Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability - New APT Rules Approved by Premier League

[The College Dropout]

Just now, Adam P said:

 

Darren Eales' CV includes 14 years as a trader selling burgers on the quayside market, an admittedly successful stint in online gambling and has a BTEC qualification in excel, course he didnt have a plan. 

As CEO - i'm not sure it's his remit to come up with the plan. Approve it - sure.

 

Plan A seems to have been sell Bruno. Plan B sell Miggy and co. No way could they have known 4 months into his loan that Minteh would be worth £30m+ by the summer. And that we could sell Anderson for £30m+. These are clearly developments over the last few months and in Anderson's case - weeks maybe even days.

 

14 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

1 You dont know that,  could be 1 mil for a 3rd choice keeper inflated for psr to cover Anderson overspend, both clubs win

2 'It's the only plan that makes sense' to you, to fit your agenda. Minteh if he was bought to hopefully make a profit on, its no good whining about it when it works 

1. Yes so you've proved my point. An element of the Anderson fee is a favour - that we have either paid back already in part or in full.

2. I have no agenda. The Bruno sale makes the most sense. If you think the club planned to sell Minteh for £25m more than we bought him for within 12 months - I can't help you. That's not a sensible plan. In April/May/June where he's continued to impress and has emerged as a hot prospect, aye it's a decent back-up plan.

 

And even then that figure seemed short of what we needed.

[dilligaf]

proved point how? you said didnt want or need

If the plan was to sell Bruno you wouldnt set his release clause at 100 mil youd set it at 80, we double our money and more teams can bid for him.

[madras]

6 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

proved point how? you said didnt want or need

If the plan was to sell Bruno you wouldnt set his release clause at 100 mil youd set it at 80, we double our money and more teams can bid for him.

Just because there is a release clause there doesn't mean it has to be met.

[The College Dropout]

I shouldn't bite.

 

But do you think we actually want the GK that we now have?

 

I'm stepping away from this discussion.

[The Prophet]

There's  lots of discrepancies in the narrative over the last 48-72 hours that makes it very difficult to determine exactly what has happened.

 

Most accounts or individuals with knowledge of PSR, had us at a worst case scenario of being £40 million in the red. We're now leaking fears of fees recouped from Minteh, Anderson and Ashworth just about being enough to balance the books. Perhaps the club haven't done too much creative accounting, but it would also imply we didn't full get to grips with our accounts until recently. This is different from what we were briefing as early as May, where deficit of around £20 million was floated. 

 

You then had both Chelsea and Liverpool journos writing they'd made opportunitistic moves for Isak and Gordon respectively, but both were unwilling to meet our demands. Yet, we continued to breif journos we were in jeopardy of having to sell one. On top of that, if we were that desperate, surely we'd be more flexible with our asking price?

 

You also have the whole thing being played out in public, with us happy to regularly breif Waugh, Hope, Edwards and Downie about our plight. We generally only put out info we want in the public domain, so why would we want that?

 

Some of the reporting seems at odds what the club has previously breifed and just outright improble in parts. There's definitely an element of smoke and mirrors about it.

 

 

Edited July 1 by The Prophet

[NUFC_Chris]

I’m quite sure there’s a lot of shit stirring and untruth in that Athletic article btw. 

 

 

Edited July 1 by NUFC_Chris

[The College Dropout]

All that i've concluded is that we needed more than the Minteh sale to be FFP compliant. The extent - I'm not confident about.

 

I err towards believing we gently explored selling Gordon/Isak but we would only consider it at the full value for them both and nothing at all materialised close enough.

 

We've ended up selling 2 players that at least don't create new problems. We could lose a CM and selling Minteh doesn't create a new problem. Which is positive.

[Ben]

If we pull in North of £100 million for Anderson, Minteh, Miggy and Ashworth I'll be chuffed to bits 

[dilligaf]

25 minutes ago, madras said:

Just because there is a release clause there doesn't mean it has to be met.

True but the point still stands

[dilligaf]

14 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I shouldn't bite.

 

But do you think we actually want the GK that we now have?

 

I'm stepping away from this discussion.

I dont know if we want him or not but then again you dont know anything either its all your opinion and you come out with things like 'The Bruno sale makes the most sense' as if it cant possibly be anything else

[Eveready]

I'm hoping that the Ashworth to Man Utd being reported as 'agreement reached' as opposed to 'deal completed/Ashworth joins Man Utd' means that this transaction hasn't been completed.

 

Should result in the profit from the sale being recognised in the 24/25 accounts and mean it wasn't required for the June PSR deadline of the 23/24 accounts.

 

 

Edited July 1 by Eveready

[Shak]

So is the belief that our 21/22 and 22/23 numbers were both pretty ropey, hence the need to make a solid profit in 23/24 to be compliant for the last three years?

 

If so, that sets us up pretty well over the next two years as our next two PSR end of year deadlines will also include the 23/24 figures.

 

Consensus seems to be that our 21/22 numbers were quite bad, so we can afford to be pretty aggressive now this summer.

 

(Not super confident on the three year operating loss thing so would actually appreciate correction or clarification on any of that)

[LFEE]

 

[The College Dropout]

5 minutes ago, Shak said:

So is the belief that our 21/22 and 22/23 numbers were both pretty ropey, hence the need to make a solid profit in 23/24 to be compliant for the last three years?

 

If so, that sets us up pretty well over the next two years as our next two PSR end of year deadlines will also include the 23/24 figures.

 

Consensus seems to be that our 21/22 numbers were quite bad, so we can afford to be pretty aggressive now this summer.

 

(Not super confident on the three year operating loss thing so would actually appreciate correction or clarification on any of that)

I don’t think so. Our forecasted FFP position for the next financial year probably puts us back in the red before we add a single new transfer or wages. Hence why we will sell a couple more to keep us compliant for next summer. 
 

im not so confident on that. But the losses we racked up aren’t one offs. The revenues we’ve added don’t cover the costs. 

[gdm]

You have to imagine this will all come to a head soon. The premier league is slowly killing itself with these rules

[LFEE]

Just now, gdm said:

You have to imagine this will all come to a head soon. The premier league is slowly killing itself with these rules

Touting his services to take the rules on you’d I’m imagine also 

[Checko]

2 minutes ago, gdm said:

You have to imagine this will all come to a head soon. The premier league is slowly killing itself with these rules

It's been a lot more exciting than watching England at the Euros mind!

[Jonas]

Simon Jordan called it "protectionist" the other day I saw and the bloke next to him nodded in agreement.

At least its out there. The people most behind it are shameless enough to carry on regardless I fancy.

[Shak]

14 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I don’t think so. Our forecasted FFP position for the next financial year probably puts us back in the red before we add a single new transfer or wages. Hence why we will sell a couple more to keep us compliant for next summer. 
 

im not so confident on that. But the losses we racked up aren’t one offs. The revenues we’ve added don’t cover the costs. 

 

Aye, I guess my question was if we can afford to be in the red next year if it's taking the place of the 21/22 year.

 

These aren't meant to be super accurate figures, but just for simplification sake let's say they are...

 

21/22 - 70m loss

22/23 - 70m loss

23/24 - 40m profit

 

Overall 100m loss. Inside the 105m maximum loss allowable.

 

The next June 30th deadline, the figures would be.

 

22/23 - 70m loss

23/24 - 40m profit

24/25 - ?

 

Doesn't that mean we can afford a pretty heavy operating loss this year?

 

(Obviously, we don't want to find ourselves back in a dodgy spot in a couple of years so don't want to fly too close to the sun, but you get the idea)

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Just now, Shak said:

 

Aye, I guess my question was if we can afford to be in the red next year if it's taking the place of the 21/22 year.

 

These aren't meant to be super accurate figures, but just for simplification sake let's say they are...

 

21/22 - 70m loss

22/23 - 70m loss

23/24 - 40m profit

 

Overall 100m loss. Inside the 105m maximum loss allowable.

 

The next June 30th deadline, the figures would be.

 

22/23 - 70m loss

23/24 - 40m profit

24/25 - ?

 

Doesn't that mean we can afford a pretty heavy operating loss this year?

 

(Obviously, we don't want to find ourselves back in a dodgy spot in a couple of years so don't want to fly too close to the sun, but you get the idea)

You’ve got it, we can afford 2 years of £70 million losses before needing another profit of £35m - well that would be the case if the rules weren’t changing.

 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

As CEO - i'm not sure it's his remit to come up with the plan. Approve it - sure.

 

Plan A seems to have been sell Bruno. Plan B sell Miggy and co. No way could they have known 4 months into his loan that Minteh would be worth £30m+ by the summer. And that we could sell Anderson for £30m+. These are clearly developments over the last few months and in Anderson's case - weeks maybe even days.

 

1. Yes so you've proved my point. An element of the Anderson fee is a favour - that we have either paid back already in part or in full.

2. I have no agenda. The Bruno sale makes the most sense. If you think the club planned to sell Minteh for £25m more than we bought him for within 12 months - I can't help you. That's not a sensible plan. In April/May/June where he's continued to impress and has emerged as a hot prospect, aye it's a decent back-up plan.

 

And even then that figure seemed short of what we needed.

Based on his first 6 months I think the club would have been pretty confident on turning a profit on Minteh, maybe not £30m but probably £20m would have been considered as reasonable.

 

Anderson or Longstaff for £20m+ was also reasonable based on other young English players or English players with Longstaffs stats.

 

i still can’t get to a position where I can see how the club could physically be that far out this season unless there is a massive one off cost we don’t know about or there is something in the background with the Sela income. That’s why I’m of the mind that we’ve brought in more than we needed this weekend as we saw an opportunity where both players had a buyer willing to pay slightly more than we originally thought we’d get.

[madras]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

 

 

Plan A seems to have been sell Bruno. Plan B sell Miggy and co. 

Plan A I'm not sure was a plan, more so being prepared for an eventuality as it being out of our hands should the clause be activated. It made sense, if a bit of a gamble, to hold off other sales until we know what's happening there.

[The College Dropout]

11 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

Based on his first 6 months I think the club would have been pretty confident on turning a profit on Minteh, maybe not £30m but probably £20m would have been considered as reasonable.

 

Anderson or Longstaff for £20m+ was also reasonable based on other young English players or English players with Longstaffs stats.

 

i still can’t get to a position where I can see how the club could physically be that far out this season unless there is a massive one off cost we don’t know about or there is something in the background with the Sela income. That’s why I’m of the mind that we’ve brought in more than we needed this weekend as we saw an opportunity where both players had a buyer willing to pay slightly more than we originally thought we’d get.

Ok man.

[mouldy_uk]

50 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Touting his services to take the rules on you’d I’m imagine also 

I miss the excitement of studying his loaves for hidden meaning/messages (a simple time)

 

[PauloGeordio]

6 minutes ago, mouldy_uk said:

I miss the excitement of studying his loaves for hidden meaning/messages (a simple time)

 

 

Happy daze 

 

 

Edited July 1 by PauloGeordio