89.7 m losses

DagenhamFox said:
What was he on, a reported £10m per year? How long did he have left on his contract, two, three years?

Any pay off would have been nearer to £20m than £10m in my opinion. Plus others in his back room staff.

I’d have rather put him on gardening leave and left him to rot while slowly paying off his contract.
Click to expand...
A hit man would have bumped him off for a hundred grand
 
How is it that if clubs like Chelsea have used long term contracts to dodge compliance, then they surely still can't avoid hiding the colossal salaries they pay their players ?
The £35M a year allowed, surely soon gets swallowed up with wages and that's without the net transfers added in.
 
Just checked and it isn't index-linked, unlike the fairer UEFA squad cost ratio rules.
Stability versus competition is not the correct way to govern football.
We have owners with deep pockets, but they are forbidden to compete with bigger clubs through speculation and ambition.
Man City lost money for years in pursuit of success and they found it, made profits and filled their trophy cabinet.
Add in Covid, inflation (and wages), cost of living increases, Brexit (yes Brexit) and all other market instabilities of late - and the PSR process is an utter joke.
Yet fans get mardy with the club...
Rather than a system designed to keep the rich at the top and stop anyone else joining them.
 
Brauny said:
How is it that if clubs like Chelsea have used long term contracts to dodge compliance, then they surely still can't avoid hiding the colossal salaries they pay their players ?
The £35M a year allowed, surely soon gets swallowed up with wages and that's without the net transfers added in.
Click to expand...
Err, perhaps because they are a BCC?
 
Chelsea have been handing out ludicrous long-term player contracts.
They will come unstuck with this strategy...but are probably hoping for a rule change...
 
Brauny said:
The £35M a year allowed, surely soon gets swallowed up with wages and that's without the net transfers added in
Click to expand...
It's £105m in total over 3 years allowed but to your point Chelsea and the like have turnover that is much, much larger (and that is before you take into account what Chelsea in particular bring in in transfers from selling youth products). Take our best year for turnover and double it. Unsurprisingly the wages are equally significantly higher (though Chelsea in particular are already potentially on the hook for rule breaches for I think undisclosed payments and you'd think that failure to qualify for Europe alongside significant spending must be pushing them close to the limits).
 
Chelsea's net transfers over the last 2 seasons is a staggering -£632M.
I presume that's just the agreed transfer money and doesn't even include salaries.

So what income do they have to reach a minimum of £527M to comply with the regs based on transfers alone ?
Not forgetting the huge salary that's not included in those figures.
 
Just looked it up and their wage bill was £153M for the 23_24 season.

So over the last 2 seasons the net transfers and salaries amount to approximately £900M.

So they would need approximately £400M per season to get anywhere near compliance ?
 
Brauny said:
Chelsea's net transfers over the last 2 seasons is a staggering -£632M.
I presume that's just the agreed transfer money and doesn't even include salaries.

So what income do they have to reach a minimum of £527M to comply with the regs based on transfers alone ?
Not forgetting the huge salary that's not included in those figures.
Click to expand...
As sixthswan says, that is not how it works as the fees are recognised across the life of the contract.
 
buz_not_buzz said:
Assuming you mean Chelsea, I don't know where you found that but their total Wages & Salaries for all staff in 2021/22 was £274m.
Click to expand...

I bow to your knowledge, I am simply trying to get my head around why these clubs are seemingly on a completely different scale.
These are staggering sums that even with all the income they receive will still make it unlikely that there is compliance.
I think we have right to know the loopholes they are using that imo is cheating everyone else.
 
I've been wondering why Leicester got themselves in this situation.
Sticking with Rodgers is one of the reasons.
Which led to a drop off the cliff, in terms of season targets and a £30m drop in placing revenue.
His compensation package will have been north of £10m as well.

Inflation, extra costs out of our control etc...have been discussed.

I'm still unsure how much we can offset from our investments in areas that are designed to increase our profitability and sustainability. We've put a lot into infrastructure, stadium planning, grassroots and women's football and the community. Those investments have been very substantial. We aren't evenly remotely skint and very sustainable.

Until the new fast-track PSR came into place (after we were relegated), there hadn't been a single PL club punished under FFP/PSR.
Not until Everton.
With the threat of the Super League and the prospect of an independent regulator - the Premier League decided after years of indifference, to flex its muscles and start actually looking at club accounts. Hence the fast-track process.

At the worst possible time for us...
 
Brauny said:
I bow to your knowledge, I am simply trying to get my head around why these clubs are seemingly on a completely different scale.
These are staggering sums that even with all the income they receive will still make it unlikely that there is compliance.
I think we have right to know the loopholes they are using that imo is cheating everyone else.
Click to expand...

One of the BCCs, the fictitious one, Spurs - have reported a loss pretty similar to ours...
 
Spurs have lost £232m in the rolling three years, but no breach due to an annual £72m depreciation on the new stadium...
 
Brauny said:
I bow to your knowledge, I am simply trying to get my head around why these clubs are seemingly on a completely different scale.
These are staggering sums that even with all the income they receive will still make it unlikely that there is compliance.
I think we have right to know the loopholes they are using that imo is cheating everyone else.
Click to expand...
I'd say that first and foremost Chelsea, Liverpool & Man Utd and to a lesser extent Arsenal built up huge revenue streams in days when the finance rules were not so strict, they have had a head start. Man City nearly missed the boat and, according to UEFA and probably the EPL if they are including the same breaches in the charges they face, might have missed it had they not been allowed to potentially disguise equity as sponsorship. Tottenham are the interesting ones who appear to have joined the club in terms of revenues I guess through a combination of increasing revenue with the new ground and managing to both under achieve (in terms of trophies) & over achieve (in terms of regular European football) at the same time.

One thing Chelsea do seem fond of is recognising impairment in player values (writing down) which can make them appear to have huge losses (but is allowable) but I do wonder about who is verifying that as they could potentially use it to reduce contract amortisation and increase profit on player sales. You'd like to think that someone independently who is a football expert is agreeing that such impairment is correct.
 
buz_not_buzz said:
It is total adjusted losses over each 3 year cycle not an average over the 3 years (well, apart from the 2 COVID years which were averaged to give the loss for each season but each season is added to the total for the respective 3 year cycle).
Click to expand...
Sorry, yes I did mean the three year aggregated total, up to a max of £105m. My point was that if last year (year 3 of the previous cycle) we were still compliant, is it likely that now (taking years 2,3 and 4 as a new cycle), that surpluses from years 2 and 3 might offset some of the Y4 losses, and our situation might not be as bad as these figures alone suggest?
 
sixthswan said:
Spurs have lost £232m in the rolling three years, but no breach due to an annual £72m depreciation on the new stadium...
Click to expand...
Yeah and when you take into account women, youth, community etc. they are probably nowhere near though this year without European football might make it a little more interesting.
 
There are substantial depreciation values linked to our stadium and Belvoir Drive in the accounts, but I can't tell if we've used these as exclusions in our reported loss - or if they would relate to a PSR calculation? For some reason, we didn't report depreciation on Seagrave?
 
wints said:
Sorry, yes I did mean the three year aggregated total, up to a max of £105m. My point was that if last year (year 3 of the previous cycle) we were still compliant, is it likely that now (taking years 2,3 and 4 as a new cycle), that surpluses from years 2 and 3 might offset some of the Y4 losses, and our situation might not be as bad as these figures alone suggest?
Click to expand...
It's really hard to know for sure exactly. We made losses in each of those years though. Just as examples as I really have no idea:

From what we know, if I was to hazard a guess I'd say if we take it that the £100m of losses made across the 2019/20 & 2020/21 COVID seasons were adjusted for c£50m of COVID losses, around £6m of depreciation and say £14m for other allowable add-backs making c£30m / 2 that would = £15m adjusted losses averaged across each season so c£15m for years 1 & 2.

Say the £92m loss in 2022 (year 3) was adjusted for another small COVID deduction, £10m in depreciation etc. plus another £10m for women's football, youth football, community = c£70m (which would have brought us just under in 2021/22).

And then for year 4 we have a little less depreciation but we spent more on the other add-backs and we get it back down to c£65m. That would mean an overspend of £45m on years 2, 3 & 4. But it will all be on those add-backs as to the true extent. I am hoping that the figures for Youth Football, Women's Football & community mean a lot more in terms of add-backs.
 
sixthswan said:
There are substantial depreciation values linked to our stadium and Belvoir Drive in the accounts, but I can't tell if we've used these as exclusions in our reported loss - or if they would relate to a PSR calculation? For some reason, we didn't report depreciation on Seagrave?
Click to expand...

The are in the reported loss, they should be added back in for the PSR calculation.

From what I can see depreciation on Seagrave for the year was £3,370,000 according to the accounts the club posted yesterday.
 
buz_not_buzz said:
I'd say that first and foremost Chelsea, Liverpool & Man Utd and to a lesser extent Arsenal built up huge revenue streams in days when the finance rules were not so strict, they have had a head start. Man City nearly missed the boat and, according to UEFA and probably the EPL if they are including the same breaches in the charges they face, might have missed it had they not been allowed to potentially disguise equity as sponsorship. Tottenham are the interesting ones who appear to have joined the club in terms of revenues I guess through a combination of increasing revenue with the new ground and managing to both under achieve (in terms of trophies) & over achieve (in terms of regular European football) at the same time.
Click to expand...

So what revenue streams are we talking about?
The TV money, Premier League money and Euro competitions all have stated amounts of money. There are variables according to the teams success in a competition.

Beyond that, selling merchandise ?
 
Brauny said:
So what revenue streams are we talking about?
The TV money, Premier League money and Euro competitions all have stated amounts of money. There are variables according to the teams success in a competition.

Beyond that, selling merchandise ?
Click to expand...
Essentially sponsorship and, yes, selling merchandise. Comparing 2022's figures for LCFC vs CFC is not exactly like for like as they use different buckets but assuming that for Chelsea Broadcasting includes UEFA money and that Commercial includes sponsorship.

Broadcasting/UEFA: LCFC £151m vs CFC £235m
Commercial: LCFC c£40m vs CFC £150m

And LCFC reported gate receipts of £21m vs CFC's match day revenues of £67m

So, yes the Broadcasting will fluctuate depending on success or otherwise (and Chelsea will have lost a huge chunk of that from not being in Europe) but the rest of it is significantly larger... and you can also see why they are desperate to try and unlock more revenue at Stamford Bridge because I think they are falling behind the 2 Manchester clubs and Liverpool.
 
Last edited:
buz_not_buzz said:
The are in the reported loss, they should be added back in for the PSR calculation.

From what I can see depreciation on Seagrave for the year was £3,370,000 according to the accounts the club posted yesterday.
Click to expand...
Seagrave is property, how has it depreciated?
 
sixthswan said:
Spurs have lost £232m in the rolling three years, but no breach due to an annual £72m depreciation on the new stadium...
Click to expand...
Is that the new stadium where they broke PL rules by playing home games at more than one ground in a season and got away with it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top