The Albion posts losses of £14.7m

[Seagull on the wing]

oh dear god.... Don't let there be less chips in a portion!

3 chips is not enough...

 

[saafend_seagull]

Loads of reasons why this has happened.

Wayne bridge £20k a week, and others as I mentioned on here a few weeks ago.

£3.5m on ulloa (it isn't £2m like everywhere says) so some player amortisation costs there.

Some will be depreciation of the stadium. Uk gaap requires a FULL year depreciation in its first year of use. Therefore 110m/33 = 3.33m depreciation p&l charge - although people get away with pro rota'ing the depreciation so this could be a lot less as the work wasnt complete until end of February.

Loads of one off costs:

- sponsorship boards
- sacking the caterers
- staff redundancies
- sunk costs on rail network
- improvements at falmer
- legal fees for gus case prior to year end

At least bloom won't have to pay any taxes for a while whilst we have all these accumulated losses!

People moan about forest chairman subsidising them. Well we have been subsidised about £150M.

Anyone know if a effective market interest rate must be applied to the loan under fpp rules?

 

[mikeyjh]

That's the difference between the cash flow statement and the P&L

In general it's cash flow that causes companies problems, not losses.

But Bloom is having to underpin these losses with a lot of cash so it is a problem to some degree or other.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Wayne bridge £20k a week, and others as I mentioned on here a few weeks ago.

I thought Bridge cost us £10k a week on the loan deal because the rest of his wages were paid by Man City ?

 

[reigate]

Anyone know if a effective market interest rate must be applied to the loan under fpp rules?

No, because they still want to encourage investment in infrastructure

 

[saafend_seagull]

I thought Bridge cost us £10k a week on the loan deal because the rest of his wages were paid by Man City ?

Nope. £20k.

Papers = incorrect.

 

[algie]

Loads of reasons why this has happened.

Wayne bridge £20k a week, and others as I mentioned on here a few weeks ago.

£3.5m on ulloa (it isn't £2m like everywhere says) so some player amortisation costs there.

Some will be depreciation of the stadium. Uk gaap requires a FULL year depreciation in its first year of use. Therefore 110m/33 = 3.33m depreciation p&l charge - although people get away with pro rota'ing the depreciation so this could be a lot less as the work wasnt complete until end of February.

Loads of one off costs:

- sponsorship boards
- sacking the caterers
- staff redundancies
- sunk costs on rail network
- improvements at falmer
- legal fees for gus case prior to year end

At least bloom won't have to pay any taxes for a while whilst we have all these accumulated losses!

People moan about forest chairman subsidising them. Well we have been subsidised about £150M.

Anyone know if a effective market interest rate must be applied to the loan under fpp rules?

3.5 million on Ulloa

 

[AZ Gull]

People moan about forest chairman subsidising them. Well we have been subsidised about £150M.

Nobody is moaning about Forest's owner subsidising them. If he wanted to invest 500million on capital projects (a massive new stadium, biggest academy in the world etc) then fair play to him, he could do that, and FFP allows it.

What it doesn't allow is for a club's income to be artificially inflated through a "commercial" sponsorship deal, from the owner's company, at a rate that is massively above the true commercial rate, with the express purpose of allowing increased spending on operational costs (ie player wages and transfer fees).

Anyone know if a effective market interest rate must be applied to the loan under fpp rules?

Why would it? If an owner wants to loan his club money at zero interest rate, why shouldn't he?

 

[saafend_seagull]

Nobody is moaning about Forest's owner subsidising them. If he wanted to invest 500million on capital projects (a massive new stadium, biggest academy in the world etc) then fair play to him, he could do that, and FFP allows it.

What it doesn't allow is for a club's income to be artificially inflated through a "commercial" sponsorship deal, from the owner's company, at a rate that is massively above the true commercial rate, with the express purpose of allowing increased spending on operational costs (ie player wages and transfer fees).





Why would it? If an owner wants to loan his club money at zero interest rate, why shouldn't he?

Erm, the extortionate sponsorship is against fpp.

Anyway it's irrelevant, he can afford the fine. They will get promoted via the play offs anyway.

 

[TonyW]

Good Plan - what's the next step then ?

We could try scoring a few goals, that usually helps.

 

[DarrenFreemansPerm]

Erm, the extortionate sponsorship is against fpp.

.

I'm pretty sure that's what he said

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I thought Barber was brought in to reduce the loss?

 

[DarrenFreemansPerm]

We could try scoring a few goals, that usually helps.

That would be quite a novelty

 

[saafend_seagull]

I'm pretty sure that's what he said

Yeah, so he has no point.

It's against the rules and will be fined.

Really don't understand people's problems with forest breaking the rules, they will be punished.

Their chairman doesn't care and he can assemble a powerful enough squad to keep paying these costs.

He will get bored soon enough and forest will end up back in league 1.

 

[Jim in the West]

Loads of reasons why this has happened.

Wayne bridge £20k a week, and others as I mentioned on here a few weeks ago.

£3.5m on ulloa (it isn't £2m like everywhere says) so some player amortisation costs there.

Some will be depreciation of the stadium. Uk gaap requires a FULL year depreciation in its first year of use. Therefore 110m/33 = 3.33m depreciation p&l charge - although people get away with pro rota'ing the depreciation so this could be a lot less as the work wasnt complete until end of February.

Loads of one off costs:

- sponsorship boards
- sacking the caterers
- staff redundancies
- sunk costs on rail network
- improvements at falmer
- legal fees for gus case prior to year end

At least bloom won't have to pay any taxes for a while whilst we have all these accumulated losses!

People moan about forest chairman subsidising them. Well we have been subsidised about £150M.

Anyone know if a effective market interest rate must be applied to the loan under fpp rules?

Good list of one-off costs...the club site says we've effectively taken the hit on a whole load of stuff prior to FFP kicking in, so this makes sense.

 

[AZ Gull]

Erm, the extortionate sponsorship is against fpp.

Anyway it's irrelevant, he can afford the fine. They will get promoted via the play offs anyway.

You didn't actually read my post, did you?

 

[Creaky]

Erm, the extortionate sponsorship is against fpp.

Anyway it's irrelevant, he can afford the fine. They will get promoted via the play offs anyway.

Can you, or anyone else, find where the League have said such deals will be disallowed?

There are plenty of references where UEFA have made such declarations but that only applies to clubs playing in European copetitions.

 

[AZ Gull]

Can you, or anyone else, find where the League have said such deals will be disallowed?

There are plenty of references where UEFA have made such declarations but that only applies to clubs playing in European copetitions.

Happy to help, [MENTION=27275]Creaky[/MENTION].


Football League Financial Fair Play: Domestic League Regulation

Page 3: Spirit of the Rules

Spirit of the Rules
It appears the FL has drafted general anti-evasion provisions to ensure clubs comply with the spirit of the regulations. Interestingly, there is a specific provision in the regulations which aims to ensure that clubs:
"at all times and in all matters within the scope of these Rules, behave with the utmost good faith both towards The League and the other Championship Clubs" and do not "take unfair advantage which is intended to seek to or does take any unfair advantage in relation to the assessment of fulfilment (or non-fulfilment) of the Fair Play Requirement.

Similarly, Part III of the UEFA Club Licensing Section (Article 53) states "The UEFA Club Financial Control Body at all times bears in mind the overall objectives of these regulations, in particular to defeat any attempt to circumvent these objectives."

It should mean that the FL, in response to a club advocating a literal interpretation of the FL FFP regulations, would point to this provision to reject a club's potential circumvention of the regulations.

 

[BrianWade4]

Fully justifies everything Barber and the Board are doing

And

Our January transfer activity

 

[HenryC]

I'd put money on our losses next year being almost exactly £8m!! It's called brinkmanship...