NSWE Investment

[pauliewalnuts]

He's probably right though.

It's the relish with which he posts of anything negative.

And I say that as one firmly at the doomsayer end of the happyclappiness scale.

[Richard E]

I thought Hilts banned hate-wanks after the Southampton game.

‘Hate Wanks’ belongs in that band names thread.

[Sexual Ealing]

Hate the wank, not the wanker.

[AV82EC]

As long as the losses are within the allowable losses limit are we bothered? They’re underwritten by Wes and Naseef anyway.

[ChicagoLion]

As long as the losses are within the allowable losses limit are we bothered? They’re underwritten by Wes and Naseef anyway.

This is not a money problem, this is FFP although no one seems clear what our situation is.
The concern would be relegation and a points deduction.

[Ads]

In the event of relegation, the 3 year cycle over which its assessed by the EFL would start again wouldn't it?

We've not been charged over any breaches from last season or the seasons before, so why, in the event we dropped, would we automatically be deducted points?

[ChicagoLion]

In the event of relegation, the 3 year cycle over which its assessed by the EFL would start again wouldn't it?

We've not been charged over any breaches from last season or the seasons before, so why, in the event we dropped, would we automatically be deducted points?

The EFL has thier own interpretation of FFP and the reasons we appear to have escaped sanction is promotion and sale of the ground.
The indications based on extending our Financial Reporting, our Transfer activity and rumors are that we are dealing with or working on avoiding a sanction.
Last year I was pretty clear and there was a pretty good article and analisys that laid out the extent of our FFP problem.
I am not sure where we are now but events tend to indicate that there is a problem?

[Risso]

The change in the accounting year end date either means that they need more time to get them signed off, or they're delaying giving any information to the league.  Or both.

[Brassneck]

In the event of relegation, the 3 year cycle over which its assessed by the EFL would start again wouldn't it?

We've not been charged over any breaches from last season or the seasons before, so why, in the event we dropped, would we automatically be deducted points?

It's a maximum of £39m loss in a 3 year cycle (average £13m per year)

In seasons 1 & 2 in the Championship, we were just under or on the borderline.  Last seasons accounts are estimated at being around -£24 million meaning we have breached FFP by around £11m in the 3 year cycle.

The ground sale is designed to offset this.  The whole sale figure isn't just included in 1 lump sum - It's the amount of profit made by the sale - Which is perilously close to the £11m needed.  Any interference by the EFL regarding the valuation figure of £56m could mean we don't make the circa £11m profit required to fall within the parameters of the 3 year cycle.

We aren't automatically going to be deducted points but if we fall foul, we are almost certainly going to be (Blues being the example of what to expect).  We are very, very close.

There is a further complication as to whether we actually got the ground sale recorded in the relevant year.  Again, it was close.

+ EDIT: The 3 year cycle rolls regardless of division - You are just entitled to make a higher loss in the PL.  The 3 year cycle up to the end of last year covers the 3 years in the Championship so £39m max losses.

[Demitri_C]

It would mean it takes it into next season before the reporting rather than in the close season.

I fear the losses are going to be astronomical

I bet you're wanking yourself into a frenzy at the very thought of all the doom it would involve.

What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously you are one strange guy

Go eat some walnuts or something and calm down your embarrassing yourself with your obsession with my posts

[Ads]

I think his problems is that you appear to dramatize and catastrophise every possible situation.

[Demitri_C]

I think his problems is that you appear to dramatize and catastrophise every possible situation.

All i said was i fear the losses will be astronomical  whats wrong with that ?

We spent 150m in the summer with no major out goings.

I gurantee if i responded in the way he did id be jumped on.

[Brassneck]

I think his problems is that you appear to dramatize and catastrophise every possible situation.

All i said was i fear the losses will be astronomical  whats wrong with that ?

We spent 150m in the summer with no major out goings.

I gurantee if i responded in the way he did id be jumped on.

The £150m spent in the summer are not relevant until this time next year.  Accounting is 1 year behind real time - So we are looking at the period ending 12 months ago (combined with the previous  seasons).

In any case, we received TV money to counter the £150m (which is probably spread over 3 or 4 years by way of stage payments).

It's wages that kill us, not transfer fees.

[Ads]

I think his problems is that you appear to dramatize and catastrophise every possible situation.

All i said was i fear the losses will be astronomical  whats wrong with that ?

We spent 150m in the summer with no major out goings.

I gurantee if i responded in the way he did id be jumped on.

Paulie isn't reacting to this single episode.

To couch it another way; event A happens. People react. Some positively, some with indifference and some with concern. A discussion develops.

Your take on a matter is universally dramatic. It's a bad scenario and what's worse, theres fire and brimstone raining down from the sky. Rivers and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes and volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifices, cats living with dogs. Mass hysteria. See all that? That's you that is.

And I think that is what has ground Paulies' gears.

[ChicagoLion]

Thanks Brassneck