by Theroyalbox » 02 Mar 2023 15:36
by Snowflake Royal » 02 Mar 2023 15:37
Hound Oh Moore’s back as well just to cheer Ian up
by YorkshireRoyal99 » 02 Mar 2023 15:38
Snowflake RoyalYorkshireRoyal99Snowflake Royal Because we were historically pissing money up the wall.
For two seasons straight, only about 2 years ago our wage bill was 200% of income. Excluding everything else that's a two year loss of about £40m on its own.
At the same time we were throwing around multi million transfer fees.
Selling off every asset we owned so we could rent it back from the owner.
Yeah I know I've included the likes of wages and transfer fees in that, but even still, if you go off a £40m~ wage bill each season and £25m~ over that 3 year period (for arguments sake), that works out at £145m. Now if our revenue sits at around £16m for each season (£48m over 3 years) and take that off this figure, that leaves us with £97m. £138m minus that £97m still leaves us with £41m of "other operating costs" over that 3 year period that we can't account for, assuming the training/academy facilities aren't counted towards this.
Selling off every asset to rent it back from the owner would only increase our income, as it did when we sold the stadium to our owners. But that's what I mean, where are we spending the other £13.5m~ each season based on those 3 years where we eventually broke the rules?
There's a good chance that there's mixed messaging in the reporting that conflates or references interchamgeably both overall loss (including infrastructure expenditure and academy maintenance) and FFP accountable loss.
We're only ever going to have a limited idea what is being spent where. But the accounts have been clwar for a long time that we were making vast losses through totally irresponsible spending, in clear breach of FFP.
by Coppells Lost Coat » 02 Mar 2023 15:39
Snowflake RoyalHound Oh Moore’s back as well just to cheer Ian up
Like he'll play.
The points deduction causing waste of space.
by morganb » 02 Mar 2023 15:43
by Hound » 02 Mar 2023 15:45
by Hound » 02 Mar 2023 15:46
YorkshireRoyal99Snowflake RoyalYorkshireRoyal99
Yeah I know I've included the likes of wages and transfer fees in that, but even still, if you go off a £40m~ wage bill each season and £25m~ over that 3 year period (for arguments sake), that works out at £145m. Now if our revenue sits at around £16m for each season (£48m over 3 years) and take that off this figure, that leaves us with £97m. £138m minus that £97m still leaves us with £41m of "other operating costs" over that 3 year period that we can't account for, assuming the training/academy facilities aren't counted towards this.
Selling off every asset to rent it back from the owner would only increase our income, as it did when we sold the stadium to our owners. But that's what I mean, where are we spending the other £13.5m~ each season based on those 3 years where we eventually broke the rules?
There's a good chance that there's mixed messaging in the reporting that conflates or references interchamgeably both overall loss (including infrastructure expenditure and academy maintenance) and FFP accountable loss.
We're only ever going to have a limited idea what is being spent where. But the accounts have been clwar for a long time that we were making vast losses through totally irresponsible spending, in clear breach of FFP.
Yeah I don't disagree, we've clearly breached these rules previously, rightly punished as of now with a points deduction and business plan and whatever happens now will happen.
What concerns me is, going forward, if it is true that we are still losing some £13.5m each season (rough estimate), where is that actually coming from? As it's still an operational cost of the business that allegedly has nothing to do with players, staff, training facilities and academy costs (again, if that's true). I just can't get my head around that and that will still likely exist to some extent, no matter how much we reduce our wage bill, staff costs, transfer fees etc.
by Coppells Lost Coat » 02 Mar 2023 15:51
morganb So, we got caught breaching FFP, were docked 6 points and set a business plan to adhere to which if we didn't meet then we were to be docked another 6 points.
We are now being docked 6 points for something that happened prior to the business plan being set (a period we have already been punished for), a time which should have been covered by us/EFL agreeing to the plan and being a reset point.
Is the 6 points we are being docked the penalty for not meeting the business plan, or a separate 6 points covering a historical period we've already been penalised for and therefore the business plan 6 points could still be docked at a later date?
Do we think something we had hidden a couple of years ago has now come to light, or are the EFL being pressured by other clubs to apply another punishment as we were let off too lightly, or is it really a breach of the business plan influenced by something that pre-dates it?
by YorkshireRoyal99 » 02 Mar 2023 15:53
HoundYorkshireRoyal99Snowflake Royal There's a good chance that there's mixed messaging in the reporting that conflates or references interchamgeably both overall loss (including infrastructure expenditure and academy maintenance) and FFP accountable loss.
We're only ever going to have a limited idea what is being spent where. But the accounts have been clwar for a long time that we were making vast losses through totally irresponsible spending, in clear breach of FFP.
Yeah I don't disagree, we've clearly breached these rules previously, rightly punished as of now with a points deduction and business plan and whatever happens now will happen.
What concerns me is, going forward, if it is true that we are still losing some £13.5m each season (rough estimate), where is that actually coming from? As it's still an operational cost of the business that allegedly has nothing to do with players, staff, training facilities and academy costs (again, if that's true). I just can't get my head around that and that will still likely exist to some extent, no matter how much we reduce our wage bill, staff costs, transfer fees etc.
I think you’re best waiting to see the accounts before guessing at running costs. And I think that losing 13m this season is prob way out personally
by Sutekh » 02 Mar 2023 15:55
morganb So, we got caught breaching FFP, were docked 6 points and set a business plan to adhere to which if we didn't meet then we were to be docked another 6 points.
We are now being docked 6 points for something that happened prior to the business plan being set (a period we have already been punished for), a time which should have been covered by us/EFL agreeing to the plan and being a reset point.
Is the 6 points we are being docked the penalty for not meeting the business plan, or a separate 6 points covering a historical period we've already been penalised for and therefore the business plan 6 points could still be docked at a later date?
Do we think something we had hidden a couple of years ago has now come to light, or are the EFL being pressured by other clubs to apply another punishment as we were let off too lightly, or is it really a breach of the business plan influenced by something that pre-dates it?
by Chairman Mao » 02 Mar 2023 16:16
YorkshireRoyal99Snowflake RoyalYorkshireRoyal99
Yeah I know I've included the likes of wages and transfer fees in that, but even still, if you go off a £40m~ wage bill each season and £25m~ over that 3 year period (for arguments sake), that works out at £145m. Now if our revenue sits at around £16m for each season (£48m over 3 years) and take that off this figure, that leaves us with £97m. £138m minus that £97m still leaves us with £41m of "other operating costs" over that 3 year period that we can't account for, assuming the training/academy facilities aren't counted towards this.
Selling off every asset to rent it back from the owner would only increase our income, as it did when we sold the stadium to our owners. But that's what I mean, where are we spending the other £13.5m~ each season based on those 3 years where we eventually broke the rules?
There's a good chance that there's mixed messaging in the reporting that conflates or references interchamgeably both overall loss (including infrastructure expenditure and academy maintenance) and FFP accountable loss.
We're only ever going to have a limited idea what is being spent where. But the accounts have been clwar for a long time that we were making vast losses through totally irresponsible spending, in clear breach of FFP.
Yeah I don't disagree, we've clearly breached these rules previously, rightly punished as of now with a points deduction and business plan and whatever happens now will happen.
What concerns me is, going forward, if it is true that we are still losing some £13.5m each season (rough estimate), where is that actually coming from? As it's still an operational cost of the business that allegedly has nothing to do with players, staff, training facilities and academy costs (again, if that's true). I just can't get my head around that and that will still likely exist to some extent, no matter how much we reduce our wage bill, staff costs, transfer fees etc.
by Hendo » 02 Mar 2023 16:17
It’s a bit like a court handing down a year suspended sentence to a crook, and then calling the crook back into court six months later and even though they haven’t put a foot wrong sending them to prison for the original offence!
by Elm Park Kid » 02 Mar 2023 16:18
by Snowflake Royal » 02 Mar 2023 16:18
morganb So, we got caught breaching FFP, were docked 6 points and set a business plan to adhere to which if we didn't meet then we were to be docked another 6 points.
We are now being docked 6 points for something that happened prior to the business plan being set (a period we have already been punished for), a time which should have been covered by us/EFL agreeing to the plan and being a reset point.
Is the 6 points we are being docked the penalty for not meeting the business plan, or a separate 6 points covering a historical period we've already been penalised for and therefore the business plan 6 points could still be docked at a later date?
Do we think something we had hidden a couple of years ago has now come to light, or are the EFL being pressured by other clubs to apply another punishment as we were let off too lightly, or is it really a breach of the business plan influenced by something that pre-dates it?
by kwik-silva » 02 Mar 2023 16:18
morganb So, we got caught breaching FFP, were docked 6 points and set a business plan to adhere to which if we didn't meet then we were to be docked another 6 points.
We are now being docked 6 points for something that happened prior to the business plan being set (a period we have already been punished for), a time which should have been covered by us/EFL agreeing to the plan and being a reset point.
Is the 6 points we are being docked the penalty for not meeting the business plan, or a separate 6 points covering a historical period we've already been penalised for and therefore the business plan 6 points could still be docked at a later date?
Do we think something we had hidden a couple of years ago has now come to light, or are the EFL being pressured by other clubs to apply another punishment as we were let off too lightly, or is it really a breach of the business plan influenced by something that pre-dates it?
by kwik-silva » 02 Mar 2023 16:19
Hendo https://twitter.com/TimDellor/status/1631309501457395715It’s a bit like a court handing down a year suspended sentence to a crook, and then calling the crook back into court six months later and even though they haven’t put a foot wrong sending them to prison for the original offence!
I don't like him, but feels like Tim has hit the nail on the head here a bit.
by Elm Park Kid » 02 Mar 2023 16:20
Hendo https://twitter.com/TimDellor/status/1631309501457395715It’s a bit like a court handing down a year suspended sentence to a crook, and then calling the crook back into court six months later and even though they haven’t put a foot wrong sending them to prison for the original offence!
I don't like him, but feels like Tim has hit the nail on the head here a bit.
by paultheroyal » 02 Mar 2023 16:20
by Snowflake Royal » 02 Mar 2023 16:22
kwik-silvaHendo https://twitter.com/TimDellor/status/1631309501457395715It’s a bit like a court handing down a year suspended sentence to a crook, and then calling the crook back into court six months later and even though they haven’t put a foot wrong sending them to prison for the original offence!
I don't like him, but feels like Tim has hit the nail on the head here a bit.
Nah, it's like a crook getting a suspended sentence, then finding out they committed crimes you were unaware of beforehand.
by YorkshireRoyal99 » 02 Mar 2023 16:29
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests