Sunbury Fox Posted 27 March Share Posted 27 March 1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said: They just posted a profit of £44.5m for 2022/23: https://www.afcb.co.uk/news/club-news/club-release-annual-accounts-for-2023/#:~:text=The club recorded an operating,full can be read here. How did they manage that?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian S Posted 27 March Share Posted 27 March 1 hour ago, The_77 said: That Forest are risking an increased sanction by appealing their punishment makes me think they are confident they will get their points deduction reduced further or eliminated. So the answer to my question is none then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 27 March Share Posted 27 March (edited) 9 minutes ago, Sunbury Fox said: How did they manage that?? Their spending last summer was post end June and if they spent £120m then only £24 of that goes down as a negative in their annual accounts the numbers for 23/24 won’t be as good its huge wages that kills you and we became experts Edited 27 March by st albans fox 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john ridley Posted 27 March Share Posted 27 March 29 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said: They just posted a profit of £44.5m for 2022/23: https://www.afcb.co.uk/news/club-news/club-release-annual-accounts-for-2023/#:~:text=The club recorded an operating,full can be read here. State of the art training facility for £7.2 million.....WTF. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistyblue Posted 27 March Share Posted 27 March 21 minutes ago, st albans fox said: Their spending last summer was post end June and if they spent £120m then only £24 of that goes down as a negative in their annual accounts the numbers for 23/24 won’t be as good its huge wages that kills you and we became experts “The Club also recognised a gain of £71.4m upon the write off of shareholder loans” I think this was to do with the take over/new owners , bur seems strange (I am no expert) but is certainly a one off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terraloon Posted 27 March Share Posted 27 March (edited) 41 minutes ago, Sunbury Fox said: How did they manage that?? Shareholders wrote off loans of £71 million which has been shown as exceptional income .Dont think that is allowed when it comes to FFP/PSR Edited 27 March by Terraloon 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 27 March Author Share Posted 27 March 3 minutes ago, Mistyblue said: “The Club also recognised a gain of £71.4m upon the write off of shareholder loans” I think this was to do with the take over/new owners , bur seems strange (I am no expert) but is certainly a one off Yes, this bit is crucial. When their new owner took over, he wrote off £71.4m in loans to the previous owner, which was recorded as income. Without that, they'd have made a loss. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 27 March Share Posted 27 March 3 hours ago, st albans fox said: It will come as a surprise to them fortunately the auditors should be on top of it ….. imagine we end up in the gazette for compulsory s /off ! I can see it now. LCFC press statement. "The bank holiday was not forthcoming, and we are the victims of continued unforeseen problems Our legal team is on the case". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 27 March Share Posted 27 March 45 minutes ago, Sunbury Fox said: How did they manage that?? Good financial management? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terraloon Posted 27 March Share Posted 27 March 5 minutes ago, Chrysalis said: Good financial management? Their wages and amortisation alone accounts for over 100% of their turnover. The £71 million distorts matters beyond belief 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 27 March Share Posted 27 March 1 minute ago, Terraloon said: Their wages and amortisation alone accounts for over 100% of their turnover. The £71 million distorts matters beyond belief You have the wages to turnover figures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terraloon Posted 27 March Share Posted 27 March (edited) 14 minutes ago, Chrysalis said: You have the wages to turnover figures? Page 15 of their report Turnover £140.983 million Player sale profit. £. 1.898 Other operating Inc £. 2.035 Total. £144.916 million Staff Costs. £100.109 million Amortisation. £42.710 Agent fees. £5.058 ( source FA ) Total. £147.877 million Edited 27 March by Terraloon 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 27 March Author Share Posted 27 March (edited) 32 minutes ago, Chrysalis said: I can see it now. LCFC press statement. "The bank holiday was not forthcoming, and we are the victims of continued unforeseen problems Our legal team is on the case". We're going to sue the Eastern Christian churches for deciding to hold the Easter break this weekend. We need to protect ourselves against unlawful acts from the authorities, and we remain committed to ensure that any further moveable feasts are properly and proportionately determined, in accordance with the applicable rules, by the right bodies, and at the right time. Edited 27 March by ClaphamFox 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 27 March Share Posted 27 March 36 minutes ago, Terraloon said: Page 15 of their report Turnover £140.983 million Player sale profit. £. 1.898 Other operating Inc £. 2.035 Total. £144.916 million Staff Costs. £100.109 million Amortisation. £42.710 Agent fees. £5.058 ( source FA ) Total. £147.877 million Interesting, I think their wages % not as bad as ours got, but there is a fair chunk of change on amortisation dragging it up, although well within permitted losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_77 Posted 27 March Share Posted 27 March 1 hour ago, Ian S said: So the answer to my question is none then. And how many have actually been charged under these rules? We’re not dealing with very much precedent here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAULCFC Posted 28 March Share Posted 28 March (edited) 9 hours ago, PAULCFC said: Am i right in thinking the accounts have to be filed by 31 of this month(Sunday)?With Friday being a bank holiday,Has anyone told the board about this? Sorry to double quote this..........but does anybody expect them to get this right!......yes i'm not the greatest fan of the board! Edited 28 March by PAULCFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eblair Posted 28 March Share Posted 28 March Last years were 9 days late on CH. There’s a lag between CH receiving and publishing so wouldn’t get too het up when they’re not up until next week 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCFCJohn Posted 28 March Share Posted 28 March On 27/03/2024 at 01:55, Mr Weller 2 said: That’s my point. Poor judgement is part of the game (any game) but the punishment is that it might lead to losing a point/goal/ race/match etc. There shouldn’t also be an additional punishment imposed by the ruling authority. i.e you don’t punish a poor pass by giving the opposition a penalty A poor pass is not against the laws/rules of the game. If a law/rule of the game is broken on the pitch (I.e bad foul) it is punished so unsure of the point you are trying to make. Off the pitch, a poor decision that doesn’t break rules would not be punished, I.e the odd duff signing. If you make enough bad decisions over and over until you are breaking the financial laws of the game, of course you should get punished. Your point is like saying ‘It was just a poor decision that I was drunk when I got in my car and drove into that person so I shouldn’t be punished’. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chocolate Teapot Posted 28 March Share Posted 28 March 13 hours ago, The_77 said: That Forest are risking an increased sanction by appealing their punishment makes me think they are confident they will get their points deduction reduced further or eliminated. We're talking about Notts Forest while hired Clattenburg to try and bribe the refs. I'm not sure we can take any confidence from their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolhandfox Posted 28 March Share Posted 28 March (edited) 14 hours ago, The_77 said: That Forest are risking an increased sanction by appealing their punishment makes me think they are confident they will get their points deduction reduced further or eliminated. You can't punish someone for appealing. Not a chance they have an increased sanction for appealing. Edited 28 March by coolhandfox 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfc278 Posted 28 March Share Posted 28 March 12 hours ago, ClaphamFox said: Yes, this bit is crucial. When their new owner took over, he wrote off £71.4m in loans to the previous owner, which was recorded as income. Without that, they'd have made a loss. Maths and numbers are not my strong pioint at all so I'm struggling to understand this one. The new owners wrote off £71m in loans that the club owed, and they've recorded this as an income? How is that done? Do they put on the accounts that £71m was put in their account and then a week later or whenever after the deadline it goes back out to pay off said loan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 28 March Share Posted 28 March 35 minutes ago, coolhandfox said: You can't punish someone for appealing. Not a chance they have an increased sanction for appealing. There are many things in football that an appeal can lead to a bigger punishment or outcome but not sure on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 28 March Share Posted 28 March 4 minutes ago, lcfc278 said: Maths and numbers are not my strong pioint at all so I'm struggling to understand this one. The new owners wrote off £71m in loans that the club owed, and they've recorded this as an income? How is that done? Do they put on the accounts that £71m was put in their account and then a week later or whenever after the deadline it goes back out to pay off said loan? That 71m cannot count towards psr the loan interest payments can come off but the disappearance of the loan will improve the net asset value of the business by that amount. We did it when KP converted £194m of loans into shares 22/23. The consequence of that was reduce interest payments which comes off the cash out column Thinking about the conversion of the 194m of debt into shares means that our balance sheet end 23/24 should look much healthier than it did end 22/23 will the accounts actually look better than expected because of that loan removal whereas the underlying numbers will be poor. It might take Swiss ramble and mr maguire a little while to get their tweets out once they become public 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 28 March Author Share Posted 28 March 5 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: There are many things in football that an appeal can lead to a bigger punishment or outcome but not sure on this. I read somewhere that Forest's deduction can only be increased if the Premier League appeals against the decision to reduce it. An independent panel won't increase it in response to an appeal from Forest. If that's the case, Forest may as well appeal as they have nothing to lose in doing so. It doesn't mean they'll get anywhere, of course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UniFox21 Posted 28 March Share Posted 28 March 9 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said: I read somewhere that Forest's deduction can only be increased if the Premier League appeals against the decision to reduce it. An independent panel won't increase it in response to an appeal from Forest. If that's the case, Forest may as well appeal as they have nothing to lose in doing so. It doesn't mean they'll get anywhere, of course. Pretty much They basically have a free hit at getting it reduced, and why wouldn't you take that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts