Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[LFEE]

2 hours ago, The Prophet said:

Based on guesswork and what is being reported. 

 

We waited to see if Bruno's release clause was activated. When it wasn't we followed up on longstanding interst we'd received in Minteh and Anderson. 

 

We leaked previous interest in Gordon and Isak to frighten fans into accepting the loss of both.

 

There was breif panic when the Lyon deal for Minteh fell through, but still had enough interest to get good money for him.

My take also. They weren’t wanting to lose Bruno but if they did the clause covered us one way whilst deals in place covered us another. The fact it give the club a full week to react from the none sale seems kinda obvious now.

 

Think the panic set in when they couldn’t force Minteh to Lyon for the extra £7m and the previous interest for maybe the likes of Trippier, Wilson & Longstaff wasn’t there for this accounting window. 
 

I still also think a couple of sponsorship deals have been held up under scrutiny also which probably would’ve just lead us to sell Minteh.

 

Main thing is we are no weaker than last year (Tonali > Anderson) and we’ve learnt lessons without being punished whilst the survival January window now wiped off the PSR which was £100m+.and less Ashley era players clogging up the wage bill.

 

Keep the faith and trust the process and more importantly just enjoy the ride…

[STM]

My guess:

 

2 days prior to the PSR deadline we started to panic about a potential points deduction...

 

... we couldn't just take a points deduction, as much as we might have liked to, because you can't look your match going fans in the face when you knew you allowed your team to be deducted points, despite knowing one big sale would fix the issue....

 

... at which point I reckon they reached out to every one of our players agents and gave them permission to look for a deal....

 

... that's why we ended up having interested in Isak and Gordon and that's why the whole confusion over "offered"....

 

.... basically it came close to having to make one big sale but we managed to find a way to sell a couple of squad players.

 

In the end, we did amazing business but huge questions need to be asked about that being a strategy going forward. It seems an impossible way to build a squad, when every July you have the capacity to unsettle every player in the squad.

 

I do think that this was the big one in terms of a PSR risk, a culmination of the skeleton business MA ran and a lack of saleable assets since the takeover have led to this point. I'd put my neck out and suggest we won't have anywhere near the same problems going forward. We will have more commercial revenue and many more saleable assets going forward.

 

That doesn't mean I don't think we may have limitations in the future, more that we won't have panic stations in June.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 20:28 by STM

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, STM said:

My guess:

 

2 days prior to the PSR deadline we started to panic about a potential points deduction...

 

... we couldn't just take a points deduction, as much as we might have liked to, because you can't look your match going fans in the face when you knew you allowed your team to be deducted points, despite knowing one big sale would fix the issue....

 

... at which point I reckon they reached out to every one of our players agents and gave them permission to look for a deal....

 

... that's why we ended up having interested in Isak and Gordon and that's why the whole confusion over "offered"....

 

.... basically it came close to having to make one big sale but we managed to find a way to sell a couple of squad players.

 

In the end, we did amazing business but huge questions need to be asked about that being a strategy going forward. It seems an impossible way to build a squad, when every July you have the capacity to unsettle every player in the squad.

 

I do think that this was the big one in terms of a PSR risk, a culmination of the skeleton business MA ran and a lack of saleable assets since the takeover have led to this point. I'd put my neck out and suggest we won't have anywhere near the same problems going forward. We will have more commercial revenue and many more saleable assets going forward.

 

That doesn't mean I don't think we may have limitations in the future, more that we won't have panic stations in June.

 

 

 

Yeah, completely agree.  This is pretty balanced

[STM]

Also to add to the above... I'm convinced Dan Ashworth was leading the sale of Joelinton this summer, before we gave him a new contract. This may explain how we originally thought we were going to raise the funds.

 

It's also clear by Darren Eales language last year that they new this point was coming. Talk of "player trading" etc has been on the lips for a while. It seems they took a calculated gamble and got away with it.

[timeEd32]

I picked some week to be traveling. The 2023/24 accounts are going to make for very interesting reading in ~7 months time. I was very wrong about how close we pushed it and slightly horrified at the size of the gap we needed to make up. 

 

We should be in solid shape by the current PSR rules for 2024/25, but I'm a bit worried things will be much tighter by the UEFA / likely incoming PSR cost control metric.

[Dr Venkman]

6 hours ago, madras said:

I remember that and didn't buy it at the time. The size and set up of the Sam Fender stage was done. It's as much that the North East just isn't on the circuit.

You’re wrong.

[Disco]

Athletic FC podcast seems to wrap it all up. 

[Iwantcurlyhair2]

1 hour ago, STM said:

Also to add to the above... I'm convinced Dan Ashworth was leading the sale of Joelinton this summer, before we gave him a new contract. This may explain how we originally thought we were going to raise the funds.

 

It's also clear by Darren Eales language last year that they new this point was coming. Talk of "player trading" etc has been on the lips for a while. It seems they took a calculated gamble and got away with it.

Looking back this has to be true. Joelinton wasn't offered the contract until the couple of weeks after ashworth left. This will be the reported friction between Howe and twatface and why it ran till the end of June. Ashworth would have blamed Joe for not signing the contract and sold him to balance the books and painted Joe to be the bad boy. I don't think it could have worked out any better in the end. 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

1 hour ago, LFEE said:

My take also. They weren’t wanting to lose Bruno but if they did the clause covered us one way whilst deals in place covered us another. The fact it give the club a full week to react from the none sale seems kinda obvious now.

 

Think the panic set in when they couldn’t force Minteh to Lyon for the extra £7m and the previous interest for maybe the likes of Trippier, Wilson & Longstaff wasn’t there for this accounting window. 
 

I still also think a couple of sponsorship deals have been held up under scrutiny also which probably would’ve just lead us to sell Minteh.

 

Main thing is we are no weaker than last year (Tonali > Anderson) and we’ve learnt lessons without being punished whilst the survival January window now wiped off the PSR which was £100m+.and less Ashley era players clogging up the wage bill.

 

Keep the faith and trust the process and more importantly just enjoy the ride…

Technically it’s not the transfer window that is wiped out but rather the loss we made in the year.

 

same end result

[huss9]

7 hours ago, madras said:

I remember that and didn't buy it at the time. The size and set up of the Sam Fender stage was done. It's as much that the North East just isn't on the circuit.

plenty big gigs at the SOL.

[madras]

9 hours ago, Dr Venkman said:

You’re wrong.

Even if we couldn't handle some of the bigger set ups, we've proven we can do 50,000 attendances for concerts, Fender, Sheeran etc and why couldn't access be improved with a refurb and expansion ?

 

Is there an absolute need to create a new stadium for concerts?

[r0cafella]

Just now, madras said:

Even if we couldn't handle some of the bigger set ups, we've proven we can do 50,000 attendances for concerts, Fender, Sheeran etc and why couldn't access be improved with a refurb and expansion ?

 

Is there an absolute need to create a new stadium for concerts?

You could but not many due to the amount of set up time needed etc. your only real window to do so would be the summer etc. 

 

your still heavily limited on the upside just to the inherent restrictions in place. 

[madras]

6 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

You could but not many due to the amount of set up time needed etc. your only real window to do so would be the summer etc. 

 

your still heavily limited on the upside just to the inherent restrictions in place. 

Do Spurs and Liverpool do concerts mid season ?

 

Could the inherent restrictions not be remedied within a refurb and expansion ?

[r0cafella]

Just now, madras said:

Do Spurs and Liverpool do concerts mid season ?

 

Could the inherent restrictions not be remedied within a refurb and expansion ?

Spurs im sure did, I know they had Beyoncé beating out Wembley they have the nfl. Liverpool aren’t relevant to this as they also have an old stadium. 
 

Both a refurb and an expansion can only achieve so much. As others have said no refurb will give you more concourse space, no extension will change leazes terrace etc. 

[madras]

6 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Spurs im sure did, I know they had Beyoncé beating out Wembley they have the nfl. Liverpool aren’t relevant to this as they also have an old stadium. 
 

Both a refurb and an expansion can only achieve so much. As others have said no refurb will give you more concourse space, no extension will change leazes terrace etc. 

A quick check and all Spurs concerts were in June and July. 

 

If they have looked at expanding the Leazes backwards it will be to create more concourse space etc, likewise an expansion of the Gallowgate on to the space where Stack is being built.

 

I want to see what they can come up with before I decide.

 

Liverpool are relevant as it's all about how to create extra income, that's the conversation, possibly even more relevant as they are outside London.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:01 by madras

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, madras said:

A quick check and all Spurs concerts were in June and July. 

 

If they have looked at expanding the Leazes backwards it will be to create more concourse space etc, likewise an expansion of the Gallowgate on to the space where Stack is being built.

 

I want to see what they can come up with before I decide.

 

Liverpool are relevant as it's all about how to create extra income, that's the conversation, possibly even more relevant as they are outside London.

 

 

 

Concerts are difficult to do mid season due to the damage which would happen to the pitch (if it’s revenue you wanted to court you would want a retractable pitch). 
 

in order to extend the concourse would you have to knock the entire stand and rebuild it?

 

I don’t think Liverpool are particularly relevant personally if you want to use the stadium to generate additional income as Anfield is obviously a football stadium which has been expended several times but not designed with other events in mind. 

[madras]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Concerts are difficult to do mid season due to the damage which would happen to the pitch (if it’s revenue you wanted to court you would want a retractable pitch). 
 

in order to extend the concourse would you have to knock the entire stand and rebuild it?

 

I don’t think Liverpool are particularly relevant personally if you want to use the stadium to generate additional income as Anfield is obviously a football stadium which has been expended several times but not designed with other events in mind. 

Liverpool are doing concerts now, Just had Taylor Swift. Pink coming up, Elton John, Eagles, Stones already been recently.

 

As you say the main reason concerts are held in the Summer is pitch damage (I'd add in the weather) and not so much the time taken to set up. Take that and bon Jovi coming soon or been, it's possible they've done more than Spurs in the same length if time Spurs new ground has been open.

 

Liverpool increased concourse area without knocking down the entire stand, they built above and around while thr stand stayed open 

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, madras said:

Liverpool are doing concerts now, Just had Taylor Swift. Pink coming up, Elton John, Eagles, Stones already been recently.

 

As you say the main reason concerts are held in the Summer is pitch damage (I'd add in the weather) and not so much the time taken to set up. Take that and bon Jovi coming soon or been, it's possible they've done more than Spurs in the same length if time Spurs new ground has been open.

 

Liverpool increased concourse area without knocking down the entire stand, they built above and around while thr stand stayed open 

Yeah spurs stadium doesn’t have a retractable pitch right? So it would make sense they are limited to summer (your weather point is also valid). 
 

Will be interesting if we do the same re the concourse but it doesn’t fix the other constraints outlined re listed buildings etc. 

[madras]

18 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Yeah spurs stadium doesn’t have a retractable pitch right? So it would make sense they are limited to summer (your weather point is also valid). 
 

Will be interesting if we do the same re the concourse but it doesn’t fix the other constraints outlined re listed buildings etc. 

Yeah that's one side (listed building) and like I say they've had 50k attendances even allowing for that. Larger concourses at the other  2 or 3 ends at least would increase revenue of people wanting to spend time there, though saying that one of the draws for spectators (and possible downside for the club) is that there are loads of places for food and drink outside the ground.

 

I just want to see what all the possibilities and options are before making my mind up.

 

Ideally would be a knock down and rebuild on near enough the present footprint but we don't have the "luxury" of somewhere nearish to lodge in for a couple of years.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:34 by madras

[r0cafella]

Just now, madras said:

Yeah that's one side and like I say they've had 50k attendances. Larger concourses at 2 or 3 ends at least would increase revenue of people wanting to spend time there, though saying that one of the draws for spectators (and possible downside for the club) is that there are loads of places for food and drink outside the ground.

 

I just want to see what all the possibilities and options are before making my mind up.

 

Ideally would be a knock down and rebuild on near enough the present footprint but we don't have the "luxury" of someone nearish to lodge in for a couple of years.

I’d be on board with that, personally I don’t see a couple of seasons playing elsewhere an issue at all. It’s a temporary measure and short term pain for long term gain. 
 

We will have to wait and see what they decide, I hope whatever we do it’s extensive we should be looking towards the next 100 years and not back at the prior. 

[madras]

3 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I’d be on board with that, personally I don’t see a couple of seasons playing elsewhere an issue at all. It’s a temporary measure and short term pain for long term gain. 
 

We will have to wait and see what they decide, I hope whatever we do it’s extensive we should be looking towards the next 100 years and not back at the prior. 

Where though ?

 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:38 by madras

[Nucasol]

5 minutes ago, madras said:

Yeah that's one side (listed building) and like I say they've had 50k attendances even allowing for that. Larger concourses at the other  2 or 3 ends at least would increase revenue of people wanting to spend time there, though saying that one of the draws for spectators (and possible downside for the club) is that there are loads of places for food and drink outside the ground.

 

I just want to see what all the possibilities and options are before making my mind up.

 

Ideally would be a knock down and rebuild on near enough the present footprint but we don't have the "luxury" of somewhere nearish to lodge in for a couple of years.

 

 

 

Given the massive amount of plastics and tourists that Liverpool have it would make sense they’d design Anfield to get them to empty their pockets.

 

[Adam P]

13 hours ago, STM said:

My guess:

 

2 days prior to the PSR deadline we started to panic about a potential points deduction...

 

... we couldn't just take a points deduction, as much as we might have liked to, because you can't look your match going fans in the face when you knew you allowed your team to be deducted points, despite knowing one big sale would fix the issue....

 

... at which point I reckon they reached out to every one of our players agents and gave them permission to look for a deal....

 

... that's why we ended up having interested in Isak and Gordon and that's why the whole confusion over "offered"....

 

.... basically it came close to having to make one big sale but we managed to find a way to sell a couple of squad players.

 

In the end, we did amazing business but huge questions need to be asked about that being a strategy going forward. It seems an impossible way to build a squad, when every July you have the capacity to unsettle every player in the squad.

 

I do think that this was the big one in terms of a PSR risk, a culmination of the skeleton business MA ran and a lack of saleable assets since the takeover have led to this point. I'd put my neck out and suggest we won't have anywhere near the same problems going forward. We will have more commercial revenue and many more saleable assets going forward.

 

That doesn't mean I don't think we may have limitations in the future, more that we won't have panic stations in June.

 

 

 

 

The premise of this is crazy. Two days before the PSR deadline we started to panic about a points deduction and decided to sell someone. That basically says since August 2023, when the financial losses were visible with a very high degree of certainty, we thought ''we'll see if someone bites in January, if not fuck it we'll take a points deduction'' and then somehow (randomly the CEO and CFO bump into each other in the office corridor?) two days before the deadline, one of them mentions the strategy and they thought 'hang on, we didnt think this through'. 

 

Sorry to be so direct about it but thats my bet for 'furthest from reality'. Best public estimate of our PSR loss = 40m minus the difference in income/revenue between 22/23 and 23/24. As Swiss Ramble based the 40m on the 22/23 revenues. 

[STM]

18 minutes ago, Adam P said:

 

The premise of this is crazy. Two days before the PSR deadline we started to panic about a points deduction and decided to sell someone. That basically says since August 2023, when the financial losses were visible with a very high degree of certainty, we thought ''we'll see if someone bites in January, if not fuck it we'll take a points deduction'' and then somehow (randomly the CEO and CFO bump into each other in the office corridor?) two days before the deadline, one of them mentions the strategy and they thought 'hang on, we didnt think this through'. 

 

Sorry to be so direct about it but thats my bet for 'furthest from reality'. Best public estimate of our PSR loss = 40m minus the difference in income/revenue between 22/23 and 23/24. As Swiss Ramble based the 40m on the 22/23 revenues. 

 

Alot of what you've said there doesn't make any sense. Are you denying having PSR issues? 

[TRon]

36 minutes ago, Adam P said:

 

The premise of this is crazy. Two days before the PSR deadline we started to panic about a points deduction and decided to sell someone. That basically says since August 2023, when the financial losses were visible with a very high degree of certainty, we thought ''we'll see if someone bites in January, if not fuck it we'll take a points deduction'' and then somehow (randomly the CEO and CFO bump into each other in the office corridor?) two days before the deadline, one of them mentions the strategy and they thought 'hang on, we didnt think this through'. 

 

Sorry to be so direct about it but thats my bet for 'furthest from reality'. Best public estimate of our PSR loss = 40m minus the difference in income/revenue between 22/23 and 23/24. As Swiss Ramble based the 40m on the 22/23 revenues. 

 

 

I think it's more a case of we didn't really want to sell potential young stars and held off as long as possible, but once it became clear we weren't going to be able to shift the deadweight quick enough, we just tried to get the best price possible for the likes of Minteh and Anderson. If we could have shifted Almiron or Longstaff, we'd probably have sold them as well.