| Big Money signings 21:11 - Jan 15 with 5733 views | cressi |
Like most I thought this summer we may have broken our transfer record we have done exceptionally well considering we have not spent big.
My concern is we don't improve our first eleven but improve our squad understand ffp and all that but if money was spent now and we failed to go up we could sell a player in the summer to be within ffp. We may not get a better chance.
|  | | |  |
| Big Money signings on 21:17 - Jan 15 with 4228 views | FrimleyBlue |
Think it's obvious and in no way negative but we will have to sell in the summer if we don't go up.
If we lost 12.5 mill in the first year of take over. That's got to be close to ffp limit now.
But. It would then enable us to buy 2/3 players.
It would however mean we say goodbye to davis. Wolfenden and maybe Chaplin. |  |
| |
| Big Money signings on 21:20 - Jan 15 with 4223 views | xrayspecs |
FFP is a known issue - we lost £12m in L1 two seasons ago, a likely similar amount last season and have also invested heavily in our squad this season. Revenue up but so are costs.
The summer transfer window opens mid June but any sales would need to be before 30 June to count in this seasons accounts. We can lose a cumulative £39m over last three seasons.
Very few transfer deals are done before end June so if we failed to find a buyer in that two week window to balance the books, then we will breach rules - points deductions, transfer embargoes etc. Far too risky. [Post edited 15 Jan 21:22]
| | | |
| Big Money signings on 21:25 - Jan 15 with 4149 views | marKoffC |
| Big Money signings on 21:20 - Jan 15 by xrayspecs |
FFP is a known issue - we lost £12m in L1 two seasons ago, a likely similar amount last season and have also invested heavily in our squad this season. Revenue up but so are costs.
The summer transfer window opens mid June but any sales would need to be before 30 June to count in this seasons accounts. We can lose a cumulative £39m over last three seasons.
Very few transfer deals are done before end June so if we failed to find a buyer in that two week window to balance the books, then we will breach rules - points deductions, transfer embargoes etc. Far too risky. [Post edited 15 Jan 21:22]
|
Also, wouldn't be a great negotiating position with a prospective buyer knowing we had to sell before end of June.. | | | |
| Big Money signings on 21:33 - Jan 15 with 4068 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Big Money signings on 21:20 - Jan 15 by xrayspecs |
FFP is a known issue - we lost £12m in L1 two seasons ago, a likely similar amount last season and have also invested heavily in our squad this season. Revenue up but so are costs.
The summer transfer window opens mid June but any sales would need to be before 30 June to count in this seasons accounts. We can lose a cumulative £39m over last three seasons.
Very few transfer deals are done before end June so if we failed to find a buyer in that two week window to balance the books, then we will breach rules - points deductions, transfer embargoes etc. Far too risky. [Post edited 15 Jan 21:22]
|
Is it likely we lost as much over the last 18 months? If you believe Ashton then player trading was largely ‘net zero’ up until this summer. Our wage bill is estimated to be bottom half (or lower depending on source).
We are 5th in the league for average attendances, doing better in the commercial side. Based on that surely other clubs are losing much more, excluding parachute payment clubs? Please someone explain this before the Elephant piles in… | | | |
| Big Money signings on 21:38 - Jan 15 with 3999 views | NedPlimpton |
Like most?
At no point did I think we'd break our transfer record. I'd imagine most people thought the same. I think some people may have got ideas above their station about our ability to spend and our pulling power | | | |
| The phrase.... on 21:41 - Jan 15 with 3942 views | Bloots |
| Big Money signings on 21:33 - Jan 15 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Is it likely we lost as much over the last 18 months? If you believe Ashton then player trading was largely ‘net zero’ up until this summer. Our wage bill is estimated to be bottom half (or lower depending on source).
We are 5th in the league for average attendances, doing better in the commercial side. Based on that surely other clubs are losing much more, excluding parachute payment clubs? Please someone explain this before the Elephant piles in… |
...."If you believe Ashton" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. |  |
| Enduringly lovable, intelligent and thunderingly exquisite. |
| |
| Big Money signings on 22:40 - Jan 15 with 3705 views | kiwiblue |
Are we not able to issue shares to reduce our spending? I thought that was how it works? |  | | |
| Big Money signings on 22:57 - Jan 15 with 3622 views | Guthrum |
I don't think it's the way ITFC is currently run, to make large-fee player hirings. Pretty sure the lack of striker(s) coming in so far is more down to lack of availability - particularly the difficulty of prizing them away from their current club - than us not spending a bit of money. But IMO neither is it likely we going to pay outragous sums (of the Ellis Simms variety).
If we fail to get promoted this season, the last thing Town want to be doing is breaking up the squad by selling off our best players to balance the books. That would significantly damage our chances of challenging again in 2024-5. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Big Money signings on 23:01 - Jan 15 with 3577 views | Guthrum |
| Big Money signings on 21:38 - Jan 15 by NedPlimpton |
Like most?
At no point did I think we'd break our transfer record. I'd imagine most people thought the same. I think some people may have got ideas above their station about our ability to spend and our pulling power |
I thought it possible, but only because that record is pretty low (from what people have posted), combined with the mega-inflation over the last decade and that we're shopping for more expensive players, i.e. a striker. | |
| |
| Big Money signings on 23:03 - Jan 15 with 3550 views | kiwiblue |
| Big Money signings on 22:57 - Jan 15 by Guthrum |
I don't think it's the way ITFC is currently run, to make large-fee player hirings. Pretty sure the lack of striker(s) coming in so far is more down to lack of availability - particularly the difficulty of prizing them away from their current club - than us not spending a bit of money. But IMO neither is it likely we going to pay outragous sums (of the Ellis Simms variety).
If we fail to get promoted this season, the last thing Town want to be doing is breaking up the squad by selling off our best players to balance the books. That would significantly damage our chances of challenging again in 2024-5. |
Agreed but how else can a team without the Premier failure funds compete?
A bit of a cleft stick for success if you cant improve a squad to compete at a higher level. | | | |
| Big Money signings on 23:25 - Jan 15 with 3430 views | Guthrum |
| Big Money signings on 23:03 - Jan 15 by kiwiblue |
Agreed but how else can a team without the Premier failure funds compete?
A bit of a cleft stick for success if you cant improve a squad to compete at a higher level. |
Those are the internal stresses of the system. There is pressure and incentive to overspend, but it's also punished and/or results in financial disaster. Prem failures are given a helping hand, everyone else (especially the freshly promoted from below) is at a disadvantage.
The only way around it is to be clever, to pick up the undervalued and the overlooked, while cultivating good contacts with the Prem to attract their best young talent on loan. Plus having a Manager who can forge a good team, more than the sum of its parts, rather than relying purely on individual skilled players. | |
| |
| Big Money signings on 06:19 - Jan 16 with 3165 views | ElephantintheRoom |
Perhaps the system is something to do with fair play rather than financial doping?
The franchise already has a huge squad, including a striker bought by the current manager. The excessive financial doping last season was aimed at getting past the teams playing within their financial constraints in the third division.
That seemed to work, eventually. And I suspect even the cowboy owners realised that promotion means playing in a higher division, so would expect the players bought to be capable of playing in a higher division. | |
| |
| Big Money signings on 07:12 - Jan 16 with 3033 views | Horsham |
| Big Money signings on 06:19 - Jan 16 by ElephantintheRoom |
Perhaps the system is something to do with fair play rather than financial doping?
The franchise already has a huge squad, including a striker bought by the current manager. The excessive financial doping last season was aimed at getting past the teams playing within their financial constraints in the third division.
That seemed to work, eventually. And I suspect even the cowboy owners realised that promotion means playing in a higher division, so would expect the players bought to be capable of playing in a higher division. |
Tiresome waffle, light on facts and repeating the same old inaccurate sound bites. | | | |
| Big Money signings on 07:30 - Jan 16 with 2960 views | BuffaloBill |
| Big Money signings on 06:19 - Jan 16 by ElephantintheRoom |
Perhaps the system is something to do with fair play rather than financial doping?
The franchise already has a huge squad, including a striker bought by the current manager. The excessive financial doping last season was aimed at getting past the teams playing within their financial constraints in the third division.
That seemed to work, eventually. And I suspect even the cowboy owners realised that promotion means playing in a higher division, so would expect the players bought to be capable of playing in a higher division. |
So tiresome, you bellend |  |
| |
| Big Money signings on 07:39 - Jan 16 with 2904 views | xrayspecs |
| Big Money signings on 21:33 - Jan 15 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Is it likely we lost as much over the last 18 months? If you believe Ashton then player trading was largely ‘net zero’ up until this summer. Our wage bill is estimated to be bottom half (or lower depending on source).
We are 5th in the league for average attendances, doing better in the commercial side. Based on that surely other clubs are losing much more, excluding parachute payment clubs? Please someone explain this before the Elephant piles in… |
We know we lost £12m in 21/2, that is in the accounts. Most not all counts towards FFP.
Last season's (2022/23) wage bill (which is our main expense) would have been higher than the year before as we signed Davis, Harness, Camara, Clarke, Broadhead, Hirst and Mass, all of whom would have been on better money than the players who left us. Plus new contracts for a number of players. Plus around £4m in transfer fees. The only significant outgoing was Tyreece Simpson for £500k. Our commercial revenue would have been higher (ticket sales plus merchandise) but so was our outgoings. So, expect a similar loss for 22/3 vs 21/2.
Investment in infrastructure, such as monies spent on Staples, new pitches, ground improvements do not appear in the profit/loss reported in the accounts, these are treated as capital expenses, and do not count towards FFP.
This season follows a similar path to last one. Higher wages for incoming players versus those released and new contracts. Plus significant fees for Hirst and Taylor, loan fees for Williams, Scarlett, Omari, Travis and Sacrimento, and no significant outgoings. Commercial revenue likely to be a little higher due to price rises mainly, as attendances can only rise so much from last season. TV money is a biggie though, about £8m extra. Again, I would expect a significant amount of this to have already been eaten up by investment in players and salaries.
We will have some money but not the kind of cash to make a dramatic say £4-5m acquisition.
Responding to another post, no we cannot simply issue new shares. We could last season under the rules that applied in L1. However, in the Championship, it is a cumulative three year lost of £39m, which we will be close to hitting. [Post edited 16 Jan 8:46]
| | | |
| Big Money signings on 08:09 - Jan 16 with 2780 views | xrayspecs |
| Big Money signings on 07:39 - Jan 16 by xrayspecs |
We know we lost £12m in 21/2, that is in the accounts. Most not all counts towards FFP.
Last season's (2022/23) wage bill (which is our main expense) would have been higher than the year before as we signed Davis, Harness, Camara, Clarke, Broadhead, Hirst and Mass, all of whom would have been on better money than the players who left us. Plus new contracts for a number of players. Plus around £4m in transfer fees. The only significant outgoing was Tyreece Simpson for £500k. Our commercial revenue would have been higher (ticket sales plus merchandise) but so was our outgoings. So, expect a similar loss for 22/3 vs 21/2.
Investment in infrastructure, such as monies spent on Staples, new pitches, ground improvements do not appear in the profit/loss reported in the accounts, these are treated as capital expenses, and do not count towards FFP.
This season follows a similar path to last one. Higher wages for incoming players versus those released and new contracts. Plus significant fees for Hirst and Taylor, loan fees for Williams, Scarlett, Omari, Travis and Sacrimento, and no significant outgoings. Commercial revenue likely to be a little higher due to price rises mainly, as attendances can only rise so much from last season. TV money is a biggie though, about £8m extra. Again, I would expect a significant amount of this to have already been eaten up by investment in players and salaries.
We will have some money but not the kind of cash to make a dramatic say £4-5m acquisition.
Responding to another post, no we cannot simply issue new shares. We could last season under the rules that applied in L1. However, in the Championship, it is a cumulative three year lost of £39m, which we will be close to hitting. [Post edited 16 Jan 8:46]
|
Worth noting FFP may be a big issue north of the border.
NCFC allowable loss for the three year period 2021/2 to 2023/4 is £61m (2 x L1 @£13m + 1xPL @£35m). They have reported losses of £24m and £27m for those first two seasons. They have work to do to reduce last year's loss from £27m to £10m this season to stay within the £61m cumulative loss.
And even more so next season, their three year allowable loss to 2024/5 would be £39m but they are carrying £27m from 2022/3, plus say £10m for this season, which means they would need to make further savings and/or sell players to stay within the limits. | | | |
| Big Money signings on 08:18 - Jan 16 with 2746 views | Herbivore |
Does rather highlight what we're up against when competing with sides with parachute payments. I get that they want to avoid a cliff edge and what happened to us and Leicester in the early noughties but it's now gone far too far the other way. Sure, relegated sides still end up selling a few but they can hold out for massive fees and reinvest what they bring in on handpicked top Championship players. We cannot remotely compete with that. |  |
| |
| Big Money signings on 08:24 - Jan 16 with 2687 views | xrayspecs |
| Big Money signings on 08:18 - Jan 16 by Herbivore |
Does rather highlight what we're up against when competing with sides with parachute payments. I get that they want to avoid a cliff edge and what happened to us and Leicester in the early noughties but it's now gone far too far the other way. Sure, relegated sides still end up selling a few but they can hold out for massive fees and reinvest what they bring in on handpicked top Championship players. We cannot remotely compete with that. |
Exactly. You have to outcompete the money with superior coaching and recruitment. You may also need to trade a few players to create the headroom for incremental investment, which is what Coventry have been able to do through the sales of Hamer and Goyrkes.
This season though is extreme, have we ever had three better relegated teams, both in terms of playing squads and budgets? | | | |
| Big Money signings on 08:26 - Jan 16 with 2677 views | ITFC_Forever |
| Big Money signings on 08:18 - Jan 16 by Herbivore |
Does rather highlight what we're up against when competing with sides with parachute payments. I get that they want to avoid a cliff edge and what happened to us and Leicester in the early noughties but it's now gone far too far the other way. Sure, relegated sides still end up selling a few but they can hold out for massive fees and reinvest what they bring in on handpicked top Championship players. We cannot remotely compete with that. |
Exactly this.
And that's why the parachute payments need to stop ASAP and the money be shared more evenly through the EFL. |  |
| |
| Big Money signings on 08:38 - Jan 16 with 2586 views | hoppy |
| Big Money signings on 08:26 - Jan 16 by ITFC_Forever |
Exactly this.
And that's why the parachute payments need to stop ASAP and the money be shared more evenly through the EFL. |
Knowing our past luck, they’d change it just as we qualify for it… |  |
| |
| Big Money signings on 08:44 - Jan 16 with 2552 views | GeoffSentence |
| Big Money signings on 08:18 - Jan 16 by Herbivore |
Does rather highlight what we're up against when competing with sides with parachute payments. I get that they want to avoid a cliff edge and what happened to us and Leicester in the early noughties but it's now gone far too far the other way. Sure, relegated sides still end up selling a few but they can hold out for massive fees and reinvest what they bring in on handpicked top Championship players. We cannot remotely compete with that. |
Us, Leicester and Derby.
All three relegated clubs suffered a financial crisis that year. |  |
| |
| Big Money signings on 08:59 - Jan 16 with 2450 views | Herbivore |
| Big Money signings on 08:44 - Jan 16 by GeoffSentence |
Us, Leicester and Derby.
All three relegated clubs suffered a financial crisis that year. |
I'd forgotten Derby! I know there were some specific circumstances that contributed that season but it does feel like the model of parachute payments has moved from helping teams to avoid a cliff edge to effectively making the PL a closed shop for 25 or so sides. Pretty sure the fee Leeds paid for Piroe after relegation is more than we've spent on our entire squad. Relegation shouldn't give you the extent of competitive advantage that it does. | |
| |
| Big Money signings on 09:16 - Jan 16 with 2353 views | LeoMuff |
| Big Money signings on 07:39 - Jan 16 by xrayspecs |
We know we lost £12m in 21/2, that is in the accounts. Most not all counts towards FFP.
Last season's (2022/23) wage bill (which is our main expense) would have been higher than the year before as we signed Davis, Harness, Camara, Clarke, Broadhead, Hirst and Mass, all of whom would have been on better money than the players who left us. Plus new contracts for a number of players. Plus around £4m in transfer fees. The only significant outgoing was Tyreece Simpson for £500k. Our commercial revenue would have been higher (ticket sales plus merchandise) but so was our outgoings. So, expect a similar loss for 22/3 vs 21/2.
Investment in infrastructure, such as monies spent on Staples, new pitches, ground improvements do not appear in the profit/loss reported in the accounts, these are treated as capital expenses, and do not count towards FFP.
This season follows a similar path to last one. Higher wages for incoming players versus those released and new contracts. Plus significant fees for Hirst and Taylor, loan fees for Williams, Scarlett, Omari, Travis and Sacrimento, and no significant outgoings. Commercial revenue likely to be a little higher due to price rises mainly, as attendances can only rise so much from last season. TV money is a biggie though, about £8m extra. Again, I would expect a significant amount of this to have already been eaten up by investment in players and salaries.
We will have some money but not the kind of cash to make a dramatic say £4-5m acquisition.
Responding to another post, no we cannot simply issue new shares. We could last season under the rules that applied in L1. However, in the Championship, it is a cumulative three year lost of £39m, which we will be close to hitting. [Post edited 16 Jan 8:46]
|
Ah Tyreece Simpson, I had forgotten about him, a quick Google tells me 1 goal in 22 in league 1 this season, £500k looks a steal. |  |
| |
| Big Money signings on 09:20 - Jan 16 with 2326 views | xrayspecs |
| Big Money signings on 08:59 - Jan 16 by Herbivore |
I'd forgotten Derby! I know there were some specific circumstances that contributed that season but it does feel like the model of parachute payments has moved from helping teams to avoid a cliff edge to effectively making the PL a closed shop for 25 or so sides. Pretty sure the fee Leeds paid for Piroe after relegation is more than we've spent on our entire squad. Relegation shouldn't give you the extent of competitive advantage that it does. |
I may be misremembering but I thought the collapse of the ITV digital broadcaster was the final straw which led to administration. Relegation was a significant problem (more so today - the gap between TV income for last in Prem and top of Champ is over £100m) but the ITV digital money would have probably kept us afloat. | | | |
| Big Money signings on 09:37 - Jan 16 with 2251 views | CBMTOBWMMBG |
| Big Money signings on 06:19 - Jan 16 by ElephantintheRoom |
Perhaps the system is something to do with fair play rather than financial doping?
The franchise already has a huge squad, including a striker bought by the current manager. The excessive financial doping last season was aimed at getting past the teams playing within their financial constraints in the third division.
That seemed to work, eventually. And I suspect even the cowboy owners realised that promotion means playing in a higher division, so would expect the players bought to be capable of playing in a higher division. |
replace...
franchise with club
huge with full
doping with investment
constraints with situation
excessive with important
and 'the striker' is injured, hence the discussion about needing a replacement
but you knew all that.
off you go please with a trunkety, trunk [Post edited 16 Jan 9:38]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
