|
|
Post by htafcdreams on Aug 6, 2024 22:18:32 GMT 1
I don't do hypotheticals, I just say what I see. And in my brief experience of Jake Edwards, I think he's a decent bloke. The end. Hypotheticals? What was hypothetical about my post? I was asking a question about the decision making process and who makes what calls. Additionally I didn't make any comments to suggest that Edwards was either a bad bloke or not doing a decent job. It is absolutely fine if you don't know how things work but let's not change the context of my post, which for the avoidance of doubt, was a question (about how things work). Always like your posts Dugnet. Decent thoughts |
|
|
|
Post by nicovaesen on Aug 6, 2024 22:40:45 GMT 1
So are we bossing league one then destroying the championship to keep up with our target of prem in three seasons?
|
|
|
|
Post by Up the Duff. on Aug 6, 2024 23:45:59 GMT 1
Just in and no time to listen to the interview. I presume there was nothing really in the interview that was interesting or a surprise etc ?
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 24,108 
|
Post by Tinpot on Aug 6, 2024 23:50:40 GMT 1
So are we bossing league one then destroying the championship to keep up with our target of prem in three seasons? As things stand, if I was offered promotion back to the Championship 3 years from now I'd snap your hand off. |
|
|
|
Post by kennyk2 on Aug 7, 2024 7:31:21 GMT 1
This one was interesting regarding Rudoni, "we want everyone swimming in the right direction... [it was] the right move for the football club".
|
|
|
|
Post by detox on Aug 7, 2024 7:37:33 GMT 1
The fans don't give a shit about the boilers, kitchens and toilets. We just want a winning team to get us back where we belong. After the shitshow these lot served up last season, it's the least we deserve. I certainly give a shit about toilets... |
|
|
|
Post by detox on Aug 7, 2024 7:44:30 GMT 1
Only listened last night to the full interview..one thing that puzzled me when JE was talking about the regs regarding spends and losses in league one being different, but then said if you get promoted those spends/losses carry forward into the championship. So, for instance if Brum lose £20m to get promoted from league one, then that's £20m of the 3 year maximum £39m loss you're allowed ?
He backed that up with saying Ipswich had carried fwd losses and had they not been promoted they would have suffered penalties for breaching the regs.....so that suggests it's not just one year carried fwd, but 2, or maybe 3 ?
|
|
|
|
Post by dugnet on Aug 7, 2024 8:24:01 GMT 1
Only listened last night to the full interview..one thing that puzzled me when JE was talking about the regs regarding spends and losses in league one being different, but then said if you get promoted those spends/losses carry forward into the championship. So, for instance if Brum lose £20m to get promoted from league one, then that's £20m of the 3 year maximum £39m loss you're allowed ? He backed that up with saying Ipswich had carried fwd losses and had they not been promoted they would have suffered penalties for breaching the regs.....so that suggests it's not just one year carried fwd, but 2, or maybe 3 ? The "losses" in League One are carried forward when you are promoted and, as I understand it, spread over the 3 year period i.e. your 3 years start when you are promoted and you can only lose £39m over 3 years (on a rolling basis). Of course when you are promoted your revenues are increased (which helps with the losses). I think (not sure I am right) that Ipswich had some sponsorship wheeze that supported the investment into the team. |
|
|
|
Post by nicovaesen on Aug 7, 2024 8:36:07 GMT 1
Only listened last night to the full interview..one thing that puzzled me when JE was talking about the regs regarding spends and losses in league one being different, but then said if you get promoted those spends/losses carry forward into the championship. So, for instance if Brum lose £20m to get promoted from league one, then that's £20m of the 3 year maximum £39m loss you're allowed ? He backed that up with saying Ipswich had carried fwd losses and had they not been promoted they would have suffered penalties for breaching the regs.....so that suggests it's not just one year carried fwd, but 2, or maybe 3 ? The "losses" in League One are carried forward when you are promoted and, as I understand it, spread over the 3 year period i.e. your 3 years start when you are promoted and you can only lose £39m over 3 years (on a rolling basis). Of course when you are promoted your revenues are increased (which helps with the losses). I think (not sure I am right) that Ipswich had some sponsorship wheeze that supported the investment into the team. Can’t help but think if a certain annoying ginger warbler had anything to do with that? |
|
|
|
Post by dugnet on Aug 7, 2024 8:49:10 GMT 1
Having the listened to the interview my key takes were:
JE is a measured, professional and insightful individual. I think he has taken time to try and understand the HTAFC fanbase and is still keen to learn.
Lessons have been considered from the 1st year - time will tell what has been learned. I refer to the managerial merry-go-round and the performances on the pitch.
JE is keen to manage expectations. He stressed it won't be easy (he's right) and that although we are prepared invest in the squad competing with Birmingham isn't an option (I don't have a problem with this).
The pre-season has highlighted where MD wants additional resources, work continues to make those additions. It is also possible we may lose a player, or two, if valuations are met before the window closes.
The long term is as, if not more, important than the short term. We want to get promoted this season, but we might not. If not the commitment to the long term will remain.
Overall I do think there is a commitment to make the club better, everything at the stadium would suggest that. It is therefore about execution, and primarily execution on the pitch. I think JE is aware of the clamour for success but he is also keen to strike a balance by managing expectations.
Will fans be satisfied/patient if we are "work in progress"? I suspect not, purely because of what we have experienced over the past few years. I do think we have to be realistic but at the same time we should be aiming at a top 6 finish.
I am still of the mind that I will take a view at the end of September. I am far more encouraged than worried but with Birmingham almost "buying" a promotion (doesn't mean that will work) we are playing for one less promotion spot. That is a tough ask in a tough league.
Long may the communication with the fanbase continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by dugnet on Aug 7, 2024 8:50:27 GMT 1
The "losses" in League One are carried forward when you are promoted and, as I understand it, spread over the 3 year period i.e. your 3 years start when you are promoted and you can only lose £39m over 3 years (on a rolling basis). Of course when you are promoted your revenues are increased (which helps with the losses). I think (not sure I am right) that Ipswich had some sponsorship wheeze that supported the investment into the team. Can’t help but think if a certain annoying ginger warbler had anything to do with that? Quite possibly.... |
|
ldr
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,131
|
Post by ldr on Aug 7, 2024 9:09:02 GMT 1
The "losses" in League One are carried forward when you are promoted and, as I understand it, spread over the 3 year period i.e. your 3 years start when you are promoted and you can only lose £39m over 3 years (on a rolling basis). Of course when you are promoted your revenues are increased (which helps with the losses). I think (not sure I am right) that Ipswich had some sponsorship wheeze that supported the investment into the team. Can’t help but think if a certain annoying ginger warbler had anything to do with that? Mick Hucknall? |
|
|
|
Post by dugnet on Aug 7, 2024 9:18:36 GMT 1
Can’t help but think if a certain annoying ginger warbler had anything to do with that? Mick Hucknall? No it won't be him, didn't he say "money's too tight to mention"? Or was that Dean Hoyle?? |
|
|
|
Post by htafcokay on Aug 7, 2024 9:24:02 GMT 1
Can’t help but think if a certain annoying ginger warbler had anything to do with that? Mick Hucknall? Chris Evans? |
|
ldr
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,131
|
Post by ldr on Aug 7, 2024 9:42:34 GMT 1
No it won't be him, didn't he say "money's too tight to mention"? Or was that Dean Hoyle?? Apparently, Simply Red have a new album due out called ‘Sleepwalking into Relegation’ |
|
|
|
Post by ruggedivy on Aug 7, 2024 10:03:51 GMT 1
Interesting that everyone sees Brums promotion as been nailed on.
Yes they have splashed the cash but have gone for a manager with no experience as a first team coach.
Yes, he has pedigree working through the ranks predominantly under Brendan Rodgers but it's a lot of pressure to be under given how much more resource they have compared to the other 23 teams.
Failure rates of first time managers are high.
Be interesting to see what the feeling is around the place if they have a wobble!
|
|
|
|
Post by townarentbest on Aug 7, 2024 10:06:47 GMT 1
This one was interesting regarding Rudoni, "we want everyone swimming in the right direction... [it was] the right move for the football club". And yet... |
|
ambryboy
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,879
|
Post by ambryboy on Aug 7, 2024 10:09:34 GMT 1
No it won't be him, didn't he say "money's too tight to mention"? Or was that Dean Hoyle?? Apparently, Simply Red have a new album due out called ‘Sleepwalking into Relegation’ I wish that ginger wazzock would sleepwalk off Beachy Head. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Ern on Aug 7, 2024 10:32:11 GMT 1
I would have liked to hear what the exact delay is in acquiring the stadium. There must be substantial progress though as we wouldn't have invested so much if we didn't expect it to happen.
|
|
incognito
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,513
|
Post by incognito on Aug 7, 2024 10:49:53 GMT 1
Only listened last night to the full interview..one thing that puzzled me when JE was talking about the regs regarding spends and losses in league one being different, but then said if you get promoted those spends/losses carry forward into the championship. So, for instance if Brum lose £20m to get promoted from league one, then that's £20m of the 3 year maximum £39m loss you're allowed ? He backed that up with saying Ipswich had carried fwd losses and had they not been promoted they would have suffered penalties for breaching the regs.....so that suggests it's not just one year carried fwd, but 2, or maybe 3 ? The "losses" in League One are carried forward when you are promoted and, as I understand it, spread over the 3 year period i.e. your 3 years start when you are promoted and you can only lose £39m over 3 years (on a rolling basis). Of course when you are promoted your revenues are increased (which helps with the losses). I think (not sure I am right) that Ipswich had some sponsorship wheeze that supported the investment into the team. That's not quite right. The three year rolling period always refers to years T, T-1 and T-2. Our FFP aggregate at the end of this season will be based on the financial results from: 2022/23 (Championship): -£6.6 Million 2023/24 (Championship): -£15 Million (my estimate) 2024/25 (League One): Another eight figure loss For all the consternation around budgets and FFP on here last summer, the reality was that we were nowhere near breaching the £39M limit. By the time we return, it's likely to be a more prescient concern. By then, though, our business model will be different in two notable ways: Control of the stadium will change the revenue profile, while the re-opening of the academy - the costs of which fall outside of FFP - allows us to re-allocate a chunk of the (substantial) Canalside overhead outside of the calculation. As JE points out - while League One owners are theoretically able to pump in as much cash as they like, the 'FFP bill' for the trading losses incurred in the meantime suddenly becomes due once they set foot back in the Championship. Unless you intend to stay in League One for ever, you are still effectively operating under FFP. |
|
|
|
Post by shadwelljim on Aug 7, 2024 12:01:21 GMT 1
Good listening, Jake is very diplomatic. He answers the questions but with multiple caveats!! Still overall I think the club is progressing really well, and the players have everything they could ask for in League 1, div 3!
Also, a lot of the supporters needs have been addressed, the only missing link is providing a canalside experience for fans, that definitely spoilt us!
Perhaps the new bar Jake talks about may sate us ?!
|
|
|
|
Post by royrace on Aug 7, 2024 12:08:03 GMT 1
Only listened last night to the full interview..one thing that puzzled me when JE was talking about the regs regarding spends and losses in league one being different, but then said if you get promoted those spends/losses carry forward into the championship. So, for instance if Brum lose £20m to get promoted from league one, then that's £20m of the 3 year maximum £39m loss you're allowed ? He backed that up with saying Ipswich had carried fwd losses and had they not been promoted they would have suffered penalties for breaching the regs.....so that suggests it's not just one year carried fwd, but 2, or maybe 3 ? I was actually surprised to hear Ipswich had spent big money, I hadn't realised! Explains some of their success I guess but they seem to have gone about it carefully, quite a few ex championship cast offs in their squad last season and more that I'd not heard of. I guess they did spend big but not in the usual sense that involves signing established big name players on silly money. They're also a big club with a decent fan base so quite worrying to hear they'd have struggled financially without getting two promotions on the bounce! If it's true it just shows how difficult it is for clubs to compete. Edit: According to transfermrkt they spent ~0.4M net in their L1 promotion season and ~2M net in their championship promotion season. I guess there were loan fees as well but not exactly what I would class as dangerous overspend!! So I'm not really sure why JE was using them as an example where the wheels could have fallen off had they not been promoted twice consecutively? What am I missing? Can anyone enlighten me? |
|
bigtruck
Frank Worthington Terrier
[M0:0][N4:#bigtrucktone#]
Posts: 1,829
|
Post by bigtruck on Aug 7, 2024 13:09:01 GMT 1
The "losses" in League One are carried forward when you are promoted and, as I understand it, spread over the 3 year period i.e. your 3 years start when you are promoted and you can only lose £39m over 3 years (on a rolling basis). Of course when you are promoted your revenues are increased (which helps with the losses). I think (not sure I am right) that Ipswich had some sponsorship wheeze that supported the investment into the team. That's not quite right. The three year rolling period always refers to years T, T-1 and T-2. Our FFP aggregate at the end of this season will be based on the financial results from: 2022/23 (Championship): -£6.6 Million 2023/24 (Championship): -£15 Million (my estimate) 2024/25 (League One): Another eight figure loss For all the consternation around budgets and FFP on here last summer, the reality was that we were nowhere near breaching the £39M limit. By the time we return, it's likely to be a more prescient concern. By then, though, our business model will be different in two notable ways: Control of the stadium will change the revenue profile, while the re-opening of the academy - the costs of which fall outside of FFP - allows us to re-allocate a chunk of the (substantial) Canalside overhead outside of the calculation. As JE points out - while League One owners are theoretically able to pump in as much cash as they like, the 'FFP bill' for the trading losses incurred in the meantime suddenly becomes due once they set foot back in the Championship. Unless you intend to stay in League One for ever, you are still effectively operating under FFP. One question I had listening to the explanation was if KN pumped a load of cash in on transfers and for sake of argument we made a loss of £30m but got promoted, that £30m loss would be part of the 3 year FFP total. But if we didn’t get promoted in season 1, spent next to nothing in year 2 so our losses say £2m and got promoted, would it just be the £2m that was applicable to FFP? Hope that makes sense |
|
incognito
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,513
|
Post by incognito on Aug 7, 2024 13:20:56 GMT 1
That's not quite right. The three year rolling period always refers to years T, T-1 and T-2. Our FFP aggregate at the end of this season will be based on the financial results from: 2022/23 (Championship): -£6.6 Million 2023/24 (Championship): -£15 Million (my estimate) 2024/25 (League One): Another eight figure loss For all the consternation around budgets and FFP on here last summer, the reality was that we were nowhere near breaching the £39M limit. By the time we return, it's likely to be a more prescient concern. By then, though, our business model will be different in two notable ways: Control of the stadium will change the revenue profile, while the re-opening of the academy - the costs of which fall outside of FFP - allows us to re-allocate a chunk of the (substantial) Canalside overhead outside of the calculation. As JE points out - while League One owners are theoretically able to pump in as much cash as they like, the 'FFP bill' for the trading losses incurred in the meantime suddenly becomes due once they set foot back in the Championship. Unless you intend to stay in League One for ever, you are still effectively operating under FFP. One question I had listening to the explanation was if KN pumped a load of cash in on transfers and for sake of argument we made a loss of £30m but got promoted, that £30m loss would be part of the 3 year FFP total. But if we didn’t get promoted in season 1, spent next to nothing in year 2 so our losses say £2m and got promoted, would it just be the £2m that was applicable to FFP? Hope that makes sense The reference period rolls on each year so it would be based on the aggregate of: 2023/24 (Championship): -£15 Million (my estimate) 2024/25 (League One): -£30 Million (your hypothetical #1) 2025/26 (League One): -£2 Million (your hypothetical #2) |
|
|
|
Post by tockyterrier on Aug 7, 2024 13:29:16 GMT 1
Only listened last night to the full interview..one thing that puzzled me when JE was talking about the regs regarding spends and losses in league one being different, but then said if you get promoted those spends/losses carry forward into the championship. So, for instance if Brum lose £20m to get promoted from league one, then that's £20m of the 3 year maximum £39m loss you're allowed ? He backed that up with saying Ipswich had carried fwd losses and had they not been promoted they would have suffered penalties for breaching the regs.....so that suggests it's not just one year carried fwd, but 2, or maybe 3 ? My take on this is that the three years used to assess for the allowed 39m are the most recent 3 years regardless of which league we are in. So if we lost £20m this season but got promoted, then it counts for the next two years also. |
|
|
|
Post by townarentbest on Aug 7, 2024 15:38:47 GMT 1
Only listened last night to the full interview..one thing that puzzled me when JE was talking about the regs regarding spends and losses in league one being different, but then said if you get promoted those spends/losses carry forward into the championship. So, for instance if Brum lose £20m to get promoted from league one, then that's £20m of the 3 year maximum £39m loss you're allowed ? He backed that up with saying Ipswich had carried fwd losses and had they not been promoted they would have suffered penalties for breaching the regs.....so that suggests it's not just one year carried fwd, but 2, or maybe 3 ? I was actually surprised to hear Ipswich had spent big money, I hadn't realised! Explains some of their success I guess but they seem to have gone about it carefully, quite a few ex championship cast offs in their squad last season and more that I'd not heard of. I guess they did spend big but not in the usual sense that involves signing established big name players on silly money. They're also a big club with a decent fan base so quite worrying to hear they'd have struggled financially without getting two promotions on the bounce! If it's true it just shows how difficult it is for clubs to compete. Edit: According to transfermrkt they spent ~0.4M net in their L1 promotion season and ~2M net in their championship promotion season. I guess there were loan fees as well but not exactly what I would class as dangerous overspend!! So I'm not really sure why JE was using them as an example where the wheels could have fallen off had they not been promoted twice consecutively? What am I missing? Can anyone enlighten me? Looks like they invested in the club, in the kind of way that we seem to have started dipping our toes into...(although hopefully a few cans of blue paint and office and changing room refits doesnt cost multiple millions!) source: swissramble.substack.com/p/ipswich-town-finances-202223"However, they paid the price of success, as the pre-tax loss widened from £12.6m to £18.2m, despite revenue rising by a very impressive 51% (£7.4m) from £14.4m to £21.8m.
The larger loss was mainly due to operating expenses climbing by £13.6m (45%) from £28.9m to £42.5m, as the club continued to invest “across all aspects of operations”, including staff, property and infrastructure." |
|
|
|
Post by detox on Aug 7, 2024 16:44:03 GMT 1
The "losses" in League One are carried forward when you are promoted and, as I understand it, spread over the 3 year period i.e. your 3 years start when you are promoted and you can only lose £39m over 3 years (on a rolling basis). Of course when you are promoted your revenues are increased (which helps with the losses). I think (not sure I am right) that Ipswich had some sponsorship wheeze that supported the investment into the team. That's not quite right. The three year rolling period always refers to years T, T-1 and T-2. Our FFP aggregate at the end of this season will be based on the financial results from: 2022/23 (Championship): -£6.6 Million 2023/24 (Championship): -£15 Million (my estimate) 2024/25 (League One): Another eight figure loss For all the consternation around budgets and FFP on here last summer, the reality was that we were nowhere near breaching the £39M limit. By the time we return, it's likely to be a more prescient concern. By then, though, our business model will be different in two notable ways: Control of the stadium will change the revenue profile, while the re-opening of the academy - the costs of which fall outside of FFP - allows us to re-allocate a chunk of the (substantial) Canalside overhead outside of the calculation. As JE points out - while League One owners are theoretically able to pump in as much cash as they like, the 'FFP bill' for the trading losses incurred in the meantime suddenly becomes due once they set foot back in the Championship. Unless you intend to stay in League One for ever, you are still effectively operating under FFP. Makes you wonder...clubs with an impending breach might prefer relegation for a couple of years..for example
year 1(current season) -£15m year 2 - £20m year 3 - £18m Year 4 - £b/even
had they stayed up , with a 3 years loss of £53m, points deduction and fines, AND the season after they start at -£35m so likely further punishment..so...
relegated and year one drops off at -£18m, 2nd season -£20m drops off, 3rd season ...-£15m drops off...so 3 seasons until they get their finances sorted ? Hopefully...but the hefty legacy debts have dropped off the radar..
|
|
|
|
Post by detox on Aug 7, 2024 16:55:33 GMT 1
I was actually surprised to hear Ipswich had spent big money, I hadn't realised! Explains some of their success I guess but they seem to have gone about it carefully, quite a few ex championship cast offs in their squad last season and more that I'd not heard of. I guess they did spend big but not in the usual sense that involves signing established big name players on silly money. They're also a big club with a decent fan base so quite worrying to hear they'd have struggled financially without getting two promotions on the bounce! If it's true it just shows how difficult it is for clubs to compete. Edit: According to transfermrkt they spent ~0.4M net in their L1 promotion season and ~2M net in their championship promotion season. I guess there were loan fees as well but not exactly what I would class as dangerous overspend!! So I'm not really sure why JE was using them as an example where the wheels could have fallen off had they not been promoted twice consecutively? What am I missing? Can anyone enlighten me? Looks like they invested in the club, in the kind of way that we seem to have started dipping our toes into...(although hopefully a few cans of blue paint and office and changing room refits doesnt cost multiple millions!) source: swissramble.substack.com/p/ipswich-town-finances-202223"However, they paid the price of success, as the pre-tax loss widened from £12.6m to £18.2m, despite revenue rising by a very impressive 51% (£7.4m) from £14.4m to £21.8m.
The larger loss was mainly due to operating expenses climbing by £13.6m (45%) from £28.9m to £42.5m, as the club continued to invest “across all aspects of operations”, including staff, property and infrastructure."That's probably what JE was referring to..losses of £31m in the 2 previous seasons, and despite their promotion to the PL you can guarantee they'd have lost more than £8m ...players/staff promotion bonuses would be over £10m (I think Town paid several millions when we went to the PL).... |
|
arry11
David Wagner Terrier
Posts: 2,774
|
Post by arry11 on Aug 7, 2024 18:23:23 GMT 1
Maybe we can take a few loans with a set buy on clause if we get promoted that would help us with FFP with a low spend this year and would not have a big loss to carry forward into next season if we did get promoted.
|
|
|
|
Post by essextractor on Aug 7, 2024 20:52:38 GMT 1
Looks like they invested in the club, in the kind of way that we seem to have started dipping our toes into...(although hopefully a few cans of blue paint and office and changing room refits doesnt cost multiple millions!) source: swissramble.substack.com/p/ipswich-town-finances-202223"However, they paid the price of success, as the pre-tax loss widened from £12.6m to £18.2m, despite revenue rising by a very impressive 51% (£7.4m) from £14.4m to £21.8m.
The larger loss was mainly due to operating expenses climbing by £13.6m (45%) from £28.9m to £42.5m, as the club continued to invest “across all aspects of operations”, including staff, property and infrastructure."That's probably what JE was referring to..losses of £31m in the 2 previous seasons, and despite their promotion to the PL you can guarantee they'd have lost more than £8m ...players/staff promotion bonuses would be over £10m (I think Town paid several millions when we went to the PL).... I’ve just seen the interview which mentions us and you only need to look at page 4 of the latest accounts to see we had a buffer of £20m for the 23/24 year. Promotion would have generated additional income of £5m for 23/24 simply due to the higher TV money championship clubs get. You’ll see that our turnover in league 1 was higher than wages which isn’t common for championship clubs. |
|
