Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Airman Votv
Valley27000
Posts: 3,417
Hi Airman,looking at your Votv article on championship finances is The most turnover Cafc can have is £29m ,That's £13m from the owner and £16m turnover.
0
Comments
-
7 -
For those who haven’t seen the article in question:
http://www.votvonline.com/home/the-2018-19-blogs/3-6-duchatelet-s-window-of-opportunity-may-not-last/
1 -
Think you are confusing income and expenditure.Valley27000 said:Hi Airman,looking at your Votv article on championship finances is The most turnover Cafc can have is £29m ,That's £13m from the owner and £16m turnover.
We can overspend by £39m over three seasons IE spend on AVERAGE £13m than we bring in.
However with Roland who knows.1 -
We should bring in no less then £13m instead of last season £8m.Then a nice owner can top it up by another £13m.Making £26m.Henry Irving said:
Think you are confusing income and expenditure.Valley27000 said:Hi Airman,looking at your Votv article on championship finances is The most turnover Cafc can have is £29m ,That's £13m from the owner and £16m turnover.
We can overspend by £39m over three seasons IE spend on AVERAGE £13m than we bring in.
However with Roland who knows.2 -
No but can't be bothered to explain again.Valley27000 said:
We should bring in no less then £13m instead of last season £8m.Then a nice owner can top it up by another £13m.Making £26m.Henry Irving said:
Think you are confusing income and expenditure.Valley27000 said:Hi Airman,looking at your Votv article on championship finances is The most turnover Cafc can have is £29m ,That's £13m from the owner and £16m turnover.
We can overspend by £39m over three seasons IE spend on AVERAGE £13m than we bring in.
However with Roland who knows.10 -
Last season was £18m?1
-
I don't know the numbers but if turnover last season was £8m and in the Championship this increases by £5m then the clubs turnover would be £13m.Valley27000 said:
We should bring in no less then £13m instead of last season £8m.Then a nice owner can top it up by another £13m.Making £26m.Henry Irving said:
Think you are confusing income and expenditure.Valley27000 said:Hi Airman,looking at your Votv article on championship finances is The most turnover Cafc can have is £29m ,That's £13m from the owner and £16m turnover.
We can overspend by £39m over three seasons IE spend on AVERAGE £13m than we bring in.
However with Roland who knows.
under FfP rules the owner can then run the club on losses of £39m total over 3 years; so average £13m per season. That means they could spend more than the £13m of turnover up to this limit and not be penalised.
Henry’s point is that the turnover does not increase because we have spent more. It stays at, in this example £13M. Hope that helps1 -
Therein lies the problem.Valley27000 said:
We should bring in no less then £13m instead of last season £8m.Then a nice owner can top it up by another £13m.Making £26m.Henry Irving said:
Think you are confusing income and expenditure.Valley27000 said:Hi Airman,looking at your Votv article on championship finances is The most turnover Cafc can have is £29m ,That's £13m from the owner and £16m turnover.
We can overspend by £39m over three seasons IE spend on AVERAGE £13m than we bring in.
However with Roland who knows.0 -
So the 10th highest wage bill in the Championship is £30M and the most we can spend (including losses and the academy AND wages) is £26M?
0 -
No, because some spending doesn't come under FFP like ground improvement and IIRC, academies.NapaAddick said:So the 10th highest wage bill in the Championship is £30M and the most we can spend (including losses and the academy AND wages) is £26M?
Also we can spend £39m over income on the first team next season if choose.
It wouldn't be a good idea but we could and stay within FFP rules for that season.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
seems a fairly pointless exercise as it stands - does anyone think that Roland will be spending anything at all on fees? Just leaves wages and given how often we heard about vetokele's massive Championship wage, I would imagine Roland has embroidered on his wall 'don't want to do that again!' with a photo of Igor.1
-
Yes, except for the £39M this year. Because they would look back at the last two years in League One. You do not start at zero when you make the Championship with a clean slate to spend anew. This rule change began in 2016-17. Since we lost something like £17-20M between this year and last (estimate), the most we could lose this coming year would be about £19-22M.Henry Irving said:
No, because some spending doesn't come under FFP like ground improvement and IIRC, academies.NapaAddick said:So the 10th highest wage bill in the Championship is £30M and the most we can spend (including losses and the academy AND wages) is £26M?
Also we can spend £39m over income on the first team next season if choose.
It wouldn't be a good idea but we could and stay within FFP rules for that season.
1 -
The owner has no limit on Academy and stadium. Theoretically a new owner could spend £500M on them tomorrow and it would not affect our FFP calcs in any way. All that matters in FFP is “relevant costs” vs “relevant revenue.” Meaning gate plus season ticket plus merchandise plus all sponsorships plus player sales minus total wages minus amortized transfer fees-in and other day to day costs. You can’t calculate it just by looking at the straight profit and loss statement. The wiggle room for Academy spending to me is the big opportunity for our future owner, if enlightened enough.Valley27000 said:
We should bring in no less then £13m instead of last season £8m.Then a nice owner can top it up by another £13m.Making £26m.Henry Irving said:
Think you are confusing income and expenditure.Valley27000 said:Hi Airman,looking at your Votv article on championship finances is The most turnover Cafc can have is £29m ,That's £13m from the owner and £16m turnover.
We can overspend by £39m over three seasons IE spend on AVERAGE £13m than we bring in.
However with Roland who knows.1 -
Melexis NV could sponsor us £200m and it would have no impact on the FFP rules?
0 -
Isn't this really what MaN City are being accused of. Sponsorship above it's "real" value is effectively illegal funding.Alwaysneil said:Melexis NV could sponsor us £200m and it would have no impact on the FFP rules?1 -
This is quite depressing when you consider Huddersfield got something like £76m from TV monety alone last year and will receive significant parachute payments for the next 4 years. Very difficult to compete.4
-
I think Bowyer had a good blueprint. If we can offer the top clubs serious development opportunities for their players and can identify the right players, we can inject quality in the team at subsidised rates. It surely helps when the previous loans work well.2
-
Isn’t the problem with that approach that every year we are essentially doing a rebuild? The first year that a player shows skills for us we have to replace them.MuttleyCAFC said:I think Bowyer had a good blueprint. If we can offer the top clubs serious development opportunities for their players and can identify the right players, we can inject quality in the team at subsidised rates. It surely helps when the previous loans work well.1 -
Wolves, Brighton, Hudd.... all got promoted by essentially cheating the rules. The others that go up have years of parachute payments. It’s almost like you either have to cheat or get gentrified into a perpetual money losing ghetto.redman said:This is quite depressing when you consider Huddersfield got something like £76m from TV monety alone last year and will receive significant parachute payments for the next 4 years. Very difficult to compete.1 -
Rick, btw, wanna say again how great that write-up is. Bravo.
1 -
Sponsored links:
-
All of the FFP rules are there to prevent teams from encroaching on the bigger teams revenues. You can’t become a “big” team, becuase you don’t have the revenue to cover tour spending and you can’t invest to get into that group without falling foul of the regulations.
1 -
100%. It has failed to curtail financial losses of clubs below the PL (Bolton, anyone?) and has insulated the big 6 from competition within the PL and the whole PL from serious competition below. Bill Gates could buy CAFC and he would be limited to losing £39M over 3 years in the revenue vs. wages department.SomervilleAddick said:All of the FFP rules are there to prevent teams from encroaching on the bigger teams revenues. You can’t become a “big” team, becuase you don’t have the revenue to cover tour spending and you can’t invest to get into that group without falling foul of the regulations.
0 -
Can't review my US source but Bill Gates is buying Charlton.1
-
Name change to Charlton Excels and from now on we will be playing at the Powerpoint Valley.KiwiValley said:Can't review my US source but Bill Gates is buying Charlton.
0 -
No concatenating in the toilets!
0 -
Yes, that is the problem. But sometimes you have to maximise a poor hand.NapaAddick said:
Isn’t the problem with that approach that every year we are essentially doing a rebuild? The first year that a player shows skills for us we have to replace them.MuttleyCAFC said:I think Bowyer had a good blueprint. If we can offer the top clubs serious development opportunities for their players and can identify the right players, we can inject quality in the team at subsidised rates. It surely helps when the previous loans work well.0
