Financial Fair Play

[SWLR]

Half-listening to Gomes on BBCRB on the way to the game, I'm sure he said the Bacuna sale was necessary to ensure we stay within FFP rules. Didn't really understand, but are we close to doing a QPR?
Get that right?

[Mid Sussex Royal]

I can understand why we would be close....biggest squad in history, several players on renegotiated contracts and gates well down....in addition it looks like advertising revenue is well down.

[Nameless]

Doubt we are even close to doing a QPR.
They simply ignored the rules and spent way more than they should have. And got away with it.
If the Bacuna sale kept us within the rules then we’re keeping to the rules, which is very different to what QPR did.
Quite a few other clubs have had transfer embargoes imposed (Sheffield Wed, Birmingham, Forest ?) although can’t recall if they were FFP breaches.

[Elm Park Kid]

I can understand why we would be close....biggest squad in history, several players on renegotiated contracts and gates well down....in addition it looks like advertising revenue is well down.

But to be close we'd have had to lose £39m combined in this season and the previous two. We made a profit of 5m in 2016/17 - so that means an average lose of over £20m in both last and this season. That doesn't seem likely to me - and selling Bacuna doesn't seem like it would make a massive amount of difference. The punishment for being £3m over the target must be pretty low.

I guess that actually they are talking about their own target of not losing more than £13m season, which is certainly possible and would make more sense for Bacuna's sale.

[Nameless]

I can understand why we would be close....biggest squad in history, several players on renegotiated contracts and gates well down....in addition it looks like advertising revenue is well down.

But to be close we'd have had to lose £39m combined in this season and the previous two. We made a profit of 5m in 2016/17 - so that means an average lose of over £20m in both last and this season. That doesn't seem likely to me - and selling Bacuna doesn't seem like it would make a massive amount of difference. The punishment for being £3m over the target must be pretty low.

I guess that actually they are talking about their own target of not losing more than £13m season, which is certainly possible and would make more sense for Bacuna's sale.

Our financial controller may also be keeping an eye on future seasons and sticking to targets which avoidus getting into crisis next season or the season after.

[From Despair To Where?]

FFP or not, we'd have been mental to turn down a £3.5m deal for Bacuna

[Hound]

I suspect FFP is just being used as a convenient phrase, when in reality its more about preparing for a possible relegation. Which is fair enough and sensible

[WoodleyRoyal]

FFP or not, we'd have been mental to turn down a £3.5m deal for Bacuna

100% this. even if we were nowhere near FFP sanctions we cannot turn down an offer like that

[Maneki Neko]

I suspect FFP is just being used as a convenient phrase, when in reality its more about preparing for a possible relegation. Which is fair enough and sensible

this

[Moonfish]

I suspect FFP is just being used as a convenient phrase, when in reality its more about preparing for a possible relegation. Which is fair enough and sensible

this

+1

This whole transfer window has been about protecting the club from FFP in the event of relegation.

We sold two players for c. £3m each, shifted a few others out to reduce the wage bill further, and signed five players on loan so we have no commitment there past the end of the season.

[Nameless]

Not sure it is quite so black and white.
If ALL we were doing was reducing our financial commitments we could have probably got away with not taking any players on loan (none of whom will have come cheap). A 4th senior keeper is absolutely not financially sensible, we’ll be paying Oliviera 2 or 3 times what we paid McNulty, we could have coped without Miazaga or the lad from Liverpool and Kelly can do the same job Baker is doing with Ezatolahi back soon to boost things.
We’d have been thin on the ground but we’ll be spending 750k or soon the loanees.
Getting the finances clearly under control is clearly a big thing but we’ve managed to both improve those whilst also addressing the playing side.

[winchester_royal]

I can understand why we would be close....biggest squad in history, several players on renegotiated contracts and gates well down....in addition it looks like advertising revenue is well down.

But to be close we'd have had to lose £39m combined in this season and the previous two. We made a profit of 5m in 2016/17 - so that means an average lose of over £20m in both last and this season. That doesn't seem likely to me - and selling Bacuna doesn't seem like it would make a massive amount of difference. The punishment for being £3m over the target must be pretty low.

I can't remember exactly, but I think I recall that profit being driven by sale of land around the stadium to a separate company owned by the Thais?

The FFP rules are pretty strict as to what can be included in the P/L for FFP purposes and I'll be very surprised if that wasn't adjusted out.

[Nameless]

I can understand why we would be close....biggest squad in history, several players on renegotiated contracts and gates well down....in addition it looks like advertising revenue is well down.

But to be close we'd have had to lose £39m combined in this season and the previous two. We made a profit of 5m in 2016/17 - so that means an average lose of over £20m in both last and this season. That doesn't seem likely to me - and selling Bacuna doesn't seem like it would make a massive amount of difference. The punishment for being £3m over the target must be pretty low.

I can't remember exactly, but I think I recall that profit being driven by sale of land around the stadium to a separate company owned by the Thais?

The FFP rules are pretty strict as to what can be included in the P/L for FFP purposes and I'll be very surprised if that wasn't adjusted out.

Actually given the rules are pretty strict it is clear that the sale of land would definitely be a valid source of income. There are 8 specified income sources which can be taken into account, one of which is ‘tangible fixed assets’. I would imagine the only way it would not be allowed would be if the land was sold at a price way above a reasonable market value (similar to Man City selling media rights to their women’s team for tens of millions)

[Elm Park Kid]

This tweet and others from the 'Price of Football' twitter give an interesting insight into championship finances:

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 9932824576

According to the figures - Reading lost £8m in the period (I think 17-18) - but that was one of the lowest losses in the league.

We also have one of the lowest 'transfer spending + wages ~ total income' ratios in the league.

If these figures are correct it would suggest that our owners are much less willing that others to spend money - and that Financial Fair Play can't explain that as otherwise there would be 18-19 clubs in the same situation.

[Hendo]

This tweet and others from the 'Price of Football' twitter give an interesting insight into championship finances:

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 9932824576

According to the figures - Reading lost £8m in the period (I think 17-18) - but that was one of the lowest losses in the league.

We also have one of the lowest 'transfer spending + wages ~ total income' ratios in the league.

If these figures are correct it would suggest that our owners are much less willing that others to spend money - and that Financial Fair Play can't explain that as otherwise there would be 18-19 clubs in the same situation.

Or other owners are willing to push the boundaries as far as FFP is concerned.

See Birmingham as a good example.

[From Despair To Where?]

According to that, at 86%, we are one of only 7 clubs who's wage bill was less than 100% of total income.

No surprise that Birmingham topped the list at 243%.

To be honest, I'd rather see us being run as sustainably as possible than sticking the family silver on a 20-1 shot.

[Ranty McRantface]

According to that, at 86%, we are one of only 7 clubs who's wage bill was less than 100% of total income.

No surprise that Birmingham topped the list at 243%.

To be honest, I'd rather see us being run as sustainably as possible than sticking the family silver on a 20-1 shot.

Good money management from the owners and it allows the rest of the clubs strategy to synergise nicely. You keep your wages and spending below your total income and concentrate more on promoting players from within on relatively low wages.

[Elm Park Kid]

According to that, at 86%, we are one of only 7 clubs who's wage bill was less than 100% of total income.

No surprise that Birmingham topped the list at 243%.

To be honest, I'd rather see us being run as sustainably as possible than sticking the family silver on a 20-1 shot.

I completely agree. But then we have to tailor our expectations accordingly.

The only way you achieve success as a low spending team if through long term planning, stability and confidence in youth development.

[Vision]

Have we released our figures for year ending 2018 yet?

I've a feeling that the figures quoted here are for our play-off season (Stam's first season).

If that's the case it doesn't take into consideration our last two disastrous summer transfer windows which we're still trying to recover from.

[windermereROYAL]

£197 outgoing on wages to every £100 of income in 2018. only Birmingham fared worse than that with £202. Wolves were £192, and they were champions

finance.png (197.7 KiB) Viewed 27093 times