WestStandLower
Player Valuation: £1.5m
My guess is that the statutory losses will have to be over £70 millionLosses as per the report were £10m in 2022 & must be over £40m in 2023 to have breached the £105m again.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
My guess is that the statutory losses will have to be over £70 millionLosses as per the report were £10m in 2022 & must be over £40m in 2023 to have breached the £105m again.
The dates are right in terms of what carries onto the 23 calculation. I don’t know if this is a correct interpretation of the rule or a misunderstanding about what “capped” means.Hasn't he just got his dates wrong, stating 20-22 when he means 19-21, which totalled £114m?
That’s correct under FRS but the PSR&FFP submissions deviate from international accounting standardsThe buying club would have to recognise the liability/creditor/future payment as soon as the obligation became contractually binding. The selling club does not recognise good news/income/profit until the transaction occurs.
Same for all areas of accounting. Recognise bad news when reasonably likely, recognise good news when it happens.
If a customer signs a contract to buy a car in 1 months time, even if they pay in full, the dealership only recognises the sale when handover of the car occurs. I.e. risk and rewards of ownership of the asset have transferred fully to the customer. Never before.
For all periods a player is still contractually owned by a club, and they bear all the risks of injury, form, disciplinary etc they can never ever record the benefit of a future sale until his locker is emptied and he has gone, irrespective of obligation to buy in X month time
Cheers
'tending in the wrong direction' doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to increase the deduction, doubt that reason would hold up on appeal.It was bizarre. He was all over the place. For Forest he said:
A possible reduction from the standard 6 points, because 2 of their 3 years were in the EFL.
But then an increase because their breach was blatant.
But then maybe a deduction for the Brennan Johnson issue because of the Sheffield Wednesday stadium precedent. Or maybe not. Basically he hasn’t a clue.
For us, he seemed to accept we might get only 1 or 2 points because we have already been punished for 2 of the 3 years (though he said this was not the same as double jeopardy). But we might get an increase as we are trending in the wrong direction.
No mention of his beloved Man City at all, nor any acknowledgement of the fact that his previous prediction that we wouldn't get anything back from the appeal was proved incorrect.
How will we have breached if the accounts are below £35m?If double jeopardy is to be treated as a major factor and we are below 35m loss for that years accounts, then there wouldn't be any deduction whatsoever so do one Joyce. Once a RS always a RS.
You're probably right in pinpointing the 'capped' meaning. In which case Myers is saying that the £55m will now be capped at £35m, whilst the subsequent £10m doesn't need capping, making a total of £45m to 'count' for 2 years before the 22/23 figures are added to complete the rolling three years.The dates are right in terms of what carries onto the 23 calculation. I don’t know if this is a correct interpretation of the rule or a misunderstanding about what “capped” means.
Exactly this. If 2 of the 3 years have already been punished then it's only the new year that can be assessed. No case to answer for the second charge, provided the new year is under the threshold.If double jeopardy is to be treated as a major factor and we are below 35m loss for that years accounts, then there wouldn't be any deduction whatsoever so do one Joyce. Once a RS always a RS.
Thanks…you would hope so!Yes, they will. Although from a PSR perspective you’d like to think we’re now being much more careful about what is and isn’t directly for the stadium.
Exactly. We have only currently been accused of the 2nd breach because of the 3 year roll. Remove 2 years double jeopardy from that and there is no breach. Charges dropped etc.How will we have breached if the accounts are below £35m?
100% this, frankly I couldn't care less about City, good for them in my opinion. Fact is, I'd love to be them. Out of the "super 6" they are legitimately arguably the least dodgy simply because of how open their cheating has been. There's almost something commendable about how shameless they are with it. As for us, like you say we've made a balls of this ourselves, the only reason we even care about this charge is that it *could* relegate us and end the club. If we were any bit savvy this conversation would actually be about how annoying it might be to miss out on the Champions League.Only because you refuse to cooperate. Tbh i hope you continue to do that. You've quite clearly cooked the books but so what. You were never ever going to get where you are today without spending beyond what your club generates. If the club have owners and the funds then balls to the like of platini arsene wenger and bayern who didnt want any newcomers blowing them out of the water.
The whole system is about preservation
Everton tried to better themselves. Made as pigs ear of it as you could have with recruitment. I dont agree you should get penalised for that. Anyone who sticks two fingers up to this grubby premier league isnt going to get criticised by me.
Yeah, that’s my interpretation. He’s stated that if the EFL rule is adopted we are not in breach, and we know that as the numbers are we apparently are in breach, so clearly the EFL doesn’t make things worse.You're probably right in pinpointing the 'capped' meaning. In which case Myers is saying that the £55m will now be capped at £35m, whilst the subsequent £10m doesn't need capping, making a total of £45m to 'count' for 2 years before the 22/23 figures are added to complete the rolling three years.
Whether he's right or not is another matter entirely.