Czarnikjak

....and its not pretty to put it mildly. Excluding exceptional items (Grealish money and £10m payment to Randy Lerner) we have made a loss of £87m. Our low revenue (~£180m ish) is killing us...essentially we are forced to compete (in wages and transfer fees) with teams generating well over £400m...its just impossible to do that and stay compliant with FFP. And it wont change in any significant way until the stadium expansion is complete What it means, from FFP perspective, is that just to stay compliant with the regulations we have to make ~£50m profit from player sales EVERY single season (Emi Martinez this summer?).

Still processing....but just looked at the filing history and our owners quietly injected another £100m of their own cash into the club this season alone... I can't believe some people still moan that we don't spend enough.

It's certainly true for Ings, most likely for Bailey, but not for Buendia. We had ffp headroom at that point to sign him.

The wording of the article would certainly suggest that they talking about £203m cash outflow, which includes addons and installments from previous transfers as well. That puts into perspective claims of some "net spend experts" that we didn't spend more cash than we got for grealish...looks like we forked out another £100m last season. There's no word about amortisation, but this line looks very encouraging "Wages costs stayed stable at £137m" Now, I'm hoping that this 400k profit doesn't include £100m we got for grealish if it does....than its not pretty, and our operating loss was £100m but seeing we only turned over £178.4m i see it highly unlikely we made a profit on such a low turnover without inclusion of player sales into equation...

It's in appendix 5 of the handbook Youth development expenditure Women’s footbal expenditure Community development expenditure

Why wouldn't it? Only academy, women football, charity costs and stadium/facilities capital expenditure doesn't count. Unless it was agreed to be paid by the owners directly, not by the club. If club is paying it, it should be listed somewhere in accounts.

Not had a chance to look at the accounts yet, but if this £200m is a cash flow figure, it would also include all outstanding transfer installments (and any possible addons)we had to pay during this period from previous transfers.

The author of that thread got confused. The 70% ratio are the new UEFA ffp regulations, they are being introduced gradually. It's actually 90% currently going down over next few seasons to 70%. Thwt would only apply to us if we qualified for Europe.

Good shout, but I don't think any addons we might have been due upon promotion could come close to explain this sudden jump to £71m and subsequent drop to £56m again. Can we see the column for 19/20 season of your table? I'm curious how big the calculated shortfall to £71m actually was.

What caught me out was the drop between 2020 and 2021. It dropped from £71m to £56m without major player sales and with significant additions to the squad. Not easily explainable, unless we are not using linear amortisation (we front loaded some players?)

Thanks for that, this is great summary. Did you create the table yourself or you found it somewhere?

It wasn’t specifically mentioned that it was the case, but looking at the numbers it’s plausible. Frankly I see no other explanation why our amortisation went down while we were adding more players to the squad. There was no write downs or impairment charges due to COVID for example.

New set of accounts should be published within next month or two, that should give us more up to date view of where we are. Last year's amortisation figures were surprisingly low, will see what Purslow has conjured this time around.

Yes, frankly speaking I am amazed we managed to break even/turn small profit on him! He is clearly past his best and doesn't justify keeping at £120k per week. It was a strange signing to start with and hopefully Purslow learned something (or maybe not, as he followed that with Coutinho )

On a positive note, If things go as they do now, this actually won't affect us at all, as we won't be playing in Europe for next 10 years at least

Good summary of the new UEFA "ffp" regulations by Swiss Ramble

We were never sustainable in the first place. £350m subsidies from nswe pumped in, including £50m just recently.

Funny enough the new uefa regulations drop FFP moniker completely, only refer to it as P&S. At least they stop pretending it had anything to do with fair play in the first place

Unless we are serious about getting to Europe one day, where clubs get regularly punished for breaking ffp (unless you're psg or city obviously). To make matters worse, uefa ffp is now changing and will take form of 70% wages/revenue cap. This will totally screw us over as we are easily exceeding 70% already. I'm fact, with numbers quoted in last few posts here, we might be getting close to 100% soon.

It was 137m in the last set of published accounts for Season 20/21. Anyone fancy adjusting for arrivals/departures/new contracts since then?

They don't affect us at all atm. These are UEFA rules, they don't apply to domestic competitions and we are not in Europe.

No, we already submitted our accounts for Covid affected seasons and can't retrospectively change them now. If I recall our total losses due to covid were accounted as less than £100m Everton are taking a piss.

So normally if you sign a player for £40m on 4 year contract, for accounting purposes you amortise this purchase evenly, £10m each year for 4 years (this goes down as a cost for FFP purposes). I think we are front loading the amortisation (ie £15m in year one, and thus less in coming years). This is to maximise our FFP allowed losses now and leave more wiggle room in the future from FFP standpoint. These are muddy accounting waters, but I fully trust Purslow knows what he is doing. Derby got done for doing the exact opposite, accounting less amortisation upfront to be able to spent more at the time when they were pushing for promotion.

Thanks, good video. Dave is very knowledgeable bloke. I agree with him that something is iffy with our amortisation. As I suggested in my posts before we appear to be not using linear amortisation.

With these financial restrictions, top 10. With an occasional run at top 6-7 every few seasons if everything goes our way and one of the big 6 clubs shoots itself in the foot. The revenue gap between us and top 6 is just too big. Unfortunately thanks to Lerner we wasted 10 years from 2010 onwards when the new financial structure of football was shaped and teams like Spurs managed to get on the gravy train and massively increase their revenues. We moved backwards. It will be almost impossible now to bridge that gap. It will be interesting to see how Newcastle try to get around it and get amongst them. They have much better chances than us thanks to almost unlimited resources and political clout of a whole state behind them.