Don’t see the point of them quoting that number then. Assumes you can always sell a player for same price you bought him!
I read it as you were suggesting they use all the parachute money to settle the transfers owed rather than using player sales. The parachute money alone won’t be enough to settle obligations and pay costs. However it seems we agree broadly in any case.
Agreed-i wonder if these will exclude the £38m we paid out in 18/19 for "other expenses"-maybe they reduce once we are not in the PL. Given they were £30m in each of the previous two years it seemed like they were an obligation-roll on production of the accounts for 19/20
Had a quick look at a few other clubs accounts in a weak attempt at educating myself on this stuff and seems like everyone has a similar line of some sorts. Appears to cover a wide range of operating costs some of which may be contractual and others not, but either way the club will be looking at how they can cut costs more aggressively than they might have done.
Mr 48 will confirm but I think he crunched some numbers and over 3 years we spent £75m(!) more than Burnley in other expenses and £50m (!) more than Palace. He will need to confirm but I remember reading that in previous posts.
The number did seem quite high but not massively so. Burnleys was around £14m and Brighton around £20m a year I think. I wonder whether there's a regional imbalance at play. Must cost a packet running a big training ground at London Colney for example.
So why £50m more than Palace over 3 years? It’s a good question. I’d also say double Brighton is a massive difference for a club our size. That’s £20m extra spend in one year.
Can't say I know, though did check Palace's 19/20 accounts and they posted £38m as 'Operating Expenses' so not sure where the £50m over 3 years comes from. Could do with someone who understands these things doing a proper review though as could well be misreading the numbers.
I think the problem is there is no breakdown so there is little more to be gleaned. For any club. It is what it is. Obviously signed off by auditors though.
The Palace accounts i read were in company number 07270793-note 4 has "other operating charges" at £19.627m for 2018/9. That charge totals £76m over the 4 years from 2015/6 season. Ours totals £122m-so £46m higher. (I cannot see £38m as Operating expenses in those accounts- i can see £138m as total operating expenses-so including wages of £120m) Burnleys totals £41m over past 3 seasons since they came back up to PL As Jumbolina says there is no more detail and all signed off by auditors. Its just a very large figure compared to other clubs of similar ground capacity/attendance. Not all clubs show this as a separate item in their accounts. As a further comparison Burnley have no debt and Palace had a loan of £45m from its shareholders and a loan of £38m secured against TV money-that loan was repaid post the y/e.
Would ground improvements come under this do you think? We've obviously had quite a bit of work done to fill in the corners, new shop etc.
A lot of ground work will be capitalised and held as an asset on the balance sheet rather than impact our profit & loss. If you spent 1m on improving the stadium, you would argue the stadium is worth 1m more.
Capital expenditure on assets do not pass through the P+L so no. Our accounts show £6m spent on our fixed assets so the ground and London Colney
I hope the low valuation of Doucs is a sign we’re either getting Davies on loan or are serious about Grimes. Not that we’re being pressured by our lenders to pay down debt.
Refund on last seasons PL money-£9m- payment not due till end of this season Reduction in parachute money £5m (over next 2 seasons) That's another £14m gap to be plugged https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/12663952/liverpool-premier-league-tv-money-coronavirus/ Also promotion from Championship this season will mean £8m less for each club in season 21/22
We haven’t got time to look. Get Liverpool on the blower and see if they can wire us £8m this afternoon for Sarr.
Hopefully we can just say we’ve never heard of the so called ‘greatest league in the world’ and even if we had, we’ve moved on now with the EFL and have built a new life for ourselves. That should shake the bailiffs off.
Why is the TV money being reduced? The PL played every game and bent over backwards to make sure every one was televisable
I thought that, but then assumed for the period football wasn’t on tons of people must’ve cancelled their subscriptions?
I think a lot of overseas broadcasters lost their desired slots as a result of all the staggered kick off times.
Just a quick question, obviously when players move between us and Udinese, in reality there is no fee involved, but could that actually be used to help us? Say Pussetto moves back for the supposed £7m, and Pereyra goes there for about £10m, would that £17m actually go some way to paying off what we need to, or is it all ficticious? (Obviously I get that we have a large external debt)
My hunch is that in reality money does move around. With Pussetto, I reckon it’s not that Watford didn’t pay £7m, it’s just that the £7m has an effective cost of £0 because it is going to the Pozzos. If no money actually ‘changed hands’ between the clubs that seems like the sort of fraudulent transaction that the EFL would clamp down on and impose fines or points deductions. It’s well documented that the Pozzos use the clubs’ network a) for economies of scale with the scouting network and similarly b) to enable cheap and easy intra-network transfers (as with Perica or Sierrelta). I reckon they move the players around and then ascribe whatever (plausible) value they can to those players to enable creative accounting. So when we see that Pussetto cost £7m or that Success and Penaranda cost £8m each or whatever, it’s case of the Pozzos deciding that a) those players would be better suited at that point in time to play for Watford and b) they can use that transfer as cover for an injection of cash into Udinese via an inflated yet still reasonable fee. So I definitely think you’re correct that process could well be used to aid us this window although clubs in Italy are only allowed 2 non-EU players registered so there currently isn’t space for Pereyra and Pussetto. That said, the Pozzos would surely rather get £10m for Pereyra from a third party than have to inject that cash from Udinese. Don’t know how much third party interest there is in Pussetto.
According to Transfermarkt anyway, Pussetto is of Italian citizenship, only says Pereyra is Argentine, but it wouldn't surprise me if he had EU citizenship too, especially as I doubt he'd have been so valuable to both Udinese and Juventus to be using a non-EU spot on. Obviously financially the Pozzos would be better off if someone else bought him (although they're probably lining him up as the de Paul replacement) and could therefore proceed to spend money on both clubs (lol), but (if Udinese could afford it) would it look a bit suss if he went to Udinese for, say, £15m rather than £10m? Clubs have got in trouble for overestimating the value of their grounds, but player values are more subjective (Don't think Success was a 'money laundering' scheme as such, an inflated fee would have helped when it came to getting him a work permit)
The point is that Pozzo could just lend that without the need to move players. They've got the £17m under their control already. Selling to a 3rd party brings new money into the Pozzo pockets. If Pozzos were rolling in £££ like some other owners they could afford to gamble on promotion without this desperate need to cut costs and get cash in through the door.
Sky also paused the sports subscription for 3 months, so they'll be asking for that back from the PL.
Didn’t realise Pussetto had an EU passport. I’ve definitely seen it reported from some of the Udinese publications that the transfer of Pereyra is complicated by the non-EU issue even though you’re reasoning does make sense. Good point re Success’ work permit. But I reckon they felt more comfortable shelling out that huge sum to qualify with the money all staying within the group.
Yes I don't think our issue is complying with FFP or EFL rules - its having enough cash to pay our bills when due. Moving cash from one Pozzo pocket to another doesn't increase overall Pozzo cash.
Well they’re both issues but yes you’re right and that’s why the Pozzos would prefer transfers to a third party. I think that’s a big part of why Pereyra and Pussetto haven’t left yet for Udinese, despite their interest (along with the EU passport issue for Pereyra.) But the original question (asked by @Hogg-DEENEY!!!) was could transfers to Udinese be used to inject cash into the club and the answer is clearly yes.
I am a qualified accountant and have looked into the club's finances. My conclusion is: the money's gone!
