McDog Posted November 22, 2024 Share Posted November 22, 2024 1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said: 100%. Which was why no-one should listen to that daft cunt Simon Jordan, who still seems to think that we should thank Ashley because the way he ran us gave PIF headroom to spend. It was the exact opposite. Kind of interesting. The fact that Sports Direct was milking almost free advertising meant it wasn't FMV. The EPL didn't give a shit. I think when the takeover happened the Mags were sitting just fine PSR wise but could have been so much better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guybrush Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Bump. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Knew that would be the post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guybrush Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: Knew that would be the post It poisons every thread it touches Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toon25 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) I want answers tbh. It's not on. Wonder what this says about PIF. Edited February 3 by toon25 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 When wondering what sales could do for our budget (assuming they aren't making up for shortfalls), here's a better method than multiplying the fees by five like you'll often see the engagement merchants doing: - Take the profit of the sale - Divide by 3 - Add the departing player's wages There are a lot of caveats and exceptions but it's a quick way to think more realistically in terms of annual costs. So Kelly + Miggy = £30m* in, which is £10m/yr. Combined wages very roughly speaking of £8m%. In theory it could free up about £18m^ per year, which is about a Tonali. some caveats and exceptions... * I can't be bothered to look up what of Miggy's fee would have been left and it's very likely Kelly had a signing bonus we amortised. I just made it £30m for easy math. % Not starting the Kelly wages debate so putting it between £90-100k/wk. The larger numbers on some sites may be nonsense or could be inclusive of signing bonus + add ons ^ Almiron didn't have 3+ years left on his contract so you're still making up funds in some of these years Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miggys First Goal Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Has the club ever come out to explain why we don't have a training ground sponsor yet? Even noticed on SSN today that the Wolves training ground is sponsored by Fosun which, according to a quick Wiki check, is the same company that owns Wolves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
janpawel Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 No FFP expert here so apologies in advance, quiet time at work so thought I'd try and better understand our situation 😂. @The College Dropout Any thoughts from you as you seem well versed with it? 21/22 and 22/23 combined were (£144m) losses. So in 23/24 we needed a profit of at least £39m to hit the £105m threshold To do this, we sold around £60m of players, and Deloitte estimated our revenues for 23/24 to be £309m Does this mean our annual costs as of June 2024 are 309 + 60 - 39 = £330m? And therefore our current 3 year cycle could look like - 22/23 - (£70m) 23/24 - £39m 24/25 - (£21m)* *309 rev-330 costs , obviously won't be right as our revenue will have changed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 You're in the ballpark. There's some math in the first post of this thread if you want to compare. We really need the new accounts to be released so that we're only 7-12 months behind instead of 18+. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
janpawel Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 18 minutes ago, timeEd32 said: You're in the ballpark. There's some math in the first post of this thread if you want to compare. We really need the new accounts to be released so that we're only 7-12 months behind instead of 18+. Just had a good read of it, thanks for this! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) 5 hours ago, janpawel said: No FFP expert here so apologies in advance, quiet time at work so thought I'd try and better understand our situation 😂. @The College Dropout Any thoughts from you as you seem well versed with it? 21/22 and 22/23 combined were (£144m) losses. So in 23/24 we needed a profit of at least £39m to hit the £105m threshold To do this, we sold around £60m of players, and Deloitte estimated our revenues for 23/24 to be £309m Does this mean our annual costs as of June 2024 are 309 + 60 - 39 = £330m? And therefore our current 3 year cycle could look like - 22/23 - (£70m) 23/24 - £39m 24/25 - (£21m)* *309 rev-330 costs , obviously won't be right as our revenue will have changed I don't think that's right because the losses in our accounts won't be the actual PSR position, there would be additional deductions for youth, women's team and infrastructure spending. I think a ballpark figure of £10m per season. To work out what we needed to be within the £105m threshold in 23/24 it's probably more accurate to look at 20/21, because we have those accounts and the profit we made in 20/21 was enough for us to be within the £105 threshold together with 21/22 and 22/23, so the same profit in 23/24 must also put us within the £105 threshold. 20/21 Profit (loss) = (£13.7m) Covid allowances = £25.9m Other allowances = £10m Deduction for extension of accounting period = (£12.7m) = £9.5m PSR profit So, unless I've got something completely wrong from our 20/21 accounts (which is quite possible) a £9.5m profit in 23/24 should have seen us safe. There were stories last week that we'd made a £27m profit in 23/24 (which would be more like £37m for PSR with allowances), so from that it seems that we didn't actually need all of the money from Minteh and Anderson to meet the £105m threshold, although one or the other might not have been quite enough, or we might just have set up both deals just in case and decided to go through with both? Edited February 3 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjohnson Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 On 22/11/2024 at 03:22, McDog said: Kind of interesting. The fact that Sports Direct was milking almost free advertising meant it wasn't FMV. The EPL didn't give a shit. I think when the takeover happened the Mags were sitting just fine PSR wise but could have been so much better. FMV only matters when it gives a non-slimy 6 an advantage....giving MA 14 years of free advertising obviously isn't 'fair market value', but that wasn't going to upset their rotten little applecart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-421 Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 19 hours ago, Miggys First Goal said: Has the club ever come out to explain why we don't have a training ground sponsor yet? Even noticed on SSN today that the Wolves training ground is sponsored by Fosun which, according to a quick Wiki check, is the same company that owns Wolves. I'd guess PIF could sponsor us, the shirts, the training ground, the stadium, as much as they wanted. But then if would be even more FMV'd to the hilt, due to APT rules. So I'd guess they want to maximise those commercial deals, rather than just settle for quick, lower money. That said, Chelsea had been agreeing 1 year / short term deals, so surely nothing to stop PIF sponsoring something, for some money, even on a short term basis? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 2 hours ago, TK-421 said: I'd guess PIF could sponsor us, the shirts, the training ground, the stadium, as much as they wanted. But then if would be even more FMV'd to the hilt, due to APT rules. So I'd guess they want to maximise those commercial deals, rather than just settle for quick, lower money. That said, Chelsea had been agreeing 1 year / short term deals, so surely nothing to stop PIF sponsoring something, for some money, even on a short term basis? Good point. Chelsea have been doing the short term deals. Some very dodgy sponsors in there too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaztoon Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 Man city to get 1bn from Saudi Airways We get 1bn from etihad Jobs a goodun Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikky Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 22 hours ago, Miggys First Goal said: Has the club ever come out to explain why we don't have a training ground sponsor yet? Even noticed on SSN today that the Wolves training ground is sponsored by Fosun which, according to a quick Wiki check, is the same company that owns Wolves. Same with Leicester and Kingfisher Man City grounds sponsored by their own UAE companies Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikky Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 Can I ask a silly question Say Bournemouth are looking for a front of shirt deal and a billionaire Spanish investor wants his biscuit company to be the sponsor - offers Bournemouth £40m a year - has zero connections to the club - would the PL approve it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 22 minutes ago, Mikky said: Can I ask a silly question Say Bournemouth are looking for a front of shirt deal and a billionaire Spanish investor wants his biscuit company to be the sponsor - offers Bournemouth £40m a year - has zero connections to the club - would the PL approve it? Why wouldn’t they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikky Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 8 minutes ago, Unbelievable said: Why wouldn’t they? So there wouldn’t be any sort of fair market calculations done, as say Spurs get the same amount… this only implies to APT? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 2 minutes ago, Mikky said: So there wouldn’t be any sort of fair market calculations done, as say Spurs get the same amount… this only implies to APT? It does yes. If the Spanish billionaire wanted to be our shirt sponsor and pay double the amount Real Madrid get that would also be fine. The check on “fairness” of the amount only relates to associated parties that cannot pay more* than a non-associated party would be willing to. Hence why it is so crucial that the club develops its commercial appeal so that non-associated parties will want to be associated with us and pay what they currently pay the likes of Man U and Liverpool. * and even then, they can actually pay what they want I believe, but anything above “fair value” wouldn’t count as revenue for PSR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobsonsWonderland Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 I think the lack of sponsorship deals is more frustrating than the transfer window to me. Even if it's to the level other clubs do I would be ok with it... And don't tell me there are not ways to get round these things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Jinx Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 Our accounts for the previous year were released in January. Any reason these would be delayed, or is there a deadline? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT24 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 13 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said: Our accounts for the previous year were released in January. Any reason these would be delayed, or is there a deadline? The deadline on Companies House is March 31st. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 14 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said: Our accounts for the previous year were released in January. Any reason these would be delayed, or is there a deadline? We were very prompt last year. Many clubs released them in Feb/March. 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