Thursday deadline.

[Fraserkirky]

Surely this 3 year window resets when you get relegated???

[Tom]

I imagine like others said the quote is actually based around him saying if we went splashing the cash around we could end up under embargo 

As Stuart said setting expectations low and sending a message to clubs we won’t be overpaying 

[Stuart]

4 minutes ago, EgyptianPete said:

I did my post before Kamy confirmed his post cant you tell the time

You posted appeared after Kamy’s - slighting Kamy’s reputation and anyone who listens to him.

Yes, I can tell the time.

[RoverCanada]

Even under the most pessimistic assumptions about our League One revenues, it's hard to imagine why we'd suddenly be heading to another transfer embargo if it's based on the max £39m losses over 3 years rule.

I think we're pretty sure FFP isn't applicable to League One, so our losses this year shouldn't matter? Let's suppose they do. Assuming the most pessimistic numbers, our turnover this year was £2.5m matchday, £3m broadcast revenue, and £3m commercial: £8.5m. (I forget exactly, but I think it's mentioned in our accounts that £3.5m of our £5m commercial income is from Venky's, so I'd guess our commercial income can't have fallen that much). Let's assume Mowbray wasn't including staff wages in his £8.5m quote, so add £2m to that. High operating expenses of £11m. Net £1.5m spend on transfer fees: works out to a ~£15m loss at most. (Certainly gargantuan losses for League One!)

16/17 accounts had us at a loss of £3.8m, 15/16 a loss of £1.5m. So, shakily assuming our League One losses matter and being very pessimistic about our League One revenues, that's £20m of losses over three years. Well within the £39m limit...

A few ways I could hazily imagine we're on our way to another transfer embargo:

1) Our losses before player trading in 15/16 and 16/17 were £15.5m and £13.6m. If FFP, for whatever reason, doesn't count transfer profits (I don't know the details), our underlying losses in the last three years have been more like £40-45m

2) Venky's have still had to regularly pump money into the club via share capital - perhaps some violation has arisen because of that? (No idea)

3) There's some way we've breached League One's rules. But it's well-established owner injections can be counted as turnover under the wage-to-turnover 60% restriction and there are other possible exemptions, so I can't imagine it's that...

So I'd have to agree with other posters that this could only make sense if it was in a specific context of say "we can't spend £10m on transfer fees and £30m on wages next year or we'd be heading to a transfer embargo"...

[47er]

1 hour ago, blueboy3333 said:

I think you may be getting SCMP and FFP mixed up. SCMP only applies in League 1 and 2.

Yes, I'm very likely to have done because I know sod all about it! But my point still applies because if the sponsorship is big enough, then any losses would be reduced by an equivalent amount and FFP rules would not be infringed.

So it's up to the owners isn't it? JH Rover seems to be agreeing with me?

[Kamy100]

Thanks to Nicholsb1 on twitter for this:

"Losses were £17.2 million 2015/16, circa £4.6 million 2016/17, a total of £21.8 million, add in this season, which we won't know until December and we would have had to lose £17 million this season after Break Even rules have been applied to face sanctions.  The way I understand it is that clubs have to present estimated accounts for this season (2017/18) to the EFL before the start of next season (technically 1st July 2018) These are then combined with the previous two seasons results, break even allowances calculated."

 

[Kamy100]

However without having the full transcript off what TM said it is impossible to judge what he has been said.  For example he could have been asked a question about spending power and he answered it by saying if we spent millions then the club could left facing a transfer embargo. 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, 47er said:

Yes, I'm very likely to have done because I know sod all about it! But my point still applies because if the sponsorship is big enough, then any losses would be reduced by an equivalent amount and FFP rules would not be infringed.

So it's up to the owners isn't it? JH Rover seems to be agreeing with me?

I'm not saying you're right or wrong about the sponsorship thing, it's a while since I looked at the FFP thing so I don't know. It's just that under SCMP rules the owners can gift as much as they like to the club and it has no effect on compliance with FFP rules. In the Championship the rules are different, it's FFP proper. I just can't see how we can have fallen foul of these proper FFP rules when we've just had a season in a division where those rules don't apply.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Kamy100 said:

Thanks to Nicholsb1 on twitter for this:

"Losses were £17.2 million 2015/16, circa £4.6 million 2016/17, a total of £21.8 million, add in this season, which we won't know until December and we would have had to lose £17 million this season after Break Even rules have been applied to face sanctions.  The way I understand it is that clubs have to present estimated accounts for this season (2017/18) to the EFL before the start of next season (technically 1st July 2018) These are then combined with the previous two seasons results, break even allowances calculated."

 

How is all this affected by the fact that the most recent season (17/18), the third season in the cycle, we were governed by completely different rules. Surely the owners just say that the League 1 losses will be covered by a 'gift' from them?

[AllRoverAsia]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

I'm not saying you're right or wrong about the sponsorship thing, it's a while since I looked at the FFP thing so I don't know. It's just that under SCMP rules the owners can gift as much as they like to the club and it has no effect on compliance with FFP rules. In the Championship the rules are different, it's FFP proper. I just can't see how we can have fallen foul of these proper FFP rules when we've just had a season in a division where those rules don't apply.

That's my understanding and we are in L1 for the sake if this debate until 30th June.

[blueboy3333]

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php

- In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages

- Where a club is on course to exceed the limits, the Football League will apply a Transfer Embargo. Crucially, a club doesn't have to overspend to incur the embargo, it only needs to shown to be heading for an overspend.

However, crucial point:-

However the Football League use a 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.

Because SCMP doesn't rely on the retrospective scrutiny of club accounts, it is also extremely effective at stopping overspend before the spending actually occurs (something that has been a problem for the Championship's version of FFP).

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by blueboy3333

[RoverCanada]

23 minutes ago, Kamy100 said:

Thanks to Nicholsb1 on twitter for this:

"Losses were £17.2 million 2015/16, circa £4.6 million 2016/17, a total of £21.8 million, add in this season, which we won't know until December and we would have had to lose £17 million this season after Break Even rules have been applied to face sanctions.  The way I understand it is that clubs have to present estimated accounts for this season (2017/18) to the EFL before the start of next season (technically 1st July 2018) These are then combined with the previous two seasons results, break even allowances calculated."

Our losses by season according to the latest accounts:

12/13: -£36.5m

13/14: -£42.1m

14/15: -£17.3m

15/16: -£1.5m

16/17: -£3.8m

Not sure where he's getting his numbers from... Losses by FFP's standards may differ if it's looking at profit/loss before trading or there's some issue with Venky's capital infusions or commercial revenue contributions.

We were under an embargo for the start of 15/16 and then got out of it, so you'd think only 15/16 onward would be applicable...

Very odd.

[Crimpshrine]

I never quite understand how the declared losses per year relate to the club's debt figures that are often quoted.

I just did a quick scan through old LT reports on Rovers finances and found these figures recorded for the debts at the end of each season:

2014 £54.5 million

2015  £79.8 million

2017 £106.4 million

What is it now ? I've seen £120 quoted somewhere.

Is it that all the shares issued and money paid in by Venky's just get added to the club debt? Maybe this is the problem.

I seem to remember it is total declared losses/debts that count towards FFP, not how much money is spent or received.   

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Crimpshrine said:

I never quite understand how the declared losses per year relate to the club's debt figures that are often quoted.

I just did a quick scan through old LT reports on Rovers finances and found these figures recorded for the debts at the end of each season:

2014 £54.5 million

2015  £79.8 million

2017 £106.4 million

What is it now ? I've seen £120 quoted somewhere.

Is it that all the shares issued and money paid in by Venky's just get added to the club debt? Maybe this is the problem.

I seem to remember it is total declared losses/debts that count towards FFP, not how much money is spent or received.   

Listen to the last but one podcast. @Herbie6590  and @philipl are on there explaining it. TBF I was none the wiser by the end of it, which is probably due to my lack of knowledge on the exciting world of accountancy! However, we are apparently now £250m in debt, or at least that was a figure being bandied about on the podcast.

here's the thread

Edited May 8, 2018 by blueboy3333

[tomphil]

Probably 250 million in hock to the VLL parent company including the original purchase etc and something that probably shows up on VH group books a 250 million pound oversees asset/investment.

However it's done it can't be harming them and the only issue FFP should have with that is if massive debts can be weighed against the club somehow, after all that's why it came in in the first place isn't it ?

[Kamy100]

I have talked to a journalist who was at the presser.

The context for the quote is that Tony said that Rovers face an embargo in a few years time if sponsorship, sales of merchandise and people attending matches do not rise.  So the quote is genuine but the Sun have taken it completely out of context and used the first part of it to make it sound like it is imminent.

[islander200]

Just now, Kamy100 said:

I have talked to a journalist who was at the presser.

The context for the quote is that Tony said that Rovers face an embargo in a few years time if sponsorship, sales of merchandise and people attending matches do not rise.  So the quote is genuine but the Sun have taken it completely out of context.

Thanks Kamy

[Fraserkirky]

7 minutes ago, Kamy100 said:

I have talked to a journalist who was at the presser.

The context for the quote is that Tony said that Rovers face an embargo in a few years time if sponsorship, sales of merchandise and people attending matches do not rise.  So the quote is genuine but the Sun have taken it completely out of context and used the first part of it to make it sound like it is imminent.

Panic over. 

Thanks Kamy. 

Back over to you Venkys.

[Bigdoggsteel]

9 minutes ago, Kamy100 said:

I have talked to a journalist who was at the presser.

The context for the quote is that Tony said that Rovers face an embargo in a few years time if sponsorship, sales of merchandise and people attending matches do not rise.  So the quote is genuine but the Sun have taken it completely out of context and used the first part of it to make it sound like it is imminent.

Absolute rag of the highest order 

[davulsukur]

10 minutes ago, Kamy100 said:

I have talked to a journalist who was at the presser.

The context for the quote is that Tony said that Rovers face an embargo in a few years time if sponsorship, sales of merchandise and people attending matches do not rise.  So the quote is genuine but the Sun have taken it completely out of context and used the first part of it to make it sound like it is imminent.

Nice one Kamy, good work!

[blueboy3333]

ToMo is certainly putting the emphasis on supporters taking responsibility for supporting their own club. I agree entirely...with the caveat that the club has to make it financially viable for everyone who wants to support their club to be able to do so.

Edited May 8, 2018 by blueboy3333

[chaddyrovers]

26 minutes ago, Kamy100 said:

I have talked to a journalist who was at the presser.

The context for the quote is that Tony said that Rovers face an embargo in a few years time if sponsorship, sales of merchandise and people attending matches do not rise.  So the quote is genuine but the Sun have taken it completely out of context and used the first part of it to make it sound like it is imminent.

Thanks Kamy. 

people can calm down and stop worrying like some previous posts. 

People have to trust or learn to trust Mowbray and know that he wouldn't come out with quotes like that. if he was saying what the Sun reported then he would have said to the LT and Radio Lancs not to the Sun. this is also a problem when national newspapers are covering Championship/league 1 clubs. 

[blueboy3333]

27 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

people can calm down and stop worrying like some previous posts. 

People have to trust or learn to trust Mowbray and know that he wouldn't come out with quotes like that

FFS!

Edited May 8, 2018 by blueboy3333

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Thanks Kamy. 

people can calm down and stop worrying like some previous posts. 

People have to trust or learn to trust Mowbray and know that he wouldn't come out with quotes like that. if he was saying what the Sun reported then he would have said to the LT and Radio Lancs not to the Sun. this is also a problem when national newspapers are covering Championship/league 1 clubs. 

You don't help yourself sometimes Chaddy 

[chaddyrovers]

 

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

You don't help yourself sometimes Chaddy 

There is nothing wrong in my post just people overacting to a non story. 

People seriously need to calm down and chill out.