JonBez comesock Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 6 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said: And Forrest are in the clagg facing a points deduction for waiting out for a higher fee for Johnson, making his sale fall in a different accounting period. They may also be at risk of a further deduction if they don’t make additional sales. Is it right that years in the EFL reduce the FFP loss limit? Sure i read allowable losses are only £13m rather than £35m each season so the period they are in the shit is much lower than £105m and the next perion to June they need to clear £83m losses to avoid further. Well assuming they stay up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSG Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 7 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said: Just one minor point, the Wood Sale completed in this financial year so we won't have accrued anything in last years accounts so if we did buy MGW now they would both be in the same year Depends on the criteria of the sale. Substance over form would suggest that if he’s gone, hit all the criteria of the sale and the income is guaranteed, then it could/should be recognised. Would be an interesting discussion with the external auditor as you could probably argue either way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghandis Flip-Flop Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 minute ago, Fezzle said: Is it right that years in the EFL reduce the FFP loss limit? Sure i read allowable losses are only £13m rather than £35m each season so the period they are in the shit is much lower than £105m and the next perion to June they need to clear £83m losses to avoid further. Well assuming they stay up. Honestly not sure about that, but it’s been reported widely that they needed to sell Johnson earlier on in the window than they did. They elected to hold on to as late in the window as possible to maximise the fee received, which they believed would be understood by the PL. Obviously that was not the case and the PL charged them. I’m unsure how confident Forest are regarding challenging the deduction. But given their continued spending I wouldn’t be surprised to find that they’re in a position where they need to sell again to avoid a further future breach for this accounting period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 minute ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said: Honestly not sure about that, but it’s been reported widely that they needed to sell Johnson earlier on in the window than they did. They elected to hold on to as late in the window as possible to maximise the fee received, which they believed would be understood by the PL. Obviously that was not the case and the PL charged them. I’m unsure how confident Forest are regarding challenging the deduction. But given their continued spending I wouldn’t be surprised to find that they’re in a position where they need to sell again to avoid a further future breach for this accounting period. Swiss Ramble say this: These regulations are aligned with the EFL's Championship, though the limits in England's second tier are much lower, namely a £5m loss plus £8m secure funding, giving an allowable loss of £13m a year. In other words, a maximum allowable loss of £39m over the 3-year monitoring period I guess the PL use those limits when a team is promoted so thats a big dint in Forests options Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 9 minutes ago, NSG said: Depends on the criteria of the sale. Substance over form would suggest that if he’s gone, hit all the criteria of the sale and the income is guaranteed, then it could/should be recognised. Would be an interesting discussion with the external auditor as you could probably argue either way. I've discussed this on here in the past, the loan and sale are 2 separate transactions and the sale is correctly transacted in the current year (in this case). The easy clauses for triggering the obligation are basically a fudge by clubs to manage the transfer periods. It may be closed in the future, before this there were a couple of years where players went on loan with a full transfer agreed at the same time for the following season, this was quickly closed as a option hence the loan with an obligation to buy (pending clauses being met) coming into fashion. Basically the terms of the sale are that the sale will happen on the 1st July if the obligations have been met in the preceding period. This allows the sale/purchase to be recognised in July Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee_Johnny Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 8 hours ago, r0cafella said: Are we doing that thing again where we overate a player because he has a good game against us? Possibly, but to be fair having a good game against someone probably used to trigger a significant amount of transfers back in the day! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSG Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 12 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said: I've discussed this on here in the past, the loan and sale are 2 separate transactions and the sale is correctly transacted in the current year (in this case). The easy clauses for triggering the obligation are basically a fudge by clubs to manage the transfer periods. It may be closed in the future, before this there were a couple of years where players went on loan with a full transfer agreed at the same time for the following season, this was quickly closed as a option hence the loan with an obligation to buy (pending clauses being met) coming into fashion. Basically the terms of the sale are that the sale will happen on the 1st July if the obligations have been met in the preceding period. This allows the sale/purchase to be recognised in July Yeah I understand how the whole thing works and why they’ve done it how they have - however my personal view though is that under IFRS15 I’d be expecting the contract to be shown in 22/23 as the substance of the transaction is that it’s a permanent deal because all of the criteria have been met for the permanent transfer before the year is out (customer is known, value of income is known, income is guaranteed, club can’t back out of sale and all performance obligations have been satisfied). The only way out of it I could see is if all the performance criteria haven’t been met/we had a get out clause that we were likely to invoke or there is another standard which trumps IFRS15 that I’m unaware of Like you say it’s a fudge which would make me extremely uncomfortable if I was auditing the accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 13 minutes ago, NSG said: Yeah I understand how the whole thing works and why they’ve done it how they have - however my personal view though is that under IFRS15 I’d be expecting the contract to be shown in 22/23 as the substance of the transaction is that it’s a permanent deal because all of the criteria have been met for the permanent transfer before the year is out (customer is known, value of income is known, income is guaranteed, club can’t back out of sale and all performance obligations have been satisfied). The only way out of it I could see is if all the performance criteria haven’t been met/we had a get out clause that we were likely to invoke or there is another standard which trumps IFRS15 that I’m unaware of Like you say it’s a fudge which would make me extremely uncomfortable if I was auditing the accounts. Another minor point, the accounts are prepared using FRS102 and not IFRS. I'm getting bogged down in techy boring crap here but the 2 clauses that make this right are 1) Transfer of risk and reward - if Wood had got injured at any point to the 30th June we would be responsible for the treatment up to the 1st July 2) Continued management - he's still an employee of NUFC until the 1st July Its the same as buying a house, if you exchange contracts on the 30th June (lets say 9am) and complete on the 1st July then everything is in place on the 30th June but the sale happens on the 1st July, the 2 clauses above drive this. If there was a freak storm at 6pm on the 30th and the house caught fire the developer would need to call on their insurance to sort it out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sempuki Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee_Johnny Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Three out? Any juicy new rumours on replacements? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Fair play if he goes, he deserves to be playing regularly. He’s been a great captain for us and a committed player. I’m not going to be sad to see him go but its a shame he wasn’t younger as I think Eddie would have made him into a really strong CB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 9 minutes ago, gbandit said: Fair play if he goes, he deserves to be playing regularly. He’s been a great captain for us and a committed player. I’m not going to be sad to see him go but its a shame he wasn’t younger as I think Eddie would have made him into a really strong CB Feel a lot more confident ending the season with him as backup rather than Burn but sadly with contracts and injuries it doesnt work like that. At least targett is nearing a return.....if Howe lets him play that is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamjk007 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 So potentially Lascelles, Almiron and Trippier out the door, all 3 been first team regulars which begs the question are we replacing them all in this window? surely must have some deals lined up? I know we have injured players to come back but even thats going to take some weeks/months for them to get up to speed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikky Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 minutes ago, adamjk007 said: So potentially Lascelles, Almiron and Trippier out the door, all 3 been first team regulars which begs the question are we replacing them all in this window? surely must have some deals lined up? I know we have injured players to come back but even thats going to take some weeks/months for them to get up to speed Could we be in for either Tosin or L Kelly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, Matt1892 said: Both are out of contract in the summer so we can’t expect to get much for them, if anything. How far away is Targett away from returning? I can see him being sold and Lloyd Kelly coming in. Has there been any rumours on the Lloyd Kelly front? I'm sure we were linked with him in the past not sure if that was before he moved from Bristol or since Howe took over as well. See's his out injured so will fit right in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 minutes ago, adamjk007 said: So potentially Lascelles, Almiron and Trippier out the door, all 3 been first team regulars which begs the question are we replacing them all in this window? surely must have some deals lined up? I know we have injured players to come back but even thats going to take some weeks/months for them to get up to speed We dont have any injured players than cover 2/3 of those three leaving though. Id have serious worries about Burn/Dummett stepping up at CB and only having Murphy if fit til Barnes ever gets fit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stal Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 If Lascelles and Trippier do get sold, who would we give the captaincy to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Just now, Stal said: If Lascelles and Trippier do get sold, who would we give the captaincy to? I think the most likely candidate would be Burn. Longstaff is possible, Bruno seems unlikely to me. Could have been Pope if he was fit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee_Johnny Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 4 minutes ago, Mikky said: Could we be in for either Tosin or L Kelly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee_Johnny Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 minute ago, gbandit said: I think the most likely candidate would be Burn. Longstaff is possible, Bruno seems unlikely to me. Could have been Pope if he was fit Big Dan is the obvious leader. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteV Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 5 minutes ago, Stal said: If Lascelles and Trippier do get sold, who would we give the captaincy to? Kimmich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Would be Wilson when he starts would it not? I'd give it to Bruno in three games time (bound to get booked v Villa then 2 games in the stands), he'd embrace it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikky Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 10 minutes ago, Stal said: If Lascelles and Trippier do get sold, who would we give the captaincy to? Would be Schar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 minute ago, Mikky said: Would be Schar Nah would be one of the leadership group so Ritchie, Wilson or Burn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now