Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

'Other Boro stuff'


Recommended Posts

Just now, ScarBoro said:

Thanks. I didn't think it would really make any difference.

It could make a difference if you change how the assessments take place.  What you'd have to do is this -

(1) 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/21 

(2) 2018/19, 2019/21, 2021/22 

(3) 2019/21, 2021/22, 2022/23

Then they would only appear in three assessments instead of four but the issue would be that they'd be out of sync.  So this years assessment, which is supposed to be 2017-2020 would have to be left until next year, to get the 2020/21 part in it, becoming 2017-2021.  Then the following one would become 2018-2022, and the one after would become 2019-2023.  After that they could return to normal 2021-2024.  But as I said, I didn't think the EFL were doing this anyway, I thought this was Uefa.  Could be wrong though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Great quote from Kevin Blackwell in the Athletic today 🤣🤣🤣

It's my birthday today, meant to be my 30th but I've refused to allow that in current circumstances of not being able to celebrate it. I usually get my age on the back of one of my shirts so I re

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/neil-warnock-obvious-choice-manage-18614026.amp?__twitter_impression=true "Gibson is a hands-on owner and Bausor is a hands-on chief exe

Posted Images

22 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

I think that what he's saying is that as FFP is a rolling three year assessment, then two years of Covid related issues would appear in multiple assessments because one financial year is part of three different assessments.  2019/20, is in 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 (assessment 1), then it's in 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21 (assessment 2), and then 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 (assessment 3).  So now add another covid year to that 2020/21, and the effects of covid would be felt in 4 different assessments as it will also be in 2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23 (assessment 4).  Making them all one year wouldn't make any difference though, unless you altered which years were assessed as well, as you'd still be assessing two years and they'd still appear in the same assessments.  You'd have to switch from a three year rolling to something else for this purpose.

Anyway, I don't think the EFL are doing that are they?  They are simply allowing clubs to exclude covid related costs from the assessments, so it won't be included.  Not that this would help us much for this latest set of accounts as our issues aren't related to covid.  It will make more of a difference for the next set of accounts however.

@ScarBoro Exactly what CT has said is what I was trying to get at. But with the merged seasons there is 1 less assessment. So assessment 1 and 2 become merged into the one 4 year cycle. Then it continues with the 3 year cycle after that.  

I've posted some screenshots below, but I've taken them from the article below.

https://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/efl-clarify-stance-financial-fair-19634230

image.png.04257ece2d926ac431e8b08174e71a64.png

image.png.966dbc9881896325833138e35821de58.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's to be expected lose parashoot payments and corna. But wow 50 million revenue to 19 mill is some drop off. Atleast its under control with fans back in the stadium and promotion this or next season 😁. Only Premiership football brings profits or a Brentford moneyball style selling 2 players for 20-30 mil every summer 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Changing Times said:

It could make a difference if you change how the assessments take place.  What you'd have to do is this -

(1) 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/21 

(2) 2018/19, 2019/21, 2021/22 

(3) 2019/21, 2021/22, 2022/23

Then they would only appear in three assessments instead of four but the issue would be that they'd be out of sync.  So this years assessment, which is supposed to be 2017-2020 would have to be left until next year, to get the 2020/21 part in it, becoming 2017-2021.  Then the following one would become 2018-2022, and the one after would become 2019-2023.  After that they could return to normal 2021-2024.  But as I said, I didn't think the EFL were doing this anyway, I thought this was Uefa.  Could be wrong though.

I didn't see this post, but that's exactly how they appear to be wanting it to run, as far as I can tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

@ScarBoro Exactly what CT has said is what I was trying to get at. But with the merged seasons there is 1 less assessment. So assessment 1 and 2 become merged into the one 4 year cycle. Then it continues with the 3 year cycle after that.  

I've posted some screenshots below, but I've taken them from the article below.

https://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/efl-clarify-stance-financial-fair-19634230

image.png.04257ece2d926ac431e8b08174e71a64.png

image.png.966dbc9881896325833138e35821de58.png

What about the actual limits? Presumably if you have a 4 year period, the allowable losses increase proportionally? The difficulty then is how to evaluate the losses caused by COVID which can be eliminated.. You can just imagine which clubs will produce statements to show ridiculous levels of costs associated with  Covid. Morris will probably try to argue that Covid caused the abandonment of the sale of the Derby County and this caused a loss of £20m/£30m/ insert your own figure to sponsorship in the club etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ScarBoro said:

What about the actual limits? Presumably if you have a 4 year period, the allowable losses increase proportionally? The difficulty then is how to evaluate the losses caused by COVID which can be eliminated.. You can just imagine which clubs will produce statements to show ridiculous levels of costs associated with  Covid. Morris will probably try to argue that Covid caused the abandonment of the sale of the Derby County and this caused a loss of £20m/£30m/ insert your own figure to sponsorship in the club etc.

I've not been able to find anything definitive about them raising the loss limits for the 4 year period or the merged 2 seasons at least. I'd assume that they would raise the loss limit because of the "extra" year and given that year the 20/21 season has been played pretty much entirely behind closed doors. 

The only thing I've seen that goes anyway to cover that is the fact that COVID costs will be factored for the 19/20 & 20/21. Which will, according to the EFL, include the loss of income. I suppose if the loss of income is used to balance the losses posted, in a roundabout way that does the same as upping the loss limits. 

As you say though how that is policed or where the line is drawn on loss of income opens a whole other can of worms.

Edited by DanFromDownSouth
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

Think we got away with one there to be totally honest.

This tweet from a PNE beat writer made me laugh though

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, SmogDane said:

Letting us off the hook, cause earlier situations went against us? Compensation?

Definitely! I think they would be hard pushed to punish Morsy after all the poor decisions which have gone against us lately. If anything it would just add further fuel to the Warnock debate that the Officials are not up to the standard required.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Redcar Rioja said:

Definitely! I think they would be hard pushed to punish Morsy after all the poor decisions which have gone against us lately. If anything it would just add further fuel to the Warnock debate that the Officials are not up to the standard required.

Morsy absolutely, 100% should be given a retrospective ban for his actions, totally ridiculous that he's gotten away with it.

  • Wow 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Denzel Zanzibar said:

Morsy absolutely, 100% should be given a retrospective ban for his actions, totally ridiculous that he's gotten away with it.

Agree with that but then there should be retrospective action taken against Branthwaite from Blackburn and Fulton from Swansea not to mention retrospective action taken against the Officials of those games themselves. I think Morsy "got away with it" because the FA fear that it will open a can of worms with Warnock as they know he would have been asked by the media and would have responded with the above citing consistency. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...