By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
17 mill and transfer embargo on 09:42 - Jul 27 by Mytch_QPR
Thanks, Clive.
I know you mentioned an article later today - which will be interesting (in a teeth gritting kind of way), but are we now clear of FFP for the foreseeable future? - as you have mentioned and we're well aware we've continued to operate at a loss, so I'm wondering whether we'll fall foul (albeit in a smaller way) for the next 3 year period. I know that losses up to a certain percentage of turnover are acceptable, so hopefully we're now within these limits.
Current FFP regs are £39m loss over rolling three year periods. First two sets of accounts we lost £11m and £7m which is good, but with reduced parachute payment and no Sterling money the losses in the third set of accounts may well be more than that and put us close to the mark.
0
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:02 - Jul 27 with 2410 views
17 mill and transfer embargo on 09:59 - Jul 27 by Northernr
There's no money to buy players anyway so it makes little difference.
But Sainsbury trying to get over the line a permanent deal, prior to embargo, for loadsamoney seems like bad mad old spending a la Chris Samba from China? How's that possible with these austere conditions?
'I'm 18 with a bullet.Got my finger on the trigger,I'm gonna pull it.."
Love,Peace and Fook Chelski!
More like 20StoneOfHoop now.
Let's face it I'm not getting any thinner.
Pass the cake and pies please.
0
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:03 - Jul 27 with 2403 views
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:02 - Jul 27 by 18StoneOfHoop
But Sainsbury trying to get over the line a permanent deal, prior to embargo, for loadsamoney seems like bad mad old spending a la Chris Samba from China? How's that possible with these austere conditions?
17 mill and transfer embargo on 09:53 - Jul 27 by Stanisgod
Glad everyone thinks the transfer embargo is cushy
I don't, but you compare when we've gotten it (essentially 3/4 years afterwards) and it means that unlike other teams who've been strung for their talent and left unable to replace it, we've been able to move those players on and built a more robust (albeit probably lower mid table) squad that's as unlikely to be pillaged.
It's gonna be bloody tough, but it's a much better situation than say Blackburn or Forest got imo
1
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:14 - Jul 27 with 2294 views
17 mill and transfer embargo on 09:02 - Jul 27 by DejR_vu
Good to finally have a resolution.
Not convinced having the fine payable over 10 years is necessarily a good thing. Think it could be quite a cross to bear given what the ABC loan did to us. This way it will become a liability on the balance sheet so that, to me, is death by a thousand cuts as we can barely survive now with parachute money and no £1.7m annual liability. If the club is sold, it will be taken in to account in the sale price but the cub's effectively worthless as an asset to the owners anyway given the external debt so this won't make any difference to the value they would receive i.e. Once the debt exceeds the value of the club it doesn't make any difference if the debt is £100 more or £100m more, it becomes worthless as an asset either way. This is not the same as the owners covering the debt unless they inject the full amount now and place the funds in ESCROW to meet future liabilities as they become due.
That's about right.
Also, if the club is sold I assume the portion of the £17m owed will still be the football clubs debt. Not quite how TF sold it to us at the end of last season interview.
I'm loving how some people seem made up that the club now has an extra £17m of debt to see off and the added bonus of not having the tiresome issue of searching for players from the start of next year.
RE-FÚCKING-SULT.
0
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:16 - Jul 27 with 2259 views
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:14 - Jul 27 by stevec
That's about right.
Also, if the club is sold I assume the portion of the £17m owed will still be the football clubs debt. Not quite how TF sold it to us at the end of last season interview.
I'm loving how some people seem made up that the club now has an extra £17m of debt to see off and the added bonus of not having the tiresome issue of searching for players from the start of next year.
RE-FÚCKING-SULT.
all relative though, 17 million paid over 10 years is better than 41 million paid now
It's not great by any stretch but we broke the rules so were always going to get some kind of fine
1
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:18 - Jul 27 with 2241 views
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:14 - Jul 27 by stevec
That's about right.
Also, if the club is sold I assume the portion of the £17m owed will still be the football clubs debt. Not quite how TF sold it to us at the end of last season interview.
I'm loving how some people seem made up that the club now has an extra £17m of debt to see off and the added bonus of not having the tiresome issue of searching for players from the start of next year.
RE-FÚCKING-SULT.
Did you think we were just going to get a slap on the wrist? It's was a flagrant, disgusting breach of the rules. Also it doesn't saddle the club with debt if they continue to convert the money owed to them into equity.
This post has been edited by an administrator
3
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:25 - Jul 27 with 2179 views
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:01 - Jul 27 by Northernr
Current FFP regs are £39m loss over rolling three year periods. First two sets of accounts we lost £11m and £7m which is good, but with reduced parachute payment and no Sterling money the losses in the third set of accounts may well be more than that and put us close to the mark.
Thanks for this post Clive.
What supporters need to understand is that IF the loss for last season was circas £15 million (a figure I plucked from thin air & just as an illustration) that would give us a combined loss of £23 million going into this season. Thus we would need to keep the loss for 2018/19 to less than £16 million to stay within FFP. If the loss for 2017/18 was £20 million, we would have a target of a loss less than £11 million to make!
Therefore, we still have no money to spend on transfers & need to cut costs a lot more!
IMO our owners have come out of this dispute a lot more favourably than they deserved.
0
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:25 - Jul 27 with 2177 views
I don't want to be niave here but this sounds like bluddy good news - or at least as good as it could possibly be under the circs - if these stories are confirmed in the upcoming press release.
Yes, £17m is a hit, but should not hurt us too much over a 10 year period. And an embargo for Jan 2019 as probably no bad thing (when has a 'non-embargo' in Jan ever helped us in reality??) if McClaren can do some smart business next month (Aug). Have to wonder whether that embargo includes emergency loans in Jan if winter injuries cripple us - I suspect not.
Have to say well done to Tony, Les and Lee at thi sstage if this is all true. Bottom line is we knowingly broke the rules - we were always going to get something. This seems like the least worst outcome.
[Post edited 27 Jul 2018 10:28]
2
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:30 - Jul 27 with 2117 views
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:25 - Jul 27 by loftus77
Thanks to Clive and others.
I don't want to be niave here but this sounds like bluddy good news - or at least as good as it could possibly be under the circs - if these stories are confirmed in the upcoming press release.
Yes, £17m is a hit, but should not hurt us too much over a 10 year period. And an embargo for Jan 2019 as probably no bad thing (when has a 'non-embargo' in Jan ever helped us in reality??) if McClaren can do some smart business next month (Aug). Have to wonder whether that embargo includes emergency loans in Jan if winter injuries cripple us - I suspect not.
Have to say well done to Tony, Les and Lee at thi sstage if this is all true. Bottom line is we knowingly broke the rules - we were always going to get something. This seems like the least worst outcome.
[Post edited 27 Jul 2018 10:28]
0
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:33 - Jul 27 with 2091 views
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:18 - Jul 27 by Northernr
Did you think we were just going to get a slap on the wrist? It's was a flagrant, disgusting breach of the rules. Also it doesn't saddle the club with debt if they continue to convert the money owed to them into equity.
This post has been edited by an administrator
They don’t even have to convert their loans. Shareholder loans are debt purely from accounting perspective. In reality it’s just gives the shareholder who put money in ranking ahead of his other shareholders.
0
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:34 - Jul 27 with 2077 views
It's worth remembering that the shareholder loans that have been capitalised carried a very high rate of interest which, without checking the figures, I would guess amounted to a bigger annual cost than the £1.7m we need to pay the EFL every year. Seems like a really good financial outcome to me.
0
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:38 - Jul 27 with 2023 views
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:25 - Jul 27 by loftus77
Thanks to Clive and others.
I don't want to be niave here but this sounds like bluddy good news - or at least as good as it could possibly be under the circs - if these stories are confirmed in the upcoming press release.
Yes, £17m is a hit, but should not hurt us too much over a 10 year period. And an embargo for Jan 2019 as probably no bad thing (when has a 'non-embargo' in Jan ever helped us in reality??) if McClaren can do some smart business next month (Aug). Have to wonder whether that embargo includes emergency loans in Jan if winter injuries cripple us - I suspect not.
Have to say well done to Tony, Les and Lee at thi sstage if this is all true. Bottom line is we knowingly broke the rules - we were always going to get something. This seems like the least worst outcome.
[Post edited 27 Jul 2018 10:28]
I'd be interested to know how exaactly this £17m is being treated by the owners. Accounting convention would dictate that we have to write it off now as an expense. The settlement over ten years is just 'terms of payment' - nothing to do with the write off of the expense. So have they been asked to put up the money 'up front' via this loan conversion? I would assume so. So in that respect it's all dealt with.
However, they'll have to pay over £1.7m every year and there's no obligation to convert loans for other reasons into capital (ie to cover ordinary footballing losses). So will they try to get that £1.7m out of normal trading (they'll obviously fail to achieve that most seasons unless we get promoted) and will it affect how we go about rebuilding the club from now on?
Ideally they just take the hit and move forward the way that we've been doing in the last few years. If the fine further reduces our capacity to move forward then that would be sad - we're restricted enough as it is.
0
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:39 - Jul 27 with 2013 views
17 mill and transfer embargo on 10:46 - Jul 27 by Snipper
So in reality, the best we can ever hope for now supporting our club, is being a mid to lower table Championship club.
FFP severally restricts what we can do, while clubs with bigger gates/revenue, get bigger, we stagnate.
If it wasn’t for the piss up with mates before and after the games, I’d jack it all in.
No. If the club stays in the Championship this season there is nothing to stop the owners throwing the dice again and doing a Wolves next season.
Let's be honest, the sums of money on FFP are chicken-feed for the owners. I am not advocating that approach, but given their long-term commitment to the club and future plans, staying in the Championship does not cut it. Interesting times ahead.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
