| PSR & Town 11:13 - Jan 9 with 4194 views | itfc_bucks |
I'm not remotely ITK, but how are we spending so much and not at risk of falling foul of PSR?
|  | | |  |
| PSR & Town on 11:19 - Jan 9 with 4083 views | itfc48 |
They're long contracts so we can account for the fees over the period of the contract up to 5 years. Our wage bill is low by Premier League standards - that's the real killer when it comes to PSR as amortisation can't be used with wages. | | | |
| PSR & Town on 11:19 - Jan 9 with 4090 views | itfctilidie |
without going too in depth. When you buy a player for 20m, dont think of it as 20m - divide it by the years on contract. So a 5 year deal you spread the 20m out so it only counts as 4m a year on psr |  | | |
| PSR & Town on 11:23 - Jan 9 with 3952 views | melbs_itfc |
SHHHHH !!
We are hoping that no one will notice… | | | |
| PSR & Town on 11:27 - Jan 9 with 3864 views | Bellevue_Blue |
I suspect we are pushing the boat out this year (pushing money into future years) in the hope that the large majority of our signings increase in value and the player trading model whirs into high gear!
Eg they will have factored in Delap leaving in the next couple of years (please more that one season!) and that £50/ £60M helping us to keep within the limit in future years. | | | |
| PSR & Town on 11:29 - Jan 9 with 3793 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| PSR & Town on 11:19 - Jan 9 by itfctilidie |
without going too in depth. When you buy a player for 20m, dont think of it as 20m - divide it by the years on contract. So a 5 year deal you spread the 20m out so it only counts as 4m a year on psr |
This.
You have to think of it as £26m a year over the next few years, not £120m now. |  |
| |
| PSR & Town on 11:31 - Jan 9 with 3756 views | Durovigutum |
We will sell Liam Delap for £100m at some point, after he’s kept us up and we bank another £140m, so this is all chicken feed. |  | | |
| PSR & Town on 11:35 - Jan 9 with 3643 views | FrimleyBlue |
Because in a way
We've obtained £146 million as an income in this 12 month period as a full and final figure ( Sky etc etc ) other commercial income.
but only spent so far in accounts terms for this year around £80 mill as you ignore the transfer fees as a final figure and basically divide the fee by the number of years on the contract and that's your actual transfer fee for the player in this set of accounts. So Hutch isn't seen as £20 million, he's seen as £5 million ( if im correct he has a 4 year deal ) |  |
| |
| PSR & Town on 11:37 - Jan 9 with 3634 views | hammo56 |
Sounds like one of those dodgy buy now pay later schemes. Better hope it works out ok. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| PSR & Town on 11:51 - Jan 9 with 3395 views | LA_Tractor_Boy |
Proves how vital it is that we stay up this season.
We won't exceed PSR limits, but the team will be decimated for footballing and financial reasons if we're relegated. | | | |
| PSR & Town on 11:52 - Jan 9 with 3358 views | bluesbrothers |
Because we know we can sell Delap for a lot of money by the 30th June if needs be | | | |
| PSR & Town on 11:53 - Jan 9 with 3326 views | FrimleyBlue |
| PSR & Town on 11:51 - Jan 9 by LA_Tractor_Boy |
Proves how vital it is that we stay up this season.
We won't exceed PSR limits, but the team will be decimated for footballing and financial reasons if we're relegated. |
I beg to differ,
We will have parachute payments, we also have funding from the latest investors, but also we're about to announce our new sponsor. you can bet Ashton has covered it so that the fee is large enough that it helps should we go down. | |
| |
| PSR & Town on 11:58 - Jan 9 with 3245 views | NeverSayDie |
| PSR & Town on 11:51 - Jan 9 by LA_Tractor_Boy |
Proves how vital it is that we stay up this season.
We won't exceed PSR limits, but the team will be decimated for footballing and financial reasons if we're relegated. |
I don't think we'll be in any major difficulty financially, though there will be obvious effects on player and club valuations, but most of all, there's no guarantee of coming back up, we could spend another 15 years in the Championship treading water, grim prospect. |  | | |
| PSR & Town on 12:03 - Jan 9 with 3156 views | gsoly |
| PSR & Town on 11:19 - Jan 9 by itfc48 |
They're long contracts so we can account for the fees over the period of the contract up to 5 years. Our wage bill is low by Premier League standards - that's the real killer when it comes to PSR as amortisation can't be used with wages. |
Yes, it's this. Our wage bill will be the smallest in the Prem for quite a while. That's what back-to-back promotions and buying young players allows. People comparing us with Forest are comparing apples and oranges. They went all out on wages that season. |  | | |
| PSR & Town on 12:14 - Jan 9 with 3061 views | southnorfolkblue |
| PSR & Town on 11:51 - Jan 9 by LA_Tractor_Boy |
Proves how vital it is that we stay up this season.
We won't exceed PSR limits, but the team will be decimated for footballing and financial reasons if we're relegated. |
Decimated is too strong imho. We will sell the likes of Delap, who may go anyway and the likes of Phillips and probably Cajuste will go, but most of the players will be on divisional contracts.
In short, we'll be fine | |
| |
| PSR & Town on 12:21 - Jan 9 with 2952 views | giant_stow |
| PSR & Town on 12:03 - Jan 9 by gsoly |
Yes, it's this. Our wage bill will be the smallest in the Prem for quite a while. That's what back-to-back promotions and buying young players allows. People comparing us with Forest are comparing apples and oranges. They went all out on wages that season. |
Forest confuse me. On one hand, I wasn't wishing them well when they splurged all that money, as I didn't want that approach to work (as its unavailable to my Canaries). On the other, I'm chuffed to see them so high up this year as a small team. Bollox. |  |
| |
| PSR & Town on 12:24 - Jan 9 with 2907 views | NeverSayDie |
| PSR & Town on 12:21 - Jan 9 by giant_stow |
Forest confuse me. On one hand, I wasn't wishing them well when they splurged all that money, as I didn't want that approach to work (as its unavailable to my Canaries). On the other, I'm chuffed to see them so high up this year as a small team. Bollox. |
Easy to understand now why they splurged, Prem is a different universe to any other league and I don't think you stand a chance in hell without serious money being spent. | | | |
| PSR & Town on 12:26 - Jan 9 with 2883 views | giant_stow |
| PSR & Town on 12:24 - Jan 9 by NeverSayDie |
Easy to understand now why they splurged, Prem is a different universe to any other league and I don't think you stand a chance in hell without serious money being spent. |
Yeap, it seems that you're right. That's a shame really, but facts are facts. | |
| |
| PSR & Town on 12:30 - Jan 9 with 2808 views | OldFart71 |
This also doesn't take into account if we sell one or two players in this window who will be replaced by the likes of Godfrey etc. No this won't cover our outgoings this window which will I suspect amount up to 50 million . | | | |
| PSR & Town on 12:36 - Jan 9 with 2679 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| PSR & Town on 11:37 - Jan 9 by hammo56 |
Sounds like one of those dodgy buy now pay later schemes. Better hope it works out ok. |
Nothing dodgy about it at all - standard business accounting practice.
The players are an asset, and therefore add value to the business. This value in effect helps offset the capital investment from an accounting perspective. The (player) asset is guaranteed for the length of the contract, and can therefore be amortised over the length of the contract.
If the contract was allowed to run its full duration, the asset with be worth nothing on the books (as we've written it down each year), and therefore if the player leaves on a free, the books balance. If we sell the player before then, and it's for more than the current book valuation, we are in the black for accounting purposes. | | | |
| PSR & Town on 12:43 - Jan 9 with 2570 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| PSR & Town on 12:30 - Jan 9 by OldFart71 |
This also doesn't take into account if we sell one or two players in this window who will be replaced by the likes of Godfrey etc. No this won't cover our outgoings this window which will I suspect amount up to 50 million . |
If we spent 50M this window, all on ~5 year contracts, that's no more than 10M to balance in the accounts. It may be half that, and we're half way through the financial year - so 5M. It's probably somewhere between the 2, as contracts are normally set to terminate at the end of a season, hence the 4 1/2 year Philogene contract - any others will probably be aligned with season end, so X 1/2 year contracts.
Therefore any income from players sold only needs to cover this amount - so if we generated 3M player sale income, for accounting its the difference between 5-10M and 3M | | | |
| PSR & Town on 12:56 - Jan 9 with 2409 views | Vic |
| PSR & Town on 12:21 - Jan 9 by giant_stow |
Forest confuse me. On one hand, I wasn't wishing them well when they splurged all that money, as I didn't want that approach to work (as its unavailable to my Canaries). On the other, I'm chuffed to see them so high up this year as a small team. Bollox. |
You’re a good ‘un considering you’re a yellow, but don’t forget that you did actually have that money for several years. You had you’re turn, now it’s ours. I just hope our philosophy works better than yours! |  |
| |
| PSR & Town on 15:16 - Jan 9 with 2017 views | Smoresy |
Fleshing it out some more for what could be in store:
The lowest wages in 21/22 were paid by Brentford (£68m), Watford (£79m), Burnley (£92m), and Southampton (£113m).
The lowest wages in 22/23 were paid by Brentford (£99m), Bournemouth (£100m), Southampton (£122m), and Brighton (£128m). Nobody likes a show-off, Brentford.
Now, will we be a big outlier on wages? We've clearly been competitive on wages for new signings, but bring half a squad from L1 or Champ contracts. Most in the thread think we will be, albeit I'm mindful that we're likely spending £10m on McKenna and Phillips combined.
We're on course to earn around £110m in broadcasting revenue. If we finish 16th and have a long run in the FA Cup, this would be closer to £125m.
Will we earn over £30m from other channels? Forest in 22/23 earned £11m from gate receipts, £7m from merchandising and £12m from other commercial activities. That's a similarly sized club in their first season back, totalling £29m turnover outside TV stuff.
Amortisation lets us divide up transfer fees across contract length, as covered by others in good detail. If Transfermarkt's figures are accurate, we'll have spent £125m net once Philogene wraps up. Assuming Philogene signs his 4.5-year deal, our spending on transfer fees in this season's accounts comes to roughly £28m. We'll also have spent £Xm on agents' fees, such is the way of football now.
Piecing this together, it wouldn't suprise if we've now spent all our non-TV income on transfers in this season's books. That would leave £110m for wages and further spending, before we enter into permitted losses territory. Hopefully we'll buck the recent trend and post an overall wage bill below £100m. Forest broke their 23-year absence from the PL with a wage bill of £145m, but they achieved that through signing 30+ players.
If we speculate from thin air that this season's wage bill has now ballooned to £100m, we would still be permitted to spend roughly £45m more in this season's accounts (£10m surplus TV revenue + £35m permitted losses). That could take the shape of six more £20m signings on 5-year contracts, each earning £3m per year.
The issue with doing the above is you then have no headroom for spending in future seasons, without 1) significantly improving your revenue, mostly in the form of league position*, or 2) selling a significant amount of what you bought, which hopefully hasn't depreciated in value. You've committed to spending £50m on transfer fees in each of the next four seasons' accounts, on existing players, for as long as they all stay, in this hypothetical example. Cor blimey! Relegation would prompt a need to sell much of what you bought for the remaining transfer cost on your books, hopefully avoiding a fire sale, or just a few for seriously mega money if you're lucky, and hopefully this restores wages to manageable levels.
The above hopefully shows in more detail why we still have money to play with this season anyway, subject to our wage bill being 'healthy' (always a great unknown until accounts are published). If it's really healthy, as some think, then we still have a lot to play with before we go boom.
*Even more TV money is sloshing its way to PL clubs in 25/26. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 16:31 - Jan 9 with 1839 views | southnorfolkblue |
| PSR & Town on 11:51 - Jan 9 by LA_Tractor_Boy |
Proves how vital it is that we stay up this season.
We won't exceed PSR limits, but the team will be decimated for footballing and financial reasons if we're relegated. |
| |
| |
| PSR & Town on 11:46 - Jan 11 with 1148 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| PSR & Town on 15:16 - Jan 9 by Smoresy |
Fleshing it out some more for what could be in store:
The lowest wages in 21/22 were paid by Brentford (£68m), Watford (£79m), Burnley (£92m), and Southampton (£113m).
The lowest wages in 22/23 were paid by Brentford (£99m), Bournemouth (£100m), Southampton (£122m), and Brighton (£128m). Nobody likes a show-off, Brentford.
Now, will we be a big outlier on wages? We've clearly been competitive on wages for new signings, but bring half a squad from L1 or Champ contracts. Most in the thread think we will be, albeit I'm mindful that we're likely spending £10m on McKenna and Phillips combined.
We're on course to earn around £110m in broadcasting revenue. If we finish 16th and have a long run in the FA Cup, this would be closer to £125m.
Will we earn over £30m from other channels? Forest in 22/23 earned £11m from gate receipts, £7m from merchandising and £12m from other commercial activities. That's a similarly sized club in their first season back, totalling £29m turnover outside TV stuff.
Amortisation lets us divide up transfer fees across contract length, as covered by others in good detail. If Transfermarkt's figures are accurate, we'll have spent £125m net once Philogene wraps up. Assuming Philogene signs his 4.5-year deal, our spending on transfer fees in this season's accounts comes to roughly £28m. We'll also have spent £Xm on agents' fees, such is the way of football now.
Piecing this together, it wouldn't suprise if we've now spent all our non-TV income on transfers in this season's books. That would leave £110m for wages and further spending, before we enter into permitted losses territory. Hopefully we'll buck the recent trend and post an overall wage bill below £100m. Forest broke their 23-year absence from the PL with a wage bill of £145m, but they achieved that through signing 30+ players.
If we speculate from thin air that this season's wage bill has now ballooned to £100m, we would still be permitted to spend roughly £45m more in this season's accounts (£10m surplus TV revenue + £35m permitted losses). That could take the shape of six more £20m signings on 5-year contracts, each earning £3m per year.
The issue with doing the above is you then have no headroom for spending in future seasons, without 1) significantly improving your revenue, mostly in the form of league position*, or 2) selling a significant amount of what you bought, which hopefully hasn't depreciated in value. You've committed to spending £50m on transfer fees in each of the next four seasons' accounts, on existing players, for as long as they all stay, in this hypothetical example. Cor blimey! Relegation would prompt a need to sell much of what you bought for the remaining transfer cost on your books, hopefully avoiding a fire sale, or just a few for seriously mega money if you're lucky, and hopefully this restores wages to manageable levels.
The above hopefully shows in more detail why we still have money to play with this season anyway, subject to our wage bill being 'healthy' (always a great unknown until accounts are published). If it's really healthy, as some think, then we still have a lot to play with before we go boom.
*Even more TV money is sloshing its way to PL clubs in 25/26. |
This is well put, however there is one material error in your calculates.
We are not permitted £35m losses this year - a premier league club is permitted losses of £105m over 3 years, which averages £35m/year but can be above or below this providing the 3 year total doesn't exceed £105m.
However, this is only for clubs in the EPL continuously for those 3 years. For each year prior that the club is in a lower league, the total is reduced by £22m. (this was changed this year from 'in the Championship' to ' a member of the football league' to cover L1 - I wonder why...)
So we are permitted total 3 year losses to the end of the 2024/25 season of £61m.
We lost £18.2m in 2022/23. 2023/24 accounts haven't been published yet. We need to see those before knowing what headroom we have, but it could be as little as £15m for 2024/25. I still think we'll be well within the PSR rules, but don't think we have the headroom you suggest for 6 x £20m transfers. More like 2. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
