timeEd32

Isn't it Carrick's brother?

Yeah, it'd be nice for sure. I just don't know what to make of this:

Even if this is true (and it seems to be very much up in the air) we're talking about 30% of, say, 30%. So best case we're probably looking at £7-9m.

Just a small £120M or so problem with that idea.

Pretty sure if you pulled each of them aside you'd hear that the Premier League already has too much parity (City's dominance notwithstanding) and they'd point to Spain, France, and Germany as comparisons. Six spots for four places already puts a huge part of the business model at risk. They desperately want to pull up the drawbridge before that number expands to 7 or 8.

I don't disagree about some additional rotation and/or earlier subs in some games. I don't think Bruno, Wilson, or Trippier should have come on in the Man United cup game up 3-0. Subs could have been made earlier against Sheffield United, Palace, Villa (though it was the first game), Burnley, and possibly Chelsea with little or no risk to the result. But there's a couple problems looking at this in hindsight (even for those who were saying it for certain games): 1) There is a natural bias based on the results. It's easy now to say we should have rested against Luton or Spurs or Everton or Bournemouth because we came away with nothing. Do people wish we played kids against Arsenal, Chelsea, Man United, or Fulham? Maybe, but it's not being said as much because then 3 points are at risk. The last week we looked anything like ourselves was Chelsea > PSG > Man United. 6 points and minutes away from a massive CL result. That week also destroyed what the players had left. Should we have given one of those up for the sake of December? Maybe in hindsight, though there weren't many complaints at the time. I also would have rotated more for Luton or Forest, but which one do you pick? The home game that is in theory easier or the away game because it's got short rest on either side? The common answer now would likely be 'either' but that's strongly influenced by the outcomes we now know. 2) The second XI for at least two months has been woefully short of PL quality. Personally (and I thought this at the time) I think we should have effectively conceded Spurs away. We had two days of rest after Everton, where the final 10 minutes showed us the state of things, and we had Milan coming up days later. But I think if we had rested for that game we would have been on the end of a genuinely embarrassing scoreline. Like potential PL record scoreline given their quality and the memory of what we did to them in April. I'm certain some on Eddie's back now would have also been furious at that. It may have been the difference against Milan, but we don't know for sure.

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.