| Almost net zero on player trading 16:26 - May 19 with 2015 views | gtsb1966 |
said MA. He also said that is for last year, this year and next year. How can you forecast next year or am I missing something here and due a whoosh. . Also is FFP over three years so we could actually spend big this summer and not go over the allowed losses? |  | | |  |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 16:29 - May 19 with 1984 views | PhilTWTD |
Think he means in terms of money coming in from deals previously done. Fees don't come all at once. He said similar to me a couple of months ago.
|  | | |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 16:33 - May 19 with 1951 views | Vegtablue |
It is £39m over 3 years you are correct gtsb. I'd be surprised if that gives us a lot of wiggle room though, given we reported a £12.6M loss in 2021/22 (unless I misread this figure). |  | | |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 16:46 - May 19 with 1868 views | gtsb1966 |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 16:29 - May 19 by PhilTWTD |
Think he means in terms of money coming in from deals previously done. Fees don't come all at once. He said similar to me a couple of months ago.
|
So there is a fair chance he won't be able to say this in twelve months time if we make a serious bid to get promoted next season. | | | |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 16:51 - May 19 with 1844 views | clive_baker |
I took it as at the time of writing, the trading that had been conducted under his watch would net to £0 by way of fees when you consider realised in / outflows and future in / outflows specifically from the deals that have already been made. And really given the nature of deals you do have to look at it over the length of the agreement.
Not sure how variable / non guaranteed future revenues would be calculated ie. sell on fees, performance related fees etc but I imagine there's a few assumptions in place for those. ie. what happens when Chelsea pay £40m for Dozzell?
We probably wake up and realise it was a dream. |  |
| |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 16:55 - May 19 with 1821 views | PhilTWTD |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 16:46 - May 19 by gtsb1966 |
So there is a fair chance he won't be able to say this in twelve months time if we make a serious bid to get promoted next season. |
Unless we make sales - and actually we've already sold Calum Logan to Tottenham but that's probably only £600,000 or so - then that's unlikely to be the case. | | | |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 17:41 - May 19 with 1660 views | wkj |
Imagine actually selling players instead of letting their contracts run out... Evans could learn a thing or two there. |  |
| |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 17:48 - May 19 with 1636 views | Nutkins_Return |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 16:55 - May 19 by PhilTWTD |
Unless we make sales - and actually we've already sold Calum Logan to Tottenham but that's probably only £600,000 or so - then that's unlikely to be the case. |
'only'. If we got £600k for him that seems like exceptional business given his age (when you think what has become of Charlie Brown, so far Knight and on and on). Likely a sell on clause as well?
That sort of money must be really helpful in funding the youths and/or our transfer kitty | |
| |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 18:02 - May 19 with 1597 views | PhilTWTD |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 17:48 - May 19 by Nutkins_Return |
'only'. If we got £600k for him that seems like exceptional business given his age (when you think what has become of Charlie Brown, so far Knight and on and on). Likely a sell on clause as well?
That sort of money must be really helpful in funding the youths and/or our transfer kitty |
I was going by those deals, I don't know a figure for Logan. There usually are top-ups on first-team appearances, England caps, World Cup wins etc. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Almost net zero on player trading on 18:27 - May 19 with 1501 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 16:33 - May 19 by Vegtablue |
It is £39m over 3 years you are correct gtsb. I'd be surprised if that gives us a lot of wiggle room though, given we reported a £12.6M loss in 2021/22 (unless I misread this figure). |
Do the losses whilst in league 1 count towards championship ffp or does our 3 years ffp term start now. |  |
| |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 21:36 - May 19 with 1187 views | Vegtablue |
| Almost net zero on player trading on 18:27 - May 19 by FrimleyBlue |
Do the losses whilst in league 1 count towards championship ffp or does our 3 years ffp term start now. |
A commendable question master Frimley.
Every Championship club must provide their projected accounts for the current season, in additional to their final accounts for the two prior seasons - no matter which leagues they were in. The loss thresholds increase for any season in which a club was in the Premier League, but nonetheless there is still a cap they need to have adhered to (£35m upper threshold loss per season in the event this ever becomes pertinent to us, with the odd caveat).
Therefore, joining in 2023/24 as we are, we will need to supply our 21/22 and 22/23 accounts, in addition to our 23/24 projection. Furthermore, any season a club falls foul of the upper threshold loss of £13m will require detailed forecasting for the two future seasons, in order to convince the EFL they will not breach the aggregate loss limit (£39m across 3) in any year. This means if we decide to overspend this summer/winter and breach the £13m loss threshold, our projected accounts for the two future seasons will come under intense scrutiny. The EFL reserves the right to enforce and restrict a club's operations in the event they believe the rogue season will amount to a future FFP breach. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
