11 minutes ago, dermott said:

Yup. The silly season this year is sillier than ever. Anyway, Kane is record-hungry. Remember when he tried to claim an Eriksen goal as his own, swearing on his children's lives that he got the last touch? He needs 48 goals to overtake Shearer. Barring the moon turning blue, he will stay at Spurs, leaving on a free next year if he chooses.

Do you think that he is going to break that record in one season or even 2 at Spurs? 

Just now, RMH said:

Do you think that he is going to break that record in one season or even 2 at Spurs? 

He will break it if it kills him in the process. Whether at Spurs or another PL team if he leaves on a free next year.

13 hours ago, JM7 said:

But at this stage, how do we make FFP (£92.5m) up by not selling Mount before the 30th June?

 

Feels too late. 

I really wouldn't pay any attention to the finances. So much misinformation floating around. 

15 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Apparently Pochettino has been in direct contact with Mason to tell him he is a key part of the team he is building and is desperate for him to stay. 

He has also pleaded with the ownership that keeping Mount will show his value and is worth the risk of him going on a free next summer.

Exactly the type of story you would leak if you wanted to convince united we weren't desperate to sell. 

I really can't wait for the transfer window to close.

Edited June 9, 20233 yr by bisright1

4 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Stop with the mis-information please,

We are in an FFP hole because the two years prior to Boehly/Clearlake buying the club, the previous regime lost £153M (20/21) and £121M (21/22), requiring a profit of £170M in 22/23 to comply with the 3 year rolling target from the Premier League. At the same time they inherited a playing squad that was less than ideal, so had to make some signings to address that, particularly in defence where tardy contract negotiations with Christensen and Rudiger had allowed them to leave for free without renewing.

We never ran in to FFP issues under Roman's leadership. Let's see if we can say the same about our new owners, or if they have to flog our best academy players to avoid it.

1 hour ago, axman2526 said:

We never ran in to FFP issues under Roman's leadership. Let's see if we can say the same about our new owners, or if they have to flog our best academy players to avoid it.

We would have had these FFP issues if Roman had still been around. The losses were accumulated over 20/21 and 21/22. Nowt to do with the new owners.

5 hours ago, bisright1 said:

I really wouldn't pay any attention to the finances. So much misinformation floating around. 

Exactly the type of story you would leak if you wanted to convince united we weren't desperate to sell. 

I really can't wait for the transfer window to close.

Tedious isn't it? 

11 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Tedious isn't it? 

Verily. 

8 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Stop with the mis-information please,

We are in an FFP hole because the two years prior to Boehly/Clearlake buying the club, the previous regime lost £153M (20/21) and £121M (21/22), requiring a profit of £170M in 22/23 to comply with the 3 year rolling target from the Premier League. At the same time they inherited a playing squad that was less than ideal, so had to make some signings to address that, particularly in defence where tardy contract negotiations with Christensen and Rudiger had allowed them to leave for free without renewing.

 

The actual losses before tax were £114.6 million in £145.6 million. Irrespective you just can’t simply use the loss figure and deduct the allowable sum in the way you have.

There are sums that you can in effect just add back  for instance the sum spend on the academy and on ladies football my guess is that is circa£25 million a season then you have sums spent on infrastructure 

Then you have to deduct reside and allowable COVID losses and the averaging of two years numbers  and also we don’t know if the sums paid out/provision made  in respect of historical legal proceedings which combined over the two years I think came to around £30ish million.

Then you need to factor in that huge sums have been charged in terms of impairment which in effect has the impact of reducing the amortisation charge going forward , that was some £74 million alone in 21/22

And finally we don’t know how the club intend to present any quantified sum in respect of how much the club operating under a special licence cost.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, terraloon said:

 

The actual losses before tax were £114.6 million in £145.6 million. Irrespective you just can’t simply use the loss figure and deduct the allowable sum in the way you have.

There are sums that you can in effect just add back  for instance the sum spend on the academy and on ladies football my guess is that is circa£25 million a season then you have sums spent on infrastructure 

Then you have to deduct reside and allowable COVID losses and the averaging of two years numbers  and also we don’t know if the sums paid out/provision made  in respect of historical legal proceedings which combined over the two years I think came to around £30ish million.

Then you need to factor in that huge sums have been charged in terms of impairment which in effect has the impact of reducing the amortisation charge going forward , that was some £74 million alone in 21/22

And finally we don’t know how the club intend to present any quantified sum in respect of how much the club operating under a special licence cost.

 

 

 

 

So you're saying...............we can buy Caceido and Valverde?

5 hours ago, terraloon said:

 

The actual losses before tax were £114.6 million in £145.6 million. Irrespective you just can’t simply use the loss figure and deduct the allowable sum in the way you have.

There are sums that you can in effect just add back  for instance the sum spend on the academy and on ladies football my guess is that is circa£25 million a season then you have sums spent on infrastructure 

Then you have to deduct reside and allowable COVID losses and the averaging of two years numbers  and also we don’t know if the sums paid out/provision made  in respect of historical legal proceedings which combined over the two years I think came to around £30ish million.

Then you need to factor in that huge sums have been charged in terms of impairment which in effect has the impact of reducing the amortisation charge going forward , that was some £74 million alone in 21/22

And finally we don’t know how the club intend to present any quantified sum in respect of how much the club operating under a special licence cost.

 

 

 

 

So basically, we know sweet fa about what’s the state of the finances of the club. We may be on balance or we may be in deficit we just don’t know. And the newspapers and journos know as little as we do.

5 hours ago, terraloon said:

 

The actual losses before tax were £114.6 million in £145.6 million. Irrespective you just can’t simply use the loss figure and deduct the allowable sum in the way you have.

There are sums that you can in effect just add back  for instance the sum spend on the academy and on ladies football my guess is that is circa£25 million a season then you have sums spent on infrastructure 

Then you have to deduct reside and allowable COVID losses and the averaging of two years numbers  and also we don’t know if the sums paid out/provision made  in respect of historical legal proceedings which combined over the two years I think came to around £30ish million.

Then you need to factor in that huge sums have been charged in terms of impairment which in effect has the impact of reducing the amortisation charge going forward , that was some £74 million alone in 21/22

And finally we don’t know how the club intend to present any quantified sum in respect of how much the club operating under a special licence cost.

 

 

 

 

I read in the papers that Accountants and people who work in finance have a disproportionately high suicide rate.

I have spoken to a few at parties and can understand why.

Chelsea and England midfielder Mason Mount, 24, is a "high priority" for Manchester United this summer, but the Old Trafford club will not pay more than £60m for him.

Sounds reasonable.

Of course they won't pay 60M, all the odds are in their favorite now. Why would any clubs out there offer us a decent price for any players, if there's on 30/6 deadline on us to raise X amount of money? I hope Boehly's lawyers find a loop hole to get us out of this jam he created.

On 09/06/2023 at 23:25, just said:

I read in the papers that Accountants and people who work in finance have a disproportionately high suicide rate.

I have spoken to a few at parties and can understand why.

I actually read that those that spend their time at parties chatting to accountants have a disproportionately high suicide rate!

2 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

I actually read that those that spend their time at parties chatting to accountants have a disproportionately high suicide rate!

One of the Chelsea accountants working out the FFP book value of Lukaku.

On 09/06/2023 at 19:53, WhiteWall said:

So you're saying...............we can buy Caceido and Valverde?

Who knows!

On 09/06/2023 at 23:16, RMH said:

So basically, we know sweet fa about what’s the state of the finances of the club. We may be on balance or we may be in deficit we just don’t know. And the newspapers and journos know as little as we do.

We don’t nor do any of the supposed experts 

If it was a matter of simply using the accounts then yes it’s easy to see why there is a suggestion that FFP would be an issue but COVID losses alone massively change matters but as I point out there was the matter of RAs sanctions and the financial consequences of operating under that special licence. And even then we simply don’t know which players values were impaired. 
 

Add to all that the changes re FFP.

Irrespective it’s worth looking at the listed sanctions for missing FFP and you really start to wonder will a few million fine or maybe a reduction in squad size make that much difference ? 
 

At some point we are going to hear who the  front  of shirt sponsor is but my guess would be that the commercial income will grow significantly over the next few years 

34 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Who knows!

We don’t nor do any of the supposed experts 

If it was a matter of simply using the accounts then yes it’s easy to see why there is a suggestion that FFP would be an issue but COVID losses alone massively change matters but as I point out there was the matter of RAs sanctions and the financial consequences of operating under that special licence. And even then we simply don’t know which players values were impaired. 
 

Add to all that the changes re FFP.

Irrespective it’s worth looking at the listed sanctions for missing FFP and you really start to wonder will a few million fine or maybe a reduction in squad size make that much difference ? 
 

At some point we are going to hear who the  front  of shirt sponsor is but my guess would be that the commercial income will grow significantly over the next few years 

 

I've been looking for a link to the actual regulations for the Premier League's FFP, and what allowances etc are permissible - have you (or anyone else for that matter) managed to find anything definitive ? (to be clear I'm talking about the PL's rules, not UEFA's)

Your point I have bolded is one I have pondered myself. The only penalty that would really hurt is a points deduction, and is that even on the table for the PL's FFP ? I don't know ?

44 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

 

I've been looking for a link to the actual regulations for the Premier League's FFP, and what allowances etc are permissible - have you (or anyone else for that matter) managed to find anything definitive ? (to be clear I'm talking about the PL's rules, not UEFA's)

Your point I have bolded is one I have pondered myself. The only penalty that would really hurt is a points deduction, and is that even on the table for the PL's FFP ? I don't know ?

Point 9 in this FFP article from the BBC. Not a lot more than we already know but it's clear from this piece, and all other sources, that there are no set penalties for breaches. There can be points deductions, fines, et al. The PL obviously reserves the right to deal on a case-by-case basis.

EDIT. Cripes, I found the PL's 2022/2023 Handbook on line. The PDF runs to 300+ pages. I did a quick skim so no one else would have to. I'm that kind of person. Nowhere in the 300+ pages is FFP mentioned. Bastards.

FURTHER EDIT. 

The current FFP legislation allows for eight separate punishments to be taken against clubs for breaking regulations, and are ranked in order of severity:
Reprimand / Warning.
Fines.
Points deduction.
Withholding of revenue from a UEFA competition.
Prohibition to register new players for UEFA competitions.

I only count 5 on that list but, anyway, again, it's obvious the PL reserves the right to deal as they see fit.

Edited June 11, 20233 yr by dermott

33 minutes ago, dermott said:

Point 9 in this FFP article from the BBC. Not a lot more than we already know but it's clear from this piece, and all other sources, that there are no set penalties for breaches. There can be points deductions, fines, et al. The PL obviously reserves the right to deal on a case-by-case basis.

EDIT. Cripes, I found the PL's 2022/2023 Handbook on line. The PDF runs to 300+ pages. I did a quick skim so no one else would have to. I'm that kind of person. Nowhere in the 300+ pages is FFP mentioned. Bastards.

FURTHER EDIT. 

The current FFP legislation allows for eight separate punishments to be taken against clubs for breaking regulations, and are ranked in order of severity:
Reprimand / Warning.
Fines.
Points deduction.
Withholding of revenue from a UEFA competition.
Prohibition to register new players for UEFA competitions.

I only count 5 on that list but, anyway, again, it's obvious the PL reserves the right to deal as they see fit.

Yep - that's what I discovered end of last week LOL. All those pages and not one damn mention of FFP 🙂 

Probably deliberate !

It seems absolutely crazy that the only (vague) source of information is an old 2019 article on the BBC ... and it is amusing that the quoted £105M originally applied to seasons 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. That almost seems like a lifetime ago with inflation rampant LOL.  Maybe our argument will include the observation that they should have scaled that upwards by now. Time value of money and all that 🙂 

Chelsea have two arguments: (1) the impact of Covid on revenue; and (2) the impact of the Abramovich sanctions on revenue. I assume both are quantifiable.

26 minutes ago, dermott said:

Chelsea have two arguments: (1) the impact of Covid on revenue; and (2) the impact of the Abramovich sanctions on revenue. I assume both are quantifiable.

 

2 hours ago, dermott said:

Point 9 in this FFP article from the BBC. Not a lot more than we already know but it's clear from this piece, and all other sources, that there are no set penalties for breaches. There can be points deductions, fines, et al. The PL obviously reserves the right to deal on a case-by-case basis.

EDIT. Cripes, I found the PL's 2022/2023 Handbook on line. The PDF runs to 300+ pages. I did a quick skim so no one else would have to. I'm that kind of person. Nowhere in the 300+ pages is FFP mentioned. Bastards.

FURTHER EDIT. 

The current FFP legislation allows for eight separate punishments to be taken against clubs for breaking regulations, and are ranked in order of severity:
Reprimand / Warning.
Fines.
Points deduction.
Withholding of revenue from a UEFA competition.
Prohibition to register new players for UEFA competitions.

I only count 5 on that list but, anyway, again, it's obvious the PL reserves the right to deal as they see fit.

Ok hope this helps.

 

FFP is a UEFA initiative and it only applies to clubs that are playing in European competition. Initially it was going to be about debt but that aim was sort of hijacked and eventually a sort of hybrid was introduced that bizarrely focused exclusively on a clubs earnings v spending and whilst there was scope to build up debt the establishment within Football restricted the amount of money that a wealthy owner could put in but ironically as witnessed at Man U not how much debt an owner could load on a club.

Other than the odd tweak the rules have been in place for quite a while and UEFA have claimed it has gone a long way to ensuring stability. Many would argue but FFP as we knew it is changing. There will be greater focus on squad costs wages+ amortisation + agent fees where there will be a restriction to spending 90% in 23/24, 80% in 24/25 then down to 70% in 25/26. There will also be a requirement to be up to date with paying creditors ( particularly the tax authorities and other clubs) but also there will be a requirement to reduce debt. 

I haven’t yet read how clubs will be measured going forward. By that I mean will it be solely against the new measures, will it be a combination or what. One major change is that no longer will clubs be solely measure against their accounting year but it seems it will be over the period 1 January to 31 December 

The PL don’t actually call their version FFP it’s called Profit and Sustainability

( it’s detailed at page 132  https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2022/07/19/40085fed-1e9e-4c33-9f14-0bcf57857da2/PL_Handbook_2022-23_DIGITAL_18.07.pdf)

It’s not quite as harsh as UEFAs version but of course is applicable to every PL club. Everton have an outstanding charge re failure to meet  the targets it’s thought that other clubs may likewise be charged. Charges made by the PL will be settled by an Independent Tribunal who  will have a tariff to refer to but my guess the sanctions will be financial or a restriction of squad size.

Man City do have multiple charges to answer and ultimately they are linked to the profit and sustainability but the changes also bring into question their record keeping, method of payments to ex managers and players and of course not assisting in the PL s investigations 

Clubs are required to submit accounts and in advance of an accounting period there is a huge amount of ongoing data that’s submitted but after each period ends  clubs submit a massive amount of further info , it’s a bit like completing a self assessment tax form , on this form much information is submitted and accepted in good faith and will only be questioned if a formal investigation is conducted or random testing of submitted information is carried out.

In terms of how much did covid cost or how much did the sanctions cost much is easily provable but much isn’t. For instance Everton are adamant that a significant sum should be added into their calculations because the transfer market was depressed.

 

Hope that helps 

 

15 minutes ago, terraloon said:

 

The PL don’t actually call their version FFP it’s called Profit and Sustainability

( it’s detailed at page 132 https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2022/07/19/40085fed-1e9e-4c33-9f14-0bcf57857da2/PL_Handbook_2022-23_DIGITAL_18.07.pdf)

 

I think my brain had turned to porridge by p.132. 🤪 The bottom line, though, is that penalties are at the PL's discretion?

so basically, if Utd or Liverpool broke the rules they'd get a slap on the wrist but because its us we'll likely get a large fine and points deduction?

22 hours ago, terraloon said:

In terms of how much did covid cost or how much did the sanctions cost much is easily provable but much isn’t. For instance Everton are adamant that a significant sum should be added into their calculations because the transfer market was depressed.

I am quite sure our owners are keeping a close eye on how the charges against Everton pan out.

They were charged for a £375m loss over a three year period which included the Covid years obviously. We have obviously had the sanctions on top of that for about 3 months which the club cleverly refered to in the financial statement. But by purely looking at the numbers and making a rough estimate for the year ending on the 31st one could easily see us surpassing £400 million lost over the three year period and that would almost certainly lead to a charge and all the disruption that brings.

For 21/22 for example we had a operations loss of 242.4 million. We offset almost half that with 123.2 profit on player trading to get us down to the 121.4 million loss.

For the year 22/23 we will almost certainly have a significant net loss on player trading unless we do a massive firesale before June ends but it certainly looks like clubs have sniffed that out. For 22/23 there's also extraordinary expenses of course like Tuchel compensation, significant Potter + Winstanley compensation to Brighton, Potter compensation for the sack, about £30 million less in prize money and more.

Bottom line is that we are a bit up against it. Adhering by UEFA's rules will obviously be even harder as their rules are stricter but with no European Football money for the next financial year we are in for a struggle with UEFA as well if we manage to qualify with Pochettino.

On 09/06/2023 at 13:45, axman2526 said:

We never ran in to FFP issues under Roman's leadership. Let's see if we can say the same about our new owners, or if they have to flog our best academy players to avoid it.

Those FFP problems date back to Roman's ownership, nothing to do with the Toddster.. He must have been aware you would think.  He was lucky that Roman had to wipe off the massive debt we had , I dunno if anyone would have bought us otherwise.