| Just revisiting the “Simms†debacle 10:23 - Jul 12 with 10525 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 15:22 - Jul 12 with 622 views | LankHenners |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 15:02 - Jul 12 by jayessess |
Juve got punished for doing this, I believe? |
Yeah, can't recall the specific details but sure it was to do with them overvaluing the players they were swapping out so the difference between what they still had to pay for the player and what they were 'sold' for was much larger than whatever the Italian organisation that monitors and audits such things thought they should be.
Because the club can effectively put the money they received for the outgoing player straight into the books and the money for the incoming player is amortised they can suddenly make their finances look a bit more healthy. Perfectly legal as long as your valuations of players are accurate, which Juve's were deemed not to be.
Think they got caught out when it was discovered that they'd done dozens of these swap deals with youth players no-one had heard of for several million euros. |  |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 17:30 - Jul 12 with 540 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 15:04 - Jul 12 by Vegtablue |
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]
|
I had written a lengthy reply, but it vanished before sending 🤷â€â™‚ï¸
Summary:
I haven’t peddled misinformation, I’ve been trying to engage debate and generate some concrete detail on what exactly the FFP means for the club and extend my personal knowledge of it, during the process, I have alluded to my understanding of it, but not claimed to be certain of any of it, just what I thought it meant for us.
Accounts from 2021/2022 will only likely be useful for static costs, the amount of change over the last year has been so great, that the accounts will likely look completely at odds with recent years.
Gamechanger are quite the opposite of irrelevant, without them, we are completely reliant on the revenue generated from player/merchandise/ticket sales and we’d never had been able to upgrade anything off the pitch and likely not on it either. I get what you are saying that the help is confined to £39 million for FFP purposes, but we’d be knackered without the money.
You have been abrupt, but don’t worry, I have thick skin.
Lastly, thanks for taking the time to post and contribute, the thread has greatly increased my understanding of the FFP stuff, though I imagine there’s lots more to know! [Post edited 12 Jul 2023 17:37]
| |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 17:36 - Jul 12 with 532 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 15:18 - Jul 12 by 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. |
Sellers market at the moment isn’t it? Really weird at the moment, outside the Prem, there just doesn’t appear to be much buzz around signings (a couple of clubs aside) the market appears very quiet, or “dry” as Ashton would say. | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 19:17 - Jul 12 with 457 views | Vegtablue |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 17:30 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
I had written a lengthy reply, but it vanished before sending 🤷â€â™‚ï¸
Summary:
I haven’t peddled misinformation, I’ve been trying to engage debate and generate some concrete detail on what exactly the FFP means for the club and extend my personal knowledge of it, during the process, I have alluded to my understanding of it, but not claimed to be certain of any of it, just what I thought it meant for us.
Accounts from 2021/2022 will only likely be useful for static costs, the amount of change over the last year has been so great, that the accounts will likely look completely at odds with recent years.
Gamechanger are quite the opposite of irrelevant, without them, we are completely reliant on the revenue generated from player/merchandise/ticket sales and we’d never had been able to upgrade anything off the pitch and likely not on it either. I get what you are saying that the help is confined to £39 million for FFP purposes, but we’d be knackered without the money.
You have been abrupt, but don’t worry, I have thick skin.
Lastly, thanks for taking the time to post and contribute, the thread has greatly increased my understanding of the FFP stuff, though I imagine there’s lots more to know! [Post edited 12 Jul 2023 17:37]
|
Oh it's the worst when that happens!
I was rude because I know you take it with such gusto TB, but felt it right to call myself out anyway. Rudeness begets rudeness after all.
Highlighting Gamechanger's importance rather naughtily implies I've downplayed it 😂 my intention has only been to emphasize the boundaries inside which they must work and the irrelevance of wealth beyond these boundaries 'on the field'. We'll soon have the opportunity to appreciate their funding outside P&S calculations further when the season restarts!
And this circles around nicely to the Simms catastrophe doesn't it? It's something I think most of us are in agreement on. Business today is more likely to be constrained by cost caps than funding problems. Our cost cap this season is unavailable to us given incomplete info, but the importance of 'value buys' increases when funding is finite. How thickly the pie is sliced will also depend on how many additions the club feel they need in order to be most competitive. Overspending on any player will hamper further seasons. If we max out our spending this summer on poor value buys and remain in the Championship, 2024/25 will see us needing to not exceed the loss figure we posted in 2021/22. We would need to wait until the 2026/27* season before we could spend similarly on players again, at least without cultivating high-value saleable assets from the L1 crop.
*It is likely FFP will receive a shake-up before then and we will need to relearn everything. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
