|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jun 27, 2023 17:22:15 GMT 1
So basically Fulham spent the best part of £70m to get back to PL where they now seem to be a solid mid table PL club. So essentially their business model is perfect and one which clubs with inspiration should follow. Well done Fulham I would say for getting things right. High stakes gamble logically can't work for everyone |
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Jun 28, 2023 15:14:54 GMT 1
Winding up order issued to Pure Sports Consultancy Ltd. It appears that another of Hodgkinson's company's, Astute Business Management who are also in administration, petitioned to have Pure Sports Consultancy wound up. An interesting fact in Astute's administrator's report is that HTAFC agreed to pay £250,000 as a full & final settlement to settle their part of the debt (see pages 10 & 11 of the report dated 7th June). Presumably this agreement allowed DH to finally get the shares back. find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09291891/filing-history |
|
incognito
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,531
|
Post by incognito on Jun 28, 2023 16:18:07 GMT 1
Winding up order issued to Pure Sports Consultancy Ltd. It appears that another of Hodgkinson's company's, Astute Business Management who are also in administration, petitioned to have Pure Sports Consultancy wound up. An interesting fact in Astute's administrator's report is that HTAFC agreed to pay £250,000 as a full & final settlement to settle their part of the debt (see pages 10 & 11 of the report dated 7th June). Presumably this agreement allowed DH to finally get the shares back. find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09291891/filing-historyOh, what a tangled web Phil weaved... I'd love to know how much Kroll were originally trying to get out of HTAFC during those months of standoff. |
|
incognito
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,531
|
Post by incognito on Jul 4, 2023 20:17:57 GMT 1
There's been increased discussion on FFP / "financial restrictions" in recent weeks so I thought it might be useful to write down a loose overview of how a club's FFP 'Profitability and Sustainability' (P&S) figure is calculated, and its implications. (Pretty dry stuff, so ideal for this thread) 1) It's based upon 'Adjusted Earnings Before Tax' (AEBT)The start point for this is the Profit (Loss) Before Tax number from the annual accounts. From this, the following costs are then excluded: - (Tangible) Fixed asset depreciation - Goodwill amortisation - Youth development expenditure - Women's football expenditure - Community development expenditure - Exceptionally, for 19/20, 20/21 and 21/22 clubs can also deduct 'COVID-19 costs' (mainly lost revenues) of up to £5 million, £5 million and £2.5 million respectively. 2) It's based on an aggregated three-year reference period (rolls forward each March). The current reference period comprises: - Average of Year T-2 and T-3: 2020/21 & 2019/20 - Annual Accounts (Submitted to Companies House 30/03/22 & 02/06/21) - Year T-1: 2021/22 - Annual Accounts submitted to EFL by 01/03/23 (due with Companies House by 30/06/23) - Year T: 2022/23 - Forecasted Accounts submitted to EFL by 01/03/23 (Town were apparently late on the last two, hence the temporary 'transfer embargo') 3) The results of the club's P&S calculation are considered relative to the EFL's Loss Thresholds: Lower Loss Threshold - Premier League: £5 million per annum - Championship: £5 million per annum Upper Loss Threshold- Premier League: £35 million per annum - Championship: £13 million per annum As such, Town's aggregate Lower Loss Threshold is £15 million and the Upper Loss Threshold is now back to £39 million4) The implications of any aggregate P&S losses may be as follows: a) Up to Lower Loss Threshold: The EFL will determine whether the club can fulfil its financial obligations up to the end of Year T+1 (i.e. 2023/24) based upon the 'Future Financial Information' (estimated P&L, balance sheet, cash flow etc) that all Championship clubs must submit by March 31 of the current year. b) Over Lower Loss Threshold: The club must also provide additional 'Future Financial Information' for Year T+2 (2024/25), along with evidence of secured funding for those two years. If they are unable to provide evidence of secured funding, the EFL has the power to: - Require the club to submit, agree and adhere to a specific budget for direct football expenses (Transfer fees, wage bills etc) - Revoke the club's permissions to register new players or extend existing ones (transfer embargo) c) Forecasted to breach Upper Loss Threshold in Years T+1 and / or T+2: The EFL may impose the same restrictive measures as above. That's the gist as I understand it. The regulations in full can be found here: [ Updated Link to EFL Handbook - see Appendix 5] |
|
incognito
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,531
|
Post by incognito on Jul 4, 2023 20:19:07 GMT 1
Following on from the above, here's a rough stab at where I think Town are likely to stand currently:
Based on the figures available and some conservative estimates (e.g. £1 million a year on youth development?), I'd expect our current P&S number to sit much closer to 'break-even' than the majority of championship clubs:
- 2019/20 and 2020/21 average = +£2 to +£5 million AEBT (depending on claimed COVID cost)
- 2021/22 = To be revealed shortly, but I would hope to see the final parachute payment & play-off run having contributed to another slightly positive AEBT figure.
- 2022/23 = The first year back to a post-parachute reality. If we were back to assuming a circa £10 million operating loss partially offset by the profit on the LOB sale, I'd expect to see a small-ish negative AEBT number.
Even with a generous margin for error, it's extremely difficult to see us troubling the -£15 million Lower Loss Threshold.
If we are, indeed, facing "relatively strict financial protocols the first year" this will more likely be a specific condition imposed by the EFL in their approval of the takeover.
As part of that process, the club will have provided updated 'Future Financial Information' covering 2023/24, along with proof of Nagle's ability to fund that business plan. While the submission of estimated finances for next year is standard practice for every Championship club, unless they are beyond the FFP lower loss threshold without clear secured future funding, they aren't really much more than indicative numbers. When it's tied to a takeover, however, the EFL has the opportunity to obtain a direct commitment to adhere to these budgets as a condition of acquisition of ownership. On a case by case basis they could even go further and insist upon an up front cash bond to underwrite the first year's business plan.
It does feel as though whatever proposed 2023/24 budget info was submitted in April is unlikely to have been significantly different from the 2022/23 figures. Moving forward, beyond 2023/24 we should effectively fall back into operating within the broader confines of the 3-year FFP thresholds with more flexibility to push the budget (if that's what "Town FC LLC" intends to do).
|
|
|
|
Post by merseysideterrier on Jul 4, 2023 23:51:50 GMT 1
Following on from the above, here's a rough stab at where I think Town are likely to stand currently: Based on the figures available and some conservative estimates (e.g. £1 million a year on youth development?), I'd expect our current P&S number to sit much closer to 'break-even' than the majority of championship clubs: - 2019/20 and 2020/21 average = +£2 to +£5 million AEBT (depending on claimed COVID cost) - 2021/22 = To be revealed shortly, but I would hope to see the final parachute payment & play-off run having contributed to another slightly positive AEBT figure. - 2022/23 = The first year back to a post-parachute reality. If we were back to assuming a circa £10 million operating loss partially offset by the profit on the LOB sale, I'd expect to see a small-ish negative AEBT number. Even with a generous margin for error, it's extremely difficult to see us troubling the -£15 million Lower Loss Threshold. If we are, indeed, facing "relatively strict financial protocols the first year" this will more likely be a specific condition imposed by the EFL in their approval of the takeover. As part of that process, the club will have provided updated 'Future Financial Information' covering 2023/24, along with proof of Nagle's ability to fund that business plan. While the submission of estimated finances for next year is standard practice for every Championship club, unless they are beyond the FFP lower loss threshold without clear secured future funding, they aren't really much more than indicative numbers. When it's tied to a takeover, however, the EFL has the opportunity to obtain a direct commitment to adhere to these budgets as a condition of acquisition of ownership. On a case by case basis they could even go further and insist upon an up front cash bond to underwrite the first year's business plan. It does feel as though whatever proposed 2023/24 budget info was submitted in April is unlikely to have been significantly different from the 2022/23 figures. Moving forward, beyond 2023/24 we should effectively fall back into operating within the broader confines of the 3-year FFP thresholds with more flexibility to push the budget (if that's what "Town FC LLC" intends to do). Cheers for this incognito, a really interesting read. If it is the case that the 'strict financial protocols' referred to were imposed as a result of KN's takeover rather than FFP, it'd be interesting to know why the EFL thought that would be necessary. Of course, it could just be that KN was managing fans expectations on the finance front (specifically transfers) instead. |
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Jul 5, 2023 0:31:10 GMT 1
So basically if Town sign a player on a 20 year contract for £2m that depreciates at £100k a year for FFP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2023 8:14:32 GMT 1
So basically if Town sign a player on a 20 year contract for £2m that depreciates at £100k a year for FFP. No, I read the other day that FIFA/UEFA have ruled that maximum amortisation is now set at 5 years to stop the like of Chelski handing out those ridiculous contracts of the last 6-9 months. |
|
|
|
Post by joeyjoneslocker on Jul 5, 2023 8:28:37 GMT 1
So basically if Town sign a player on a 20 year contract for £2m that depreciates at £100k a year for FFP. No, I read the other day that FIFA/UEFA have ruled that maximum amortisation is now set at 5 years to stop the like of Chelski handing out those ridiculous contracts of the last 6-9 months. I also thought I had seen that but Wolves have signed Collins on a 6 year deal |
|
|
|
Post by jasrick on Jul 5, 2023 8:55:34 GMT 1
No, I read the other day that FIFA/UEFA have ruled that maximum amortisation is now set at 5 years to stop the like of Chelski handing out those ridiculous contracts of the last 6-9 months. I also thought I had seen that but Wolves have signed Collins on a 6 year deal I presume you’ll still be able to sign people to as long a contract as agreed between the two parties. However, for accounting purposes, the cost will be written off over 5 years rather than the contract length of 6. |
|
|
|
Post by royrace on Jul 5, 2023 9:09:44 GMT 1
Following on from the above, here's a rough stab at where I think Town are likely to stand currently: Based on the figures available and some conservative estimates (e.g. £1 million a year on youth development?), I'd expect our current P&S number to sit much closer to 'break-even' than the majority of championship clubs: - 2019/20 and 2020/21 average = +£2 to +£5 million AEBT (depending on claimed COVID cost) - 2021/22 = To be revealed shortly, but I would hope to see the final parachute payment & play-off run having contributed to another slightly positive AEBT figure. - 2022/23 = The first year back to a post-parachute reality. If we were back to assuming a circa £10 million operating loss partially offset by the profit on the LOB sale, I'd expect to see a small-ish negative AEBT number. Even with a generous margin for error, it's extremely difficult to see us troubling the -£15 million Lower Loss Threshold. If we are, indeed, facing "relatively strict financial protocols the first year" this will more likely be a specific condition imposed by the EFL in their approval of the takeover. As part of that process, the club will have provided updated 'Future Financial Information' covering 2023/24, along with proof of Nagle's ability to fund that business plan. While the submission of estimated finances for next year is standard practice for every Championship club, unless they are beyond the FFP lower loss threshold without clear secured future funding, they aren't really much more than indicative numbers. When it's tied to a takeover, however, the EFL has the opportunity to obtain a direct commitment to adhere to these budgets as a condition of acquisition of ownership. On a case by case basis they could even go further and insist upon an up front cash bond to underwrite the first year's business plan. It does feel as though whatever proposed 2023/24 budget info was submitted in April is unlikely to have been significantly different from the 2022/23 figures. Moving forward, beyond 2023/24 we should effectively fall back into operating within the broader confines of the 3-year FFP thresholds with more flexibility to push the budget (if that's what "Town FC LLC" intends to do). Very interesting thanks. Any ideas how the previous player sales could impact results? I remember Phil was at pains to tell us how these large fees that we've taken in the last few years are paid in instalments over 5 years. Hopefully that gives us a nice little annual income since the fees we've paid out are dwarfed by the sales. According to transfermarkt we've taken ~ 47M Euros in the last 3 years. Didn't check what we've spent but it will be way under 5M I expect. A sell on for Coady might come in handy too. |
|
incognito
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,531
|
Post by incognito on Jul 5, 2023 9:38:10 GMT 1
Following on from the above, here's a rough stab at where I think Town are likely to stand currently: Based on the figures available and some conservative estimates (e.g. £1 million a year on youth development?), I'd expect our current P&S number to sit much closer to 'break-even' than the majority of championship clubs: - 2019/20 and 2020/21 average = +£2 to +£5 million AEBT (depending on claimed COVID cost) - 2021/22 = To be revealed shortly, but I would hope to see the final parachute payment & play-off run having contributed to another slightly positive AEBT figure. - 2022/23 = The first year back to a post-parachute reality. If we were back to assuming a circa £10 million operating loss partially offset by the profit on the LOB sale, I'd expect to see a small-ish negative AEBT number. Even with a generous margin for error, it's extremely difficult to see us troubling the -£15 million Lower Loss Threshold. If we are, indeed, facing "relatively strict financial protocols the first year" this will more likely be a specific condition imposed by the EFL in their approval of the takeover. As part of that process, the club will have provided updated 'Future Financial Information' covering 2023/24, along with proof of Nagle's ability to fund that business plan. While the submission of estimated finances for next year is standard practice for every Championship club, unless they are beyond the FFP lower loss threshold without clear secured future funding, they aren't really much more than indicative numbers. When it's tied to a takeover, however, the EFL has the opportunity to obtain a direct commitment to adhere to these budgets as a condition of acquisition of ownership. On a case by case basis they could even go further and insist upon an up front cash bond to underwrite the first year's business plan. It does feel as though whatever proposed 2023/24 budget info was submitted in April is unlikely to have been significantly different from the 2022/23 figures. Moving forward, beyond 2023/24 we should effectively fall back into operating within the broader confines of the 3-year FFP thresholds with more flexibility to push the budget (if that's what "Town FC LLC" intends to do). Very interesting thanks. Any ideas how the previous player sales could impact results? I remember Phil was at pains to tell us how these large fees that we've taken in the last few years are paid in instalments over 5 years. Hopefully that gives us a nice little annual income since the fees we've paid out are dwarfed by the sales. According to transfermarkt we've taken ~ 47M Euros in the last 3 years. Didn't check what we've spent but it will be way under 5M I expect. A sell on for Coady might come in handy too. Fees in instalments are useful for cash flow, but for the P&L (and therefore FFP) it goes in as one hit under "Profit on Sale of Players' Registrations": downatthemac.proboards.com/post/3034716/thread |
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Jul 5, 2023 12:22:05 GMT 1
Thanks to those on here that are able to articulate these things in an easy to understand manner.
Having seen a fraction of how long term deals are structured where I work, all I will ever conclude is that the accountancy industry could give the mafia a few hints & tips… 😉
All great info though, so thanks for setting it out like this. Looks like we’re in reasonable shape at the moment, but could obviously have been far worse had the shenanigans of the fallout from the PH tenure not been resolved.
|
|
incognito
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,531
|
Post by incognito on Jul 5, 2023 13:41:48 GMT 1
Following on from the above, here's a rough stab at where I think Town are likely to stand currently: Based on the figures available and some conservative estimates (e.g. £1 million a year on youth development?), I'd expect our current P&S number to sit much closer to 'break-even' than the majority of championship clubs: - 2019/20 and 2020/21 average = +£2 to +£5 million AEBT (depending on claimed COVID cost) - 2021/22 = To be revealed shortly, but I would hope to see the final parachute payment & play-off run having contributed to another slightly positive AEBT figure. - 2022/23 = The first year back to a post-parachute reality. If we were back to assuming a circa £10 million operating loss partially offset by the profit on the LOB sale, I'd expect to see a small-ish negative AEBT number. Even with a generous margin for error, it's extremely difficult to see us troubling the -£15 million Lower Loss Threshold. If we are, indeed, facing "relatively strict financial protocols the first year" this will more likely be a specific condition imposed by the EFL in their approval of the takeover. As part of that process, the club will have provided updated 'Future Financial Information' covering 2023/24, along with proof of Nagle's ability to fund that business plan. While the submission of estimated finances for next year is standard practice for every Championship club, unless they are beyond the FFP lower loss threshold without clear secured future funding, they aren't really much more than indicative numbers. When it's tied to a takeover, however, the EFL has the opportunity to obtain a direct commitment to adhere to these budgets as a condition of acquisition of ownership. On a case by case basis they could even go further and insist upon an up front cash bond to underwrite the first year's business plan. It does feel as though whatever proposed 2023/24 budget info was submitted in April is unlikely to have been significantly different from the 2022/23 figures. Moving forward, beyond 2023/24 we should effectively fall back into operating within the broader confines of the 3-year FFP thresholds with more flexibility to push the budget (if that's what "Town FC LLC" intends to do). Cheers for this incognito, a really interesting read. If it is the case that the 'strict financial protocols' referred to were imposed as a result of KN's takeover rather than FFP, it'd be interesting to know why the EFL thought that would be necessary. Of course, it could just be that KN was managing fans expectations on the finance front (specifically transfers) instead. If that is, indeed, the case, I wouldn't view it as anything sinister or any sort of reflection of their sentiment towards our new owners: reading through the EFL's "Bury FC Review" it sounds as though an initial year of budget control post-takeover isn't unusual. Ultimately, even if we simply carry over last year's budget, we're still likely to be incurring an operating loss in excess of -60% as a percentage of turnover! For our new owners to go straight in with a proposal to ramp up the spending even further beyond our natural means (under the particular scrutiny of year #1) would be bordering on taking the piss. Personally speaking, I was really encouraged by Nagle's clear appreciation of the value of building foundations and infrastructure over simply throwing more money at the playing budget. Beyond what happens on the pitch over the next few years, the real challenge for Jake Edwards is going to be how to grow the business. |
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Jul 5, 2023 16:56:55 GMT 1
We could start by increasing season ticket prices to a more sustainable level. If we aim to be a top half club then surely our season ticket prices need to reflect this. circa 400 seems fair to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jul 5, 2023 18:00:57 GMT 1
We could start by increasing season ticket prices to a more sustainable level. If we aim to be a top half club then surely our season ticket prices need to reflect this. circa 400 seems fair to me. you are right................. as long as there's a pensioner's discount |
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Jul 5, 2023 19:13:08 GMT 1
Yea def need my pensioners discount!
|
|
|
|
Post by Headless Chicken on Jul 5, 2023 19:22:47 GMT 1
We could start by increasing season ticket prices to a more sustainable level. If we aim to be a top half club then surely our season ticket prices need to reflect this. circa 400 seems fair to me. you are right................. as long as there's a pensioner's discount You know you've sent this off on a tangent......average person in mid-twenties, etc. is likely to have less disposable income than the average pensioner nowadays, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by rockwall on Jul 5, 2023 19:28:19 GMT 1
We could start by increasing season ticket prices to a more sustainable level. If we aim to be a top half club then surely our season ticket prices need to reflect this. circa 400 seems fair to me. I know we are lucky. But in the world of a cost of living crisis, I wouldn't get one at that price I would just pick and choose a few games and pay on the day. |
|
|
|
Post by detox on Jul 5, 2023 19:48:49 GMT 1
We could start by increasing season ticket prices to a more sustainable level. If we aim to be a top half club then surely our season ticket prices need to reflect this. circa 400 seems fair to me. I know we are lucky. But in the world of a cost of living crisis, I wouldn't get one at that price I would just pick and choose a few games and pay on the day. Pay on the day OAPs discounts tend to be quite generous ..👍😊 |
|
|
|
Post by Wagner Uber Alles on Jul 5, 2023 22:01:28 GMT 1
We could start by increasing season ticket prices to a more sustainable level. If we aim to be a top half club then surely our season ticket prices need to reflect this. circa 400 seems fair to me. The generic market price / value is irrelevant. It's more important to set a price than low income people can actually afford. The UK average wage is £24,600 per annum. In Huddersfield, it's likely to be no more than £20K. An ST of £400 is a sizeable burden during a cost-of-living-crisis.
|
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jul 5, 2023 22:38:25 GMT 1
you are right................. as long as there's a pensioner's discount You know you've sent this off on a tangent......average person in mid-twenties, etc. is likely to have less disposable income than the average pensioner nowadays, etc. Currently supporting both my kids in that age group so I do know the shit they have to deal with. Intended as a joke, however not all pensioners are wealthy I will probably work another 2.5 years |
|
|
|
Post by Headless Chicken on Jul 5, 2023 23:27:44 GMT 1
You know you've sent this off on a tangent......average person in mid-twenties, etc. is likely to have less disposable income than the average pensioner nowadays, etc. Currently supporting both my kids in that age group so I do know the shit they have to deal with. Intended as a joke, however not all pensioners are wealthy I will probably work another 2.5 years Was only jesting. |
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jul 6, 2023 13:54:22 GMT 1
Currently supporting both my kids in that age group so I do know the shit they have to deal with. Intended as a joke, however not all pensioners are wealthy I will probably work another 2.5 years Was only jesting. no offence taken, but its interesting sometimes that the cover of a book does reflect the story inside. Many pensioners in my age group do really well. i struggled to maintain interest in a job beyond 5 or 6 years so never built up a big pot for retirement but i dont give toss  . Seriously i would support an increase in rates for SCs but acknowledging those that struggle, plus a special supplement for those that complain about "potless owners" |
|
|
|
Post by detox on Jul 6, 2023 18:29:20 GMT 1
no offence taken, but its interesting sometimes that the cover of a book does reflect the story inside. Many pensioners in my age group do really well. i struggled to maintain interest in a job beyond 5 or 6 years so never built up a big pot for retirement but i dont give toss . Seriously i would support an increase in rates for SCs but acknowledging those that struggle, plus a special supplement for those that complain about "potless owners" Thing about pensions though is they never keep pace with inflation, you never get merit increases or a promotion, so that's it.. So while some have benefited from final salary pension over the years you're less well off... |
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jul 6, 2023 18:45:46 GMT 1
no offence taken, but its interesting sometimes that the cover of a book does reflect the story inside. Many pensioners in my age group do really well. i struggled to maintain interest in a job beyond 5 or 6 years so never built up a big pot for retirement but i dont give toss . Seriously i would support an increase in rates for SCs but acknowledging those that struggle, plus a special supplement for those that complain about "potless owners" Thing about pensions though is they never keep pace with inflation, you never get merit increases or a promotion, so that's it.. So while some have benefited from final salary pension over the years you're less well off... not quite right the triple lock guarantees CPI/2%/average wage rise? which ever is higher. if they made that offer to the NHS there would be better retention/recruitment and no disputes. The 2% to stay in place until they make up past losses under government austerity. |
|
|
|
Post by Essex Terrier on Jul 6, 2023 19:39:48 GMT 1
you are right................. as long as there's a pensioner's discount You know you've sent this off on a tangent......average person in mid-twenties, etc. is likely to have less disposable income than the average pensioner nowadays, etc. Fair do's.... However. No way could I even have contemplated buying a season ticket in my mid-20s. Having said that.... Part of the reason being that I was buying my first house at the time. It's a tricky one, to be sure! |
|
|
|
Post by Teddington Ted on Jul 6, 2023 19:43:11 GMT 1
You know you've sent this off on a tangent......average person in mid-twenties, etc. is likely to have less disposable income than the average pensioner nowadays, etc. Currently supporting both my kids in that age group so I do know the shit they have to deal with. Intended as a joke, however not all pensioners are wealthy I will probably work another 2.5 years Damn right, you’re only 51 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jul 6, 2023 20:53:06 GMT 1
Currently supporting both my kids in that age group so I do know the shit they have to deal with. Intended as a joke, however not all pensioners are wealthy I will probably work another 2.5 years Damn right, you’re only 51 😉 I wish that was a good year |
|
|
|
Post by St Dogs Terrier on Jul 6, 2023 21:48:25 GMT 1
Thing about pensions though is they never keep pace with inflation, you never get merit increases or a promotion, so that's it.. So while some have benefited from final salary pension over the years you're less well off... not quite right the triple lock guarantees CPI/2%/average wage rise? which ever is higher. if they made that offer to the NHS there would be better retention/recruitment and no disputes. The 2% to stay in place until they make up past losses under government austerity. Actually it raises a number of points. You're quite right about the triple lock although this only applies to the state pension. But at approx. £10,600 a year (currently) that's not going to help a lot of people survive on its own. Whilst triple lock will over a longer period bring back some sort of parity, the fact that the state pension was ignored over many, many years and by both sides of the political divide means there is a fare bit of catchup required. As for pensions in general a "final salary" mentioned above is in fact a type of "defined benefits" pension and is a significant benefit for any pay package and should not be dismissed lightly. Most in the private sector no longer have this benefit, whilst most public servants still do - including the NHS. What ever your situation I generally believe that you should save as much as you can for as long as you can, when you can if you want to have a reasonable retirement - you cannot and should not rely on the state (whatever your political persuasion). I know this is not possible for many but there are (in theory) regulations in place to support this such as the workplace pensions schemes - 2008 legislation (created by a labour government by the way). Oh and if you are wanting merit awards and promotion rises then there is always the option to continue working if you want to!! And as this has well and truly drifted off subject clearly the better retirement income you have the more you can spend on the mighty Terriers |
|
.