Denver Royal How did Wolves do it? They made some signings early doors, after which everyone was playing for 2nd place. Heard FFP rumours, but then it went quiet. Haven’t even really changed their team all that much in PL, and not only stayed up, but likely in Europe.
Victor Meldrew This may well have been a non-story with unpaid wages (Bolton, Bury etc.) being the latest trend in reporting football club matters.
How did the National Press get hold of the story?
Presumably a player or other member of staff was a bit miffed so leaked the info or was it our Defence Secretary who seems guilty of almost anything that happens?
Hopefully it was just a glitch but, as others have posted, payroll is normally automatic so there is just a small element of concern.
SWLR Seem to recall back in the early 70's the entire team was transfer listed. Can't recall any detail (I'm sure someone will), but puts current position in perspective.
Royals and RacersDenver Royal How did Wolves do it? They made some signings early doors, after which everyone was playing for 2nd place. Heard FFP rumours, but then it went quiet. Haven’t even really changed their team all that much in PL, and not only stayed up, but likely in Europe.
Not out of the wood yet - report from March http://financialfootballnews.com/wolves ... osun-play/
SutekhRoyals and RacersDenver Royal How did Wolves do it? They made some signings early doors, after which everyone was playing for 2nd place. Heard FFP rumours, but then it went quiet. Haven’t even really changed their team all that much in PL, and not only stayed up, but likely in Europe.
Not out of the wood yet - report from March http://financialfootballnews.com/wolves ... osun-play/
Similar to Bournemouth I think. When they get relegated the FL will become very interested in them.
SutekhRoyals and RacersDenver Royal How did Wolves do it? They made some signings early doors, after which everyone was playing for 2nd place. Heard FFP rumours, but then it went quiet. Haven’t even really changed their team all that much in PL, and not only stayed up, but likely in Europe.
Not out of the wood yet - report from March http://financialfootballnews.com/wolves ... osun-play/
Similar to Bournemouth I think. When they get relegated the FL will become very interested in them.
Royals and Racers Report in the Times today that the EFL are set to review the FFP rules this summer after complaints from Championship clubs that their rivals are exploiting the system by selling off their grounds and leasing them back as a way of balancing the books- Sheffield Wednesday, Derby and 2 other clubs are believed to have done this recently.
GreatwesternlineRoyals and Racers Report in the Times today that the EFL are set to review the FFP rules this summer after complaints from Championship clubs that their rivals are exploiting the system by selling off their grounds and leasing them back as a way of balancing the books- Sheffield Wednesday, Derby and 2 other clubs are believed to have done this recently.
This wouldnt balance the books, its clubs basically remortgaging their homes. Not sustainable, not to be encouraged, but very transparent.
Royals and Racers Report in the Times today that the EFL are set to review the FFP rules this summer after complaints from Championship clubs that their rivals are exploiting the system by selling off their grounds and leasing them back as a way of balancing the books- Sheffield Wednesday, Derby and 2 other clubs are believed to have done this recently.
CountryRoyal FFP is just a fcking joke anyway, its entire inception is designed to keep the large elite clubs in power, any guise of it being for the "long term financial stability" of smaller clubs is a blatant lie.
Royals and RacersGreatwesternlineRoyals and Racers Report in the Times today that the EFL are set to review the FFP rules this summer after complaints from Championship clubs that their rivals are exploiting the system by selling off their grounds and leasing them back as a way of balancing the books- Sheffield Wednesday, Derby and 2 other clubs are believed to have done this recently.
This wouldnt balance the books, its clubs basically remortgaging their homes. Not sustainable, not to be encouraged, but very transparent.
This is part of what 3 points wrote in March after studying the accounts
"Just started to take a look through the accounts for both the football club and Renhe Sports Management (its formal UK parent company). Here are some key points coming out for me
1. While we lost £21m (which including a net spend on players of £6.8m), the club actually burnt through £27m in cash. This was basically funded by new shares of £15m plus £12m of loans from the parent company (Renhe Sports) to the RFC company
2. The stadium has been moved from RFC to Renhe Sports. Basically, the football club no longer owns its own ground. I assume that is in consideration for the £27m of cash thrown at the football operations.
3. As a consequence of 2) the club now has to pay rent to Renhe Sports of £750,000 per year until 2043."
Has what we have done the same as the other clubs being complained about ??
GreatwesternlineRoyals and RacersGreatwesternline
This wouldnt balance the books, its clubs basically remortgaging their homes. Not sustainable, not to be encouraged, but very transparent.
This is part of what 3 points wrote in March after studying the accounts
"Just started to take a look through the accounts for both the football club and Renhe Sports Management (its formal UK parent company). Here are some key points coming out for me
1. While we lost £21m (which including a net spend on players of £6.8m), the club actually burnt through £27m in cash. This was basically funded by new shares of £15m plus £12m of loans from the parent company (Renhe Sports) to the RFC company
2. The stadium has been moved from RFC to Renhe Sports. Basically, the football club no longer owns its own ground. I assume that is in consideration for the £27m of cash thrown at the football operations.
3. As a consequence of 2) the club now has to pay rent to Renhe Sports of £750,000 per year until 2043."
Has what we have done the same as the other clubs being complained about ??
I had no idea we'd done this. Yes as per that analysis we have sold our stadium to Renhe and now we rent it off them. That's a big minus in my eyes vis-a-vis the owners. It means when they come to sell the club the club has very few assets, other than its registered players and its membership of the football league, other than that, zilch. Mind you we all know this, a football club nowadays is only as healthy financially as it attractive to a new buyer once your current benefactor gets bored.
The only thing owners can spend money on exempt from FFP is training facilities, so at least we have an owner prepared to spend on that. In the future our academy and its sold graduates may be our best source of income.
NamelessGreatwesternlineRoyals and Racers This is part of what 3 points wrote in March after studying the accounts
"Just started to take a look through the accounts for both the football club and Renhe Sports Management (its formal UK parent company). Here are some key points coming out for me
1. While we lost £21m (which including a net spend on players of £6.8m), the club actually burnt through £27m in cash. This was basically funded by new shares of £15m plus £12m of loans from the parent company (Renhe Sports) to the RFC company
2. The stadium has been moved from RFC to Renhe Sports. Basically, the football club no longer owns its own ground. I assume that is in consideration for the £27m of cash thrown at the football operations.
3. As a consequence of 2) the club now has to pay rent to Renhe Sports of £750,000 per year until 2043."
Has what we have done the same as the other clubs being complained about ??
I had no idea we'd done this. Yes as per that analysis we have sold our stadium to Renhe and now we rent it off them. That's a big minus in my eyes vis-a-vis the owners. It means when they come to sell the club the club has very few assets, other than its registered players and its membership of the football league, other than that, zilch. Mind you we all know this, a football club nowadays is only as healthy financially as it attractive to a new buyer once your current benefactor gets bored.
The only thing owners can spend money on exempt from FFP is training facilities, so at least we have an owner prepared to spend on that. In the future our academy and its sold graduates may be our best source of income.
1. If the owners injected £27 million in return for the ground then that money kept us afloat. An asset is useless if you can’t use the value in some way
2. If they decide to sell then they can sell the ground as well. It’s irrelevant what assets the club has as it is the owners who might have to sell for a lower price. The proceeds from a sale don’t go to the club, they go to the owners. Plus lots of clubs don’t own their ground (Man City, West Ham, Chelsea , just about every club in Europe)
3. The Academy is not the only exemption for FFP. Spending on the ground is also not counted
I also think there is an element of FFP which is flexible. Birmingham didn’t get their points deduction just for overspending. They got it because they ignored warnings that they were over spending and also breached a transfer ban. I believe part of what we are doing is making it very clear to the authorities that we are taking plenty of action to try and meet FFP rules so if we don’t quite do it we have a good case for leniency. Bear in mind what Nigel Howe’s Previous job was, he will not only know the rules but how they are interpreted and what wriggle room there is.
GreatwesternlineNamelessGreatwesternline
I had no idea we'd done this. Yes as per that analysis we have sold our stadium to Renhe and now we rent it off them. That's a big minus in my eyes vis-a-vis the owners. It means when they come to sell the club the club has very few assets, other than its registered players and its membership of the football league, other than that, zilch. Mind you we all know this, a football club nowadays is only as healthy financially as it attractive to a new buyer once your current benefactor gets bored.
The only thing owners can spend money on exempt from FFP is training facilities, so at least we have an owner prepared to spend on that. In the future our academy and its sold graduates may be our best source of income.
1. If the owners injected £27 million in return for the ground then that money kept us afloat. An asset is useless if you can’t use the value in some way
2. If they decide to sell then they can sell the ground as well. It’s irrelevant what assets the club has as it is the owners who might have to sell for a lower price. The proceeds from a sale don’t go to the club, they go to the owners. Plus lots of clubs don’t own their ground (Man City, West Ham, Chelsea , just about every club in Europe)
3. The Academy is not the only exemption for FFP. Spending on the ground is also not counted
I also think there is an element of FFP which is flexible. Birmingham didn’t get their points deduction just for overspending. They got it because they ignored warnings that they were over spending and also breached a transfer ban. I believe part of what we are doing is making it very clear to the authorities that we are taking plenty of action to try and meet FFP rules so if we don’t quite do it we have a good case for leniency. Bear in mind what Nigel Howe’s Previous job was, he will not only know the rules but how they are interpreted and what wriggle room there is.
One of the reasons you as a club might want to keep ownership of your stadium is who will own it in the future. Coventry had no problem allowing their local authority to own the stadium, until they hit hard times, as did the local authority, who chose to sell it to a rugby club instead. You'd rather an owner who simply pumps money in as equity rather than loans secured against stadiums. Obviously we dont get to choose, but not owning your own stadium can really screw you over depending on how things turn out in the future. It relies on to a certain extent the benevolence of the owner to keep the club and the ground together when selling it in the future. If they find a developer who wants the land more for something else, but isn't interested in buying the football club, you can see what the opportunities the separation of the two entities might provide.
muirinhoGreatwesternlineNameless
1. If the owners injected £27 million in return for the ground then that money kept us afloat. An asset is useless if you can’t use the value in some way
2. If they decide to sell then they can sell the ground as well. It’s irrelevant what assets the club has as it is the owners who might have to sell for a lower price. The proceeds from a sale don’t go to the club, they go to the owners. Plus lots of clubs don’t own their ground (Man City, West Ham, Chelsea , just about every club in Europe)
3. The Academy is not the only exemption for FFP. Spending on the ground is also not counted
I also think there is an element of FFP which is flexible. Birmingham didn’t get their points deduction just for overspending. They got it because they ignored warnings that they were over spending and also breached a transfer ban. I believe part of what we are doing is making it very clear to the authorities that we are taking plenty of action to try and meet FFP rules so if we don’t quite do it we have a good case for leniency. Bear in mind what Nigel Howe’s Previous job was, he will not only know the rules but how they are interpreted and what wriggle room there is.
One of the reasons you as a club might want to keep ownership of your stadium is who will own it in the future. Coventry had no problem allowing their local authority to own the stadium, until they hit hard times, as did the local authority, who chose to sell it to a rugby club instead. You'd rather an owner who simply pumps money in as equity rather than loans secured against stadiums. Obviously we dont get to choose, but not owning your own stadium can really screw you over depending on how things turn out in the future. It relies on to a certain extent the benevolence of the owner to keep the club and the ground together when selling it in the future. If they find a developer who wants the land more for something else, but isn't interested in buying the football club, you can see what the opportunities the separation of the two entities might provide.
As the stadium is a public amenity or something (forget the actual term), it's unlikely they'd ever be able to sell it for development.
However, what could happen is they sell it on to somebody who proceeds to gouge the club for rent. And leverages their asset as much as they can by maybe letting it to another club also. And skimps on ground refurbishment etc etc.
But - that could also happen if it was owned by the club, if the club owners chose to do so.
NamelessmuirinhoGreatwesternline
One of the reasons you as a club might want to keep ownership of your stadium is who will own it in the future. Coventry had no problem allowing their local authority to own the stadium, until they hit hard times, as did the local authority, who chose to sell it to a rugby club instead. You'd rather an owner who simply pumps money in as equity rather than loans secured against stadiums. Obviously we dont get to choose, but not owning your own stadium can really screw you over depending on how things turn out in the future. It relies on to a certain extent the benevolence of the owner to keep the club and the ground together when selling it in the future. If they find a developer who wants the land more for something else, but isn't interested in buying the football club, you can see what the opportunities the separation of the two entities might provide.
As the stadium is a public amenity or something (forget the actual term), it's unlikely they'd ever be able to sell it for development.
However, what could happen is they sell it on to somebody who proceeds to gouge the club for rent. And leverages their asset as much as they can by maybe letting it to another club also. And skimps on ground refurbishment etc etc.
But - that could also happen if it was owned by the club, if the club owners chose to do so.
Asset of Community Value.
Offers very minimal protection, in theory I think if the owners want to sell it they have to give community groups the chance to buy it. Realistically I can’t see STARbeing able to raise £20 million plus !
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests