| Eze on 18:15 - Aug 24 with 7994 views | Juzzie |
| Eze on 16:58 - Aug 24 by kensalriser |
Not sure that makes sense. The club's problem isn't cashflow but FFP restrictions. |
If the owners are putting in £1.25m a month that feels to me there is an income deficit. Money from Eze will help ease that for a short while I’d have thought.
Also, the FFP fine, can a chunk not be paid off or is it a locked payment schedule? |  | |  |
| Eze on 18:18 - Aug 24 with 7970 views | QPROslo |
Or back to Wolves with an increased offer for Nunes? According to that BBC article Wolves maybe very tempted due to their FFP concerns. [Post edited 24 Aug 2023 18:19]
|  | | |
| Eze on 03:35 - Aug 25 with 7441 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Eze on 18:15 - Aug 24 by Juzzie |
If the owners are putting in £1.25m a month that feels to me there is an income deficit. Money from Eze will help ease that for a short while I’d have thought.
Also, the FFP fine, can a chunk not be paid off or is it a locked payment schedule? |
Not sure why you're pressing the point as several posters have already explained that payment of the FFP fine doesn't count towards FFP calculations. As a result, it would make little sense to use any Eze income towards paying the fine as it would not ease the FFP burden. Better to use it on costs which count towards FFP in order to reduce losses and help the club stay within the rolling 3-year threshold.
Anyway, we're all getting a bit ahead of ourselves talking about how the club will spend income it's yet to earn (me included). Man City have been linked with a few players so let's see how this transfer rumour pans out. [Post edited 25 Aug 2023 15:08]
|  | | |
| Eze on 07:07 - Aug 25 with 7290 views | QPROslo |
| Eze on 03:35 - Aug 25 by Benny_the_Ball |
Not sure why you're pressing the point as several posters have already explained that payment of the FFP fine doesn't count towards FFP calculations. As a result, it would make little sense to use any Eze income towards paying the fine as it would not ease the FFP burden. Better to use it on costs which count towards FFP in order to reduce losses and help the club stay within the rolling 3-year threshold.
Anyway, we're all getting a bit ahead of ourselves talking about how the club will spend income it's yet to earn (me included). Man City have been linked with a few players so let's see how this transfer rumour pans out. [Post edited 25 Aug 2023 15:08]
|
If we do receive further income from Eze add-ons or a % cut of any future sale proceeds, I think that all will be booked as Sales Revenue in the accounts, thus our losses for the year it's received and for FFP will be significantly reduced, possibly go into profit. As we are in big need of income this season it would be best for us if Eze were sold on this season when the original original sale proceeds, the ca £16 M, fall out of the rolling 3 year cycle, as my understanding from Dorset and others.
If it's paid in Cash then it may mean our Owners won't need to fund us for a few months. | | | |
| Eze on 07:49 - Aug 25 with 7132 views | stevec |
| Eze on 17:27 - Aug 24 by HAYESBOY |
Knowing our luck, Eze sold to City within last hour of the window. |
That might actually work in our favour.
Our record with panic spending has been atrocious. I’d prefer the club finds a free transfer right back who can actually do the job and we’d probably stay up this season. Whatever, we have to see this season as a right off in terms of challenging the top six, get through it and hopefully the back room spends this season planning for next, when our FFP should have eased somewhat, irrespective of any Eze sell on. |  | | |
| Eze on 08:47 - Aug 25 with 7018 views | Juzzie |
| Eze on 03:35 - Aug 25 by Benny_the_Ball |
Not sure why you're pressing the point as several posters have already explained that payment of the FFP fine doesn't count towards FFP calculations. As a result, it would make little sense to use any Eze income towards paying the fine as it would not ease the FFP burden. Better to use it on costs which count towards FFP in order to reduce losses and help the club stay within the rolling 3-year threshold.
Anyway, we're all getting a bit ahead of ourselves talking about how the club will spend income it's yet to earn (me included). Man City have been linked with a few players so let's see how this transfer rumour pans out. [Post edited 25 Aug 2023 15:08]
|
So-reeeee | | | |
| Eze on 15:05 - Aug 25 with 6709 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Eze on 08:47 - Aug 25 by Juzzie |
So-reeeee |
LOL. No problem, Juzz-ieeeee. | | | |
| Eze on 15:22 - Aug 25 with 6604 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Eze on 07:07 - Aug 25 by QPROslo |
If we do receive further income from Eze add-ons or a % cut of any future sale proceeds, I think that all will be booked as Sales Revenue in the accounts, thus our losses for the year it's received and for FFP will be significantly reduced, possibly go into profit. As we are in big need of income this season it would be best for us if Eze were sold on this season when the original original sale proceeds, the ca £16 M, fall out of the rolling 3 year cycle, as my understanding from Dorset and others.
If it's paid in Cash then it may mean our Owners won't need to fund us for a few months. |
Yes, it would certainly help reduce FFP losses and give the FFP accounts a timely boost just as the original Eze revenue falls off the books. Poetic irony if this happens. However, I'm not convinced this would or should prevent the owners from continuing to put funds in as this could negate any potential benefit. To be frank, I have little sympathy for the 'owners put in X every month' argument. Firstly, it's their investment and by nature investment requires investment. Secondly, if true, it was they who put the club in this position with chronic financial mismanagement and an FFP fine. [Post edited 25 Aug 2023 15:24]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Eze on 18:51 - Aug 27 with 5912 views | dmm |
If true, and if Eze signs this new deal, it will obviously raise his transfer fee and also show other clubs just how valued he is. When he moves on to a bigger club, and it's clearly 'when', that will be of greater benefit to us. |  | | |
| Eze on 22:06 - Aug 27 with 5283 views | numptydumpty |
| Eze on 18:51 - Aug 27 by dmm |
If true, and if Eze signs this new deal, it will obviously raise his transfer fee and also show other clubs just how valued he is. When he moves on to a bigger club, and it's clearly 'when', that will be of greater benefit to us. |
£5 million a year contract.
That would make him the highest ex QPR player of all time !!!!
Such a nice decent and grounded individual also
His unbelievably laid back attitude suggests there can be no limits for Ebere.
Incredible young man. |  |
| |
| Eze on 23:19 - Aug 27 with 5046 views | Match82 |
| Eze on 22:06 - Aug 27 by numptydumpty |
£5 million a year contract.
That would make him the highest ex QPR player of all time !!!!
Such a nice decent and grounded individual also
His unbelievably laid back attitude suggests there can be no limits for Ebere.
Incredible young man. |
Sterling probably pushes him for that I imagine? |  | | |
| Eze on 05:39 - Aug 28 with 4772 views | swisscottage |
100k a week.
It might cause Man City to take the plunge now, rather than pay 100mil in a year's time. | | | |
| Eze on 07:37 - Aug 28 with 4584 views | kernowhoop |
I know next to nothing about these deals, but I wonder whether there is a time limit on that sell-on fee? In other words, if Eze signs a new contract, then moves in two years' time, would we get anything? | | | |
| Eze on 07:47 - Aug 28 with 4547 views | dmm |
| Eze on 07:37 - Aug 28 by kernowhoop |
I know next to nothing about these deals, but I wonder whether there is a time limit on that sell-on fee? In other words, if Eze signs a new contract, then moves in two years' time, would we get anything? |
That's a good point you've raised. I'd have thought it would depend on the agreement between QPR and Palace when they signed Eze. There must be a clause that would cover such an eventuality but I guess we'll only find out as and when Eze moves on. | | | |
| Eze on 08:41 - Aug 28 with 4401 views | francisbowles |
| Eze on 17:32 - Aug 24 by Padulas_Shampoo |
Roughly speaking weren't we allowed to lose around £6-8m this year? Can't remember what the allowed three year rolling loss would have been for next year.
So if we got an additional £10m from Eze, we'd be allowed to lose £16-£18m this year as an extreme example. I say extreme because they'd obviously spread that £10m out across multiple seasons practically.
Or, of course... The board could decide that the extra £10m just goes against running costs, the budget doesn't change this year or next and we don't push FFP to the limit, in essence saving whoever is paying the bills a bit of cash.
If this does happen - it could be interesting to see how much they reinvest and how quickly. It would be our first chance to see how willing they are to keep spending their own money - over and above what they're already losing on this year's FFP constrained losses. Are they willing to let those losses get larger than FFP is already stipulating? Surely not something they'd do if they were looking at selling the club. |
Minor point but, from memory, I think this year's estimated allowable FFP loss was only £4million. £25m in the Warburton season and an estimated £10m last season, accounting for £35m.
Getting that £25m down to £10m, if we did, will have been extremely difficult. Staying under the £39m will be a near miracle if we achieve it. | | | |
| Eze on 13:50 - Aug 28 with 4062 views | QPR_John |
| Eze on 08:41 - Aug 28 by francisbowles |
Minor point but, from memory, I think this year's estimated allowable FFP loss was only £4million. £25m in the Warburton season and an estimated £10m last season, accounting for £35m.
Getting that £25m down to £10m, if we did, will have been extremely difficult. Staying under the £39m will be a near miracle if we achieve it. |
Whoops [Post edited 28 Aug 2023 13:57]
| | | |
| Eze on 13:56 - Aug 28 with 4024 views | QPR_John |
| Eze on 08:41 - Aug 28 by francisbowles |
Minor point but, from memory, I think this year's estimated allowable FFP loss was only £4million. £25m in the Warburton season and an estimated £10m last season, accounting for £35m.
Getting that £25m down to £10m, if we did, will have been extremely difficult. Staying under the £39m will be a near miracle if we achieve it. |
As I understand it that £25M drops out of the three year cycle after this season so it was included in the three year cycles that included the last two seasons so how did we manage to keep the losses for the two season where the £25M loss was included down to £14M.
23-24 £4M ??
22_23 £10M
21-22 £25M
To have escaped FFP our losses for 20-21 must have been less than £4M and for 19-20 £10M plus anything less than the maximum £4M loss in 20-21. | | | |
| Eze on 14:00 - Aug 28 with 3987 views | BAWHoops |
He'd be mad to go to Man City with a Euro's this summer.
With Henderson now retired, Gallagher and Phillips barely playing he's a shoo in for the squad at the moment |  |
| http://blogandwhitehoops.wordpress.com/ |
| |
| Eze on 14:02 - Aug 28 with 3971 views | francisbowles |
| Eze on 13:50 - Aug 28 by QPR_John |
Whoops [Post edited 28 Aug 2023 13:57]
|
The Eze sale. The two seasons of 19/20 and 20/21 were combined for FFP purposes because of the pandemic. The loss for 21-22 was approx £25M, wasn't it?
So you've got:
19/21 Eze sale = FFP surplus.
21/22 £25m loss
22/23 £10m loss (estimated)
If these figures are correct would not fail FFP for that three year period but has £35m FFP deficit being carried over into this current season. | | | |
| Eze on 14:04 - Aug 28 with 3964 views | davman |
| Eze on 13:56 - Aug 28 by QPR_John |
As I understand it that £25M drops out of the three year cycle after this season so it was included in the three year cycles that included the last two seasons so how did we manage to keep the losses for the two season where the £25M loss was included down to £14M.
23-24 £4M ??
22_23 £10M
21-22 £25M
To have escaped FFP our losses for 20-21 must have been less than £4M and for 19-20 £10M plus anything less than the maximum £4M loss in 20-21. |
Come on, we all know from the fountain of all knowledge no longer with us that it's all a hoax like the moon landings and that we're free to spend, spend, spend! |  |
| |
| Eze on 16:20 - Aug 30 with 3062 views | EastR |
| Eze on 18:18 - Aug 24 by QPROslo |
Or back to Wolves with an increased offer for Nunes? According to that BBC article Wolves maybe very tempted due to their FFP concerns. [Post edited 24 Aug 2023 18:19]
|
Well done Oslo
I think we can all go back now to not spending money we haven't got
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66662060 | |
| |
| Eze on 19:53 - Aug 30 with 2697 views | kensalriser |
They've made a verbal agreement. How else are you going to make one - sign language, smoke signals? |  |
| |
| Eze on 06:18 - Aug 31 with 2346 views | QPROslo |
It sounds like Nunes "strike" helped persuade Wolves to accept what sounds not much more than what City offered originally. | | | |
| Eze on 09:32 - Aug 31 with 1997 views | TomS |
| Eze on 18:51 - Aug 27 by dmm |
If true, and if Eze signs this new deal, it will obviously raise his transfer fee and also show other clubs just how valued he is. When he moves on to a bigger club, and it's clearly 'when', that will be of greater benefit to us. |
Eze signing a new contract with Palace also eliminates (or rather kicks down the road) the risk of him running down his contract then walking away from the club, resulting in us receiving nothing. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
