SmogDane 4,055 Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 The useless bullet we dodged (apparantly) has just scored for Wigan v Leicester 🙄 Link to post Share on other sites
TAPOUT 361 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, SmogDane said: The useless bullet we dodged (apparantly) has just scored for Wigan v Leicester 🙄 ? Link to post Share on other sites
SmogDane 4,055 Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 Just now, TAPOUT said: ? Jamal Lowe Someone called him a dodged bullet, cause Wigan fans don't rate him.. Link to post Share on other sites
DanFromDownSouth 1,706 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 @RiseAgainst and @wilsoncgp in both Bury's and Macclesfield's cases they are governed by slightly different FFP rules. Rules that permit owners to fund club nearly unregulated, hence why both have/are in financial trouble. In Bury's case the owner, racked up huge debts and then bailed out. I believe it is a similar case for Macclesfield. In the League we are in there is regulations to prevent that exact thing happening. In League 1 and 2 there currently is not. I'd argue that it is not FFP that is the issue in that case but the EFL directly for not introducting owner investment caps at League 1 and 2 level. Link to post Share on other sites
AllSignsPointToPromotion 13 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, SmogDane said: Jamal Lowe Someone called him a dodged bullet, cause Wigan fans don't rate him.. Disallowed, definitely a bullet dodged 😅 Link to post Share on other sites
SmogDane 4,055 Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, AllSignsPointToPromotion said: Disallowed, definitely a bullet dodged 😅 Didn't see that .. it was just a pop up notification. I am watching Adama terrorize Man U .. 😛 Link to post Share on other sites
wilsoncgp 9,283 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 12 minutes ago, SmogDane said: Jamal Lowe Someone called him a dodged bullet, cause Wigan fans don't rate him.. TBF, he played at the Riverside earlier in the season for Wigan and I didn't rate him so certainly seems like it may have been a dodged bullet. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
RiseAgainst 3,793 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 11 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said: @RiseAgainst and @wilsoncgp in both Bury's and Macclesfield's cases they are governed by slightly different FFP rules. Rules that permit owners to fund club nearly unregulated, hence why both have/are in financial trouble. In Bury's case the owner, racked up huge debts and then bailed out. I believe it is a similar case for Macclesfield. In the League we are in there is regulations to prevent that exact thing happening. In League 1 and 2 there currently is not. I'd argue that it is not FFP that is the issue in that case but the EFL directly for not introducting owner investment caps at League 1 and 2 level. Didn't know the rules were different in L1 and L2. Thanks for the explanation. Even so, it still seems pretty poor that the FFP we're being restricted by isn't saving lower league clubs from extinction. Link to post Share on other sites
DanFromDownSouth 1,706 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, RiseAgainst said: Didn't know the rules were different in L1 and L2. Thanks for the explanation. Even so, it still seems pretty poor that the FFP we're being restricted by isn't saving lower league clubs from extinction. In the Championship we are judged on "Profit and Sustainability" which is basically looking at whether we make a loss of upto £39 Million over 3 seasons. In League 1 and League 2 they are judged on "Salary Cost Management Protocol" which basically looks at clubs wage expenditure compared to their turnover (as a percentage think it's around 60% for League 1 then a lower figure for League 2). This is constantly monitored by the EFL throughout the season. But crucially there are no limits on an owner donating/investing money into a club to increase it's turnover. But the EFL do really need to tighten up on those rules to prevent another Bury. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Changing Times 12,347 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 41 minutes ago, Mr_Maz said: I'm what way? Money in the bank is no longer a measure of finances with FFP. It's purely profit or loss per year {and 3 rolling years} Well, yeah, exactly. So where are the massive losses for FFP coming from as they don't appear to be in the accounts unless I've missed them? It's also worth pointing out that not all of our expenditure counts against FFP but I believe that pretty much all of our income does so if the accounts aren't showing huge losses then there shouldn't be huge losses for FFP either. It just seems odd to me. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr_Maz 2,899 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 13 minutes ago, Changing Times said: Well, yeah, exactly. So where are the massive losses for FFP coming from as they don't appear to be in the accounts unless I've missed them? It's also worth pointing out that not all of our expenditure counts against FFP but I believe that pretty much all of our income does so if the accounts aren't showing huge losses then there shouldn't be huge losses for FFP either. It just seems odd to me. The huge loss would be this year as no parachute payment to offset high wage bill Link to post Share on other sites
Changing Times 12,347 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, DanFromDownSouth said: That financially maybe this season we are ok in terms of income and expenditure, but due to the past 2 seasons financial performances we are at the FFP limit? That's my take from it. The accounts don't seem to show that, at least from what I can see? Certainly the set we can see from the end of Jun 2018 anyway. The set we can't see from the end of Jun 2019 must include the sales of Traore, Gibson and Bamford, Fabio and Barragan. Even factoring in amortisation, Gibson's fee counts as pure profit of £15m doesn't it? Traore's must be something close to £17m profit and Bamford will be at least few million as well, possibly as much as £6m? We still had the TV revenue in that season and our only player coming in was Saville, which would see £7m spread out over 4 years or whatever. Obviously we still had the existing players amortisation to include, which I reckon would be around £14m perhaps? Assombalonga, Braithwaite, Fletcher, Downing, Gestede, Howson, McNair, Randolph, Flint, Johnson, Shotton. This is all back of a fag packet stuff like I appreciate that. I can see that this season could be an issue in isolation as we'll still have some of that amortisation to include, minus Braithwaite, Flint and Downing, but across those three seasons I'd be surprised if we accumulated losses for FFP above £39m? Maybe there is a concern that future periods will be screwed up by this season if this season is indeed the problem rather than previous seasons? To put it into context though, selling say Randolph doesn't effect FFP a great deal really. It would be a couple million at most difference, which doesn't seem like enough if there are major FFP issues. Even selling Assombalonga wouldn't make that much difference if it's FFP we're struggling with rather than cash flow etc. Or is this analysis complete rubbish? 🤓🙂 Edited January 4, 2020 by Changing Times 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Changing Times 12,347 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 10 minutes ago, Mr_Maz said: The huge loss would be this year as no parachute payment to offset high wage bill It can't be that huge though. The wage bill is around £22m as it stands, we're definitely going to make a loss and it will be sizeable but across the 3 years we should be ok if you look at my superb guesswork and counting on fingers approach above! The way that FFP works means that selling the likes of Randolph and Assombalonga won't make a huge difference. We could sell Tavernier for £5m and that would be more useful to use than selling the pair of them in terms of FFP. In terms of cash flow it definitely wouldn't though unless I'm looking at it the wrong way round of course 🙂 Link to post Share on other sites
Borodane 6,301 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 1 hour ago, mendieta420 said: That's the problem with ffp.. you have owners that have money to spend but aren't allowed. That’s not the problem with FFP. The problem is all the loopholes and bad management of FFP from the governing bodies. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Borodane 6,301 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 23 minutes ago, Changing Times said: It can't be that huge though. The wage bill is around £22m as it stands, we're definitely going to make a loss and it will be sizeable but across the 3 years we should be ok if you look at my superb guesswork and counting on fingers approach above! The way that FFP works means that selling the likes of Randolph and Assombalonga won't make a huge difference. We could sell Tavernier for £5m and that would be more useful to use than selling the pair of them in terms of FFP. In terms of cash flow it definitely wouldn't though unless I'm looking at it the wrong way round of course 🙂 Wouldn’t selling Randolph for 5 million this year count massively towards FFP. We get income instead of paying the remaining money owed to west ham. For example 5 million in instead of 1,5 million out? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now