tomsky_11

On 06/04/2024 at 07:30, sne said:

Utterly moronic win by Charlotte against the Magic. No idea what it is with my teams in American sports but they all fail to grasp how the system works. Just tank ffs! Not my teams, Calgary Flames, The Vikings and Charlotte all fighting as hard as possible to get a bad draft spot thanks to pointless wins despite being absolutely useless with nothing to gain from it.

Bridges & Miller playing 40 mins per game while other teams are emptying their benches. Clifford is a moron (thankfully gone for next season) who loves empty calories wins.

Good thing Portland and San Antonio also won won.

Yeah, tank ffs!  You guys just got hot that night, everything just dropped for you, especially in that first quarter. Just hope that doesn't cost us because play-in is still a very small possibility and we'd have been clear of that now had we beat you.

Huge finish for us though if we can get some wins in these last four games. We play the 2nd place and in bad form Bucks twice still so those could be the decider for 2nd seed.

One thing in the accounts that very much surprises me is the post balance sheet spend on players and staff at only £67.9m. That seems quite low.

23 hours ago, CVByrne said:

Note Commercial revenue includes the income from players out on Loan (5.7m). I don't have the figure for 2022.

£9.3m

3 hours ago, CVByrne said:

Yes, so more an increase in the Depreciation from the 22 accounts. So my £25m estimate for 2023 is probably right

Yeah. I'd say at least that. Can imagine there being increases in other deductables too.

5 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

It looks like our allowable deductions for 22/23 is more than £25m I used above. So more like £32m 

I was going to mention we'll have more depreciation based on that. We won't have depreciated the full £7M increase in cap spend in one year though, so kick will be smaller than that.

8 hours ago, omariqy said:

Can you share your working out please?

I'll relook and share when have more time, and probably worth waiting for actual accounts to appear as will properly rework then, when hopefully have more info.

But if you look at @CVByrne workings on next page, I've got a more prudent worse case view on revenue (I think his is perfectly reasonable tbh) and I've also left in prior workings I had giving a bump to both wages and amortisation so about £10M up on each. Again though, I'd like to understand the increase in 22/23 a bit better, as seems incredibly high and wonder if there could be some weird one-offs here that won't carry through. So again, CV keeping these figures the same for 23/24 I don't think is out of the question.

12 minutes ago, MSvillain said:

across the rolling 3 year period is that? (rather than per annum?)

No, per annum. £60-70M over 3 years.

21 minutes ago, MSvillain said:

Someone can correct me/add some detail but not all cost/losses are taken into account for PSR calcs 

Correct. Roughly £20-25M added back.

2 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

Actually I think I've figured out we lost so much in that period. Normally this wouldn't make sense but they said in the FAB meeting that they changed the accounting period to the end of June to line up with expiring contracts such as sponsors.

So because of this we have an extra month on the accounting period and that month will likely be when things like loyalty bonuses, amortised transfer fees and various other annual costs are added as such we are essentially double counting them for this period. As presumably this accounting period is June 1st 2022-June 30th 2023. 

No. These accounts run to end of May 23.

6 hours ago, Hornso said:

I hear it isn't supposed to be a good draft crop or a deep draft crop. I'm sure there will be some talent in there somewhere surely...

Good year to start not caring about it then  Tbf I think we have enough in the way of young prospects now, need to the summer to add quality, experience and shooting.

Our next 8 games looking nice: @Hornets @Wizards @Knicks Pacers Nets @Raptors Raptors Hornets. Something has gone wrong if we are not 4th in two weeks time. Especially with Knicks and Sixers playing each other twice.

3 minutes ago, sne said:

Far as I'm concerned every win this season from now on is a loss. I want us to get as high a draft pick as possible and winning now is just empty calories. US sport is weird in that regard. 

Yeah that's fair. What are the prospects looking like this year? Unlike last few years I've paid them zero attention this year.

17 hours ago, sne said:

Hornets are hiring 35 y.o Jeff Peterson as their new Head of Basketball Ops. 35 is insanely young but he sounds like a very interesting choice. Needless to say I hope one of his first actions is to identify a replacement for coach Cliff.

This was fun.

Please keep this up. We've still got to play you three times.

Gonna be interesting to see where we end up. I thought we'd be on for the play-in start of the season, but right now we are only 1 game back on 4th and have by far the easiest remaining schedule in the league. Getting homecourt first round would be incredible.

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

Calendar year is only for squad cost rule. I believe the accounts are published ones for financial years as they quote previous years for 2022 before rules came in and quote numbers for us that tie to our 2022 accounts

I still don't understand the two pages where they quote wages twice and different levels. It's still confusing me. 

Yep cool I'd only skim read a few posts before, noticed after I posted that you'd rec'd a couple of bits back to the accounts.

I had a quick run through the UEFA doc last night and though figures certainly higher than expected, I wasn't overly worried at least in short term. Seems like maybe some of what I thought we had to spend this season was actually spent last season. Next season still seems like the tipping point as we lose a profitable year from the front end of the assessment period and probably have to cover two large loss making ones. Getting CL and better commercial deals, eg Adidas should help cover some of this though.

Is the UEFA doc looking at the same 12 month period as our stat accounts/PL assessment period would? I haven't properly looked into it but thought I saw something regarding the UEFA rules covering a calendar year by default (though there were exceptions which may apply to us).

On 22/01/2024 at 10:58, Nigel said:

I'd like to know just how far we could take these buy backs for the 3 players we let out in the summer.

For instance if we buy back philogene can we simply sell him on again and receive the benefits over again for ffp; Spreading the cost over a 4 year contract when buying but getting the lump sum of a transfer fee a few weeks later when sold on?

In theory could you keep doing this with the same few players (I do realise the players wouldn't stand for it but humour me)?

That’s not quite how it would work. We could buy back and immediately sell on for profit. I believe there have been multiple instances of other clubs triggering buy back only to then immediately sell the player on for a higher price.

From an accounting perspective, if both the buy back and sale occurred in the same period then the total cost of the buy back and income from the sale would appear in the same period. There wouldn’t be any spreading of the cost of the buy back over 4 years, as on any sale any remaining book value of the contract at the point of sale is expense as a cost of sale. You don’t continue to amortise an asset after it is sold.

1 minute ago, MaVilla said:

However, recent form has been sketchy tbh, over the last 5 PL games we are averaging 1.6 PPG.

Still gets us to 70 points if we carry that on.

Just had a relook at my calcs from in the summer for where we might be at this season regards PL and UEFA rules, and I really think it's only the UEFA rules we need to be concerned with (although not that concerned.)

On the P&L side, adjusting for what we did in the summer, I think we are in a situation where we might actually further from the limit this season than last. We're talking £60-70M range clear of the limit.

UEFA rules look tighter, but even then right now I think we are good to come just under the 90% limit. Next season we will need either a big kick in revenue/sales profit (estimating £60-70M on this season) or a big drop in squad cost (£40-50M), or a combination of the two to get under the 80% limit. Not sure there's a lot to be worried about here though. On the revenue side, I'd guess we are likely to see a decent boost from the Adidas deal. Then if we get CL qualification, which looks highly likely right now, that will bring further significant increases both directly and indirectly. On the squad cost side of things, just getting rid of Traore, Dendoncker, Coutinho and Digne would give us most of the squad cost drop we'd need.

1 minute ago, MrBlack said:

the effort required to breach the monopoly will have been heavily predicated on us getting one of  if not the,  best manager in the world. That's hardly a model for other clubs to follow

Is it not? Costs less to get a high end management team than maybe even one high end player, and likely has a bigger impact on the team overall.

48 minutes ago, ender4 said:

It's sounding more and more like we are very close to the limit and so can only spend if we sell or get very clever with the deals.

Nope. Chill.

3 minutes ago, Jas10 said:

Just do a vote between these two and be done with it, credit to @fightoffyour

This whole, drawn out “process” has been tiring and draining (it really has dragged on for long enough) but fans have to be vocal and resist having something we don’t like or want being forced on us too… we don’t want to end up with a piece of crap for the next few years at least… the sooner we can resolve it, the better… rather than continually repeating or rewinding…

Neither?

6 minutes ago, david-avfc said:

The official NWSE accounts show £0, -£37m, & -£99m in the last 3 years

Yep, the only figure of ours that site had that made any sense is the latest £0.4M profit, and even then it's the published figure in the accounts rather than the actual figure that would be used for FFP purposes, which would have adjustments as per Swiss Ramble table.

32 minutes ago, RoyalVilla said:

That article says we lost £274.9m in the 20/21 season. Can that be right? 

No lol. WTF is this sh*te.

25 minutes ago, MSvillain said:

This is something @Czarnikjak pulled together a while back.

I for one am shocked a random website saying we lost £300m in one year is incorrect. 

Yep this is accurate regards the known picture. Though it's not from @Czarnikjak (though he does provide plenty of other useful insight regards club finances) but the Swiss Ramble blog, which is definitely more reliable than whatever that other link was.

I think people really need to chill (as is often the case) regards FFP and this window. My own forecasting prior to the season had us with plenty room to do the business we've done since, but with some potential issues to keep in mind (albeit perfectly manageable ones) in 24/25 if we pushed a bit too far and/or didn't make the expected progress in the league. I haven't reworked my numbers in any detail, but three key points regarding where we might have move from that forecast:

1. We didn't exceed what I'd expected us to spend in the summer (if anything we underspent my expectation)

2. We made at least what I'd expected us to make in sales profit (if anything we might have made more)

3. Our performance to date this season indicates a likely finish multiple places above my forecast and a very high chance of CL football next season, which should give the club even more reason and scope to spend in January if they feel they need to without setting us up for potential issues next season.

19 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

We aren’t signing... veterans. Next. 

Surely a decent option in some positions?

Take DM for example. I don't see us realistically signing anyone ahead of Kamara. So we are looking for solid backup. I think a decent reliable vet, perhaps someone Emery knows well or has even worked with before, or has elite/top 4/title challenge experience, might be more likely than a young prospect who might see any path to regular first team down the line blocked by Kamara given his age.

Same perhaps goes for forward if we want a more reliable backup option for Watkins, as we already have Duran as a prospect for this role but at present he is not experienced or reliable enough for a top 4 challenge.

1 hour ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

They could legit just put a blue background on this and it's fine imo.

With some external gold piping on the inner border?

That's what is frustrating about the full colour one, it's such an easy fix.

AGAIN, I'm going to wait and see what they role out.

There must be a method to the " madness "