|
|
Post by utttrooper on Mar 28, 2024 14:31:28 GMT 1
WEarS thE rHoDES mOOneY gonn?!? N0 Iddeea - Wunda if ennyone el5E Knows?. PrObaBlY inTo tReaTinG hIs inJuriES in THIs cuRreNt sPeLl |
|
|
|
Post by htafcokay on Mar 28, 2024 14:32:09 GMT 1
N0 Iddeea - Wunda if ennyone el5E Knows?. PrObaBlY inTo tReaTinG hIs inJuriES in THIs cuRreNt sPeLl Bring him back. BRING HIM BACK! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2024 14:33:03 GMT 1
Would seem the reported fees of Wiles £1m, Balker £1.1m, Bojan £1.2m and Healey £1.4m were fairly accurate. No idea where we got £5.5m from? Thought Camara only left for £1m-£1.5m. Unless some of that is bonuses for Forest staying up last season as part of the O'Brien/Toff deal? This is going to sound daft, but aren’t West Brom still paying up £2m a season for Karlan Grant? That's cash, not P&L item as the sale was accounted for in the year it took place. |
|
|
|
Post by Terriersmad on Mar 28, 2024 14:37:49 GMT 1
Don't quote me on this, but I think so. you're not the boss of me Always one  |
|
|
|
Post by willo on Mar 28, 2024 14:38:35 GMT 1
And on the odd occasion we do have any money, we waste it. |
|
|
|
Post by fredcarno1 on Mar 28, 2024 14:45:25 GMT 1
Interestingly, since the year end, the club have paid out £4.7m in Transfer fees and received £5.5m. That's basically the transfer activity in the summer and January. The bulk of that £4.7m will have probably been in January?? I think that's the most we've spent since being relegate from the PL, excluding the £11m we had to pay for Mbenza. Would seem the reported fees of Wiles £1m, Balker £1.1m, Bojan £1.2m and Healey £1.4m were fairly accurate. No idea where we got £5.5m from? Thought Camara only left for £1m-£1.5m. Unless some of that is bonuses for Forest staying up last season as part of the O'Brien/Toff deal? A combined £3.6 million pounds for Wiles / Radulovic and Healy, thank god Cartwright isn’t spending my money !! All 3 of them have contributed the sum total of fuck all !! |
|
|
|
Post by four4two on Mar 28, 2024 14:49:52 GMT 1
These are the accounts for 2022 to 2023, presumably up to June '23 arent they??? So Balker, Wiles, Bojan etc etc don't come into it?
|
|
|
|
Post by mosher on Mar 28, 2024 14:50:49 GMT 1
Don't quote me on this, but I think so. you're not the boss of me Okay Malcolm |
|
Dan
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,868
|
Post by Dan on Mar 28, 2024 14:53:37 GMT 1
These are the accounts for 2022 to 2023, presumably up to June '23 arent they??? So Balker, Wiles, Bojan etc etc don't come into it? The accounts are for 2022-23 but there is a note at the end confirming post balance sheet events of £4.7m for player registrations... |
|
Sparrow
Frank Worthington Terrier
Posts: 1,964
|
Post by Sparrow on Mar 28, 2024 15:45:31 GMT 1
Accounts are upto summer 2023 so ignore recent dealings The recent deals are included in the Account notes as post balance sheet events. They are also included in the Group Strategic Report, page 4, 2nd last paragraph So since the year end of 30th June 2023, we have spent £4.7m on players. Essentially, we've spent just under £5m on players this season. |
|
|
|
Post by Terriersmad on Mar 28, 2024 15:47:50 GMT 1
Accounts are upto summer 2023 so ignore recent dealings The recent deals are included in the Account notes as post balance sheet events. They are also included in the Group Strategic Report, page 4, 2nd last paragraph So since the year end of 30th June 2023, we have spent £4.7m on players. Essentially, we've spent just under £5m on players this season. It'll be interesting to see where that puts us in relation to FFP, if our losses were £16m last season. |
|
incognito
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by incognito on Mar 28, 2024 16:00:06 GMT 1
The recent deals are included in the Account notes as post balance sheet events. They are also included in the Group Strategic Report, page 4, 2nd last paragraph So since the year end of 30th June 2023, we have spent £4.7m on players. Essentially, we've spent just under £5m on players this season. It'll be interesting to see where that puts us in relation to FFP, if our losses were £16m last season. The actual loss for 2023 was 'only' £6.62M - Maguire's number ignores profit from player sales (among other things). From a 3-year FFP standpoint we will still be around the break even mark up to the end of 2023. It's this current season onwards where we will start to see the significant losses. |
|
|
|
Post by shawsie on Mar 28, 2024 20:11:51 GMT 1
Point 28 - nearly 1m in managerial compensation in last 2 yrs and that wont include warnock or moore and their teams!
|
|
|
|
Post by willo on Mar 28, 2024 20:15:44 GMT 1
Point 28 - nearly 1m in managerial compensation in last 2 yrs and that wont include warnock or moore and their teams! That is absolutely appalling. Some terrible managerial decisions in there. |
|
|
|
Post by Million Dollar Babies on Mar 28, 2024 22:12:04 GMT 1
The money paid for Wiles was ridiculous on the back of him being seriously injured
The only way we're going to see much payback from that fee is if we're relegated because he would probably be pretty decent in league one.
|
|
|
|
Post by turbo2 on Mar 28, 2024 23:27:15 GMT 1
Point 28 - nearly 1m in managerial compensation in last 2 yrs and that wont include warnock or moore and their teams! Surprised it’s only a mill with the way we go through managers. |
|
|
|
Post by twyford on Apr 10, 2024 16:04:58 GMT 1
It'll be interesting to see where that puts us in relation to FFP, if our losses were £16m last season. The actual loss for 2023 was 'only' £6.62M - Maguire's number ignores profit from player sales (among other things). From a 3-year FFP standpoint we will still be around the break even mark up to the end of 2023. It's this current season onwards where we will start to see the significant losses. Incognito, as the most financially knowledgeable poster on the club’s finances on this forum (imo) I’d appreciate your thoughts on the loans shown in the most recently published accounts and what this tells us about the sale of the club to Nagle. We’d need to see the accounts for the US company Town FC LLC which Nagle used to acquire the club, to know the price paid for the 100% shareholding – I’m assuming that US accounting requirements include the need for this investment to be shown at face value even if it is subsequently adjusted to a current value eg in the event of promotion / relegation. My expectation would be that Hoyle would look to recoup the outlay of recovering the 75% holding from Pure Sports Consultancy Ltd (PSCL) and gross up by a third. As PSCL is in liquidation the price paid for the 75% should be part of the liquidator’s final report on recoveries in due course. I’m more interested (nosey) about the changes in loans and related party transactions shown in the recent accounts. Under note 19 loans have increased during the year from c£43.1m to c£50.4m suggesting over £7m has been needed to fund the club over the year to June ’23. Broadly in line with the loss so no real surprise there (although net debt only up c£4.2m as higher cash balances held at ’23 year end). Under note 28 related party transactions the ‘entity with control’ (Nagle) has provided c£30.5m of loans of which £4m was newly introduced and c£26.5m transferred to a ‘related party’. This appears to me to be a repayment to Hoyle, likely to be the major part of the investment Nagle has made to acquire the club. Do you agree? Further information under note 28 shows the ‘related party’ (taken to be Hoyle) introduced the net c£7m so has effectively funded the ’23 losses even though he was the minority shareholder until the 75% was obtained from PSCL in March that year. After the c£26.5m repayment he still has outstanding loans of £25.25m. For some reason I don’t understand (perhaps you can enlighten) this £25.25m which is interest free but secured (Hoyle holds a debenture) has been written down by notional interest costs (over a number of years?) to a carrying value of c£19m which is repayable on specific future events (return to the PL). These loans are shown as repayable over up to 5 years but it appears that this is an accounting best fit rather than any contractual limitation for the specific condition to apply. So, although narrative around the sale suggested a substantial write down in his loans by Hoyle as part of the transaction this appears to me to be currently c£6m. I accept this is substantial to the majority of us and the £19m balance may never be recovered but isn’t as generous as I anticipated it might be. Hoyle did waive the £289k rent on Canalside during the year and will also continue to waive rent whilst the agreement on the extra loan repayment remains in place. Will the £19m be written down further each year by ongoing notional interest costs so the £6m write off will increase with time? On the subject of interest costs no reference is made to Nagle’s loans being interest free. Should we be reading anything in to that? I guess not as long as any interest cost is rolled up and not paid in cash to impact upon the operating budget. |
|
incognito
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by incognito on Apr 11, 2024 13:15:02 GMT 1
The actual loss for 2023 was 'only' £6.62M - Maguire's number ignores profit from player sales (among other things). From a 3-year FFP standpoint we will still be around the break even mark up to the end of 2023. It's this current season onwards where we will start to see the significant losses. Incognito, as the most financially knowledgeable poster on the club’s finances on this forum (imo) I’d appreciate your thoughts on the loans shown in the most recently published accounts and what this tells us about the sale of the club to Nagle. We’d need to see the accounts for the US company Town FC LLC which Nagle used to acquire the club, to know the price paid for the 100% shareholding – I’m assuming that US accounting requirements include the need for this investment to be shown at face value even if it is subsequently adjusted to a current value eg in the event of promotion / relegation. My expectation would be that Hoyle would look to recoup the outlay of recovering the 75% holding from Pure Sports Consultancy Ltd (PSCL) and gross up by a third. As PSCL is in liquidation the price paid for the 75% should be part of the liquidator’s final report on recoveries in due course. I’m more interested (nosey) about the changes in loans and related party transactions shown in the recent accounts. Under note 19 loans have increased during the year from c£43.1m to c£50.4m suggesting over £7m has been needed to fund the club over the year to June ’23. Broadly in line with the loss so no real surprise there (although net debt only up c£4.2m as higher cash balances held at ’23 year end). Under note 28 related party transactions the ‘entity with control’ (Nagle) has provided c£30.5m of loans of which £4m was newly introduced and c£26.5m transferred to a ‘related party’. This appears to me to be a repayment to Hoyle, likely to be the major part of the investment Nagle has made to acquire the club. Do you agree? Further information under note 28 shows the ‘related party’ (taken to be Hoyle) introduced the net c£7m so has effectively funded the ’23 losses even though he was the minority shareholder until the 75% was obtained from PSCL in March that year. After the c£26.5m repayment he still has outstanding loans of £25.25m. For some reason I don’t understand (perhaps you can enlighten) this £25.25m which is interest free but secured (Hoyle holds a debenture) has been written down by notional interest costs (over a number of years?) to a carrying value of c£19m which is repayable on specific future events (return to the PL). These loans are shown as repayable over up to 5 years but it appears that this is an accounting best fit rather than any contractual limitation for the specific condition to apply. So, although narrative around the sale suggested a substantial write down in his loans by Hoyle as part of the transaction this appears to me to be currently c£6m. I accept this is substantial to the majority of us and the £19m balance may never be recovered but isn’t as generous as I anticipated it might be. Hoyle did waive the £289k rent on Canalside during the year and will also continue to waive rent whilst the agreement on the extra loan repayment remains in place. Will the £19m be written down further each year by ongoing notional interest costs so the £6m write off will increase with time? On the subject of interest costs no reference is made to Nagle’s loans being interest free. Should we be reading anything in to that? I guess not as long as any interest cost is rolled up and not paid in cash to impact upon the operating budget. I'm quite comfortable navigating the P&L (and, therefore FFP), but ultimately I'm still very much a layman  On a topic as potentially emotive as this, we would really benefit from the assessment of somebody with genuine accounting expertise. My own inexpert interpretation is that, over the last couple of seasons, the debt to DH increased from £34m to around £51.7m. (This was a combination of covering operating losses, and clearing the existing bank loan - the interest payments on which had previously been tangible cash leaving the business) It appears that slightly over half of this debt has been transferred to KN, with DH retaining £25.3m on similar, interest-free terms as before. (While interest-free, there is still a GAAP requirement to reflect the "cost" of the loan in the accounts - hence 'notional interest' based on 'present value' - an accounting device rather than tangible cash expense). The interest terms on KN's portion are certainly worth keeping an eye on next March. I don't think it's possible to tell from this how much DH has received in order to relinquish 100% of the shares and half the debt owed to him. As you say - the 'Town FC LLC' accounts might enable us to work it out in the same way as Phil's accounts did a couple of years ago. Looking at previous football club examples, the typical mechanism for writing off Directors Loans (particularly prior to a sale) seems to be to simply convert them to equity. In such instances, there would be no need to wait for the accounts to be published as the allotment of shares would be visible through Companies House. I must admit, I had been keeping half an eye out for an 'SH01' filing late Spring / early Summer last year, but to no avail. |
|
incognito
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by incognito on May 20, 2024 11:09:06 GMT 1
I've seen one or two posts this weekend querying the EFL financial restrictions we will be operating under next season so thought it might be useful to put up a summary of the relevant sections of the EFL Handbook League One Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP)While the Championship Profitability & Sustainability (P&S) rules revolve (more or less) around the full P&L and permissible losses over a three-year period, SCMP is more narrowly focused on the relationship between player costs and club income and is designed to prevent overspending before it occurs. In a nutshell: Player Related Expenditure includes: - Wages, bonuses, signing on fees, social security & pensions costs, agents fees, insurance premiums, benefits in kind (excluding training / fitness expense), other job-related expenses.
Nb: Any expenditure on (owned) Under 21 players falls outside of the scope of the SCMP calculation. Relevant Turnover includes: - All EFL distributions (including TV & Radio) and PL solidarity payments
- Match Revenue - gate receipts
- Commercial Net Income – Hospitality, Commercial, Sponsorship, Programmes, Shop, Lottery, Catering
- Any Stadium-related Revenue
Football Fortune Income includes: - Revenue generated from any cup runs (ie progressing beyond Round One)
- Net transfer income (actual cash in* vs actual cash out) between 1st May and 30th April.
- Donations or cash injections that are interest-free with no requirement for future repayment
- Equity injections - i.e. converting existing debt to equity
* For example - any scheduled instalments on the Karlan Grant fee would now factor into this, whereas under P&S the full amount was wrapped up in the 20/21 P&L. Each club is required to submit a full SCMP Excel package for the forthcoming season on 16th June, followed by a mid-season update on 1st December. If a club is on course to exceed spending limits, the league will apply a transfer embargo. I suppose what many people are going to be interested in is the extent to which a club can benefit from owner funding. Firstly, unlike in The Championship, the (substantial) costs of running Canalside are now outside of the scope of the calculation. Likewise the costs of the coaching staff. As such, it's possible (in theory) to gain competitive advantage through better conditioning / preparation / coaching etc of players. Secondly, should the owner want to, it is possible to directly inject cash in order to enhance the playing budget. However, this cannot be done in a way that places the club under any increased debt - i.e. Directors Loans (Obviously these are still a legitimate means of funding the business, they just can't be used to inflate your playing budget). |
|
|
|
Post by aloadofdbullocks on May 20, 2024 11:47:09 GMT 1
I've seen one or two posts this weekend querying the EFL financial restrictions we will be operating under next season so thought it might be useful to put up a summary of the relevant sections of the EFL Handbook League One Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP)While the Championship Profitability & Sustainability (P&S) rules revolve (more or less) around the full P&L and permissible losses over a three-year period, SCMP is more narrowly focused on the relationship between player costs and club income and is designed to prevent overspending before it occurs. In a nutshell: Player Related Expenditure includes: - Wages, bonuses, signing on fees, social security & pensions costs, agents fees, insurance premiums, benefits in kind (excluding training / fitness expense), other job-related expenses.
Nb: Any expenditure on (owned) Under 21 players falls outside of the scope of the SCMP calculation. Relevant Turnover includes: - All EFL distributions (including TV & Radio) and PL solidarity payments
- Match Revenue - gate receipts
- Commercial Net Income – Hospitality, Commercial, Sponsorship, Programmes, Shop, Lottery, Catering
- Any Stadium-related Revenue
Football Fortune Income includes: - Revenue generated from any cup runs (ie progressing beyond Round One)
- Net transfer income (actual cash in* vs actual cash out) between 1st May and 30th April.
- Donations or cash injections that are interest-free with no requirement for future repayment
- Equity injections - i.e. converting existing debt to equity
* For example - any scheduled instalments on the Karlan Grant fee would now factor into this, whereas under P&S the full amount was wrapped up in the 20/21 P&L. Each club is required to submit a full SCMP Excel package for the forthcoming season on 16th June, followed by a mid-season update on 1st December. If a club is on course to exceed spending limits, the league will apply a transfer embargo. I suppose what many people are going to be interested in is the extent to which a club can benefit from owner funding. Firstly, unlike in The Championship, the (substantial) costs of running Canalside are now outside of the scope of the calculation. Likewise the costs of the coaching staff. As such, it's possible (in theory) to gain competitive advantage through better conditioning / preparation / coaching etc of players. Secondly, should the owner want to, it is possible to directly inject cash in order to enhance the playing budget. However, this cannot be done in a way that places the club under any increased debt - i.e. Directors Loans (Obviously these are still a legitimate means of funding the business, they just can't be used to inflate your playing budget). I liked the bit about donations that required no pay back counting as Football Fortune Income. Come on Kev you know it makes sense. You’re an entrepreneur - you have got to speculate to accumulate! |
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on May 20, 2024 18:27:49 GMT 1
I do enjoy it when sanity breaks out on this forum, even if I need to be in a darkened room to read it…
|
|
goodbet
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,609
|
Post by goodbet on May 20, 2024 20:00:51 GMT 1
Accounts are upto summer 2023 so ignore recent dealings The recent deals are included in the Account notes as post balance sheet events. They are also included in the Group Strategic Report, page 4, 2nd last paragraph So since the year end of 30th June 2023, we have spent £4.7m on players. Essentially, we've spent just under £5m on players this season. It is amazing what dross costs. |
|
|
|
Post by andyeastleake on May 20, 2024 22:03:54 GMT 1
The recent deals are included in the Account notes as post balance sheet events. They are also included in the Group Strategic Report, page 4, 2nd last paragraph So since the year end of 30th June 2023, we have spent £4.7m on players. Essentially, we've spent just under £5m on players this season. It is amazing what dross costs. TBF, I think that should read "It's amazing what some are prepared to pay for dross". |
|
|
|
Post by haskins on May 21, 2024 10:52:08 GMT 1
I've seen one or two posts this weekend querying the EFL financial restrictions we will be operating under next season so thought it might be useful to put up a summary of the relevant sections of the EFL Handbook League One Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP)While the Championship Profitability & Sustainability (P&S) rules revolve (more or less) around the full P&L and permissible losses over a three-year period, SCMP is more narrowly focused on the relationship between player costs and club income and is designed to prevent overspending before it occurs. In a nutshell: Player Related Expenditure includes: - Wages, bonuses, signing on fees, social security & pensions costs, agents fees, insurance premiums, benefits in kind (excluding training / fitness expense), other job-related expenses.
Nb: Any expenditure on (owned) Under 21 players falls outside of the scope of the SCMP calculation. Relevant Turnover includes: - All EFL distributions (including TV & Radio) and PL solidarity payments
- Match Revenue - gate receipts
- Commercial Net Income – Hospitality, Commercial, Sponsorship, Programmes, Shop, Lottery, Catering
- Any Stadium-related Revenue
Football Fortune Income includes: - Revenue generated from any cup runs (ie progressing beyond Round One)
- Net transfer income (actual cash in* vs actual cash out) between 1st May and 30th April.
- Donations or cash injections that are interest-free with no requirement for future repayment
- Equity injections - i.e. converting existing debt to equity
* For example - any scheduled instalments on the Karlan Grant fee would now factor into this, whereas under P&S the full amount was wrapped up in the 20/21 P&L. Each club is required to submit a full SCMP Excel package for the forthcoming season on 16th June, followed by a mid-season update on 1st December. If a club is on course to exceed spending limits, the league will apply a transfer embargo. I suppose what many people are going to be interested in is the extent to which a club can benefit from owner funding. Firstly, unlike in The Championship, the (substantial) costs of running Canalside are now outside of the scope of the calculation. Likewise the costs of the coaching staff. As such, it's possible (in theory) to gain competitive advantage through better conditioning / preparation / coaching etc of players. Secondly, should the owner want to, it is possible to directly inject cash in order to enhance the playing budget. However, this cannot be done in a way that places the club under any increased debt - i.e. Directors Loans (Obviously these are still a legitimate means of funding the business, they just can't be used to inflate your playing budget). So the limiting factor is the up to 75% of Relevant Turnover for Player Expenditure. It therefore doesn’t matter how many billions an owner can give as a non-refundable sum, it still can’t be spent on players. The loophole could be Sponsorship by Kevin through an entity. Overall though apart from boosting the non-playing side of things as you point out and investing in infrastructure a wealthy owner is not necessarily going to advantage a club to any great extent. Wonder how City would get on in League One. |
|
|
|
Post by Terriersmad on May 21, 2024 11:03:07 GMT 1
I've seen one or two posts this weekend querying the EFL financial restrictions we will be operating under next season so thought it might be useful to put up a summary of the relevant sections of the EFL Handbook League One Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP)While the Championship Profitability & Sustainability (P&S) rules revolve (more or less) around the full P&L and permissible losses over a three-year period, SCMP is more narrowly focused on the relationship between player costs and club income and is designed to prevent overspending before it occurs. In a nutshell: Player Related Expenditure includes: - Wages, bonuses, signing on fees, social security & pensions costs, agents fees, insurance premiums, benefits in kind (excluding training / fitness expense), other job-related expenses.
Nb: Any expenditure on (owned) Under 21 players falls outside of the scope of the SCMP calculation. Relevant Turnover includes: - All EFL distributions (including TV & Radio) and PL solidarity payments
- Match Revenue - gate receipts
- Commercial Net Income – Hospitality, Commercial, Sponsorship, Programmes, Shop, Lottery, Catering
- Any Stadium-related Revenue
Football Fortune Income includes: - Revenue generated from any cup runs (ie progressing beyond Round One)
- Net transfer income (actual cash in* vs actual cash out) between 1st May and 30th April.
- Donations or cash injections that are interest-free with no requirement for future repayment
- Equity injections - i.e. converting existing debt to equity
* For example - any scheduled instalments on the Karlan Grant fee would now factor into this, whereas under P&S the full amount was wrapped up in the 20/21 P&L. Each club is required to submit a full SCMP Excel package for the forthcoming season on 16th June, followed by a mid-season update on 1st December. If a club is on course to exceed spending limits, the league will apply a transfer embargo. I suppose what many people are going to be interested in is the extent to which a club can benefit from owner funding. Firstly, unlike in The Championship, the (substantial) costs of running Canalside are now outside of the scope of the calculation. Likewise the costs of the coaching staff. As such, it's possible (in theory) to gain competitive advantage through better conditioning / preparation / coaching etc of players. Secondly, should the owner want to, it is possible to directly inject cash in order to enhance the playing budget. However, this cannot be done in a way that places the club under any increased debt - i.e. Directors Loans (Obviously these are still a legitimate means of funding the business, they just can't be used to inflate your playing budget). So the limiting factor is the up to 75% of Relevant Turnover for Player Expenditure. It therefore doesn’t matter how many billions an owner can give as a non-refundable sum, it still can’t be spent on players. The loophole could be Sponsorship by Kevin through an entity. Overall though apart from boosting the non-playing side of things as you point out and investing in infrastructure a wealthy owner is not necessarily going to advantage a club to any great extent. Wonder how City would get on in League One. Turnover for the last figures (correct me if I'm wrong) stood at £18.1m. So a wage bill of £13.5m would be permissible under current rules. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that represent an increase on spending on player wages compared to 2022/23? Chuck in the fact we've got relegation clauses in contracts, plus some big earners off the wage bill, and we should have significant leeway for attracting players to the club. |
|
incognito
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by incognito on May 21, 2024 11:10:12 GMT 1
So the limiting factor is the up to 75% of Relevant Turnover for Player Expenditure. It therefore doesn’t matter how many billions an owner can give as a non-refundable sum, it still can’t be spent on players. The loophole could be Sponsorship by Kevin through an entity. Overall though apart from boosting the non-playing side of things as you point out and investing in infrastructure a wealthy owner is not necessarily going to advantage a club to any great extent. Wonder how City would get on in League One. Donations / cash injections / equity injections would fall under "Football Fortune Income", 100% of which could theoretically go towards the playing budget, on top of the 75% of "Relevant Turnover". |
|
Dan
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,868
|
Post by Dan on May 21, 2024 11:15:39 GMT 1
I've seen one or two posts this weekend querying the EFL financial restrictions we will be operating under next season so thought it might be useful to put up a summary of the relevant sections of the EFL Handbook League One Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP)While the Championship Profitability & Sustainability (P&S) rules revolve (more or less) around the full P&L and permissible losses over a three-year period, SCMP is more narrowly focused on the relationship between player costs and club income and is designed to prevent overspending before it occurs. In a nutshell: Player Related Expenditure includes: - Wages, bonuses, signing on fees, social security & pensions costs, agents fees, insurance premiums, benefits in kind (excluding training / fitness expense), other job-related expenses.
Nb: Any expenditure on (owned) Under 21 players falls outside of the scope of the SCMP calculation. Relevant Turnover includes: - All EFL distributions (including TV & Radio) and PL solidarity payments
- Match Revenue - gate receipts
- Commercial Net Income – Hospitality, Commercial, Sponsorship, Programmes, Shop, Lottery, Catering
- Any Stadium-related Revenue
Football Fortune Income includes: - Revenue generated from any cup runs (ie progressing beyond Round One)
- Net transfer income (actual cash in* vs actual cash out) between 1st May and 30th April.
- Donations or cash injections that are interest-free with no requirement for future repayment
- Equity injections - i.e. converting existing debt to equity
* For example - any scheduled instalments on the Karlan Grant fee would now factor into this, whereas under P&S the full amount was wrapped up in the 20/21 P&L. Each club is required to submit a full SCMP Excel package for the forthcoming season on 16th June, followed by a mid-season update on 1st December. If a club is on course to exceed spending limits, the league will apply a transfer embargo. I suppose what many people are going to be interested in is the extent to which a club can benefit from owner funding. Firstly, unlike in The Championship, the (substantial) costs of running Canalside are now outside of the scope of the calculation. Likewise the costs of the coaching staff. As such, it's possible (in theory) to gain competitive advantage through better conditioning / preparation / coaching etc of players. Secondly, should the owner want to, it is possible to directly inject cash in order to enhance the playing budget. However, this cannot be done in a way that places the club under any increased debt - i.e. Directors Loans (Obviously these are still a legitimate means of funding the business, they just can't be used to inflate your playing budget). So the limiting factor is the up to 75% of Relevant Turnover for Player Expenditure. It therefore doesn’t matter how many billions an owner can give as a non-refundable sum, it still can’t be spent on players. The loophole could be Sponsorship by Kevin through an entity. Overall though apart from boosting the non-playing side of things as you point out and investing in infrastructure a wealthy owner is not necessarily going to advantage a club to any great extent. Wonder how City would get on in League One. Hopefully we get to find out after their 115 charges are heard next year. |
|
|
|
Post by aloadofdbullocks on May 21, 2024 11:27:09 GMT 1
So the limiting factor is the up to 75% of Relevant Turnover for Player Expenditure. It therefore doesn’t matter how many billions an owner can give as a non-refundable sum, it still can’t be spent on players. The loophole could be Sponsorship by Kevin through an entity. Overall though apart from boosting the non-playing side of things as you point out and investing in infrastructure a wealthy owner is not necessarily going to advantage a club to any great extent. Wonder how City would get on in League One. Donations / cash injections / equity injections would fall under "Football Fortune Income", 100% of which could theoretically go towards the playing budget, on top of the 75% of "Relevant Turnover". That's how I read it - the sum of both of them. So again Kev - you know what to do! 😀 |
|
|
|
Post by pilks123 on May 21, 2024 11:45:05 GMT 1
Turnover for the last figures (correct me if I'm wrong) stood at £18.1m. So a wage bill of £13.5m would be permissible under current rules. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that represent an increase on spending on player wages compared to 2022/23? Chuck in the fact we've got relegation clauses in contracts, plus some big earners off the wage bill, and we should have significant leeway for attracting players to the club. Unless i'm reading incog's post wrong, player expenditure doesn't actually include the transfer fee between clubs, just the signing on bonus and wage of the player. So given what you say with some room being made in the wage bill there's potential there for a number of decent signings to be made and still fall within limits. Just depends on how we fund said transfer fees, whether it's Kev taking the hit or the club by means of director loans or other debt. The counter to that is revenues are expected to go down significantly and expect turnover for this season to be much lower than in the championship. Doubt we'll see them blow their brains out and risk embargo/points deductions but would expect the budget is there for a good 5/6 players (assuming all the outs occur as everyone expects). |
|
|
|
Post by Terriersmad on May 21, 2024 11:51:25 GMT 1
Turnover for the last figures (correct me if I'm wrong) stood at £18.1m. So a wage bill of £13.5m would be permissible under current rules. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that represent an increase on spending on player wages compared to 2022/23? Chuck in the fact we've got relegation clauses in contracts, plus some big earners off the wage bill, and we should have significant leeway for attracting players to the club. Unless i'm reading incog's post wrong, player expenditure doesn't actually include the transfer fee between clubs, just the signing on bonus and wage of the player. So given what you say with some room being made in the wage bill there's potential there for a number of decent signings to be made and still fall within limits. Just depends on how we fund said transfer fees, whether it's Kev taking the hit or the club by means of director loans or other debt. The counter to that is revenues are expected to go down significantly and expect turnover for this season to be much lower than in the championship. Doubt we'll see them blow their brains out and risk embargo/points deductions but would expect the budget is there for a good 5/6 players (assuming all the outs occur as everyone expects). Your reading is the same as mine. |
|
