st albans fox

I put this in the embargo thread but it’s relevant here too whilst it doesn’t tell you everything, it should be noted that the nett asset value of the club over the previous accounting years was 2017 £143m 2018 £144m 2019 £133m 2020. £72m 2021. £39m 2022 £-44m there’s a pattern but no doubt someone studying them could advise if we’ve moved assets elsewhere or if this drop of value is down to players who were valued in the books as an asset leaving for nowt in the end

The transfer embargo says we are on course to lose too much to end June 24 because it must be based on expectations from our management accounts and budgets going forward. As you said earlier it cannot include possible income in the future. Is this based on the rolling three year 35+35+13 in which case where Maddison money appears is irrelevant and we still need to sell in June.

You’d expect most clubs will have cash flow issues at certain times of the year at end may 20 we had £41m in the bank At end may 21 we had £50m in the bank at end may 22 we had £34m in the bank whilst it doesn’t tell you everything, it should be noted that the nett asset value of the club over the previous accounting years was 2017 £143m 2018 £144m 2019 £133m 2020. £72m 2021. £39m 2022 £-44m there’s a pattern but no doubt someone studying them could advise if we’ve moved assets elsewhere or if this drop of value is down to players who were valued in the books as an asset leaving for nowt in the end

Has anyone invested in a vct and if so, did they get a positive return after the five years ?

Yes appreciate all of that loyalty bonus’ are often simply s/o fees spread across the contract these are known and unavoidable I was specifically referencing an unknown relating to wage reductions on relegation and possible repayment of these reductions on bounce back

100% if they didn’t have any reduction then they shouldn’t get any bonus but it was reported that they had 30/50% cuts

I mooted this months ago Say I’m daka’s agent were negotiating a deal because he’s decided to join us ahead of other options. We’re going to pay him more than them - we are in the Europa league. We just finished fifth and won the cup. All other signings have been made with the club showing ambition and selling themselves as a top PL club pushing for trophies and Europe. the club say that there has to be a wage relegation clause. My reply to that would be that my client requires a release clause on relegation of the amortised value remaining on his purchase fee or £8m (whichever is the higher). The club would refuse that because they don’t do release clauses (dogma but I expect it was vichai’s policy post kante and no one can change that) so my only other option is to say that the relegation clause is only acceptable if it’s repaid as a bonus on immediate return to the PL. I’m still not happy with that because it exposes my client to a second or third season if not promoted. The flip side of that is the very decent salary that he will be earning in the PL. so I accept that the bounce back bonus in year 1 is the best I’ll get - maybe a 50% bonus in year 2 if I can get that though I really don’t think it’s insane ric I think many here wondered how we would have got relegation wage reduction clauses included in the first place. You’d surely have to agree something like this to get them in ?

Not 100% sure what the question is! But promotion bonus payments would have to be included in accounts 23/24.

Can you point me to that because I’m pretty sure that this particular loophole was closed some time ago ? infact I recall reading that bonus’ had to be included relevant to the season to which they apply rather than being paid the following season (certainly not being deductible from psr calcs)

I think he has a free hit now. His agent can make up any old crap about how the financial stuff became apparent to the players at the time that our form dropped off. Nothing is ever made public at our club so no one would know the truth anyway the way he got us playing in such a short space of time has been well publicised by his admirers and the football world is well aware of that. he will not be short of offers, even if he walked

difficult for an old bloke to read that mate i think we actually voted with the rich six re that realignment of international broadcast revenues if madders was missed end June 22/23 on a technicality then that would be strong mitigation because the deal was essentially done at a discount in June (not like Johnson at forest). That would fall under precedent as per sheff wed sale of their ground which was all agreed legally pre end of June but not completed until later in the summer. and if madders had indeed slipped into 23/24 then you’d have thought we wouldn’t need to sell anyone this June (which we clearly do based on @Mr Popodopolous post above and general expectation around the club). I’ve always wondered if the wage reduction clauses came with an end of season repayment bonus which cancels them out on immediate bounce back. If so, those bonus’ must be included in this year’s accounts. That would have been a v poor strategic decision because it effectively negates any saving in the financial year and exposes you to being charged by the efl. Mind you, we have form for that and perhaps assumed we’d just deal with a fine as we (and others) had in the past.

When we won the cup everything seemed tickety boo find me threads from back then questioning the way things were being handled

Can we change the name of the thread in case ric gets excited ?

Chelsea and their owner’s relationship with Saudi is going to be under a lot of scrutiny in June

Nah needed to punch that the Brighton girl jumped into her a bit but not enough imo

What happens when Chelsea have to do it this june? Aren’t they one of the rich six ? and I reckon arsenal will need to move a couple on in the summer window aswell.

Yep but we could still have argued for a fairer system whilst we met our obligations. Of course we have no idea if we were actually doing that in private.

Fair enough - did we vote against them in the efl ??? as I posted yesterday, sitting with £200m+ t/o in the Pl with a stadium capacity of 31k and a meh commercial structure likely made us feel quite protected by psr for a few seasons. clubs like villa with extremely wealthy owners were unable to just push a money button to compete with us.

Yes it ensures that the owners of the rich six aren’t effectively required to underwrite their debts as they would be under a bond system. those clubs have their financial advantage via commercial revenue. We had a chance to push ourselves into a space between those six and the others (as Newcastle are currently doing). Sadly we failed to back up 2016 in the seasons that followed. The glory hunters around the world may have been tempted in if we’d competed for top four/six in the following couple of seasons.

I assume it’s a generalised point rather than pointing the finger at us. We are subject the the rules under the 14/6 application like all clubs. If our PL and EFL voting records are consistent in this respect (psr) then that gives us more credence in taking them on. His point about ffp stopping the wealthiest clubs spending without any controls whatsoever is correct. Ric pointed out yesterday that no rules would mean that the country sponsored clubs could just spend what they like and the mess we have now becomes a free for all the argument that owners should be able to post a security bond to allow them to load debt to that amount would also mean the country sponsored clubs simply exist in a world where no one else would be able to compete at all.

Their alternative was likely him sitting around for the remainder of the season ? I reckon we were caught between wanting to get enzo the player and not wanting to spend a penny (for various reasons) when inter tried to change things late on that likely flipped the decision from the club’s angle. We don’t know the discussions ongoing with the efl either. There was a non disclosure agreement ref the results of the hearing we had won with them until after the window was closed. Perhaps we had agreed that any deals we made in jan would be fully advised to them (out of courtesy) and the late changes inter made to the deal meant we felt compelled to pull the plug. that does sound unlikely given what’s now going on but if I were in charge I wouldn’t be looking for enemies in high places, especially if I’d already won round one. taking the moral high ground usually plays out well when looking for mitigating circumstances in hearings.

I assume you could see on the June 23 accounts how much we owed them at that point in time. We have loan agreements with them to draw down monies ahead of time secured on future incomes from tv deals. How much of that money we have actually drawn down is unclear until you see the accounts and what loans are o/s. The 21/22 accounts referenced loan availabilities (for cash flow) with king power and Macquarie was referenced re draw downs on the fofana deal post end of year. once the new accounts are filed this week then I think we have a few accountants on here who will break the bad news. I think they will look dreadful.

On the flip side, it will help him get his match fitness and sharpness up

Sadly we played with a single pivot and we lost hence expect the double pivot to return when the competitive games return it’s likely that Southgate can’t work out how to make the most of the extra attacking options that a single pivot provides Jordan! Get here now …….

If i’d been charged with shoplifting at a shop down the road then perhaps that might be seen as protecting me from myself ? The efl have a duty of care ref their clubs not getting deeper into the crap - now we know they must be under some pressure from clubs near the top who don’t look like breaking psr this season and we’ve obviously placed our flag in the sand re their right to interfere. Given that they can do this, I’m not shocked that they have