Stoke City - £88m Loss

Keep them coming ARC. They make extremely interesting reading and go to further
underpin, how responsibly well our Club is being run.

 

I suppose any debt is affordable when you're owned by the biggest tax payer in the country for two years running.

 

No it isn’t it up to league and the rules they make . That’s super league thinking and it was stopped even by some of the clubs fans who realised money stifled the concept of competition

 

It wasn't money that stifled the competitive element of Super League. It was the fact that it was a complete closed shop.

Owners need some scope to be able to invest money to help grow a club, but safeguards need to be in place that the investment is at the risk of the owner and not the club.

 

While its easy to think that we might start to see a position where sanity returns as many clubs feel an almighty pinch, theres a part of me that wonders if there are more loopholes to be had.

Are there safeguards from preventing an existing trading company acquiring a football club and merging its operations and back office and accounting into its existing framework to blur the lines of turnover and expense?

It wouldn't surprise me at all if we get large companies directly owning clubs and "sponsoring" them for the privilege to the tune of whatever they want.

I don't know what the answer is to restore normality to the pyramid of football, there seem to be people all too eager to protect that what is seemingly most important of all... throwing away multiple millions of pounds on players and agents.

 

It's already stifled though. There's no way on this Earth that all things being equal we'd be able to attract the same players as Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea etc. The only thing that could be brought in is salary caps and putting the measures in you suggest. That's pie in the sky. The big clubs will want to stay big.

The big clubs will always be the biggest and the richest. Why have rules to penalise big clubs for being big though? It's the natural order.

 

I wasn’t advocating stopping big clubs being big , I think you’ve read it wrong and certainly not penalising them they have a massive turnover of money they generate and that isn’t in question so no penalty there .
If you consider a dictator or a bored Multi Billionaire putting more money into a club that only a very few can compete .
Nothings pie in the sky as far as rules go imo rules are rules and many rules have been enforced despite the people being affected saying they can’t work etc of course they’ll say that most rules that have been passed have been against the people with most to gain protesting .

 

I agree with part of what you say but the stoke ones abit diffrent he is a billionaire supporter as far as I'm aware same with Bristol city. I cant see him leaving them in a bad state. Patrick cryne used to subsidise the accademy each year for us and wrote off loans before he left its only the same only patrick was very rich in comparison to me in comparison to the Bristol or Stoke owners who are also life long fans of there clubs he wasn't rich.

 

If I were a billionaire. I'd buy Barnsley F.C and bankroll them to the Premier League.

 

I seem to remember there being some sort of rule limiting this. It may have been when it came out Chansiri's made-up taxi company and shirt sponsorship was under the microscope. There is some sort of framework that flags up sponsorship that is massively outside the "going rate".

 

I always used to say the same, but thinking about it now how many teams has that approach worked for, long term? Blackburn won the league then dropped like a stone, Wigan are now ******, Bournmouth are in trouble now, Derby are screwed.

Out of the entire Premier League, Leicester are the only real success stories, arent they?

 

Good point. I think people forget that there are a lot of clubs owned by billionaires now so it doesn't automatically mean you'll have success.

 

I wouldn't, you don't need to as we nearly proved it this season, I think it's possible without breaking the bank. IF we can keep our squad in tact & keep big Val, I think we can finish the job next season.

 

There supposedly is, but Man City got away with it after challenging the ruling against them.

 

The problem is once an owner/supporter passes away or gets to the point where they are considering their estate for inheritance. Both Ipswich and Bolton suffered in similar circumstances, and once Whelan stepped away at Wigan we saw what happened. Losses aren't sustainable in the long term for any business, someone/thing has to pay them off or claw them back eventually, and the longer the losses stack up, even if within £39m over 3 years of FFP, the deeper they are and the company is still insolvent which poses other issues.

 

Some absolutely bonkers views in this thread. Most of which would totally ruin our club's already challenged abilities to compete fairly as it is.

 

I had ignored them as they were already an established Premier League team a the time. I was thinking more along the lines of teams that similar sized to ours who's owners bank rolled to the big time..

 

Here goes a quick explanation of Stoke's last three years losses and FFP.

2017/18 Loss of £32m
2018/19 Loss of £15m
2019/20 Loss of £88m

Football Financial fairplay permitted losses are £13m pa in the championship and £35m pa in the premier league. So Stoke's maximum loss is £61m over a three year period, (one year premier league and two years championship). It is possible to offset some costs from the losses such as expenditure on youth and women's football.

The interesting addition this year is COVID Costs

1.1.7 COVID-19 Costs means lost revenues and/or exceptional costs incurred by a Club that are directly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and that are identified and calculated in accordance with such guidance as issued by the Board;

That final clause is why I believe clubs will use the opportunity to write down player values which will be disallowed against FFP and then reduce amortisation in future years.

 

You'd think the more obvious ruling would be to block any sponsorship/commercial arrangement with associated companies of the owners. That would considerably assist any potential efforts to overstate revenues.

 

I'd have a salary cap within each league, but limited to a share of that leagues TV deal. Say the Championship had a deal worth £120m per year and 24 clubs, then each club has £5m to spend on wages for the season plus any transfer profits. If they decide to spend it all on an expensive journeyman striker then the rest of the team has to be cut back. Cup money, sponsorship and gate receipts can be invested in player development/academies and facilities.

Makes it far more competitive and harder to just buy their way out of it.