Accounts 22/23

[tickler28]

1 hour ago, Tazfox said:

We've really got to hope the academy lads can step up now! Doesn't sound like we will be able to afford to keep some of the contracts expiring at the end of the season. (Ndidi, Yannick, Vardy) and won't be able to spend big to replace them.

 

So hopefully Nelson, Alves and Braybrooke hit the ground running next season

I hear people keep mentioning Alves and Braybrooke like they are the second coming yet have not seen them anywhere near a first team squad not even for the FA Cup. Raikhy and Nelson we've seen and we've also seen they are not ready to step up. If we are kidding ourselves that Alves and Braybrooke are going to become PL players overnight then I'm pretty certain we are all going to be very very disappointed. Both players are a L1 /Championship loan season or 2 from ever possibly being ready

[Beachyboy]

25 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

You have to divide the transfer fee by the length of the contract, which give you the yearly amortization of the fee on the debt side of the accounts. 

 

We you sale a player you have to work out the remaining years of the contract and times it by the yearly amortisation figure to give you a overall figure.

 

The you have to take that away from the transfer fee received to give you the postive gain (Profit) on our accounts. 

 

For Castange case I believe we brought him for 21m on a 5 year contract, which means his transfer is amortised at 4.2m a season. 

 

If we sold him for 12m with two years left, that 12m - (4.2m x 2 years) 8.4m = 3.6m profit  

 

However we may have carried out Player Impairment as a result of relegation which reduces the value of the squad, which can impact of the remaining amortised figure for each player which can change that calculation.  

Am I missing something here, if its 4.2m on a 5 year contract with 2 years left, that's 3x4.2 which is 12.6m, it's a profit of 0.6m not 3.6m surely?

Edited 3 April 2024 by Beachyboy

[Pliskin]

1 minute ago, tickler28 said:

I hear people keep mentioning Alves and Braybrooke like they are the second coming yet have not seen them anywhere near a first team squad not even for the FA Cup. Raikhy and Nelson we've seen and we've also seen they are not ready to step up. If we are kidding ourselves that Alves and Braybrooke are going to become PL players overnight then I'm pretty certain we are all going to be very very disappointed. Both players are a L1 /Championship loan season or 2 from ever possibly being ready

They’ve both been injured, and now they’re unlikely to be used because of our situation, there no was Enzo will risk playing them at the minute. 

[87fox]

45 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Aren’t they in the previous years accounts ?   New entries for 22/23 would be faes and the Jan signings of VK and souttar.  Fofana dropped out 

And Schmeichel's wage dropped out too. Wasn't he matching Vardy as our highest earner? I was expecting a drop in wages based on this.

[coolhandfox]

1 minute ago, Beachyboy said:

Am I missing something here, if its 4.2m on a 5 year contract with 2 years left, that's 3x4.2 which is 12.4m, it's a profit of 0.4m not 3.6m surely?

So the 3 would be a 2. 

[filbertway]

32 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

You have to divide the transfer fee by the length of the contract, which give you the yearly amortization of the fee on the debt side of the accounts. 

 

We you sale a player you have to work out the remaining years of the contract and times it by the yearly amortisation figure to give you a overall figure.

 

The you have to take that away from the transfer fee received to give you the postive gain (Profit) on our accounts. 

 

For Castange case I believe we brought him for 21m on a 5 year contract, which means his transfer is amortised at 4.2m a season. 

 

If we sold him for 12m with two years left, that 12m - (4.2m x 2 years) 8.4m = 3.6m profit  

 

However we may have carried out Player Impairment as a result of relegation which reduces the value of the squad, which can impact of the remaining amortised figure for each player which can change that calculation.  

From what I could gather watching an explanation on the Articles youtube channel. They would also include that years expected salary? So if he was due to earn 40k a week we'd also be able to add 2m to the profit on top of that.

[coolhandfox]

Not a chance we are making PSR for  the championship this season.

 

We have an envelope of 83m for this season and the last 2 season. 

 

The last two season with a rough guess of healthy deductions of 20m a season which is generous has us at a - 142m as a starting point. 

 

We would have to turn a profit of 59m this season, we are probably at the moment at around -20m for the season doing guess work. 

 

So we need to sell around 80m worth of players.... 

[coolhandfox]

4 minutes ago, filbertway said:

From what I could gather watching an explanation on the Articles youtube channel. They would also include that years expected salary? So if he was due to earn 40k a week we'd also be able to add 2m to the profit on top of that.

Correct any saved wage would have a positive gain on the accounts.

 

Transfer fee profit + saving on wages = overall postive impact on the accounts of the transfer. 

 

I just think it get more complicated if you add that in to the conversation about profit on transfers as we have little information on wages, bonus etc.  

[filbertway]

10 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Not a chance we are making PSR for  the championship this season.

 

We have an envelope of 83m for this season and the last 2 season. 

 

The last two season with a rough guess of healthy deductions of 20m a season which is generous has us at a - 142m as a starting point. 

 

We would have to turn a profit of 59m this season, we are probably at the moment at around -20m for the season doing guess work. 

 

So we need to sell around 80m worth of players.... 

I can't see why we didn't want to submit a business plan for the season to the EFL...  

How is Top not completely p*ssed off that people he trusts are spunking away his families money and making the club worse

 

We're such a weird little club. From fans to the ownership and everything on the pitch. Someone on the inside must be jotting all the down and looking to make a show about the club - it'd put Dream Team to shame.

 

 

[Jazzy_Jeff]

This is all an absolute nonsense.

 

Owners should be able to spend their own money in an attempt to be successful. We had two 5th place finishes and an FA Cup win and our owners decided to roll the dice and have a go at improving on it. 
 

Circumstances that followed then caused us to go backwards rather than forwards. We should be applauded for having a go rather that punished for daring to challenge the elite.

 

We now find ourselves in a complete no win situation when there are clubs like Chelsea and Man Utd who are haemorrhaging money and are allowed to because of the badge on the front of their shirt. 
 

The “purpose” of FFP was to prevent clubs going about of business. What a shower. It was to stop the favoured clubs being challenged. 
 

You wait, there will be 5 English clubs in the reformed Champions League, then 6, then their Super League is finally here. This is nothing more that corruption and it will all come crashing down one day. 

[Claudio Fannieri]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

we lost ten places so our merit payment was going to be slashed

our broadcast revenue was also depleted re no euro campaign (as was euro match day )

 

looks like we took a hit of almost £40m compared to previous season on those metrics 

 

we sacked Brendan and his team.  Wages and other costs seem to have increased by £29m from 21/22.   They were consistent in previous year so did that sacking cost way more than we thought ????  I’m struggling to work out where increases come from in the playing squad ??

 

so we have those losses together totalling approx £70m more than previous year. our profit on madders and wes were £75m.  

 

presumably people expected us to post losses around £60m  

 

we can see how they’ve probably undercooked that but the additional £20m beyond £70m ….. 

 

the point here is that last June we knew where we stood

we knew we’d broken ffp without selling a further £50m (profit) of players before July 1st.
we made a conscious decision to stick Barnes into 23/24.  Can only assume we thought we’d get a fine in the PL and we were better off trying to keep more of a lid on 23/24 losses because EFL have a history of points deductions and there was no guarantee of promotion 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe some of the wage increases could be linked to yearly % increases as part of multi year contract agreements. I think it’s common practice on say a 4/5 year contract for a player to start on £x but then have a yearly wage increase written into the contract of y%. 
 

Also there will be the pay off to Brendan and his mob and whilst only for a short duration, there will have been the costs for Dean Smith, John Terry and Shakey, whilst i also think the likes of Stowell and Wier also left the club and there severance packages will no doubt have been wrapped up in the figures up to June. I think Enzo joined in that month too so could any compo payments to Man City be wrapped up in this too? 

[Foxy_jim]

It's negligence of the highest highest order. From top to bottom. We never ever should have gone down with that squad, never ever should have spent so much on garbage players ( wages and fees) and if we knew we were in the shit this summer why did we sign players like Coady and winks who have little resale value and high wages? 

Should have sacked Rodgers after spurs away, we would never have gone down. Should have had a fire sale in the summer. Surely somehow they could have sold Daka kelechi and one or two others and still easily had a promotion charge. The high echelons of the club should have their heads on a spike for this and start again being sustainable like we were for a few years. 

 

We got massively carried away with a few years of relative success and blindly thought it would continue. Paying high wages only adds comfort and takes away drive. Players had it easy so did Rodgers. 

[coolhandfox]

Just now, filbertway said:

I can't see why we didn't want to submit a business plan for the season to the EFL...  

How is Top not completely p*ssed off that people he trusts are spunking away his families money and making the club worse

 

We're such a weird little club. From fans to the ownership and everything on the pitch. Someone on the inside must be jotting all the down and looking to make a show about the club - it'd put Dream Team to shame.

 

 

It all makes sense know, they just want to avoided the EFL clobbering us with a transfer embargo and point deduction early on. 

 

Hoping we bounce back, and make a deal with the EFL from the safety of the PL like we did last time.

 

We are just the next Leeds who overspent to reach the champions league, I assume after finishing 5th twice, Rodgers said keep the squad together and buy me x and y and z and we will do it 22/23.

 

Massive gamble that didn't pay off.  

[coolhandfox]

3 minutes ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

Maybe some of the wage increases could be linked to yearly % increases as part of multi year contract agreements. I think it’s common practice on say a 4/5 year contract for a player to start on £x but then have a yearly wage increase written into the contract of y%. 
 

Also there will be the pay off to Brendan and his mob and whilst only for a short duration, there will have been the costs for Dean Smith, John Terry and Shakey, whilst i also think the likes of Stowell and Wier also left the club and there severance packages will no doubt have been wrapped up in the figures up to June. I think Enzo joined in that month too so could any compo payments to Man City be wrapped up in this too? 

Also a it a 13 month reporting period due to accounting date change so the account included 13 month wages not 12. 

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

Maybe some of the wage increases could be linked to yearly % increases as part of multi year contract agreements. I think it’s common practice on say a 4/5 year contract for a player to start on £x but then have a yearly wage increase written into the contract of y%. 
 

Also there will be the pay off to Brendan and his mob and whilst only for a short duration, there will have been the costs for Dean Smith, John Terry and Shakey, whilst i also think the likes of Stowell and Wier also left the club and there severance packages will no doubt have been wrapped up in the figures up to June. I think Enzo joined in that month too so could any compo payments to Man City be wrapped up in this too? 

I think that the level of wages we are paying makes annual increases less likely 

 

The year that we took in daka, soumare and vestergaard showed wages drop from 192 to 182 but other costs increase from 23 to 33 

 

tbh, we are peeing in the wind trying to second guess how the club deal with wages etc.  all we can say is that last year we saw a big rise when we’d not have expected to see much at all. Surely the majority of that is rodgers (and crew)  severance 

 

EDIT: £15m of that increase is for the extra month so sort of making sense that cost of sacking rodgers would be around £12m 

 

all roads are heading back to a place where the loss should have been expected to be around £70m.  If that had been the narrative, would the 90m have come as such a massive surprise ?  

 

 

Edited 3 April 2024 by st albans fox

[Number 6]

Just one thing with the rules as they stand, and this may be my misunderstanding of the rules, but the great result posted by Brighton doesn't really help them does it? They could spend big in the next 2 years and still meet PSR rules but if they did that they'd potentially have an issue in 3 years' time when the massive profit year drops off? The only thing they can try to do is continue recording massive player sales, which seems unlikely. 

 

Surely the results should mean there's a bigger benefit to positing a massive profit? As it stands they'd have been better spending a large chunk of that money on farming some promising younger players, even if they never intended to use them.

[Babylon]

It's all very well them saying they were budgeting for x, y, z finish / position. It's not guaranteed, did nobody run a "what if" scenario. That's a flabbergasting loss considering it includes those sales. 

[JimmyC74]

4 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

Just one thing with the rules as they stand, and this may be my misunderstanding of the rules, but the great result posted by Brighton doesn't really help them does it? They could spend big in the next 2 years and still meet PSR rules but if they did that they'd potentially have an issue in 3 years' time when the massive profit year drops off? The only thing they can try to do is continue recording massive player sales, which seems unlikely. 

 

Surely the results should mean there's a bigger benefit to positing a massive profit? As it stands they'd have been better spending a large chunk of that money on farming some promising younger players, even if they never intended to use them.

There model in recent years has mirrored ours (big incoming fees Maguire, Mahrez, Chilwell etc) but what happens when there is no asset to sell?

[filbertway]

11 minutes ago, JimmyC74 said:

There model in recent years has mirrored ours (big incoming fees Maguire, Mahrez, Chilwell etc) but what happens when there is no asset to sell?

Well they're still signing 18-22 year olds with high potential so no worries for them there.

 

When they start signing average premier league players on 80-90k a week in their late 20s then they need to start worrying.

[Chelmofox]

4 minutes ago, Babylon said:

It's all very well them saying they were budgeting for x, y, z finish / position. It's not guaranteed, did nobody run a "what if" scenario. That's a flabbergasting loss considering it includes those sales. 

It's all very well saying we budgeted for a top x finish but we didn't recruit the players to do so, we just paid them the salaries as if they were top 5/6 players.  I presume that we bought into the philosophy that Rodgers and the training ground would work miracles and turn Soumare and Daka into next generation world beaters, so we paid them as if they already were. 

[Chelmofox]

5 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Well they're still signing 18-22 year olds with high potential so no worries for them there.

 

When they start signing average premier league players on 80-90k a week in their late 20s then they need to start worrying.

KDH says hi!

[Footballwipe]

24 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

Just one thing with the rules as they stand, and this may be my misunderstanding of the rules, but the great result posted by Brighton doesn't really help them does it? They could spend big in the next 2 years and still meet PSR rules but if they did that they'd potentially have an issue in 3 years' time when the massive profit year drops off? The only thing they can try to do is continue recording massive player sales, which seems unlikely. 

 

Surely the results should mean there's a bigger benefit to positing a massive profit? As it stands they'd have been better spending a large chunk of that money on farming some promising younger players, even if they never intended to use them.

Maybe they'll have competent plans in place which don't include spending more than 100% of their revenue on wages and chasing the dream by overpaying and overspending on mediocre players

Edited 3 April 2024 by Footballwipe

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

KDH says hi!

He’s pretty much all we have apart from JJ

 

all the other ‘young’ buys we still own have proved to be duds (eg daka, Bouba ) 

Edited 3 April 2024 by st albans fox

[westernpark]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

He’s pretty much all we have apart from JJ

 

all the other ‘young’ buys we still own have proved to be duds (eg daka, Bouba ) 

Hermansen would be one to sell unfortunately, albeit if we don’t go up we wouldn’t get near to what he’s really worth.

[Number 6]

3 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Maybe they'll have competent plans in place which don't include spending more than 100% of their revenue on wages and chasing the dream by overpaying and overspending on mediocre players

Oh absolutely, they're much better ran than we are. I think they'll remain financially comfortable but they won't have gained any sporting advantage from this year's results. Villa are the ones I think are going to run into similar problems.

 

 

21 minutes ago, JimmyC74 said:

There model in recent years has mirrored ours (big incoming fees Maguire, Mahrez, Chilwell etc) but what happens when there is no asset to sell?

It seems the difference is that they've kept their wages small and they're definitely more capable of finding good young players than we are. Honestly the wage bill we had is just the dumbest way of going about it. You can pivot quickly on transfer fees by spending less and selling more if you need to balance, the high wages are on fixed contracts and we basically locked ourselves in to needing European football. Given the size of some of the other clubs that missed out this was an absolutely mad approach. 

 

As much as I will be critical of the rules I always think of Redknapp signing Ben-Haim wherever he went and whacking him on £50k a week contracts which screwed over clubs. To me this is what the rules should be there to prevent and it's almost exactly what we we've been doing. Financial security looks ok because loans have been written off, but all it would have taken was for that not to happen and we would have been sending ourselves down a very dark path. We're the poster boy for the rules being necessary now.