Losses last season alone.. Fulham - £94.4m loss Bristol City - £38.4m loss Reading - £35.7m loss Middlesbrough - £30.8m loss Preston North End - £13.5m loss Millwall - £13.1m loss Cardiff City - £11.2m loss Hull City - £8.15m loss
The clubs that fell foul of FFP did so with quite some style, nobody knows quite how bad Derby's were as they stop filing accounts, but Reading made operating losses of £43.5million, compared to £40.7million the previous year, while accumulated losses totalled £138million.
Yeah the add-ons was something I brought up today as that's definitely additional income as it wouldn't be recognised when the original transfer takes place.
This is something I was trying to get my head around today in the discussion, plenty of other clubs are racking up debts but don't seem to be running into trouble with the EFL and I'm not quite sure why.
I'm not sure it's been mentioned but Tan confirmed that the Nwakaeme deal has collapsed. So who knows if Lue is right about the FFP
If he's right and it's for the reason Orange suggested (that his contract would put us over in the next two years) then we're not making any more signings that would exceed the value of his contract for the next two years. So basically, no.
I haven't read all this FFP thread but I had a quick scroll and didn't see it. Lue is somewhat reliable but I certainly wouldn't trust everything he says See who these next 2 signings are
The suggestion that Nuakeme's contract would have put us over the 39m loss cap once our profit two years ago rolls out next year. Would mean we're not making a single other signing without any sales. I thought perhaps there was a wage limit like in the PL but there isn't.
He claimed that the deal was all agreed and would go ahead once we've resolved FFP issues, but the deal's not going ahead due to daft player demands, rather than any FFP issue.
I'll throw my hat into the ring and say we were expecting to move Wilkes on and that hasn't happened.
It seems the punishment comes when the EFL decide. I expect there would be discussions with the clubs first about how much equity they are going to put in. Stoke's owners have converted loans into shares in the past to avoid penalties. A quite look through Google show a number of clubs are worried about facing points deductions this season. For ffp the losses may be less than reported as there are a number of items of expenditure that can be written off to reduce the losses. How much a club pays for its academy is one.
I'm not misunderstanding anything, that said seems that what you've just stated amounts to what I'm saying, we're just using different words. I'm not getting into the semantics. Bit like Ernie Morecambe and Andre Previn........As Eric said, I'm playing all the right notes, just not in the right order! As for FFP I've not made any comment about it!
With respect, you stepped in to correct me when it sounds like I was saying what you were from the start - as I've not changed what I said - so I do think you were misunderstanding. The point about FFP was that was my original context for explaining that revenue is recorded in the year of the sale, regardless of when the cash is received.
You've been sydsplaining to everyone how FFP works regarding transfer income, and getting quite smug about how you understand it and no-one else seems to. Except I think you're wrong. Clubs have the choice of treating transfer fees as income in the year received or amortised over the length of the contract according to the UEFA FFP rules which cover European club football. As far as I know the EFL sets the FFP limits (i.e. £39m over 3 years) but not the nuts and bolts of the accounting rules which are set by UEFA. This article explains the rules, it took me 5 seconds to Google it. https://www.linklaters.com/en/insig.../player-transfers-ffp-and-the-break-even-test
I corrected you originally because what you stated at the time was categorically wrong! Back to semantics. Last response on the subject from me, it's bloody boring!
The length of what contract? The player is no longer at the club. The length of his contract with his new club? And if they sell him after a year? Not sure that makes much sense. Sorry if that's 'sydsplaining'. Your link also says nothing of the sort. The amortisation is the purchase fee, not the selling fee. The two scenarios both indicate that selling the player results in the income being recognised in that period. The difference is in the treatment of the purchase price. It took you 5 seconds to Google but perhaps you should have spent more than 5 seconds reading it and jumping in here to try and one up me.
LUE suggested it was FFP,. Not me. I am suggesting we have had meetings over FFP with the EFL for a reason as has been confirmed. What reason, we don't know yet.
He's effectively saying we could either book all the KLP fee as profit for FFP in the year sold, or book the income as we receive the payments. That was my understanding but it doesn't change anything because there's pros and cons to doing either, we can't do both and the contracts we're handing out exceed the fee over a number of years anyway.
