• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

ENIC

Finney Is Back said:
Except the limit isn’t 70% yet is it?…. It is 90%. I bet other PL clubs are trying to comply to the limits for the current year instead of complying now with the limits 2 years forward.
Click to expand...

Ok so 90% this year then we have to sell to get to 80% next year and again to get to 70% the year after.

Fans would love that even more.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Actually in theory it is 4 or 5 of them seeing as they are amortised over the length of their contract.
Click to expand...

On the basis you push right up to the limit and omit wages and sign the level of players you and others moan about. Rock on

Does not include improving players contracts either

50m is nowt
 
Finney Is Back said:
Except the limit isn’t 70% yet is it?…. It is 90%. I bet other PL clubs are trying to comply to the limits for the current year instead of complying now with the limits 2 years forward.
Click to expand...
So you're suggesting we spend more now, only to have to cut down on players as the restrictions tighten? I'm not sure I fancy the idea of trying to sell players in a market where everyone is having their spending restricted.

I think it makes perfectly good sense to work to where the limits will be so as not to leave us trying to cut expenditure and improve the squad at the same time.
 
Finney Is Back said:
That’s the whole point of having a core capital ratio requirement it allows you to cover unexpected events. Everything else I trade in/out accordingly.
Click to expand...
If you can trade everything in/out quickly to make those adjustments, great. Most businesses have to treat staff and assets as a semi-fixed cost due to the cost and time required in removing them - football teams with players on long contracts even more so. Then if you take into account the fact that those players are also their main depreciating assets it makes it even more difficult for a team to remain competitive whilst reducing costs quickly.

If we want to keep our best players, they're going to want pay increases in the next few years. We're going to want to buy more players who will likely cost more both in salaries and amortisation than those we currently have. We're likely to have to take a loss on a few players to make room for some too.

If we're to be in a good place in a couple of years time, spending to our limits now only makes that more difficult.
 
scaramanga said:
If you can trade everything in/out quickly to make those adjustments, great. Most businesses have to treat staff and assets as a semi-fixed cost due to the cost and time required in removing them - football teams with players on long contracts even more so. Then if you take into account the fact that those players are also their main depreciating assets it makes it even more difficult for a team to remain competitive whilst reducing costs quickly.

If we want to keep our best players, they're going to want pay increases in the next few years. We're going to want to buy more players who will likely cost more both in salaries and amortisation than those we currently have. We're likely to have to take a loss on a few players to make room for some too.

If we're to be in a good place in a couple of years time, spending to our limits now only makes that more difficult.
Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on

It negates what will be the footballing politics as well in transfer windows. Clubs will know where you are against the line and if you have no wiggle room and need to offload in order to bring in you are likely to play into their hands. I would much rather have the freedom the 50m gives you to bring in who you want without having to worry about clubs playing hard ball on the incoming and outgoings
 
@Finney Is Back I still don't think I've got to the bottom of your views on the stadium debt. My view is that Levy is operating below the FFP limits because we want to build up the cash required to pay off all the stadium debt, which as I understand is in the form of various bonds that mature in 15-30 years. What is your view - that for some reason we're building up cash more quickly than necessary? Or that we're building up the cash at an appropriate rate to pay off all the bonds, but that that's unnecessary because we should be refinancing them before they mature? Or something else?

Edit: Also, what's your view on us having the second highest 'other expenses' in the league, which aren't part of the FFP rules but which the club still have to pay? (And which are seemingly driven by the new stadium, in addition to the debt and interest).

I can see why we would need to operate below the FFP threshold to cover stadium debt, interest and expenses.
 
Last edited:
elltrev said:
@Finney Is Back I still don't think I've got to the bottom of your views on the stadium debt. My view is that Levy is operating below the FFP limits because we want to build up the cash required to pay off all the stadium debt, which as I understand is in the form of various bonds that mature in 15-30 years. What is your view - that for some reason we're building up cash more quickly than necessary? Or that we're building up the cash at an appropriate rate to pay off all the bonds, but that that's unnecessary because we should be refinancing them before they mature? Or something else?

Edit: Also, what's your view on us having the second highest 'other expenses' in the league, which aren't part of the FFP rules but which the club still have to pay? (And which are seemingly driven by the new stadium, in addition to the debt and interest).

I can see why we would need to operate below the FFP threshold to cover stadium debt, interest and expenses.
Click to expand...
My guess (and it is of course only a guess) is that ENIC do not see themselves still owning THFC at maturity of the bonds taken out to pay for construction of the stadium so will leave that as the problem of next set of owners.

As I said when the accounts were published the 'other expenses' concerned me. Of course the accounts aren't detailed enough for us to see exactly what those expenses are. However if they do relate directly to the stadium being open (as one might infer considering the main difference between that year and the year before) then the 'profit' on the stadium is considerably less then any of us had forecast, let alone hoped for. Of course it may be that those 'other' expenses relate to (e.g.) developing real estate in which case we're likely to benefit on that spend at some point in the future (although I don't think I noticed us capitalising any significant costs this year, though didn't have a really detailed look). I suspect we won't really know about those 'other' costs until a year or so's time when the next set of accounts are published and we see whether they have come down again or remained reasonably constant.
 
Finney Is Back said:
My guess (and it is of course only a guess) is that ENIC do not see themselves still owning THFC at maturity of the bonds taken out to pay for construction of the stadium so will leave that as the problem of next set of owners.

As I said when the accounts were published the 'other expenses' concerned me. Of course the accounts aren't detailed enough for us to see exactly what those expenses are. However if they do relate directly to the stadium being open (as one might infer considering the main difference between that year and the year before) then the 'profit' on the stadium is considerably less then any of us had forecast, let alone hoped for. Of course it may be that those 'other' expenses relate to (e.g.) developing real estate in which case we're likely to benefit on that spend at some point in the future (although I don't think I noticed us capitalising any significant costs this year, though didn't have a really detailed look). I suspect we won't really know about those 'other' costs until a year or so's time when the next set of accounts are published and we see whether they have come down again or remained reasonably constant.
Click to expand...

Would the fines for the esl be under other expenses?
 
The governments white paper will be released in the next couple of days. Hopefully there is something in there about clubs being self sufficient. There likely will be something about redistribution of wealth. Meaning less money for the prem. Going to be interesting.

Edit - will be out tomorrow.
 
Lilbaz said:
The governments white paper will be released in the next couple of days. Hopefully there is something in there about clubs being self sufficient. There likely will be something about redistribution of wealth. Meaning less money for the prem. Going to be interesting.

Edit - will be out tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I think the distribution of wealth is a good idea as long as the lower leagues are also policed in their spending. Historically its probably been the lower leagues that have had the worse record for sailing close to wind and going out of business, plenty of AFC Phoenix clubs knocking about because of it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back