Article on QPR - interesting facts about Brighton

[Will_dance_for_chocolate]

I've got no issue with 'Muff going up. They played good attacking football and Tommy Elphick is a Woodingdean boy so fine by me.

I think you're a little wrong in your calculations though.

If Turnover is £10 million and wages £18 million that is well and good. But surely the club has other overheads too? Heat, light, medical bills, insurance etc etc? Don't they have to be taken into consideration ?

For the purposes of FFP, no they don't. The costs that are considered what I would term first team football costs eg transfer fees and wages. So, for example, your rather splendid and also rather expensive academy doesn't count towards your numbers for your FFP calculation.

I'm sure there are some other bits and pieces included but given they are likely to be far and away the biggest financial commitments, you can as a rough guide compare player wages and net transfer spending (also bearing in mind how the cost of a player is split over the length of their contract) to turnover added to the allowable loss for that season.

 

[Goldstone1976]

For the purposes of FFP, no they don't. The cost categories that El P quotes do indeed count for FFP purposes The costs that are considered what I would term first team football costs eg transfer fees and wages. Plus the costs that El P cites, and others too So, for example, your rather splendid and also rather expensive academy doesn't count towards your numbers for your FFP calculation. But you're right here. Academy costs are specifically excluded from the FFP calculations

I'm sure there are some other bits and pieces included but given they are likely to be far and away the biggest financial commitments, you can as a rough guide compare player wages and net transfer spending (also bearing in mind how the cost of a player is split over the length of their contract) to turnover added to the allowable loss for that season. You're right to say that wages are the single largest cost component of FFP accounts, but there are lots of others that, taken together, are also not insignificant .

...

 

[El Presidente]

For the purposes of FFP, no they don't. The costs that are considered what I would term first team football costs eg transfer fees and wages.

Hmm. Not sure I agree with that. Wages are certainly the most significant cost but not the only ones I thought.

None of which takes away from a splendid season from your team.

 

[Will_dance_for_chocolate]

Hmm. Not sure I agree with that. Wages are certainly the most significant cost but not the only ones I thought.

None of which takes away from a splendid season from your team.

As I said, it was just as a general rough guide. As has been pointed out some other things can be included but aside from the academy mentioned there are other things not included. Its already been pointed out above that staff wages are included - fair enough, I didn't think they were - but set against the overall picture the rough guide can still stand.

Infrastructure doesn't count as well. AFCB spent nigh on £1 million on a pitch 12 months ago (seems insane to me but given the results on the pitch, shows what I know) so that won't count towards the total for FFP calculation purposes when the next batch comes up.

 

[SAC]

.... For example, in his attendance stats some clubs announce tickets sold (you), others announce people in the stadium (AFCB). That one isn't his fault but shows there are going to be significant difficulties in some of the comparisons he's trying to draw.

Do you know this as a fact? Not disputing it, just that I have been trying to find out which, if any, clubs announce real attendance figures and all I found was the Spurs (apparently) do. Personally I'd like to see real attendance figures, as opposed to tickets sold, for all clubs but if most clubs are announcing tickets sold why would AFCB and Spurs buck the trend?

 

[El Presidente]

As I said, it was just as a general rough guide. As has been pointed out some other things can be included but aside from the academy mentioned there are other things not included. Its already been pointed out above that staff wages are included - fair enough, I didn't think they were - but set against the overall picture the rough guide can still stand.

Infrastructure doesn't count as well. AFCB spent nigh on £1 million on a pitch 12 months ago (seems insane to me but given the results on the pitch, shows what I know) so that won't count towards the total for FFP calculation purposes when the next batch comes up.

Fair enough. I have a vague knowledge of how FFP works.

Good luck next season.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Fair enough. I have a vague knowledge of how FFP works.

Good luck next season.

cheeky

 

[Hiney]

Fair enough. I have a vague knowledge of how FFP works.

 

[Will_dance_for_chocolate]

Good luck next season.

Pretty magnanimous. Cheers and the same to you. This season for you can only really have been an aberration so I'm sure you'll be up there somewhere.

 

[Saladpack Seagull]

Let me take this opportunity (again) to highlight this interesting little site:

https://www.theoffshoregame.net/the-offshore-league/

This quote stood out for me:

'Bournemouth appears so far up the table because we were entirely unable to determine the jurisdiction where their parent company, AFCB Enterprises Limited was registered, never mind starting to assess its transparency'

The guys that put this together do know what they are doing, so, while there may be an innocent explanation, this doesn't look great or bode well.

Not only has British football been stolen from fans - we are increasingly in a position where we don't even know who the thieves are.

Good point. At least we knew who was asset-stripping our club back in the day.

 

[KZNSeagull]

For the purposes of FFP, no they don't. The costs that are considered what I would term first team football costs eg transfer fees and wages. So, for example, your rather splendid and also rather expensive academy doesn't count towards your numbers for your FFP calculation.

I'm sure there are some other bits and pieces included but given they are likely to be far and away the biggest financial commitments, you can as a rough guide compare player wages and net transfer spending (also bearing in mind how the cost of a player is split over the length of their contract) to turnover added to the allowable loss for that season.

Well you seem to know your stuff! You wouldn't happen to be AFCB's finance director by chance?

 

[Hampster Gull]

% of wages to turnover is probably the most crucial and revealing.

QPR top of course, with a mindboggling 195%. Plucky little Bournemouth not far behind in 2nd with 172%.

We're 16th with 85%.

And yet a few on here have told me that Muff are not paying togo up

 

[Guinness Boy]

Posted the link on my FB and tagged a good mate who goes to probably about 15 QPR games a season. His reply was interesting and I repeat it below:

"It's old hat mate. Really easy for the non QPR bloggers to write about QPR. It's like kicking a drunk tramp and playing the big I am. Yes it's scary only if you think belonging in the Premier League is the be all and end all, which it isn't. Don't care what league I am in to be honest. The most fun team to support at the moment looks like FC United of Manchester."

I'm not sure I agree with the first part. Old hat it may be but QPR are making a mockery of FFP and are within a Fernandes strop of going out of business and a legal challenge of testing out his assertion. Where I agree 100% is with the Prem not being the be all and end all. The scary thing for me is that another season like the last one would send me in to the looney bin and yet a season in the Prem might do the same.

 

[Foolg]

QPR have just bid £3m for Massimo Luongo, the Swindon midfielder.

Good to see FFP in force so early.

 

[Knotty]

Do you know this as a fact? Not disputing it, just that I have been trying to find out which, if any, clubs announce real attendance figures and all I found was the Spurs (apparently) do. Personally I'd like to see real attendance figures, as opposed to tickets sold, for all clubs but if most clubs are announcing tickets sold why would AFCB and Spurs buck the trend?

For accounting purposes the only figure that matters is tickets sold. The accounts won't disallow a percentage of ticket revenue just because a certain number of people paid but didn't turn up!

For the purposes of fans who love to debate the point, actual bums on seats is the interesting figure.

 

[Megazone]

QPR have just bid £3m for Massimo Luongo, the Swindon midfielder.

Good to see FFP in force so early.

Would be interesting to see what wages they'll offer.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

QPR have just bid £3m for Massimo Luongo, the Swindon midfielder.

Good to see FFP in force so early.

Sounds like their FFP fine is £3 million too small.

 

[B.W.]

QPR have just bid £3m for Massimo Luongo, the Swindon midfielder.

Good to see FFP in force so early.

This is ****ing madness... the FL really, really need to show some balls for once. However, I suspect there is zero chance of the FL coming down heavy on the QPR cheats, despite Barber's (and, no doubt, other's) bleating.

 

[Gazwag]

For example, in his attendance stats some clubs announce tickets sold (you), others announce people in the stadium (AFCB). That one isn't his fault but shows there are going to be significant difficulties in some of the comparisons he's trying to draw.

So you are therefore saying that BHAFC's income from ticket sales in correct but (unless 100% of ticket holders turn up) Bournemouth's is understated.

 

[perseus]

cf: http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2015/01/brighton-and-hove-albion-love-at-pier.html

For those people who think that attendances are reflect ticket sales rather than people turning up, it is the same for every club, and the Albion have high ticket prices, reflected in Match Day Income

Albion £10.4 million cf. Sunderland about £14.2 million, Norwich about £11 m.

cf: PL http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/apr/18/premier-league-club-accounts-debt

It was probably a good idea that Norwich went up (and Sunderland stayed up) as their financial position would have made them very strong contenders if they hadn't!

Trends: only the spendrift Championship clubs will sign older players with high wages or pay large transfer fees* leading to amortisation. How much do we have to pay for experience and a goal scorer?

A bit of a dilemma?

Up to our injury crisis of the season before last, I would have been tempted to play a 24 man squad (instead of 25) and pay a bit extra for a "star". Even now I would be tempted to have a 24 man squad and keep a bit back for a new player of we are in contention in January.

(*Alternative is to risk a high transfer fee on a young player that has prospects and could be persuaded to sign a long contract and will not leave for nought under the Bosman ruling. Needs to be good enough to get into the first team to get value though.)