Jump to content

The AVFC FFP thread


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, paul514 said:

it is 85m of 1 year amortisation...... not an 85 million transfer spend., they could quite literally spend 300m easily if the owners wanted to do a cash injection

yep someone else said that and explained it, i get it now!, cheers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tomsky_11 said:

Carlos was signed in June after the accounting period in question. Coutinho there may be some impact. But however it’s built up, the £200m doesn’t tell us much on its own regarding ffp.

We don't know that for sure as 27th May was reported we reached agreement. I get us to about £180m with the players I listed. If you add in Loan fee's for say Tuanzebe, Coutinho and Olsen and a signing on fee for Kamara maybe it gets towards the £203m - agent fee's too perhaps. 

I think the statement of players we signed adding up to that amount is more for show than for any real accounting reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Czarnikjak said:

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

I agree with this, we had looked at this at the time. Buendia we could afford. But that would be it and then Young and Axel would probably be the other two. Ings and Bailey were signed as we have Grealish leaving. 

I think this season ending 23 we'll book a profit but wages will probably rise from last season. We should be in a good situation too if we sell a few players in the 23/24 season accounts too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/03/2023 at 21:38, tomsky_11 said:

Carlos was signed in June after the accounting period in question. Coutinho there may be some impact. But however it’s built up, the £200m doesn’t tell us much on its own regarding ffp.

I'm saying the £200 figure is simply not possible in terms of transfer fees alone in the period. Only way is it includes transfer fees and the wages of new players. So the club "invested £203m in new players". They must be including wages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/03/2023 at 09:52, ender4 said:

Where are people seeing these figures? Anyone got a link or screenshot?

The figures haven't shown up on Companies House yet, it normally takes a few days, so if not today then I'd guess early next week. I think people are just quoting the snippets that the club have mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/03/2023 at 18:09, tomsky_11 said:

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accounts are already up on companies house. Just having a look now.

Bits to add to club statement to get back to the reported profit:

- Amortisation up to £82.5M

- Other admin expenses up £10M on previous year before Randy Lerner payment. 19/20 was at a similar level, I'll have a look back at previous trend in a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tomsky_11 said:

Accounts are already up on companies house. Just having a look now.

Bits to add to club statement to get back to the reported profit:

- Amortisation up to £82.5M

- Other admin expenses up £10M on previous year before Randy Lerner payment. 19/20 was at a similar level, I'll have a look back at previous trend in a bit.

....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?).

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

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?).

I suppose there are the sales of Ings and Chuk already. For anyone who knows their FFP inside out - it would be damn handy to know what sort of trading we can expect this summer. Purslow thinks we'll be busy - which must mean there are still a number to be sold, as well as any incomings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

....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?).

Yes this is it we will be forced to sell our best players to comply with ffp which means we realistically can't challenge. Which is the point of ffp in the first place. To protect the same teams.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selling academy players for pure profit will be part of the strategy you'd think.

You don't want to be losing a Grealish every two seasons or a Martinez every one, and we certainly can't be relying on having that level of talent to sell even if we could replace them.

Edited by fightoffyour
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

....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?).

 

I don't agree with you on this at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Would this explain the lack of spending in January?

Unlikely I think if the club are willing to spend big in summer. From FFP perspective we had a lot of room this season. For the 2022/23 calc, we've got about £67M spare from 2021 and 2022, on top of the £35M allowable for 2023.

So basically £102M of allowable losses after FFP P/(L) adjustments which were about £21M in 2022. Assuming similar adjustments in 2023, we could still pass FFP in 2023 with a pre adjusted loss of around £120M in the year.

For 23/24 season, assuming no change to FFP we've still got about £56M of FFP room from 21/22 accounts, which would probably allow for average pre-adjusted losses for 2023 and 2024 of about £80M per season.

The above are obviously extreme examples of the limits we'll have for these seasons specifically and don't take into account what might then be required in 24/25 (basically a drastic leap in revenue through eg. european qualification or a Grealish-esque sale) but I think it shows we've definitely got room this summer to do more.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

 

I don't agree with you on this at all. 

Which points exactly don't you agree? And what are your counter arguments?

Actually, I need to correct myself a bit. That £87m loss doesn't include costs excluded from FFP calculations (youth development etc). They would add up to about £20m perhaps?

Therefore for compliance purposes, we only need to generate £30m profit from player sales (averaged over 3 years) every season. Not quite as bad, but I think my general point stands...ffp sucks and shackles us.

Edited by Czarnikjak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The highlights from accounts for FFP

Income 178.4

Profit on player sales 97.4

Wages 137

Amortisation 85.3 (inc depreciation)

FFP accounts for year (178.4 + 97.4) - (137 + 85.3) = +£53.5m

So we're £44m in sales short of neutral for FFP. (we can run a 100m loss over 3 years in FFP though)

Our revenue needs to improve (hopefully it has last season).

 

accounts.png

Edited by CVByrne
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

The highlights from accounts for FFP

Income 178.4

Profit on player sales 97.4

Wages 137

Amortisation 85.3 (inc depreciation)

FFP accounts for year (178.4 + 97.4) - (137 + 85.3) = +£53.5m

So we're £44m in sales short of neutral for FFP. (we can run a 100m loss over 3 years in FFP though)

Our revenue needs to improve (hopefully it has last season).

 

accounts.png

Matchday and commercial income is going in the right direction but both need to be massively improved to increase the turnover. Hence the stadium redevelopment, which is long overdue. We are miles away from the big 6 on that now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â