Boro made operating loss of £36 million in being promoted last season

[El Presidente]

Some err....interesting numbers.

Tax credit of over £6 million is for group relief, which I think is where Boro's losses are used to offset tax payable by profit making companies elsewhere in the Steve Gibson empire (I'm no tax expert though).

The player additions of £42 million does show they went for broke last season. Wages include bonuses, so probably not much higher than the Albion total if you exclude that, but

 

[Pavilionaire]

I didn't realise they spent so much on transfer fees. Given that they went close the season before I can see Gibson pushed the boat out and it paid off for him.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

As PB says in today's Argus...

'Brighton and Hove Albion won't go on a crazy spending spree if they reach Premier League'

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/151...ree_if_they_reach_Premier_League/?ref=mr&lp=6

I just always think back to the BBC online quiz I did a couple of months back, whereby you were asked to identify 100 (I think) players who had played alongside Steven Gerrard during his hundred year reign with a face like a smacked arse at Liverpool FC. Think I scored 13 out of 100, and most of them due to guesses. All would have been on wages far higher than BHAFC's top earning player. And the vast majority were completely anonymous.

 

[Giraffe]

As PB says in today's Argus...

'Brighton and Hove Albion won't go on a crazy spending spree if they reach Premier League'

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/151...ree_if_they_reach_Premier_League/?ref=mr&lp=6

I just always think back to the BBC online quiz I did a couple of months back, whereby you were asked to identify 100 (I think) players who had played alongside Steven Gerrard during his hundred year reign with a face like a smacked arse at Liverpool FC. Think I scored 13 out of 100, and most of them due to guesses. All would have been on wages far higher than BHAFC's top earning player. And the vast majority were completely anonymous.

Strange quote by PB, particularly the smacked arse bit...

 

[nwgull]

I'm guessing that in our losses of 26m we just about scraped under the 13m FFP threshold when non FFP stuff like depreciation on the Amex and Lancing and costs of running a Cat 1 academy were accounted for.

How the holy F have Boro managed to keep under that threshold when their income was 3m less and their wages and amortisation (net of player sales) 11.5more!!?

I want them to get relegated more than Palace after seeing that.

 

[Creaky]

http://www.efl.com/news/article/2016/efl-financial-fair-play-sky-bet-championship-3492432.aspx


Promoted clubs Burnley, Middlesbrough and Hull City all stayed within the fair play regulations whilst two of the sides relegated to Sky Bet League One – MK Dons and Charlton Athletic – also met the requirement.
Read more at http://www.efl.com/news/article/201...championship-3492432.aspx#QTirRmhsfQiFxe1m.99

 

[El Presidente]

I'm guessing that in our losses of 26m we just about scraped under the 13m FFP threshold when non FFP stuff like depreciation on the Amex and Lancing and costs of running a Cat 1 academy were accounted for.

How the holy F have Boro managed to keep under that threshold when their income was 3m less and their wages and amortisation (net of player sales) 11.5more!!?

I want them to get relegated more than Palace after seeing that.

Probably due to the £6m tax credit which appears to be surrendering losses made by the football club against profits elsewhere in Steve Gibson's empire. Boro are a subsidiary of Gibson O'Neill Ltd, which also owns a haulage business.

I'm not a tax dude, but it looks as if Boro's losses may* be offset against the profits made by the haulage company

However, also need to take into account that promotion bonuses are excluded for FFP purposes, and that could easily be £5-10million.





*or may not

 

[Weststander]

Probably due to the £6m tax credit which appears to be surrendering losses made by the football club against profits elsewhere in Steve Gibson's empire. Boro are a subsidiary of Gibson O'Neill Ltd, which also owns a haulage business.

I'm not a tax dude, but it looks as if Boro's losses may* be offset against the profits made by the haulage company





*or may not

El Presidente. That can't be the reason, as the FL FFP losses rules are based on "losses before tax".

Please may I digress and ask you a question about QPR. Regarding the season they cheated with huge losses to gain promotion and the Football League raised a massive penalty, which they then refused to pay once they were relegated back to the FL. Is that dead and buried, so that they got away with it in the end?

 

[crasher]

Probably due to the £6m tax credit which appears to be surrendering losses made by the football club against profits elsewhere in Steve Gibson's empire. Boro are a subsidiary of Gibson O'Neill Ltd, which also owns a haulage business.

I'm not a tax dude, but it looks as if Boro's losses may* be offset against the profits made by the haulage company





*or may not

You mean books are being introduced to pans, sauces and ovens in the kitchen area?

 

[El Presidente]

El Presidente. That can't be the reason, as the FL FFP losses rules are based on "losses before tax".

Please may I digress and ask you a question about QPR. Regarding the season they cheated with huge losses to gain promotion and the Football League raised a massive penalty, which they then refused to pay once they were relegated back to the FL. Is that dead and buried, so that they got away with it in the end?

You're absolutley right, had a senior moment in relation to tax and FFP.

In relation to QPR, we have the current standoff.



In my opinion (and I have neither sought nor received any information from the Albion) there will be a fudged agreement and QPR will pay a nominal fine that will be far less than the £50m that would appear to be due to charity.

Both the EFL and QPR will claim victory, lots of smiling faces etc.

The EFL must be nervous about QPR* going to court over the issue, as if FFP is ruled to be illegal, then where does this leave clubs such as Forest, Leeds and Blackburn, who have been subject to sanction in prior years? In theory they could mount a claim against the EFL for restraint of trade or something similar, not that I'm a lawyer.

It's also interesting** that a few other clubs have gone down the QPR route and written off/down owners debt, and treated this as a negative expense in the P&L, since 2013/14.

I've been a vocal opponent of FFP since the day it was announced, for exactly the above reasons. With certain clubs even going as far as employing private detectives to try to discredit the FFP inspectors, the whole thing is a costly nightmare to administer, and if owners have a cavalier approach to the rules, you get what we see today, accountants and lawyers getting rich, and more money leaving the game.



















*Leicester are also involved in FFP shenanigans and resisting a settlement, from the time they won the Championship.


**Not really interesting, but I don't have much of a life, or friends, TBH, so this is what I spend my time doing.

 

[Nixonator]

El Presidente. That can't be the reason, as the FL FFP losses rules are based on "losses before tax".

Please may I digress and ask you a question about QPR. Regarding the season they cheated with huge losses to gain promotion and the Football League raised a massive penalty, which they then refused to pay once they were relegated back to the FL. Is that dead and buried, so that they got away with it in the end?

Hasn't gone to court, think it is due fairly soon. TB mentioned it at the pub in Bristol which you can still watch on Youtube here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKJqq68pOtQ

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As PB says in today's Argus...

'Brighton and Hove Albion won't go on a crazy spending spree if they reach Premier League'

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/151...ree_if_they_reach_Premier_League/?ref=mr&lp=6

I just always think back to the BBC online quiz I did a couple of months back, whereby you were asked to identify 100 (I think) players who had played alongside Steven Gerrard during his hundred year reign with a face like a smacked arse at Liverpool FC. Think I scored 13 out of 100, and most of them due to guesses. All would have been on wages far higher than BHAFC's top earning player. And the vast majority were completely anonymous.

Point is this is classic TB. Can you imagine him saying:

"Yes, we plan to push the boat out. Money is no object. We will pay top dollar". He will do whatever makes sense, and he won't be announcing his plans. Fact.

 

[Triggaaar]

Some err....interesting numbers.

Which is why I think they failed FFP. Obviously they've tweaked the accounts to make it look like they haven't, but I don't buy it.

 

[theboybilly]

I don't get this at all. Surely Leicester, QPR and every club that has been in the EFL under the current rules has at some point been obliged to sign up to the FFP rules. They must have been given time to allow their legal teams to peruse the rules before signing (and thereby agreeing to abide by them) To my mind I can't see any argument after the event.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

**Not really interesting, but I don't have much of a life, or friends, TBH, so this is what I spend my time doing.

...or starring on Radio Merseyside breakfast programme this morning about the Mr Kiplings Bramley Apple stadium for Everton

http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/documents/s210377/Everton FC New Stadium - Deal Terms RTC45.pdf

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

FFP? More like LOL

Till the league do something properly teams will spend, be interesting to see the Brighton books next season - not that I blame any team over spending

 

[LamieRobertson]

...or starring on Radio Merseyside breakfast programme this morning about the Mr Kiplings Bramley Apple stadium for Everton

http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/documents/s210377/Everton FC New Stadium - Deal Terms RTC45.pdf

Currently 72p for six at TESCOS......exceedingly good value

 

[El Presidente]

Which is why I think they failed FFP. Obviously they've tweaked the accounts to make it look like they haven't, but I don't buy it.

Football League say they've complied.

 

[lancyclaret]

Burnley have been promoted twice with one hand tied behind their back because they chose - rather naively - to comply with FFP (although in 2013/14 we had no choice due to being skint - hence the Charlie Austin sale the day before the start of the new season).

 

[Weststander]

Burnley have been promoted twice with one hand tied behind their back because they chose - rather naively - to comply with FFP (although in 2013/14 we had no choice due to being skint - hence the Charlie Austin sale the day before the start of the new season).

Dyche is a quality manager, it was (Pozzi) Watford's loss sacking him to replace him with a 'superior' continental manager.

Burnley's recruitment of players is excellent, buying players not on other PL clubs radars as they aren't hyped up by the media, but with the hunger to prove themselves at the top level. Then they do.