After posting yesterday the accounts for BFC, I thought it would be interesting (mildly maybe) to compare these numbers with Stoke City who filed their accounts today, the differences are truly staggering. Stoke had a turnover of £49.8m, (within that £31 million central distribution/parachute payments) Wage bill of £52.7m Player amortisation of £72m Overall Loss £88m The club owes the owners £187m by way of a soft loan. What is interesting is the write down of players this year, £70m with £42m linked to covid impairment of player values suggests that this is their attempt to circumvent FFP as they are allocating a substantial amount of the loss to COVID. I'm sure Stoke will not be the only club doing that this year. I promise no more accounting threads for a while....
Keep em coming mate, really enjoy them. It's always good to see what games are being played by our rivals and the sorry state of their finances (even when removing the covid factor). The bubbles got to burst at some point, the EFL and FA are the equivalent of the SCC in 2007. Just waiting to see which clubs will be proverbial the Sterns and Lehmann Bros. I've already decided that the S6 are the Bradford and Bingley in waiting and Derby are on par with RBS, rearrnaging the deckchairs on the titanic and putting a brave face on it. Mel Morris the football equivalent of Fred the shred.
So if I'm reading that right, excluding the central distribution/parachute payments(the majority of it being a temporary payment) their turnover is actually £18.8m. From that, they decide it's wise to spend £52.7m on wages? That's criminal! I think it's time the parachute payment idea was totally re-worked and limits put on what it can be spent on. It should be limited to covering the extended cost of relegation(players wages that are already on the wage bill, etc) and a complete ban on teams using it to further strengthen the team and compounding the clubs expenditure even more...
I don't think it matters. I have not looked into the rules for some time, but they can only put so much money into the club under the FFP rules. I mean, yes, they can pump money in to keep the club from actually folding due to debts, but they will still be docked points and face a transfer embargo if they do not meet the FA/EFL's rules.
Fair enough worth noting they actually sponsor the clubs shirts aswell. I'm not very clued up on ffp I have no faith in it with derby getting away with no points deduction Wednesday only getting 6 points in the end. Wigan only got deducted 12 because they went into administration.
Yeah, I've just had a quick look and there is no actual set punishments. I honestly thought it was an automatic points deduction...
I don't know why they don't scrap ffp and let clubs spend what they want. If they fold, they fold. Let the taxman deal with them. I don't see a problem with Stoke spending what they want providing the owner is footing the bill. It's him peeing his money down the drain. Let him.
I understand ffp where the likes of Sheff Wed and Derby are concerned who haven't got the money and are fiddling the books. However, if a club has got financial backing like Man City, Wolves, Stoke City etc and owners that will keep subsidising the clubs I don't see a problem. Yes it's not fair that they have more money but that's life.
I thought owners could pump in whatever money they wanted - as long as it's a gift. If it's a loan or some scheme whereby they save on taxes or whatever (I'm no expert) then they have to keep within ffp.
I am not sure what the FFP rules are in the Championship any more. There seems to be an acceptance that COVID has lowered the market value of players. Those players will still be on the Financial Statements of Championship clubs at cost less accumulated depreciation based on the length of the contract they signed when they joined, but how does a club measure the reduction in value. The reduction in value may be due to the lower market prices caused by COVID, but equally, the reduction might be because of poor form. The Premier League is less affected by COVID than the lower leagues, so if a player who is playing in the Championship is good enough to play in the Premier League, his value is less affected. It all seems like a good way to fiddle the FFP system, and Stoke seem to have made a good first attempt. Nevertheless, COVID and the withdrawal from the EU will have an unwelcome effect on the way that Barnsley FC does business. COVID will undoubtedly adversely affect the value of our player that are sold on at Championship level. We cannot acquire players from outside the UK who do not already have have a full international cap, and therefore it will be much harder to recruit bargains that no-one else is aware of. We have seen from our accounts this week how important player trading is to our continued financial stability. It is all a bit worrying.
Football is in a bad enough state as it is without doing what you're suggesting. How would you feel if some Dubai consortium buys us out, spends tens of millions on players and wages, then suddenly loses interest and leaves us in the ****, refusing to plough any further money in? Its easy to comment when it is Wigan or someone else, but this doesn't sit well with me and the rules aren't harsh enough that is the problem.
That’s not how it works usually . The owner may walk away with a small loss but the bulk is put on the clubs sssets and we all know who pays the ultimate price . FFP needs reinforcing and more liability on owners own assets imo .
Even with the Covid adjustment of player value, that still leaves a loss of £38m in one season. On top of a loss the season before. How will they be able to claim that, but for covid, they would've clawed back the amount they would've needed to in the third year, in the season just gone, to avoid ffp charges?
I'd prefer to see a salary cap, based on turnover. If owners want to pour money into a club, that's guaranteed (ie not a loan) and can then be used within the turnover calculation, then that's up to them.
No they shouldn’t , that’s all about a monopoly . Clubs should only be able to spend money generated by the activities such as player sales , Advertising , retail etc What you are advocating is what the super league wanted only the top world clubs and such as Burnley Southampton and even West Ham scrap for the leftovers . Nobodies saying clubs shouldn’t be richer than others but within the system not because some Arab has taken over his country and steals their assets for his own amusement or some geek has a monopoly on some social media site he’s created .