Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread v3.0 - DONE! - Methven interview in the Telegraph (p55)
Comments
-
I would agree we need another defender, seems to lack a bit of pace.Ruffdiamond said:All the talk of signing a striker which is needed but in my view it’s the defence which is so poor , the 3 centre backs that have played so far are just not good enough !0 -
By free, you mean 6-8m quid?SELR_addicks said:FFP and Sandgaard I'm sure.
They have a free year to cut costs and rely on youth while blaming the previous ownership.1 -
I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'
3 -
I replied to that with the below because unless the website I’ve linked to is out of date it’s not true.DubaiCAFC said:I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'
In L1 we’re under the SCMP rules where the definition of turnover includes donations from owners (but not if the money is loaned).
www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
9 -
But the loan or cash injections, are to ensure the club is covering its costs.. I also believe they would need to make an application to inject cash in to the club through the EFL and state what this cash is being used for.Scoham said:
I replied to that with the below because unless the website I’ve linked to is out of date it’s not true.DubaiCAFC said:I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'
In L1 we’re under the SCMP rules where the definition of turnover includes donations from owners (but not if the money is loaned).
www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Looking at the dates in the link you shared, and fact the link in the document to the EFL doesn't work, it might suggest it is out of date.
I am not 100% up to date with it, or understand it fully.1 -
So they don’t have the money to cover the costs and improve the squad then?DubaiCAFC said:
But the loan or cash injections, are to ensure the club is covering its costs.. I also believe they would need to make an application to inject cash in to the club through the EFL and state what this cash is being used for.Scoham said:
I replied to that with the below because unless the website I’ve linked to is out of date it’s not true.DubaiCAFC said:I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'
In L1 we’re under the SCMP rules where the definition of turnover includes donations from owners (but not if the money is loaned).
www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.2 -
And we need 2 or 3 more if that calibre if we want to challenge at the top.DubaiCAFC said:
And they haven't put money in yet then??Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
They don't need to throw millions at it, they need to spend what is required to get us out of League One before the fans turn and season ticket dip below 5k next summerDubaiCAFC said:
Maybe years of being run badly, has a longer term effect? If a business is run so badly for many years, and has pre existing deals in place, it is going to take a while to resolve.SELR_addicks said:FFP and Sandgaard I'm sure.
They have a free year to cut costs and rely on youth while blaming the previous ownership.
They were never going to come in and throw millions and millions at it, that has been the message from the get go!
There is money to spend, and improvements have already been made to the club..
You always had a negative outlook on it from the start..
Players like May, Camara, Edun and Taylor were not cheap! close to a million spent on them 4..
Okay, I'll take your word that has taken us to £1m+ , but it is not what I would call "throwing millions and millions".
There is no need to spend wrecklessly.
.0 -
Didn't say that - the cash injects that don't count against turnover, are to cover the cost to run the club!cafcfan1990 said:
So they don’t have the money to cover the costs and improve the squad then?DubaiCAFC said:
But the loan or cash injections, are to ensure the club is covering its costs.. I also believe they would need to make an application to inject cash in to the club through the EFL and state what this cash is being used for.Scoham said:
I replied to that with the below because unless the website I’ve linked to is out of date it’s not true.DubaiCAFC said:I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'
In L1 we’re under the SCMP rules where the definition of turnover includes donations from owners (but not if the money is loaned).
www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
They are already covering the cost to run the club, and have put money into transfers!
1 -
Look, I’m not one for slating owners for failing to throw money at the club, it’s not my money and at the end of the day it’s a loss making business. However, it’s also not right to say we need to offload players to sign them because of FFP. They clearly have an agreed budget and want to remove some decent earners before signing players. Completely understandable.DubaiCAFC said:
Didn't say that - the cash injects that don't count against turnover, are to cover the cost to run the club!cafcfan1990 said:
So they don’t have the money to cover the costs and improve the squad then?DubaiCAFC said:
But the loan or cash injections, are to ensure the club is covering its costs.. I also believe they would need to make an application to inject cash in to the club through the EFL and state what this cash is being used for.Scoham said:
I replied to that with the below because unless the website I’ve linked to is out of date it’s not true.DubaiCAFC said:I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'
In L1 we’re under the SCMP rules where the definition of turnover includes donations from owners (but not if the money is loaned).
www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
They are already covering the cost to run the club, and have put money into transfers!At the same time, Stevie Wonder can see we need a couple of urgent additions, we’ve needed a striker for weeks since Leaburn got injured. They’ve taken over and for whatever reason we’ve not signed someone we desperately need. It’s not that they can’t, it’s because they won’t. I don’t think it’s unfair for them to face some criticism for that in the same way they deserve praise for some good signings too.8 -
I am so tired of Charlton.8
- Sponsored links:
-
I agree we do, and they know that.. Pretty sure they are working hard to bring those players in.. Pretty sure they are not just sat there twiddling their thumbs.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
And we need 2 or 3 more if that calibre if we want to challenge at the top.DubaiCAFC said:
And they haven't put money in yet then??Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
They don't need to throw millions at it, they need to spend what is required to get us out of League One before the fans turn and season ticket dip below 5k next summerDubaiCAFC said:
Maybe years of being run badly, has a longer term effect? If a business is run so badly for many years, and has pre existing deals in place, it is going to take a while to resolve.SELR_addicks said:FFP and Sandgaard I'm sure.
They have a free year to cut costs and rely on youth while blaming the previous ownership.
They were never going to come in and throw millions and millions at it, that has been the message from the get go!
There is money to spend, and improvements have already been made to the club..
You always had a negative outlook on it from the start..
Players like May, Camara, Edun and Taylor were not cheap! close to a million spent on them 4..
Okay, I'll take your word that has taken us to £1m+ , but it is not what I would call "throwing millions and millions".
There is no need to spend wrecklessly.
.
Close to a million already spent, plus whatever more is spent between now and the end of the window. But as we know, it isn't about paying the fees, it is about the right players, we have made a few expensive mistakes, and some of them are still with us, and others have gone.
Let's get the right players, rather than just bring players in for the sake of it.1 -
Costs include wages and if the rules allow it then the application shouldn’t be an issue.DubaiCAFC said:
But the loan or cash injections, are to ensure the club is covering its costs.. I also believe they would need to make an application to inject cash in to the club through the EFL and state what this cash is being used for.Scoham said:
I replied to that with the below because unless the website I’ve linked to is out of date it’s not true.DubaiCAFC said:I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'
In L1 we’re under the SCMP rules where the definition of turnover includes donations from owners (but not if the money is loaned).
www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Looking at the dates in the link you shared, and fact the link in the document to the EFL doesn't work, it might suggest it is out of date.
I am not 100% up to date with it, or understand it fully.
Does anyone have evidence that the rules have changed and owners can no longer increase turnover in this way?4 -
I’m fairly certain they haven’t. There’s a way they can put money into the club to increase the budget. We don’t really have the right to demand they spend X or Y, as long as they don’t use FFP as a way of saying they wanted to spend more but couidnt. That would be a lie.Scoham said:
Costs include wages and if the rules allow it then the application shouldn’t be an issue.DubaiCAFC said:
But the loan or cash injections, are to ensure the club is covering its costs.. I also believe they would need to make an application to inject cash in to the club through the EFL and state what this cash is being used for.Scoham said:
I replied to that with the below because unless the website I’ve linked to is out of date it’s not true.DubaiCAFC said:I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'
In L1 we’re under the SCMP rules where the definition of turnover includes donations from owners (but not if the money is loaned).
www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Looking at the dates in the link you shared, and fact the link in the document to the EFL doesn't work, it might suggest it is out of date.
I am not 100% up to date with it, or understand it fully.
Does anyone have evidence that the rules have changed and owners can no longer increase turnover in this way?3 -
As I said, I am not 100% up on the rules.. But I am pretty sure, you can't just up the wage bill by say 50% and then inject cash to cover it!Scoham said:
Costs include wages and if the rules allow it then the application shouldn’t be an issue.DubaiCAFC said:
But the loan or cash injections, are to ensure the club is covering its costs.. I also believe they would need to make an application to inject cash in to the club through the EFL and state what this cash is being used for.Scoham said:
I replied to that with the below because unless the website I’ve linked to is out of date it’s not true.DubaiCAFC said:I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'
In L1 we’re under the SCMP rules where the definition of turnover includes donations from owners (but not if the money is loaned).
www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Looking at the dates in the link you shared, and fact the link in the document to the EFL doesn't work, it might suggest it is out of date.
I am not 100% up to date with it, or understand it fully.
Does anyone have evidence that the rules have changed and owners can no longer increase turnover in this way?
I read the article is, owners can inject cash to help with the running costs of the club.2 -
catch 22.....we all know we need players (especially a striker)....but do we want to just get anyone and be lumbered with more expensive mistakes (DJ/Kirk/Lavelle/Bonne.....etc etc etc we could go on an on), we know now only too well just how hard it is to shift these mistakes on
as fans we want to see immediate action and results, pretty sure there's loads going on behind the scenes, let's just hope we can get 2/3 more in the mould of those already signed (May/Camara) with an additional 3/4 decent loans
We need to back Holden as well, we simply cannot keep changing managers and rebuilding squads3 -
Yes, let's get in the right players.DubaiCAFC said:
I agree we do, and they know that.. Pretty sure they are working hard to bring those players in.. Pretty sure they are not just sat there twiddling their thumbs.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
And we need 2 or 3 more if that calibre if we want to challenge at the top.DubaiCAFC said:
And they haven't put money in yet then??Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
They don't need to throw millions at it, they need to spend what is required to get us out of League One before the fans turn and season ticket dip below 5k next summerDubaiCAFC said:
Maybe years of being run badly, has a longer term effect? If a business is run so badly for many years, and has pre existing deals in place, it is going to take a while to resolve.SELR_addicks said:FFP and Sandgaard I'm sure.
They have a free year to cut costs and rely on youth while blaming the previous ownership.
They were never going to come in and throw millions and millions at it, that has been the message from the get go!
There is money to spend, and improvements have already been made to the club..
You always had a negative outlook on it from the start..
Players like May, Camara, Edun and Taylor were not cheap! close to a million spent on them 4..
Okay, I'll take your word that has taken us to £1m+ , but it is not what I would call "throwing millions and millions".
There is no need to spend wrecklessly.
.
Close to a million already spent, plus whatever more is spent between now and the end of the window. But as we know, it isn't about paying the fees, it is about the right players, we have made a few expensive mistakes, and some of them are still with us, and others have gone.
Let's get the right players, rather than just bring players in for the sake of it.
The clock is ticking
0 -
I disagree. The rules are that you can spend 60% of your turnover on wages, it’s not about injecting cash to increase the wage bill, it’s about doing so to inflate turnover so the wage bill can be higher.DubaiCAFC said:
As I said, I am not 100% up on the rules.. But I am pretty sure, you can't just up the wage bill by say 50% and then inject cash to cover it!Scoham said:
Costs include wages and if the rules allow it then the application shouldn’t be an issue.DubaiCAFC said:
But the loan or cash injections, are to ensure the club is covering its costs.. I also believe they would need to make an application to inject cash in to the club through the EFL and state what this cash is being used for.Scoham said:
I replied to that with the below because unless the website I’ve linked to is out of date it’s not true.DubaiCAFC said:I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'
In L1 we’re under the SCMP rules where the definition of turnover includes donations from owners (but not if the money is loaned).
www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Looking at the dates in the link you shared, and fact the link in the document to the EFL doesn't work, it might suggest it is out of date.
I am not 100% up to date with it, or understand it fully.
Does anyone have evidence that the rules have changed and owners can no longer increase turnover in this way?
I read the article is, owners can inject cash to help with the running costs of the club.6 -
Well saidElthamaddick said:catch 22.....we all know we need players (especially a striker)....but do we want to just get anyone and be lumbered with more expensive mistakes (DJ/Kirk/Lavelle/Bonne.....etc etc etc we could go on an on), we know now only too well just how hard it is to shift these mistakes on
as fans we want to see immediate action and results, pretty sure there's loads going on behind the scenes, let's just hope we can get 2/3 more in the mould of those already signed (May/Camara) with an additional 3/4 decent loans
We need to back Holden as well, we simply cannot keep changing managers and rebuilding squads1 -
The players already brought and intention for a top six finish make it’s more puzzling that they haven’t continued recruitment. The squad is woefully thin, we have a diminutive striker with no service being played up front on his own and we have lost 3 of 4 opening games. The prospect of a few free (injury prone?) signings and the odd loan does not equate with a promotion push.DubaiCAFC said:
And they haven't put money in yet then??Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
They don't need to throw millions at it, they need to spend what is required to get us out of League One before the fans turn and season ticket dip below 5k next summerDubaiCAFC said:
Maybe years of being run badly, has a longer term effect? If a business is run so badly for many years, and has pre existing deals in place, it is going to take a while to resolve.SELR_addicks said:FFP and Sandgaard I'm sure.
They have a free year to cut costs and rely on youth while blaming the previous ownership.
They were never going to come in and throw millions and millions at it, that has been the message from the get go!
There is money to spend, and improvements have already been made to the club..
You always had a negative outlook on it from the start..
Players like May, Camara, Edun and Taylor were not cheap! close to a million spent on them 4..
Our new owners have gone awful quiet…..0 -
The idea you can turn round 3 years of structural damage in 3 weeks is for the birds19
- Sponsored links:
-
do you genuinely believe they aren't trying to get the 'right' players in?IAgree said:
The players already brought and intention for a top six finish make it’s more puzzling that they haven’t continued recruitment. The squad is woefully thin, we have a diminutive striker with no service being played up front on his own and we have lost 3 of 4 opening games. The prospect of a few free (injury prone?) signings and the odd loan does not equate with a promotion push.DubaiCAFC said:
And they haven't put money in yet then??Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
They don't need to throw millions at it, they need to spend what is required to get us out of League One before the fans turn and season ticket dip below 5k next summerDubaiCAFC said:
Maybe years of being run badly, has a longer term effect? If a business is run so badly for many years, and has pre existing deals in place, it is going to take a while to resolve.SELR_addicks said:FFP and Sandgaard I'm sure.
They have a free year to cut costs and rely on youth while blaming the previous ownership.
They were never going to come in and throw millions and millions at it, that has been the message from the get go!
There is money to spend, and improvements have already been made to the club..
You always had a negative outlook on it from the start..
Players like May, Camara, Edun and Taylor were not cheap! close to a million spent on them 4..
Our new owners have gone awful quiet…..0 -
The sky deal does not kick in until next season, CATV for this season is being reviewed internally and nothing to do with Sky, so this part from the other source is wrongDubaiCAFC said:I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'4 -
Okay, if that is the case, why are more clubs not doing that then? Plenty of rich owners in the EFL? Why are they all concerned about the FFP?cafcfan1990 said:
I disagree. The rules are that you can spend 60% of your turnover on wages, it’s not about injecting cash to increase the wage bill, it’s about doing so to inflate turnover so the wage bill can be higher.DubaiCAFC said:
As I said, I am not 100% up on the rules.. But I am pretty sure, you can't just up the wage bill by say 50% and then inject cash to cover it!Scoham said:
Costs include wages and if the rules allow it then the application shouldn’t be an issue.DubaiCAFC said:
But the loan or cash injections, are to ensure the club is covering its costs.. I also believe they would need to make an application to inject cash in to the club through the EFL and state what this cash is being used for.Scoham said:
I replied to that with the below because unless the website I’ve linked to is out of date it’s not true.DubaiCAFC said:I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'
In L1 we’re under the SCMP rules where the definition of turnover includes donations from owners (but not if the money is loaned).
www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Looking at the dates in the link you shared, and fact the link in the document to the EFL doesn't work, it might suggest it is out of date.
I am not 100% up to date with it, or understand it fully.
Does anyone have evidence that the rules have changed and owners can no longer increase turnover in this way?
I read the article is, owners can inject cash to help with the running costs of the club.1 -
At league one level the owners can put in as much money as they like to get around FFP, as long as they put it in as equity and not loans. That money can be used on transfer fees or wages or a new sofa for all the EFL care.
The new owners understandably may not want to chuck cash at it, but there is nothing stopping them should they want to menaing the "worried about FFP" is just smoke and mirrors in my opinion.25 -
Fair enough. Not sure why will just chuck case at it like that!Covered_End_Lad said:At league one level the owners can put in as much money as they like to get around FFP, as long as they put it in as equity and not loans. That money can be used on transfer fees or wages or a new sofa for all the EFL care.
The new owners understandably may not want to chuck cash at it, but there is nothing stopping them should they want to menaing the "worried about FFP" is just smoke and mirrors in my opinion.0 -
I’d imagine most want to loan the money with the intention of one day getting it back.DubaiCAFC said:
Okay, if that is the case, why are more clubs not doing that then? Plenty of rich owners in the EFL? Why are they all concerned about the FFP?cafcfan1990 said:
I disagree. The rules are that you can spend 60% of your turnover on wages, it’s not about injecting cash to increase the wage bill, it’s about doing so to inflate turnover so the wage bill can be higher.DubaiCAFC said:
As I said, I am not 100% up on the rules.. But I am pretty sure, you can't just up the wage bill by say 50% and then inject cash to cover it!Scoham said:
Costs include wages and if the rules allow it then the application shouldn’t be an issue.DubaiCAFC said:
But the loan or cash injections, are to ensure the club is covering its costs.. I also believe they would need to make an application to inject cash in to the club through the EFL and state what this cash is being used for.Scoham said:
I replied to that with the below because unless the website I’ve linked to is out of date it’s not true.DubaiCAFC said:I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'
In L1 we’re under the SCMP rules where the definition of turnover includes donations from owners (but not if the money is loaned).
www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Looking at the dates in the link you shared, and fact the link in the document to the EFL doesn't work, it might suggest it is out of date.
I am not 100% up to date with it, or understand it fully.
Does anyone have evidence that the rules have changed and owners can no longer increase turnover in this way?
I read the article is, owners can inject cash to help with the running costs of the club.
How do you know others aren’t doing it?
No one is saying they must do it this way, just that the option is there and they may put less in over the long run if it ensures we have a better squad this season.3 -
Agree though that’s not what’s being debated here, this is about ending the window with a squad that can challenge for the top 6. That’s not unrealistic at this level, it should always be the aim for a club of our size.Rothko said:The idea you can turn round 3 years of structural damage in 3 weeks is for the birds
Improving the set up behind the scenes will obviously take a lot longer.10 -
Do the current clubs that own our targets not get a say in things then?cafcfan1990 said:DubaiCAFC said:
Didn't say that - the cash injects that don't count against turnover, are to cover the cost to run the club!cafcfan1990 said:
So they don’t have the money to cover the costs and improve the squad then?DubaiCAFC said:
But the loan or cash injections, are to ensure the club is covering its costs.. I also believe they would need to make an application to inject cash in to the club through the EFL and state what this cash is being used for.Scoham said:
I replied to that with the below because unless the website I’ve linked to is out of date it’s not true.DubaiCAFC said:I have copied this from another post, but I think this sums it up well, and the position we are in! Hence why Ipswich was able to spend more on wages.
'The owners could put in £100m tomorrow, and that would help offset any financial losses, but would have zero effect to the TURNOVER of the company. The company's turnover comes from money made from daily operations, player sales, etc.
So the salaries being higher than 60% of TURNOVER is unaffected by however much money the owners put in, whether it be a loan (which causes problems in other ways under FFP), share capital, or even a good old injection of cash into the bank account.
So, if there's no wriggle room on the salaries to turnover ratio, throwing any amount of cash in isn't going to make any difference.
The only way that ratio can be improved, is by getting more bums on seats during a match day (with, you would hope, a equal increase in revenue streams from purchasing programmes, food, drink, and purchases from the shop. However, most of these opportunites seem to have been contracted out.), improved marketing/sponsorship deals (Steve Sutherlands job) or things like CATV revenues (which I believe runs out this month, because of the new Sky TV deal.) Or, the other side of the equation, reducing the wage bill.'
In L1 we’re under the SCMP rules where the definition of turnover includes donations from owners (but not if the money is loaned).
www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
They are already covering the cost to run the club, and have put money into transfers!They’ve taken over and for whatever reason we’ve not signed someone we desperately need. It’s not that they can’t, it’s because they won’t.3 -
I think many forget that there's 23 other clubs in this division mostly trying to do the same thing as us, and therefore you rock up with a packet and say "give me your striker" and funnily enough they don't all just say "sure buddy here you go".
This isn't Football Manager3 -
Why the owners paid TS £12m for a loss making business with no fixed assets and its been dumped with players who are of no use and have 2 seasons left on contract will always be something that makes no sense to me.18
