The AVFC FFP thread

[Peter Griffin]

4 minutes ago, tomsky_11 said:

Yes. It’s not turnover though.

My £162m is broken out as:

Gates £16.5m

Broadcast £117.5m

Sponsorship £15m

Commercial £13m

Tbh I did this when the last accounts came out around Nov last year I think, so can’t fully remember how got to these figures. The broadcast looks like the avg of 20 and 21 figures. The others are either same or a small increase on the last season they appear to be unaffected by one off issues eg covid. 

 

It is turnover. All sales are turnover, it is not turnover we can't expect every year obviously, but it is still turnover. 

[Peter Griffin]

4 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

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.

Yep, that will hurt us but at least it is not coming in till 2025/26 season (90% next year & 80% the following year) so we have a few years to get our revenues up. 

[tomsky_11]

6 hours ago, Zatman said:

I plus Ramsey, Emi and Cash got big pay increases as well in the last season. Hause got a new deal too

At least with the likes of Emi, Cash etc we can offset to some degree the salary increase by reducing the annual impact of their amortisation.

[tomsky_11]

42 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

It is turnover. All sales are turnover, it is not turnover we can't expect every year obviously, but it is still turnover. 

It literally does not appear in the accounts as turnover, because it’s not turnover. The primary function of the business is not to sell footballers (insert selling club joke here). Player sales appear as profit or loss on disposals (so sales price less book value and other costs of sale) as per image

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by tomsky_11

[Peter Griffin]

1 minute ago, tomsky_11 said:

It literally does not appear in the accounts as turnover, because it’s not turnover. The primary function of the business is not to sell footballers (insert selling club joke here). Player sales appear as profit or loss on disposals as per image

It is turnover, AVFC cannot make up their own accounting rules. The example u have posted is a P&L that specifically states they are showing player sales in it. They are doing this to show how much regular income and expenditure the club has. Players sales is neither regular nor predictable income. From an accounting perspective, FFP perspective, tax perspective and business law perspective, turnover includes the purchase and sale of players.

[tomsky_11]

7 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

It is turnover, AVFC cannot make up their own accounting rules. The example u have posted is a P&L that specifically states they are showing player sales in it. They are doing this to show how much regular income and expenditure the club has. Players sales is neither regular nor predictable income. From an accounting perspective, FFP perspective, tax perspective and business law perspective, turnover includes the purchase and sale of players.

Nope, the player sales in the turnover line is loan fees only. See note in the accounts on turnover…

Edited August 17, 2022 by tomsky_11

[Peter Griffin]

2 minutes ago, tomsky_11 said:

Nope, the player sales in the turnover line is loan fees only. See note in the accounts on turnover…

And the purpose of that note to to explain the use of the word turnover on the accounts as it is not including all turnover at the club. This is just to make the accounts easier to read in a meaningful way. It is just the presentation of the numbers. When it comes to law, tax and FFP,  players sales are included in turnover.

[tomsky_11]

13 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

And the purpose of that note to to explain the use of the word turnover on the accounts as it is not including all turnover at the club. This is just to make the accounts easier to read in a meaningful way. It is just the presentation of the numbers. When it comes to law, tax and FFP,  players sales are included in turnover.

And I’m talking about the accounts as they are presented. Classification for tax is irrelevant to the discussion and does ffp even judge turnover separate from the adjusted profit or loss figure?

[Peter Griffin]

1 minute ago, tomsky_11 said:

And I’m talking about the accounts as they are presented. Classification for tax is irrelevant to the discussion and does ffp even judge turnover separate from the adjusted profit or loss figure?

Isn't it an FFP thread? Classification of turnover is very important and there is a difference between how data is presented on accounts and how it is treated. Showing a line item called turnover without included all turnover and adding an accounting note is for presentation purposes only. It has no relevance in accounting. It is like using a different font in the report. 100m that is included in our FFP assessment is very significant and must be considered when discussing FFP.

Maybe an idea to agree to disagree on this as we have clearly different views on accounting practice and FFP

[tomsky_11]

18 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

Isn't it an FFP thread? Classification of turnover is very important and there is a difference between how data is presented on accounts and how it is treated. Showing a line item called turnover without included all turnover and adding an accounting note is for presentation purposes only. It has no relevance in accounting. It is like using a different font in the report. 100m that is included in our FFP assessment is very significant and must be considered when discussing FFP.

Maybe an idea to agree to disagree on this as we have clearly different views on accounting practice and FFP

Sure. The £100m is relevant to FFP because it falls into the adjusted profit/loss figure that FFP judges on, and therefore was implicitly considered in my post as I wouldn’t have had us the right side of the FFP allowable losses by £30-40m without it. If I’m talking about Turnover as presented in the accounts and assuming it is at least maintained at a similar level going forward then I'm obviously not bringing player sales, which fluctuate wildly season to season and will also never appear in the p&l as the sales income alone, into it.

[paul514]

4 hours ago, Peter Griffin said:

Yep, that will hurt us but at least it is not coming in till 2025/26 season (90% next year & 80% the following year) so we have a few years to get our revenues up. 

I don't mind the FFP wage cap it forces us not to be stupid with wages.

Wages kill transfer budgets.

If a player wants a stupid wage then we shouldn't want him and with this rule there will be less takers for him

[Peter Griffin]

9 hours ago, paul514 said:

I don't mind the FFP wage cap it forces us not to be stupid with wages.

Wages kill transfer budgets.

If a player wants a stupid wage then we shouldn't want him and with this rule there will be less takers for him

I think it is good to have some sort of rules that force clubs to operate in a financially responsible manner and wages is a key factor in that. However, it needs to be implemented in an equitable way so as not to advantage the current bigger clubs at the expense of the up and coming clubs 

[The Fun Factory]

36 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

I think it is good to have some sort of rules that force clubs to operate in a financially responsible manner and wages is a key factor in that. However, it needs to be implemented in an equitable way so as not to advantage the current bigger clubs at the expense of the up and coming clubs 

Yes and we all want world peace and an end to poverty. Doesn't mean it is going to happen though.

[villa4europe]

55 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

I think it is good to have some sort of rules that force clubs to operate in a financially responsible manner and wages is a key factor in that. However, it needs to be implemented in an equitable way so as not to advantage the current bigger clubs at the expense of the up and coming clubs 

Agree

A wage cap makes a lot of sense with how things are going, spending caps too

But those caps based around revenue when 6 of the teams in the league have more than double the revenue of everyone else it then starts to be a problem 

Man city's revenue is more than 3 times ours so using the UEFA 70% as a guide how exactly is that fair? Man City can spend circa £200m more than us but we're meant to try and catch them? How exactly? It'll set a status quo and protect the top table 

[The Fun Factory]

American sports also have this massive discrepancy between revenues of the big and smaller market cities. However they also have the draft system which is supposed to favour the poorer performing sides.

[Peter Griffin]

13 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Agree

A wage cap makes a lot of sense with how things are going, spending caps too

But those caps based around revenue when 6 of the teams in the league have more than double the revenue of everyone else it then starts to be a problem 

Man city's revenue is more than 3 times ours so using the UEFA 70% as a guide how exactly is that fair? Man City can spend circa £200m more than us but we're meant to try and catch them? How exactly? It'll set a status quo and protect the top table 

It will set the status quo across the entire league pyramid. Just as it will help the top 6 to stay top 6 it will also help clubs like Villa stay in the PL. The like of the Baggies and SHA will have a difficult time catching us. 

I think the most obvious solution is to allow clubs spend beyond their means if the club's owners fund the club with the full amount of contract value that the overspending requires. This will ensure that if things go wrong the money is there to stop the club from going bust, which is the overall aim of FFP/P&S

[Czarnikjak]

19 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

It will set the status quo across the entire league pyramid. Just as it will help the top 6 to stay top 6 it will also help clubs like Villa stay in the PL. The like of the Baggies and SHA will have a difficult time catching us. 

I think the most obvious solution is to allow clubs spend beyond their means if the club's owners fund the club with the full amount of contract value that the overspending requires. This will ensure that if things go wrong the money is there to stop the club from going bust, which is the overall aim of FFP/P&S

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

[Peter Griffin]

1 hour ago, Czarnikjak said:

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

Yeah, I noticed that too 

[Rightdm00]

2 hours ago, The Fun Factory said:

American sports also have this massive discrepancy between revenues of the big and smaller market cities. However they also have the draft system which is supposed to favour the poorer performing sides.

Leagues in the state use revenue sharing which pools almost all forms of revenue and then equally distributes it throughout the league. That's how Green Bay, smallest city in the league, just broke the record for annual salary to one player when they resigned Aaron Rodgers this summer. 

[Peter Griffin]

1 hour ago, Rightdm00 said:

Leagues in the state use revenue sharing which pools almost all forms of revenue and then equally distributes it throughout the league. That's how Green Bay, smallest city in the league, just broke the record for annual salary to one player when they resigned Aaron Rodgers this summer. 

Is there any financial reward for sporting success or is it all equally divided? I assume direct sales e.g shirts etc are the way different clubs try to make themselves more profitable?