timeEd32

Those numbers are ridiculous and all over the place.

Incredible and exactly what I expected to see. We just hit £38m in the last accounts, slightly above our previous peak which was pre-Ashley. That will go up considerably again in 2023/24 due to the Champions League matches, but we're still paying for his incompetence with people locked in to low cost schemes.

Have you seen matchday revenue pre-Ashley? I was trying to find it but couldn't in a quick search.

If it wasn’t so sad it’d be impressive that in 15 years we grew commercial revenue by roughly £5m total during a period of massive global growth for the league. Ashley’s incompetence still doesn’t get the credit it deserves.

I want him here and I think he'd be good, but I agree. Really wouldn't like the idea of having £60-70m of 2024/25 transfer fees committed to Hall and Phillips.

Dropping this here as it's relevant to the discussion earlier (summary of our accounting years and the 3 year periods):

There's been a lot of confusion about accounting years so here goes: The accounts we just released are for 2022/23 (aka last season). It includes PL prize money for finishing 4th and anything we earned from going to the League Cup final. Anything that has happened since July 1, 2023 will be in this season's 2023/24 accounts. These will close on June 30, 2024 so we don't know the full story, but this includes the sales of Maxi and Wood, the new Sela sponsorship, and Champions League revenue (estimated at £37m per a comment in the latest accounts). It does not include Adidas. I think our revenue will exceed £300m for the first time ever. These accounts will be published ~January 2025. The 2024/25 accounting period will begin on July 1 of this year, so Adidas will be included moving forward. We don't know anything else yet about this accounting year, though we can probably assume there will be no Champions League payments. Even without European participation I think our revenue will be ~£300m. These accounts will be published ~January 2026. Rolling three year periods (numbers below are from the Swiss Ramble, which are educated estimates): 2020/21 (Covid blend) > 2021/22 > 2022/23: This period is closed and we have all of the numbers. We took things to the limit with a £13m profit in 2020/21 (thanks to Covid write-offs), £60m loss in 2021/22, and a £58m loss in 2022/23 (these numbers are after allowed deductions for infrastructure, academy, community, and women's football). That's a total loss of £105m. 2021/22 > 2022/23 > 2023/24: We are into the final six months of this period and we know the previous one only balanced out with a £13m profit which we're dropping, so presumably that is our current aim for 2023/24 as well. We know revenue will be up considerably due to UCL participation, Sela, and player sales. Whether that's enough without selling a player in June I don't know. We could also increase the allowable deductions if it's close. 2022/23 > 2023/24 > 2024/25: Starting July 1 this will be the three year period that matters. It will include the £58m loss in 2022/23, but also (assuming we don't fall foul of FFP) a ~£13m profit in 2023/24. So we'll be able to book a loss of £60m again if we want to push it to the limit. 2023/24 > 2024/25 > 2025/26: We're 18 months from this starting, but this should be a fun time. We will drop the £58m loss in 2022/23, so should be another good spending year after hopefully a more successful 2024/25 season, and all previously neglected parts of the club kicking into gear. --------- There are a lot of things to be frustrated about right now, but this window through June 30 is also the most we are likely to be impacted by the Premier League's financial restrictions in the next couple years (UEFA rules tbd). And that's even if the rules don't change at all, which is starting to seem unlikely. I expect the next three windows - Summer 2024, January 2025, and Summer 2025 - to be far more eventful (and yes, it will include outgoings).

We do know because it's in the accounts. 4th place and the League Cup run are both called out as reasons for additional revenue in 2022/23. So, as of now, we are on track for less PL revenue for 23/24 but offset by Sela, UCL, and player sales.

I think you're still mixing up accounting years and playing years and what's included in what. But I agree that of all the worrying things this is not one to add to the list. We've been consistent in our intent to abide by FFP and all related rules and we are not run by morons.

Yes, Adidas will be next year. This year's accounts note that UCL group stage money = ~£37m. That is higher than most outside estimates so I don't know if that includes increased matchday revenue (which would roughly line up perfectly) or if there's a bump in UEFA money this year.

He means if you take off 2020/21 and add 2023/24 (current season) if we were to continue with similar losses. But I think the very short answer is we will not continue with those losses as I don't think we intend to just ignore the rules. Our FFP constraints this season are due to to this three year period. UCL, Sela, Maxi, and Wood sales should see us through. We can also massage the numbers via infrastructure and youth development investments if needed. The potentially significant reduction in PL merit £ may be a present concern. On the plus side, 2021/22 will be next to drop off and then Adidas will kick in in 2024/25. Even if the rules don't change a profitable 2023/24 + revenue growing in 2024/25 should put us in a much better position than we're in right now.

Some were against at least one of those. Forest helped us out immensely.

I think Kieran is great, but I just can't accept this. Sure, Premier League broadcasting income + minimal spending looks good on paper at first. But it's not actually a good position when you haven't grown revenue in a decade and have very few assets to sell, unless you continue to have no interest in competing.

Nah, that article calls out some particularly bad outcomes. But looking at this list: “Already in 2021, bad toes have hampered Lions Pro Bowl center Frank Ragnow, Raiders running back Josh Jacobs and Bucs wideout Scotty Miller. In the past few years, turf toe has derailed star players such as A.J. Green, Julio Jones and Davante Adams, as well as running backs James Conner, Phillip Lindsayand Antonio Gibson.“ - Ragnow has played all but two games the last two seasons. 2nd team All Pro this season. - Jacobs had the best year of his career in 2022 and had over 400 touches (that’s a lot) - Miller isn’t very good but he’s played almost every game the last two years - Davante Adams is still elite at age 31 - Julio Jones made four All Pro teams after it happened to him before getting old - James Conner has aged nicely for his position and been reasonably durable —— It’s a bad injury for sure, but it’s unlikely to be a death sentence.

I’m not saying we couldn’t have done anything, but why (especially after defeats) does everyone act like we were the only ones participating in the game? Like it’s possible the club managed by arguably the best in the world made some tweaks that made it harder for us to get possession and play quick counters. And then also had the ability to bring one of the world’s best for 25 minutes.

Not sure I’ve ever realized how petulant Rodri is until today.

Me? I probably have an annoying amount of optimistic / glass half full posts on here. I was merely joking about the disparity in quality of the two benches. But since you asked, those 45 minutes are why I watch football.

Spectacular half. They only have De Bruyne and Grealish to bring on. No match for Ritchie and Paul D.

Ederson and three goals.

We’ll probably still lose because they are great, but we’ve put the ball in their net three times with quick counter attacks. First time balls over the top were clearly a strategy. “Sussed”

Also Tonali but this is such a disingenuous take.

Same, and saw Ederson lying on the ground more than replays.

With what’s happening now I think we were leaking interest in Saudi loans and then honestly would have been fine with it being voted against. It would have been a good addition to the argument.

I suppose the argument against it is if it was a truly inflationary environment you’d offset it with higher revenues, which does happen to some degree (at least for those lucky enough to be hitched to increasing broadcast deals). If revenue isn’t increasing then inflation doesn’t suddenly make it ok to lose £200m instead of £105m. But the problem is football transfers and wages are not a normal market with pricing controlled by a handful of clubs.

If Miley is out I’d far prefer to see 5 at the back. Even if we don’t do that I think we might see Tino in the midfield ahead of Hall.