| Hull 11:00 - Feb 2 with 3095 views | Herbivore |
How are they not going to fall foul of FFP? They've gone pretty big in both the summer and January windows, they are bottom half for average attendances and they don't have parachute payments. Unless there is some highly creative accounting going on, I can't see how they are going to get within the permitted losses. |  |
| |  |
| Hull on 11:02 - Feb 2 with 3055 views | Kieran_Knows |
I'm not sure if this helps them or not, but they sold Keane Lewis-Potter to Brentford back in 2022 for £20m+, IIRC. |  |
| |
| Hull on 11:05 - Feb 2 with 3006 views | itfcjoe |
| Hull on 11:02 - Feb 2 by Kieran_Knows |
I'm not sure if this helps them or not, but they sold Keane Lewis-Potter to Brentford back in 2022 for £20m+, IIRC. |
That will help them this year and next, but they’ve spunked that money away on loan fees and if they don’t go up soon they’ll be screwed |  |
| |
| Hull on 11:06 - Feb 2 with 2984 views | positivity |
they sold josh emmanuel to grimsby. maybe the fee was more than you might expect!
does look like a risky move for a very competitive play-off fight |  |
| |
| Hull on 11:10 - Feb 2 with 2931 views | Nutkins_Return |
If you listen to Sunderland fans is we don't go up we'll be liquidated!! We've checked so much money at it.
I literally don't understand some of their fans. Every club has it's clueless fans but they seem to have a high proportion.
I think it is simple for Hull. They have spent but have some really sellable assets so can manage it up and down. They spent what £5mil on Philogene. I think he'd be double that now at least even with the injury he got. Bit like Morgan Rogers for Boro (Sold him for 16x what paid in 6 months). | | | |
| Hull on 11:20 - Feb 2 with 2824 views | Basuco |
Length of contract helps as well, Chelsea gave five year contracts to spread the impact of the fee on FFP. I think UEFA have now closed the extended contract loop hole to stop clubs giving long contracts to comply with FFP. |  | | |
| Hull on 11:30 - Feb 2 with 2710 views | Herbivore |
| Hull on 11:02 - Feb 2 by Kieran_Knows |
I'm not sure if this helps them or not, but they sold Keane Lewis-Potter to Brentford back in 2022 for £20m+, IIRC. |
Yeah but they reinvested a decent-ish chunk of it last season and have wiped out the surplus on transfer fees alone this season, that's before looking at some of their more expensive loan signings and what must be a top 8 wage bill (at least). They could easily not make the play offs and they'll have to sell in the summer I imagine to have any chance of getting within FFP rules. | |
| |
| Hull on 11:42 - Feb 2 with 2549 views | Daninthecampo |
| Hull on 11:20 - Feb 2 by Basuco |
Length of contract helps as well, Chelsea gave five year contracts to spread the impact of the fee on FFP. I think UEFA have now closed the extended contract loop hole to stop clubs giving long contracts to comply with FFP. |
Chelsea were giving 8 year contracts, now been limited to 5 | | | |
| Hull on 11:44 - Feb 2 with 2519 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Hull on 11:05 - Feb 2 by itfcjoe |
That will help them this year and next, but they’ve spunked that money away on loan fees and if they don’t go up soon they’ll be screwed |
Imagine they've probably had a few Bowen add-ons over the last couple of seasons too. But yeah, they must be sailing very close to the wind! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hull on 11:50 - Feb 2 with 2465 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Hull on 11:30 - Feb 2 by Herbivore |
Yeah but they reinvested a decent-ish chunk of it last season and have wiped out the surplus on transfer fees alone this season, that's before looking at some of their more expensive loan signings and what must be a top 8 wage bill (at least). They could easily not make the play offs and they'll have to sell in the summer I imagine to have any chance of getting within FFP rules. |
Remember incomings are spread over the length of contract though for accounting purposes. So their circa £20m of incomings over say 3 year average contract length is more like £6.5m per financial year. Loan fees will instantly hit the P&L though. They must be very, very close. Greaves and Philogene are the two they could perhaps get decent money for in the summer if they don't go up. | | | |
| Hull on 12:02 - Feb 2 with 2367 views | itfcsuth |
Reading up their finances last night, I think they need a promotion in the next 3 years (inc. this season). |  | | |
| Hull on 12:34 - Feb 2 with 2175 views | Herbivore |
| Hull on 11:50 - Feb 2 by tractorboy1978 |
Remember incomings are spread over the length of contract though for accounting purposes. So their circa £20m of incomings over say 3 year average contract length is more like £6.5m per financial year. Loan fees will instantly hit the P&L though. They must be very, very close. Greaves and Philogene are the two they could perhaps get decent money for in the summer if they don't go up. |
I doubt they're even close, I expect they'd be a fair bit over. Their income can't be huge and the players they've signed, permanently and on loan, aren't going to be on small contracts. | |
| |
| Hull on 14:25 - Feb 2 with 1819 views | Vegtablue |
They recorded a £13.9M profit in 21/22, due to the write-down of a £20M loan from the previous ownership. My understanding is this is excluded from P&S calculations. Without it they would have lost £6.1M, which likely includes some deductible costs.
Lewis-Potters' sale in 22/23 may well have funded all of their 22/23 outlay on fees and wage rises. Their net spend on transfers looks roughly even across the last few seasons, and L-P was importantly an academy sale, while arrivals' transfer fees will be amortised.
It's doubtful they lost £13M in 22/23. They could have lost less than the £6M they lost in 21/22, given they recorded a profit of roughly £7M in transfer sales. I'm sure their wage bill increased significantly and then there's loan fees to consider, so another £6M loss is perhaps safer territory (likely less though with amortisation).
Providing the EFL continues with its three-year assessment period, it isn't clear they will punish clubs for one rogue season. Hull may be in a position to lose £27M in 23/24 without exceeding £39M losses between June 2021 - June 2024. It would be highly problematic if medium/long-term wages accounted for much of any spending/loss increase, and spending the full sum would significantly restrict future investment in 24/25 and 25/26.
Is their 24/25 wage bill set to be £10M+ more than it was in 21/22? They were £7M 'in the black' that season, providing the owner is prepared to cover £13M annual losses. TV-related revenue will increase 46% from 24/25 and their average home attendance is up 9K from that season, so they can probably sustain a wage bill £10-12M higher than it was then without breaching the average maximum loss (inclusive of amortised transfer fees). If they've been particularly naughty this season and need to reduce losses to £6M in 24/25, they have in Philogene and Greaves two of the hottest properties in the Championship.
I don't think it's clear they've breached or will do so in the future, providing this season is an outlier. | | | |
| Hull on 16:12 - Feb 2 with 1641 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Hull on 14:25 - Feb 2 by Vegtablue |
They recorded a £13.9M profit in 21/22, due to the write-down of a £20M loan from the previous ownership. My understanding is this is excluded from P&S calculations. Without it they would have lost £6.1M, which likely includes some deductible costs.
Lewis-Potters' sale in 22/23 may well have funded all of their 22/23 outlay on fees and wage rises. Their net spend on transfers looks roughly even across the last few seasons, and L-P was importantly an academy sale, while arrivals' transfer fees will be amortised.
It's doubtful they lost £13M in 22/23. They could have lost less than the £6M they lost in 21/22, given they recorded a profit of roughly £7M in transfer sales. I'm sure their wage bill increased significantly and then there's loan fees to consider, so another £6M loss is perhaps safer territory (likely less though with amortisation).
Providing the EFL continues with its three-year assessment period, it isn't clear they will punish clubs for one rogue season. Hull may be in a position to lose £27M in 23/24 without exceeding £39M losses between June 2021 - June 2024. It would be highly problematic if medium/long-term wages accounted for much of any spending/loss increase, and spending the full sum would significantly restrict future investment in 24/25 and 25/26.
Is their 24/25 wage bill set to be £10M+ more than it was in 21/22? They were £7M 'in the black' that season, providing the owner is prepared to cover £13M annual losses. TV-related revenue will increase 46% from 24/25 and their average home attendance is up 9K from that season, so they can probably sustain a wage bill £10-12M higher than it was then without breaching the average maximum loss (inclusive of amortised transfer fees). If they've been particularly naughty this season and need to reduce losses to £6M in 24/25, they have in Philogene and Greaves two of the hottest properties in the Championship.
I don't think it's clear they've breached or will do so in the future, providing this season is an outlier. |
They maybe OK this season but will be in difficulty next year as the season they made a healthy profit in will fall out out of the equation. |  |
| |
| Hull on 16:23 - Feb 2 with 1610 views | Herbivore |
| Hull on 14:25 - Feb 2 by Vegtablue |
They recorded a £13.9M profit in 21/22, due to the write-down of a £20M loan from the previous ownership. My understanding is this is excluded from P&S calculations. Without it they would have lost £6.1M, which likely includes some deductible costs.
Lewis-Potters' sale in 22/23 may well have funded all of their 22/23 outlay on fees and wage rises. Their net spend on transfers looks roughly even across the last few seasons, and L-P was importantly an academy sale, while arrivals' transfer fees will be amortised.
It's doubtful they lost £13M in 22/23. They could have lost less than the £6M they lost in 21/22, given they recorded a profit of roughly £7M in transfer sales. I'm sure their wage bill increased significantly and then there's loan fees to consider, so another £6M loss is perhaps safer territory (likely less though with amortisation).
Providing the EFL continues with its three-year assessment period, it isn't clear they will punish clubs for one rogue season. Hull may be in a position to lose £27M in 23/24 without exceeding £39M losses between June 2021 - June 2024. It would be highly problematic if medium/long-term wages accounted for much of any spending/loss increase, and spending the full sum would significantly restrict future investment in 24/25 and 25/26.
Is their 24/25 wage bill set to be £10M+ more than it was in 21/22? They were £7M 'in the black' that season, providing the owner is prepared to cover £13M annual losses. TV-related revenue will increase 46% from 24/25 and their average home attendance is up 9K from that season, so they can probably sustain a wage bill £10-12M higher than it was then without breaching the average maximum loss (inclusive of amortised transfer fees). If they've been particularly naughty this season and need to reduce losses to £6M in 24/25, they have in Philogene and Greaves two of the hottest properties in the Championship.
I don't think it's clear they've breached or will do so in the future, providing this season is an outlier. |
It'll definitely be interesting to see their accounts from last season. The Lewis-Potter sale has helped a lot but their wage bill last season and this, including some very expensive loans, is going to be hefty and they don't get the biggest crowds. Surprised their underlying losses were as low as £6m in 2021/22 given their relatively small crowds and no parachute payments. I guess that was the season after they came up and they largely still had their League 1 squad so wage bill likely a lot smaller than now. | |
| |
| Hull on 16:59 - Feb 2 with 1533 views | Vegtablue |
| Hull on 16:23 - Feb 2 by Herbivore |
It'll definitely be interesting to see their accounts from last season. The Lewis-Potter sale has helped a lot but their wage bill last season and this, including some very expensive loans, is going to be hefty and they don't get the biggest crowds. Surprised their underlying losses were as low as £6m in 2021/22 given their relatively small crowds and no parachute payments. I guess that was the season after they came up and they largely still had their League 1 squad so wage bill likely a lot smaller than now. |
Yeah 100% and surprised me too. Very difficult to judge either of us accurately with so much churn and our promotion.
We paid £16.4M in wages in 21/22, £10M in other expenses, while they paid £12.6M in wages and £8.7M in other expenses. Since that period our gates have risen from 21.7K to 28.8K, theirs from 12.8K to 21.6K. Our net spend on transfer fees since June 2021 is over £10M, albeit that's spread across contract lengths, while their spend is around £1M plus/minus a few transfer figures unknown to Transfermarkt. And in the first accounting period we lost £12.6M, while they lost £6.1M. Crucially we've received Championship revenue this season, while Hull's low base and big sale possibly sees them fine.
https://swissramble.substack.com/p/hull-city-finances-202122#:~:text=Profit%2F(L
https://swissramble.substack.com/p/ipswich-town-finances-202122#:~:text=Profit%2 | | | |
| Hull on 17:06 - Feb 2 with 1498 views | Vegtablue |
| Hull on 16:12 - Feb 2 by Pinewoodblue |
They maybe OK this season but will be in difficulty next year as the season they made a healthy profit in will fall out out of the equation. |
I believe their profit season will be recorded as a £5-6M loss for P&S purposes, so they'd need to not exceed that loss figure if they spent everything available to them this season. 22/23 figures will give us much better insight obviously; they could be £10M inside FFP after this season, butting right up against it or even in breach, without knowing how much wages jumped by that year. | | | |
| Hull on 22:22 - Feb 2 with 1227 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
Everyone is saying look at who they have brought in but there is 1 signing for an undisclosed fee (no idea if it is much). Aside from that there are 4 loans albeit from Premier League and Standard Liege so probably for reasonable fees (but how do they compare to a transfer fee?) and a free transfer of Billy Sharpe.
Balance against that the recall of Scott Twine (probably the same sort of wages as one of the loans in), and 7 other loans out (albeit all to lower clubs).
They will all take time to settle and as loans to a side hoping for a play-off spot I am not sure they will achieve what they are looking for. Hopefully they will gel in time to upset Leeds, Leicester and Southampton and then have nothing to play for and lose interest on 27th April. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
