| Paper interest in Freeman 09:13 - Jul 29 with 64705 views | bosh67 |
Apparently West Brom and Boro looking at a bid ITRO £3m for him. Would be a huge loss for us but given what's happened and what we bought him for that would be around a 10 fold return. Depends where we are in terms of being able to fight off bids. I imagine Freeman would be happy to stay as he plays every week here and perhaps the FFP settlement means that we don't have to get picked off by the vultures in terms of selling players. I guess if he does go we have Manning who could play that role and Chair.
Hopefully just press bluster. [Post edited 29 Jul 2018 9:13]
|  |
| |  |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 13:32 - Jul 30 with 4426 views | QPR_John |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 10:58 - Jul 30 by smegma |
Jesus wept. |
? |  | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 13:40 - Jul 30 with 4377 views | QPR_John |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 13:00 - Jul 30 by 1JD |
We have fixed running costs of 10m annually.
Then we have the wage bill:
In 16/17 was 27m.
In 17/18 - circa 5m = 22m.
In 18/19 - circa 7m = 15m.
+3m for mgmt. and other wage items .
Income for last season 17/18 and this season 18/19 is 33m.
Income minus expenses gives operating profit. We will post an operating profit in 18/19 just like we did in 16/17.
As for FFP calculations, the core issue of a) player amortisation is disappearing year on year thanks to zero-to-no transfer expenditure policy and b) loans and interest - which is only required thanks to cover operating loss - which is not needed if you post operating profit.
According to FFP rules, a club is allowed 39m 3-year cumulative loss, but 13m annual loss max. (Unless that has changed?) We posted a loss of 11m and 7m for first two, and based on the above figures, and the FFP related amortisation and loans, we are within 13m for last season 17/18.
As for the exact figure and projected 17/18 loss, I could go on and do the player amortisation costs (work backwards from transfer dealings and contract lengths) and work it out a close estimate but I have a job to do!!! |
"According to FFP rules, a club is allowed 39m 3-year cumulative loss, but 13m annual loss max. (Unless that has changed?)"
It get a more confusing. If I understand the above a team can lose £39M over three years with yearly loses of £13M each year and stay within FFP whereas a team can lose £14M over three years breaking even on the first two years and lose £14M in the third year and fail FFP. If there is a maximum yearly figure one third of the three year rolling figure then there is no point in the latter
[Post edited 30 Jul 2018 13:48]
| | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 13:44 - Jul 30 with 4351 views | QPR_John |
That situation must have been the case when we sold Smithies so suggests there was a release clause in his contract | | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 13:48 - Jul 30 with 4337 views | Roller |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 13:00 - Jul 30 by 1JD |
We have fixed running costs of 10m annually.
Then we have the wage bill:
In 16/17 was 27m.
In 17/18 - circa 5m = 22m.
In 18/19 - circa 7m = 15m.
+3m for mgmt. and other wage items .
Income for last season 17/18 and this season 18/19 is 33m.
Income minus expenses gives operating profit. We will post an operating profit in 18/19 just like we did in 16/17.
As for FFP calculations, the core issue of a) player amortisation is disappearing year on year thanks to zero-to-no transfer expenditure policy and b) loans and interest - which is only required thanks to cover operating loss - which is not needed if you post operating profit.
According to FFP rules, a club is allowed 39m 3-year cumulative loss, but 13m annual loss max. (Unless that has changed?) We posted a loss of 11m and 7m for first two, and based on the above figures, and the FFP related amortisation and loans, we are within 13m for last season 17/18.
As for the exact figure and projected 17/18 loss, I could go on and do the player amortisation costs (work backwards from transfer dealings and contract lengths) and work it out a close estimate but I have a job to do!!! |
I think you've misunderstood the FFP rules.
The £13 million per year is quoted to enable the 3 year rolling period maximum loss to be calculated, it is not enforced on a year by year basis. Premier League teams are allowed to lose £35 million per year, so if a team's 3 year period includes 1 in the Premier League, their maximum loss for those 3 years is 35+13+13.
If you think about it, what would be the point of allowing a loss of £39 million over a 3 year period, if none of the years could exceed £13 million? |  | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 13:48 - Jul 30 with 4336 views | Blue_Castello |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 13:40 - Jul 30 by QPR_John |
"According to FFP rules, a club is allowed 39m 3-year cumulative loss, but 13m annual loss max. (Unless that has changed?)"
It get a more confusing. If I understand the above a team can lose £39M over three years with yearly loses of £13M each year and stay within FFP whereas a team can lose £14M over three years breaking even on the first two years and lose £14M in the third year and fail FFP. If there is a maximum yearly figure one third of the three year rolling figure then there is no point in the latter
[Post edited 30 Jul 2018 13:48]
|
Thanks guys I obviously needed to read up on the rules, so we are only allowed to loose £13 million in any one year, according to Clive's sources we are very close and according to 1JDs calculations we look as if we are OK.
Oh well time will tell, there's at least some comfort in Mclarens quotes that we are not forced to sell any player at the moment, assume that's coming from the Board and Hoos. | | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 14:33 - Jul 30 with 4219 views | 1JD |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 13:48 - Jul 30 by Roller |
I think you've misunderstood the FFP rules.
The £13 million per year is quoted to enable the 3 year rolling period maximum loss to be calculated, it is not enforced on a year by year basis. Premier League teams are allowed to lose £35 million per year, so if a team's 3 year period includes 1 in the Premier League, their maximum loss for those 3 years is 35+13+13.
If you think about it, what would be the point of allowing a loss of £39 million over a 3 year period, if none of the years could exceed £13 million? |
Says who? You?
I am not setting the rules, only reading up on them to deliver some insight rather than pure conjecture. More here:
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
The $39m max figure checks out as $13m max per season. Sorry, but I have no idea what your last sentence is trying to say. | | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 14:44 - Jul 30 with 4174 views | Northernr |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 14:33 - Jul 30 by 1JD |
Says who? You?
I am not setting the rules, only reading up on them to deliver some insight rather than pure conjecture. More here:
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
The $39m max figure checks out as $13m max per season. Sorry, but I have no idea what your last sentence is trying to say. |
From that link...
"Championship clubs will be allowed to lose an average of £13m a season (or £5m if the owner doesn’t inject cash into the club to cover the loss). Hence, a long-standing Championship such as Brighton, is able to lose up to £39m over the three-season assessment period."
An average. So 11+7+21=39 would be ok. If you got done for losing more than £13m in one season then it's not being assessed over three years is it? |  | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 14:51 - Jul 30 with 4149 views | Roller |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 14:33 - Jul 30 by 1JD |
Says who? You?
I am not setting the rules, only reading up on them to deliver some insight rather than pure conjecture. More here:
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
The $39m max figure checks out as $13m max per season. Sorry, but I have no idea what your last sentence is trying to say. |
Yes me...... and Lee Hoos
Watch his video on the FFP settlement.
My last sentence is asking why anyone would bother saying you couldn't lose more than £39 million over 3 years, if you were assessed on not losing more than £13 million in any one season. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Paper interest in Freeman on 15:44 - Jul 30 with 4067 views | 1JD |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 14:44 - Jul 30 by Northernr |
From that link...
"Championship clubs will be allowed to lose an average of £13m a season (or £5m if the owner doesn’t inject cash into the club to cover the loss). Hence, a long-standing Championship such as Brighton, is able to lose up to £39m over the three-season assessment period."
An average. So 11+7+21=39 would be ok. If you got done for losing more than £13m in one season then it's not being assessed over three years is it? |
The "average" is based on the 39m total allowed loss. 39 / 3 = 13m. The use of the word "average" is somewhat misleading. It does not mean you can go above the average in any given year. Also note the article explicitly states a maximum allowed annual loss of 13m.
There are a number of FFP articles all over the web on this topic which stipulate a yearly allowed loss of 13m. 5m is the actual allowed loss, UNLESS the owners are prepared to put in a further 8m maximum.
It is this 13m loss figure for 17/18 which we are being challenged by (and presumably what club sources inferred to you) resulting from the reduction in parachutes. Nonetheless, we will be inside of it.
And better still, this coming year we will surprise everyone. This is also why Fernandes is referring to the sound financial footing we are now on. But those accounts wont hit the public for another 2 years. We can come back to this post then :) | | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 16:02 - Jul 30 with 4003 views | Northernr |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 15:44 - Jul 30 by 1JD |
The "average" is based on the 39m total allowed loss. 39 / 3 = 13m. The use of the word "average" is somewhat misleading. It does not mean you can go above the average in any given year. Also note the article explicitly states a maximum allowed annual loss of 13m.
There are a number of FFP articles all over the web on this topic which stipulate a yearly allowed loss of 13m. 5m is the actual allowed loss, UNLESS the owners are prepared to put in a further 8m maximum.
It is this 13m loss figure for 17/18 which we are being challenged by (and presumably what club sources inferred to you) resulting from the reduction in parachutes. Nonetheless, we will be inside of it.
And better still, this coming year we will surprise everyone. This is also why Fernandes is referring to the sound financial footing we are now on. But those accounts wont hit the public for another 2 years. We can come back to this post then :) |
Hoos says specifically in this interview in between 6.19 and 6.29...
https://www.qpr.co.uk/videos/interviews/lee-hoos-discusses-ffp-outcome/
...that under the rolling three year period, you could choose to lose £39m all in one season in a gamble to get to the Premier League, but you would then have to report zero losses for the other two seasons if you failed to get there.
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 16:05 - Jul 30 with 3983 views | QPR_John |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 15:44 - Jul 30 by 1JD |
The "average" is based on the 39m total allowed loss. 39 / 3 = 13m. The use of the word "average" is somewhat misleading. It does not mean you can go above the average in any given year. Also note the article explicitly states a maximum allowed annual loss of 13m.
There are a number of FFP articles all over the web on this topic which stipulate a yearly allowed loss of 13m. 5m is the actual allowed loss, UNLESS the owners are prepared to put in a further 8m maximum.
It is this 13m loss figure for 17/18 which we are being challenged by (and presumably what club sources inferred to you) resulting from the reduction in parachutes. Nonetheless, we will be inside of it.
And better still, this coming year we will surprise everyone. This is also why Fernandes is referring to the sound financial footing we are now on. But those accounts wont hit the public for another 2 years. We can come back to this post then :) |
If you are not allowed to lose more than £13M in any one year simple mathematics points to the fact you cannot lose more than £39M over a rolling three years hence there is no point in using the three year figure it is completely covered by the single year figure. | | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 16:11 - Jul 30 with 3956 views | Phildo |
No one has explained if this means Remy can play in the play offs? |  | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 16:35 - Jul 30 with 3887 views | 1JD |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 16:02 - Jul 30 by Northernr |
Hoos says specifically in this interview in between 6.19 and 6.29...
https://www.qpr.co.uk/videos/interviews/lee-hoos-discusses-ffp-outcome/
...that under the rolling three year period, you could choose to lose £39m all in one season in a gamble to get to the Premier League, but you would then have to report zero losses for the other two seasons if you failed to get there.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
That is revealing especially coming from the CEO who hopefully has his finger on the pulse. It doesn’t meet other reported FFP rules though.
Maybe a good question for the upcoming podcast he mentions... | | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 16:40 - Jul 30 with 3865 views | Northernr |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 16:35 - Jul 30 by 1JD |
That is revealing especially coming from the CEO who hopefully has his finger on the pulse. It doesn’t meet other reported FFP rules though.
Maybe a good question for the upcoming podcast he mentions... |
Well I'm on the podcast with him tomorrow so I promise I will raise that and clarify it again, but it meets the rules as I read them and in that article you've punished.
As others have pointed out, if you're only allowed to lose £13m in one season, what exactly is the point in having a £39m limit over three seasons? It couldn't possibly be passed, so what's the point in saying it's judged over three years?
If you say 'a club can only lose £39m over any three seasons' and a club does indeed lose £39m over three seasons, but you then punish them anyway because in one of the seasons they lost £17m, then you're not judging it over three years are you?
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 21:52 - Jul 30 with 3502 views | tkqpr |
Bringing back to Freeman, ....remember him....I asked him today whether there was any truth in the WBA/Boro rumours and he genuinely looked me in the eye and said with almost disbelief almost that he knew nothing at all of them. The way he replied seemed very genuine, but i know that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't interested as such. FYI |  | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 22:34 - Jul 30 with 3409 views | LazyFan |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 16:40 - Jul 30 by Northernr |
Well I'm on the podcast with him tomorrow so I promise I will raise that and clarify it again, but it meets the rules as I read them and in that article you've punished.
As others have pointed out, if you're only allowed to lose £13m in one season, what exactly is the point in having a £39m limit over three seasons? It couldn't possibly be passed, so what's the point in saying it's judged over three years?
If you say 'a club can only lose £39m over any three seasons' and a club does indeed lose £39m over three seasons, but you then punish them anyway because in one of the seasons they lost £17m, then you're not judging it over three years are you?
This post has been edited by an administrator |
I suspect it is £13m per year max and that is the real rule. But everyone jumps on the £39m figure as that is a bigger and looks more impressive in articles.
I would guess that the 3 years is there because if a club did more than £13m in reality in one year, but used clever accounting tricks to carry it over to future years, then the 3-year rule is there to catch them kicking the can down the road.
But all that is just conjecture and a wild guess on my part.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |  |
| |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 23:33 - Jul 30 with 3284 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 22:34 - Jul 30 by LazyFan |
I suspect it is £13m per year max and that is the real rule. But everyone jumps on the £39m figure as that is a bigger and looks more impressive in articles.
I would guess that the 3 years is there because if a club did more than £13m in reality in one year, but used clever accounting tricks to carry it over to future years, then the 3-year rule is there to catch them kicking the can down the road.
But all that is just conjecture and a wild guess on my part.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
I guess we'll find out for sure tomorrow. I must admit I had a look through the document linked earlier in this thread and was none the wiser. So many grammatical and spelling errors in there too.
Not quite the royal and ancient golf rules shall we say. I reckon that's partly why we went for the 10 year repayment structure. Might be discarded as a nonsense in a couple of years. |  |
| |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 00:37 - Jul 31 with 3210 views | LythamR |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 23:33 - Jul 30 by CliveWilsonSaid |
I guess we'll find out for sure tomorrow. I must admit I had a look through the document linked earlier in this thread and was none the wiser. So many grammatical and spelling errors in there too.
Not quite the royal and ancient golf rules shall we say. I reckon that's partly why we went for the 10 year repayment structure. Might be discarded as a nonsense in a couple of years. |
Seems to me that "rolling: is a key term here, this would mean that Hoos explanation of doing say 35m in one season could only possible work if a club had only posted losses of under 4m over the previous 2 seasons or it would immediately fall foul of the maximum limit |  | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 02:48 - Jul 31 with 3155 views | isawqpratwcity |
FFS, it is a rolling 3 year 39 million pound limit. Clive has it right.
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
Don't stop reading after the first few paragraphs, keep going down to:
"Maximum loss limits
"Championship clubs will be allowed to lose an average of £13m a season (or £5m if the owner doesn’t inject cash into the club to cover the loss). Hence, a long-standing Championship such as Brighton, is able to lose up to £39m over the three-season assessment period." [My emphasis]
So their hypothetical Brighton is allowed to lose, say, 0+0+39 to achieve an average 13 mill loss and stay within FFP rules. |  |
| |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 07:27 - Jul 31 with 3030 views | QPR_Jim |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 02:48 - Jul 31 by isawqpratwcity |
FFS, it is a rolling 3 year 39 million pound limit. Clive has it right.
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
Don't stop reading after the first few paragraphs, keep going down to:
"Maximum loss limits
"Championship clubs will be allowed to lose an average of £13m a season (or £5m if the owner doesn’t inject cash into the club to cover the loss). Hence, a long-standing Championship such as Brighton, is able to lose up to £39m over the three-season assessment period." [My emphasis]
So their hypothetical Brighton is allowed to lose, say, 0+0+39 to achieve an average 13 mill loss and stay within FFP rules. |
I must admit this is how I've always understood it.
I thought the idea behind looking at losses over 3 years was to allow recently relegated teams the opportunity to get their accounts in order as they get rid of the high earners. The parachute payments make it a bit more complicated than that since they become higher value but I thought the FFP rules were changed before that, not sure. |  | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 10:31 - Jul 31 with 2868 views | isawqpratwcity |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 07:27 - Jul 31 by QPR_Jim |
I must admit this is how I've always understood it.
I thought the idea behind looking at losses over 3 years was to allow recently relegated teams the opportunity to get their accounts in order as they get rid of the high earners. The parachute payments make it a bit more complicated than that since they become higher value but I thought the FFP rules were changed before that, not sure. |
These are the revised rules that came in in 2016. The link that I posted can't be the official set of rules but presumably some explanatory thing for non-lawyers. It is really badly written and quite confusing. I started off angry that people weren't getting the way FFP worked but damned if this same piece doesn't say contradictory things itself. Anyway, the more detailed bit that I quoted is what I am taking as the way it actually works. It agrees with most of the rest that I have seen.
There is a separate rule for clubs in the Premier, where larger losses are tolerated. Time there is taken into account in the three year rolling total.
Clive can confirm all this with LH when he sees him. | |
| |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 11:20 - Jul 31 with 2797 views | Myke |
my head hurts | | | |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 11:51 - Jul 31 with 2723 views | kingsburyR |
So are we losing Freeman or not? |  |
| Dont know why we bother. .... but we do! |
| |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 12:06 - Jul 31 with 2701 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 21:52 - Jul 30 by tkqpr |
Bringing back to Freeman, ....remember him....I asked him today whether there was any truth in the WBA/Boro rumours and he genuinely looked me in the eye and said with almost disbelief almost that he knew nothing at all of them. The way he replied seemed very genuine, but i know that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't interested as such. FYI |
so you alerted him to the rumours?
So if he 'slaps in' a transfer request tomorrow, it's all your fault, ok? ;) |  |
| |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 12:27 - Jul 31 with 2662 views | GloryHunter |
| Paper interest in Freeman on 21:52 - Jul 30 by tkqpr |
Bringing back to Freeman, ....remember him....I asked him today whether there was any truth in the WBA/Boro rumours and he genuinely looked me in the eye and said with almost disbelief almost that he knew nothing at all of them. The way he replied seemed very genuine, but i know that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't interested as such. FYI |
Why aren't they interested in him? What's wrong with him? Are they saying he's no good? This is outrageous . . . |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
