Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Jackie Broon]

Just now, manorpark said:

 

Revenue for 23/24 was £314M

 

That's Deloitte's estimate rather than our actual revenue, which isn't available yet, I went with Swiss Ramble's estimates for consistency and because they're likely to be fairly realistic.

[Jackie Broon]

Just now, gjohnson said:

Same calculations by others show we still need to sell.

 

Basically no-one outside of NUFCs accountants actually know. We could be skint or could have millions to spend. Let's see how creative they can get

 

We'd have to be making a loss larger than we did 21/22 to need to sell this season. That simply doesn't add up.

[nufc123]

2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

need to sell this season. 

We only need to sell if we want to spend quite a bit.

[gjohnson]

6 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

We'd have to be making a loss larger than we did 21/22 to need to sell this season. That simply doesn't add up.

None of it adds up anywhere...undisclosed fees, share injections, Amortisation, match by match bonuses, performance related sponsors....I'd be amazed if anyone has a figure close to to reality for any club let alone us. It's an accountants game now which just happens to be played out on a pitch

[Stifler]

The Chronicle are saying that the 95-97 strip earned the club £1m within its first week on sale.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

25 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I know but, they haven't actually been adopted of finalised yet, and I don't believe we would have voted for something that makes our position a lot worse.

 

Also, if they align with UEFA's rules the profit on player sales for the past three years is added to revenue, so we'd probably have plenty of headroom there too, at least until 2027/28.

 

 

 

 

Sales profits are spread over 3 years - so a £30m is £10m a year for 3 years, not £30m each year

[Colos Short and Curlies]

4 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

None of it adds up anywhere...undisclosed fees, share injections, Amortisation, match by match bonuses, performance related sponsors....I'd be amazed if anyone has a figure close to to reality for any club let alone us. It's an accountants game now which just happens to be played out on a pitch

 

And its still more interesting then xG crap

[bobbydazzla]

1 minute ago, Stifler said:

The Chronicle are saying that the 95-97 strip earned the club £1m within its first week on sale.

 

Let me guess, according to the Comments Section we would have sold even more if we didn’t let people cross the Channel in rubber dinghy’s 

[Jackie Broon]

6 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

None of it adds up anywhere...undisclosed fees, share injections, Amortisation, match by match bonuses, performance related sponsors....I'd be amazed if anyone has a figure close to to reality for any club let alone us. It's an accountants game now which just happens to be played out on a pitch

 

That is actually very basic and plain though, we didn't fail PSR last year, 21/22 has dropped off the calculation so our headroom for losses this season is at least what we lost in 21/22, which was around £70m.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 13:21 by Jackie Broon

[madras]

1 minute ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

And its still more interesting then xG crap

It's not like, have you never came out the match and said to mate "how did we not win that, we had 6 great chances  they had 1" that's basically what xG is, all fans do it. The accountancy thing is crap and verging on corruption.

[McCormick]

Why do people hate xg by the way? Just because it’s boring? 

[Dr.Spaceman]

Because it's new and not something that was a thing in the 70's or the 80's.

[David Edgar]

5 minutes ago, McCormick said:

Why do people hate xg by the way? Just because it’s boring? 

 

They don't understand how to interpret it.

[Tsunami]

2 minutes ago, McCormick said:

Why do people hate xg by the way? Just because it’s boring? 

Until it’s weighted to take into account that say Big Jo is 50/ 50 to miss from 2 yards with no keeper and Harvey Barnes is 50/50 from 18 yards with 3 players in the way, it’s utterly meaningless to me.

[madras]

2 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

Until it’s weighted to take into account that say Big Jo is 50/ 50 to miss from 2 yards with no keeper and Harvey Barnes is 50/50 from 18 yards with 3 players in the way, it’s utterly meaningless to me.

So you've never took part in one of those conversations like I described earlier ?

 

 

Edited yesterday at 14:05 by madras

[Tsunami]

45 minutes ago, madras said:

So you've never took part in one of those conversations like I described earlier ?

 

 

 

Guess not, do we agree?

 

From memory PSG had a ridiculous expected goal xg against us in Paris but didn’t reflect that we were a goal up (and missed a bit of a sitter as well) and had largely restricted PSG to wild attempts from over 20 yards out. When they did score it was a travesty of a decision. By xg we’d have lost by almost double figures.

[madras]

15 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

Guess not, do we agree?

 

From memory PSG had a ridiculous expected goal xg against us in Paris but didn’t reflect that we were a goal up (and missed a bit of a sitter as well) and had largely restricted PSG to wild attempts from over 20 yards out. When they did score it was a travesty of a decision. By xg we’d have lost by almost double figures.

You'll have to get me the stats, if we largely restricted them to wild shots from 20yds their xG woukdne have been so high. 

 

I'm struggling to believe you've never took part in one of those " how did we win/not win with all the great chances we/they had compared to ours/theirs" conversations, it's the essence of the smash and grab, the we woz robbed that happens the footballing world over.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 15:11 by madras

[timeEd32]

1 minute ago, Tsunami said:

Guess not, do we agree?

 

From memory PSG had a ridiculous expected goal xg against us in Paris but didn’t reflect that we were a goal up (and missed a bit of a sitter as well) and had largely restricted PSG to wild attempts from over 20 yards out. When they did score it was a travesty of a decision. By xg we’d have lost by almost double figures.

 

They had 31 shots, 20 inside the box, 7 on target, and 9 that were categorized as "big chances." We blocked 10 shots.

 

Their open play xG was 3.69 vs. 1.26 for us, but in the first half it was 1.63 to 1.24. That feels like it tells the story of the game pretty well to be honest. Dembele, Mbappe, and Barcola all had multiple opportunities.

 

xG has a number of flaws and it's better over a longer sample size than a single game, Just because a team loses on xG doesn't mean they deserved to lose the game, but it's also not inventing numbers out of thin air. If a team's xG is over 3 and they score 0 goals then there are either a million shots, some bad misses and/or some incredible saves/defensive plays.

[Tsunami]

There’s plenty of games where I’ve believed we could have played all night and not scored (West Ham at home, Brighton’s smash and grab). 
 

I’m not expecting xg to have a feel for how a game is going but it really should be weighted for who is involved in shooting and I’d also include a tariff for who the keeper is.

 

In the PSG game, they didn’t look like scoring, we invited them into some shooting situations where they’d have been better off building a better position. This got worse as the game went along (where their xg also increased).

 

It’s a data tool but I’m happy to trust my own eyes on how a game has played out. I’d also add that it’s also subjective to what is a chance/ big chance. OPTA had to change its shots on target in the Sheff U v Hull as some berk couldn’t tell that Brereton Diaz had given the keeper the eyes and shot near post as opposed to it being a miss hit cross. I only know this as Skybet paid out for me 2 days later after initially recording it as a lost bet from the original OPTA data.

[The College Dropout]

PSG missed a number of chances against us. So many that you knew they wouldn’t score from open play. It was one of those games they were never going to score. BUT they did create a lot. Poor finishing, good goalkeeping and desperate defending kept us in it.  
 

It was wave after wave of attack and chance. 
 

Arsenal league cup game was similar but not so one sided.  A couple great chances, a few good ones.  Eventually you knew they wouldn’t score but if the score was 2-2 we couldn’t complain. 

[The College Dropout]

PSG didn’t look like scoring…. Because they kept missing.  

[80]

I'm take it or leave it with xG. It doesn't offend me but people who rely too much on it look silly. 

 

I'd like to imagine there are much more sophisticated xG analyses available to clubs for the right price, factoring in how many defenders are positioned in front of the goal and where, which individual player the chance has fallen to, the speed of the ball received etc. etc.

 

I find I'm usually pretty good at guessing what the xG of a match I've watched is, which implies it's not wildly out of keeping with what I'm seeing with my eyes.

[HawK]

xG for me is just a simplistic measure of how many good scoring chances a team has had. It's not an indicator of who 'should' have won.

 

100 outside-the-box, wrong foot, scuffed shots vs a shot from someone who's rounded the keeper  and only has the net to aim for sounds about right - and that' how I thought xG worked.

 

What I don't get about xG is how each chance is quantified - a penalty is a static xG of 0.50 or something I think? Maybe more? I read it somewhere. But what if it's Ivan Toney, Cole Palmer, Alan Shearer taking that penatly and the keeper is a 17yr old youth team keeper who's come on cold off the bench to make his debut because the first team keeper just got sent off?

 

This is where there's a bit of ambiguity, I think this is where the 'context' of the game is important with xG and xG alone shouldn't be used alone as a basis to quantify the balane of a game.

[Stifler]

XG is shit because I frequently see games with multiple 1 v 1’s against the keeper and XG will say 1.2 goals.

Nah mate, I’m sorry but it’s going down as expecting him to score the fucking goal.

[madras]

Re the "could have played all night and not scored" stuff  it's a football fan thing to say that as a team misses  chance after glorious chance. .........then when one goes in "it was coming, we've had the chances".