances" accrued and unused to be put forward to the next couple of seasons (3 year rolling loss regs) thus allowing us to lose more money this year and next, thus greater spending power, even without player sales.
Man City are a perfect example of FFP failings, the Donald Trump of the football world, they've done what they liked for years, breached FFP 100's of times, without any meaningful punishment. |
Times running out budgie, enjoy the trolling while it lasts. |  |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:15 - Jul 12 with 1650 views | Vegtablue |
I fear those rules may be hard for him to decipher and he evidently has jayessess and others on ignore, so, TB 
Now we are a Championship club, the £39m we are permitted to lose across three seasons will this year include 2021/22 and 2022/23. You may not feel this is fair (we were a L1 club under SCMP restrictions during this time after all) but we can't escape these rules and claim ignorance. You may have noticed we posted a loss over £12m for the 2021/22 accounts. Our spending in 2022/23 will have increased, as will our revenue. We should be confident our losses for this year are not significantly below £12m.
There is a difference between the losses published in our accounts and the permitted £39m loss, which is focused on 'profit and sustainability'. The Championship therefore permits us to deduct certain expenditure, but realistically the bulk of our losses count towards this £39m ceiling.
All money pumped in by ownership is important for one thing only, from a rules and regs perspective. It permits us to lose £13m in a season as opposed to £5m. Yes, there is a lower cap much below £39m for clubs with owners who don't cover their losses (£5m multiplied by 3 equals £15m). Crucially, however, this investment is not considered revenue. The £47m you speak of does nothing to reduce our losses when the calculations are done.
Putting it all together, we enter the 2023/24 season with a loss allowance likely in the region of £13-19m. Coventry, meanwhile, have sold one player for £15-20m. £100m left on the doorstep by Gamechanger 20 overnight would increase our spending ability by zero pounds. |  | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:29 - Jul 12 with 1611 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:15 - Jul 12 by Vegtablue |
I fear those rules may be hard for him to decipher and he evidently has jayessess and others on ignore, so, TB
Now we are a Championship club, the £39m we are permitted to lose across three seasons will this year include 2021/22 and 2022/23. You may not feel this is fair (we were a L1 club under SCMP restrictions during this time after all) but we can't escape these rules and claim ignorance. You may have noticed we posted a loss over £12m for the 2021/22 accounts. Our spending in 2022/23 will have increased, as will our revenue. We should be confident our losses for this year are not significantly below £12m.
There is a difference between the losses published in our accounts and the permitted £39m loss, which is focused on 'profit and sustainability'. The Championship therefore permits us to deduct certain expenditure, but realistically the bulk of our losses count towards this £39m ceiling.
All money pumped in by ownership is important for one thing only, from a rules and regs perspective. It permits us to lose £13m in a season as opposed to £5m. Yes, there is a lower cap much below £39m for clubs with owners who don't cover their losses (£5m multiplied by 3 equals £15m). Crucially, however, this investment is not considered revenue. The £47m you speak of does nothing to reduce our losses when the calculations are done.
Putting it all together, we enter the 2023/24 season with a loss allowance likely in the region of £13-19m. Coventry, meanwhile, have sold one player for £15-20m. £100m left on the doorstep by Gamechanger 20 overnight would increase our spending ability by zero pounds. |
Thanks for the reply, I'm not 100% that it works as you describe though, eg we will not have a £13 million loss allowance for the last 2 seasons, as that allowance is only for clubs that were in the Championship, I'm uncertain how they will calculate our League 1 seasons, as they were completely different regs.
In terms of the losses not being significantly below £12 million, I have no idea what numbers we will present in our accounts, but from an FFP perspective, any money spent on ground/facilities/academy/training centre etc doesn't count towards the losses, so it's very conceivable that our losses are dramatically less than you have perceived as we will be writing £multi millions against the significant work we have carried out in all those areas.
Looks like we just won't know until the clubs next accounts are available to view, alongside any comment on FFP stuff, but there is definitely a plan behind the £30 Million pumped in. | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:46 - Jul 12 with 1574 views | Vegtablue |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:29 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
Thanks for the reply, I'm not 100% that it works as you describe though, eg we will not have a £13 million loss allowance for the last 2 seasons, as that allowance is only for clubs that were in the Championship, I'm uncertain how they will calculate our League 1 seasons, as they were completely different regs.
In terms of the losses not being significantly below £12 million, I have no idea what numbers we will present in our accounts, but from an FFP perspective, any money spent on ground/facilities/academy/training centre etc doesn't count towards the losses, so it's very conceivable that our losses are dramatically less than you have perceived as we will be writing £multi millions against the significant work we have carried out in all those areas.
Looks like we just won't know until the clubs next accounts are available to view, alongside any comment on FFP stuff, but there is definitely a plan behind the £30 Million pumped in. |
No, you are wrong. The £39m loss allowance for 2023/24 will cover the 2021/22, 22/23 and 23/24 seasons. Our previous two L1 seasons are retrospectively judged according to Championship FFP criteria. The same applies to Leicester and co. The only difference there is the EFL permits you to report a P&S loss of £35m in a Premier League season, in line with PL rules. You will ignore this again, but you are wrong.
The accounts publish in detail our areas of spending and revenue. It's itemized and the 2021/22 accounts are available to pore over. We are loosely using adverbs to distort the picture when the 2021/22 accounts show deductions will not come close to 50% of the £12.6m figure. The money pumped in is not revenue that can be used to offset losses. Do you understand this? [Post edited 12 Jul 2023 13:50]
| | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:55 - Jul 12 with 1553 views | jayessess |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:29 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
Thanks for the reply, I'm not 100% that it works as you describe though, eg we will not have a £13 million loss allowance for the last 2 seasons, as that allowance is only for clubs that were in the Championship, I'm uncertain how they will calculate our League 1 seasons, as they were completely different regs.
In terms of the losses not being significantly below £12 million, I have no idea what numbers we will present in our accounts, but from an FFP perspective, any money spent on ground/facilities/academy/training centre etc doesn't count towards the losses, so it's very conceivable that our losses are dramatically less than you have perceived as we will be writing £multi millions against the significant work we have carried out in all those areas.
Looks like we just won't know until the clubs next accounts are available to view, alongside any comment on FFP stuff, but there is definitely a plan behind the £30 Million pumped in. |
"The plan" is nothing more complicated than the club covering the losses we've already incurred and will continue to incur, even as we comply with FFP. | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:57 - Jul 12 with 1551 views | Horsham |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:46 - Jul 12 by Vegtablue |
No, you are wrong. The £39m loss allowance for 2023/24 will cover the 2021/22, 22/23 and 23/24 seasons. Our previous two L1 seasons are retrospectively judged according to Championship FFP criteria. The same applies to Leicester and co. The only difference there is the EFL permits you to report a P&S loss of £35m in a Premier League season, in line with PL rules. You will ignore this again, but you are wrong.
The accounts publish in detail our areas of spending and revenue. It's itemized and the 2021/22 accounts are available to pore over. We are loosely using adverbs to distort the picture when the 2021/22 accounts show deductions will not come close to 50% of the £12.6m figure. The money pumped in is not revenue that can be used to offset losses. Do you understand this? [Post edited 12 Jul 2023 13:50]
|
My understanding too.
Related to FFP, my understanding is a transfer fee is amortised against the length of the player’s contract. So if say we sign a player for £10m and give him a 5 year deal it will show as a £2m cost annually. Say we overspend and find ourselves in a position where we need to sell one or two and a club offers us £1m for the same player in 2 years time then we’ll have to show a loss of £5m as the player’s residual value would be £6m. In that instance if we’re tight up against the £39m FFP limit presumably selling this player can actually make our FFP worse?
Anyway not sure if that’s clearly asked, just a question that popped into my head! |  | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:00 - Jul 12 with 1543 views | Wakh |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 10:45 - Jul 12 by Keno |
It could be, but thats an extra £50 |
Even Mars bars have add ons. Although, undisclosed sounds way cooler than 50 quid | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:08 - Jul 12 with 1513 views | jayessess |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:57 - Jul 12 by Horsham |
My understanding too.
Related to FFP, my understanding is a transfer fee is amortised against the length of the player’s contract. So if say we sign a player for £10m and give him a 5 year deal it will show as a £2m cost annually. Say we overspend and find ourselves in a position where we need to sell one or two and a club offers us £1m for the same player in 2 years time then we’ll have to show a loss of £5m as the player’s residual value would be £6m. In that instance if we’re tight up against the £39m FFP limit presumably selling this player can actually make our FFP worse?
Anyway not sure if that’s clearly asked, just a question that popped into my head! |
That's my understanding of it. It can also work the other way (i.e. selling for £5m in the 5th year of the contract would technically be a £3m profit, not a £5m loss).
Of course, you'd be down to lose £2m for amortisation in those 3 seasons anyway, so ultimately it'd only be a question if you were really up to the wire in that 1 season, otherwise it'd all even itself out. | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:08 - Jul 12 with 1511 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:50 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
Ohhhhhhhhhh, yes it iiiiiiiiis |
This thread's a debacle. |  |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:10 - Jul 12 with 1488 views | Keno |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:00 - Jul 12 by Wakh |
Even Mars bars have add ons. Although, undisclosed sounds way cooler than 50 quid |
actually I like a mars bar thats been kept cooler in the fridge |  |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:14 - Jul 12 with 1483 views | Horsham |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:08 - Jul 12 by jayessess |
That's my understanding of it. It can also work the other way (i.e. selling for £5m in the 5th year of the contract would technically be a £3m profit, not a £5m loss).
Of course, you'd be down to lose £2m for amortisation in those 3 seasons anyway, so ultimately it'd only be a question if you were really up to the wire in that 1 season, otherwise it'd all even itself out. |
Yeah it just seems a bit counterintuitive if you’re in a position where you really need to sell that potentially you could be penalised for doing so. There might be some provision in the rules for this I guess. | | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:15 - Jul 12 with 1478 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:46 - Jul 12 by Vegtablue |
No, you are wrong. The £39m loss allowance for 2023/24 will cover the 2021/22, 22/23 and 23/24 seasons. Our previous two L1 seasons are retrospectively judged according to Championship FFP criteria. The same applies to Leicester and co. The only difference there is the EFL permits you to report a P&S loss of £35m in a Premier League season, in line with PL rules. You will ignore this again, but you are wrong.
The accounts publish in detail our areas of spending and revenue. It's itemized and the 2021/22 accounts are available to pore over. We are loosely using adverbs to distort the picture when the 2021/22 accounts show deductions will not come close to 50% of the £12.6m figure. The money pumped in is not revenue that can be used to offset losses. Do you understand this? [Post edited 12 Jul 2023 13:50]
|
Hmmmmm, seems very odd that they would apply a new set of regulation criteria, retrospectively, to a club that was previously under a completely different set of regulations in a different division. No idea, if you are right, or wrong, but if right, this seems a very peculiar way to deal with the situation and one that could actually show a club to be in breach of regs, despite the fact it was in compliance with the rules governing it at the time????
Teams relegated from the Prem would surely have 2 seasons of Prem allowances and the third based on their EFL season following relegation, no? 35+35+13? If promoted, 2 seasons at 13 and the new one at 35? That would appear the obvious path, as it accurately reflects the league they have played in/are playing in now. Once again, it would be odd to do it differently.
No good to keep saying "you will ignore this again, you are wrong" the whole point here is debate, to reach understanding, what you are saying is not a given to me, I don't know the intricacies and I'm unclear if what you are saying is reliable, especially when it appears to be counter intuitive, but it is the EFL/FA we are talking about.
I am not referring to previous years accounts that are published and available to see, but our future accounts covering all the money we've spent on pitch/training centre/land acquisition will be the critical elements to understanding how we've accounted for works and what P&L we show on the books. What I am referring to in regards to the losses being reduced, is for the sake of FFP (what we are discussing) not the clubs finances in general, as I said previously, a number of large expenditures we've made won't count towards losses for FFP.
Do you understand that? | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:19 - Jul 12 with 1458 views | Metal_Hacker |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 12:17 - Jul 12 by Keno |
do you think he wears a woolly hat and just stands quietly in the background with a vacant expression on his face? |
It’s sometimes beyond belief. We all say stupid things at times on here but then some people seem to try and make a living from it |  |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:21 - Jul 12 with 1434 views | Keno |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:19 - Jul 12 by Metal_Hacker |
It’s sometimes beyond belief. We all say stupid things at times on here but then some people seem to try and make a living from it |
I think just 'for fun' Gav should change the OP's username to "Debacle Blue" | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:27 - Jul 12 with 1429 views | Horsham |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:15 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
Hmmmmm, seems very odd that they would apply a new set of regulation criteria, retrospectively, to a club that was previously under a completely different set of regulations in a different division. No idea, if you are right, or wrong, but if right, this seems a very peculiar way to deal with the situation and one that could actually show a club to be in breach of regs, despite the fact it was in compliance with the rules governing it at the time????
Teams relegated from the Prem would surely have 2 seasons of Prem allowances and the third based on their EFL season following relegation, no? 35+35+13? If promoted, 2 seasons at 13 and the new one at 35? That would appear the obvious path, as it accurately reflects the league they have played in/are playing in now. Once again, it would be odd to do it differently.
No good to keep saying "you will ignore this again, you are wrong" the whole point here is debate, to reach understanding, what you are saying is not a given to me, I don't know the intricacies and I'm unclear if what you are saying is reliable, especially when it appears to be counter intuitive, but it is the EFL/FA we are talking about.
I am not referring to previous years accounts that are published and available to see, but our future accounts covering all the money we've spent on pitch/training centre/land acquisition will be the critical elements to understanding how we've accounted for works and what P&L we show on the books. What I am referring to in regards to the losses being reduced, is for the sake of FFP (what we are discussing) not the clubs finances in general, as I said previously, a number of large expenditures we've made won't count towards losses for FFP.
Do you understand that? |
The retrospective criteria for promoted teams is in the rules, so odd or not it is true. You could if you like look this up for yourself. | | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:28 - Jul 12 with 1428 views | jayessess |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:15 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
Hmmmmm, seems very odd that they would apply a new set of regulation criteria, retrospectively, to a club that was previously under a completely different set of regulations in a different division. No idea, if you are right, or wrong, but if right, this seems a very peculiar way to deal with the situation and one that could actually show a club to be in breach of regs, despite the fact it was in compliance with the rules governing it at the time????
Teams relegated from the Prem would surely have 2 seasons of Prem allowances and the third based on their EFL season following relegation, no? 35+35+13? If promoted, 2 seasons at 13 and the new one at 35? That would appear the obvious path, as it accurately reflects the league they have played in/are playing in now. Once again, it would be odd to do it differently.
No good to keep saying "you will ignore this again, you are wrong" the whole point here is debate, to reach understanding, what you are saying is not a given to me, I don't know the intricacies and I'm unclear if what you are saying is reliable, especially when it appears to be counter intuitive, but it is the EFL/FA we are talking about.
I am not referring to previous years accounts that are published and available to see, but our future accounts covering all the money we've spent on pitch/training centre/land acquisition will be the critical elements to understanding how we've accounted for works and what P&L we show on the books. What I am referring to in regards to the losses being reduced, is for the sake of FFP (what we are discussing) not the clubs finances in general, as I said previously, a number of large expenditures we've made won't count towards losses for FFP.
Do you understand that? |
The "Loss Threshold" is the same for all three EFL divisions. See Rule 3 on the EFL website: https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appe
The SCMP regulations are in addition to the FFP regulations. Our permitted loss threshold for this season will be £39m minus the losses we incurred in 2021-22 and 2022-23 (less the money we spent on infrastructure spending).
Relegated teams do indeed calculate their threshold according to PL regulations for their PL seasons, as you've outlined. | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:28 - Jul 12 with 1427 views | Vegtablue |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 13:57 - Jul 12 by Horsham |
My understanding too.
Related to FFP, my understanding is a transfer fee is amortised against the length of the player’s contract. So if say we sign a player for £10m and give him a 5 year deal it will show as a £2m cost annually. Say we overspend and find ourselves in a position where we need to sell one or two and a club offers us £1m for the same player in 2 years time then we’ll have to show a loss of £5m as the player’s residual value would be £6m. In that instance if we’re tight up against the £39m FFP limit presumably selling this player can actually make our FFP worse?
Anyway not sure if that’s clearly asked, just a question that popped into my head! |
Good question Horsham. My belief was that transfer fees are only amortized how you describe if the selling club agrees to instalments in this fashion, but I haven't studied the rules for this understanding - our Bristol City fan will set us straight on this if he reads these posts. If clubs apply amortization in this alternative sense, akin to depreciation, then what you describe would be a consideration certainly. Much happier to accept your and jayessess' interpretation rather than wade back into the rules truth be told 😅 | | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:38 - Jul 12 with 1399 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:28 - Jul 12 by jayessess |
The "Loss Threshold" is the same for all three EFL divisions. See Rule 3 on the EFL website: https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appe
The SCMP regulations are in addition to the FFP regulations. Our permitted loss threshold for this season will be £39m minus the losses we incurred in 2021-22 and 2022-23 (less the money we spent on infrastructure spending).
Relegated teams do indeed calculate their threshold according to PL regulations for their PL seasons, as you've outlined. |
Cheers; that’s helped clarify the SMCP thing for me, I’ve always thought of that as effectively the replacement of FFP for league 1 and 2, rather than it being additional measures on top; which in turn answers the £39 million allowance scenario that Veg was referring to 🤪
Jeeeeeeesus there’s a boat of load of detail amongst all this and we are just scratching the surface, football really can’t be compared to any other business, just mad. | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:49 - Jul 12 with 1368 views | Horsham |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:28 - Jul 12 by Vegtablue |
Good question Horsham. My belief was that transfer fees are only amortized how you describe if the selling club agrees to instalments in this fashion, but I haven't studied the rules for this understanding - our Bristol City fan will set us straight on this if he reads these posts. If clubs apply amortization in this alternative sense, akin to depreciation, then what you describe would be a consideration certainly. Much happier to accept your and jayessess' interpretation rather than wade back into the rules truth be told 😅 |
I’m sure our friendly robin will pop past when we announce Hirst to tell us that it’s the end of the world for us financially! | | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:59 - Jul 12 with 1347 views | JakeITFC |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:14 - Jul 12 by Horsham |
Yeah it just seems a bit counterintuitive if you’re in a position where you really need to sell that potentially you could be penalised for doing so. There might be some provision in the rules for this I guess. |
As I understand it, I think that you lose the asset off your books though, so future amortisation isn’t relevant in the accounting years going forward (as cash flow is independent of this it’s basically just a paper exercise). Why you see some weird player exchanges in the elite clubs transfer strategy sometimes (Barca and Juve especially seem to fall victim of needing to do clever accounting tricks with their expensive players). |  | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 15:02 - Jul 12 with 1338 views | jayessess |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:59 - Jul 12 by JakeITFC |
As I understand it, I think that you lose the asset off your books though, so future amortisation isn’t relevant in the accounting years going forward (as cash flow is independent of this it’s basically just a paper exercise). Why you see some weird player exchanges in the elite clubs transfer strategy sometimes (Barca and Juve especially seem to fall victim of needing to do clever accounting tricks with their expensive players). |
Juve got punished for doing this, I believe? | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 15:04 - Jul 12 with 1329 views | Vegtablue |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 14:15 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
Hmmmmm, seems very odd that they would apply a new set of regulation criteria, retrospectively, to a club that was previously under a completely different set of regulations in a different division. No idea, if you are right, or wrong, but if right, this seems a very peculiar way to deal with the situation and one that could actually show a club to be in breach of regs, despite the fact it was in compliance with the rules governing it at the time????
Teams relegated from the Prem would surely have 2 seasons of Prem allowances and the third based on their EFL season following relegation, no? 35+35+13? If promoted, 2 seasons at 13 and the new one at 35? That would appear the obvious path, as it accurately reflects the league they have played in/are playing in now. Once again, it would be odd to do it differently.
No good to keep saying "you will ignore this again, you are wrong" the whole point here is debate, to reach understanding, what you are saying is not a given to me, I don't know the intricacies and I'm unclear if what you are saying is reliable, especially when it appears to be counter intuitive, but it is the EFL/FA we are talking about.
I am not referring to previous years accounts that are published and available to see, but our future accounts covering all the money we've spent on pitch/training centre/land acquisition will be the critical elements to understanding how we've accounted for works and what P&L we show on the books. What I am referring to in regards to the losses being reduced, is for the sake of FFP (what we are discussing) not the clubs finances in general, as I said previously, a number of large expenditures we've made won't count towards losses for FFP.
Do you understand that? |
Your first three paragraphs are a waste of your time. Your prolonged ignorance to and misapplication of FFP rules is not debate and posters have kindly attempted to educate you on numerous occasions. Why you've continually peddled misinformation when you now openly admit to having no idea is bizarre but consistent with your posting history. You correctly repeat the FFP limits for newly relegated clubs, as an aside. That is progress.
You also missed out "but" in your quote, which I deliberately included for sentence structure. You will ignore this again, but you are wrong.
I understand your conjecture in paragraph 4. What you perhaps overlook is that our 2021/22 accounts are useful in predicting some of our 2022/23 expenses, which cannot be removed in P&S calculations. Wages, for example. The proof will be in the pudding here and I'm hopeful we have much more leeway, but 2021/22 provides half the picture and our footballing expenses (putting infrastructure to one side) will have increased in 2022/23. Revenue also will have, hopefully by a lot.
At least you've parked the mention of ownership investment in this reply. Is that because you now understand Gamechanger investments are immaterial beyond allowing us to operate inside £39m losses? You understand that they don't increase our budget whatsoever beyond this fixed limit? Progress.
I hold up my hands to being rude in our robust exchange today. [Post edited 12 Jul 2023 15:35]
| | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 15:18 - Jul 12 with 1261 views | Horsham |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 15:02 - Jul 12 by jayessess |
Juve got punished for doing this, I believe? |
Not sure it was that exactly, more a general understatement of costs and over statement of transfer fees received in the books to stop the share price dropping more than it cough had to. | | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 15:18 - Jul 12 with 1255 views | itfcsuth |
There is a huge difference between not wanting to pay price, and not being able to pay a price - we were very much the former.
I still can’t believe the figure Coventry paid, I nearly choked on my coffee when we were reported to be at around £3M-£4M. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
