Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Wednesday, April 30, 09:38:16am

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

• I'm ignoring finances because that's what OP is doing. Also I don't think clubs are that afraid of PSR (see Forest, Everton and the closed Prem these past two years). And I believe clubs have a different interpretation of potential wage requirements than you. See Palace's accounts and how they differentiate "player wages" (50% of turnover) from actual totals (70+% of turnover). Do agree we're built on one big sale a year. Probably Robinson, but Bassey/Cuenca/Castagne/Sess + cheap replacement. (NT) -- eganonoa, Wednesday, April 23, 11:32:13am (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
  • Didnt forest and everton both get points deductions? There's obviously nuance on the wages side (and all operating costs) - i'm not speaking about wages as a % - i'm talking about total cost/loss. However Palace (and us) classify wages in terms of PSR, its still contributing to a total P&L cost of £155m (+ Andersen and ESR to come). All comes back to the big sale, which we appear to agree on, which was my point, rather than the specifics. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Wednesday, April 23, 12:57:01pm (NoHost/84.66.35.162)
    • They did and they survived. We've had two seasons in a row where all the promoted teams were relegated and I'd expect the same to continue. I believe PSR isn't going to truly hold anyone back anymore. (NT) -- eganonoa, Wednesday, April 23, 01:12:21pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
    • On wages, what I'm talking about is a difference between how you've been talking of late of our wages and violating rules ("80% of turnover") and the way other clubs, e.g. Palace, have been pushing it. Check Palace's latest accounts. Right up front they say "player wages" are 50% of turnover, but then later you can see the full salary costs (as identically classified by us) as much higher (70%+). They are clearly taking the position that it's straight player wages and nothing more that counts. (NT) -- eganonoa, Wednesday, April 23, 01:21:41pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
      • Again, i get that, but again, not what i'm talking about in this conversation. I think we can agree to disagree on how seriously/casually clubs are/will take FFP. No point over-debating, as it will be pure speculation. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Wednesday, April 23, 01:59:01pm (NoHost/84.66.35.162)
        • Last point though - how Palace (us, anyone else) classifies wages in the accounts, isn't really relevant. The threshold ruling is all wages, excluding academy and womens football costs. The threshold also includes agent fees and transfer costs. Don't forget, these thresholds don't come in till next season. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Wednesday, April 23, 02:05:32pm (NoHost/84.66.35.162)
          • What I'm questioning is the definition of "wages". Everything is open to interpretation and challenge. We've discussed this before, but you are an accountant, I'm a lawyer who's owned and run businesses. Where you see a strict rule (as you should), I see grey and an opportunity to push the finance people to be more loosey goosey. When I read Palace's accounts, that's the dynamic I see as playing out and where I'd believe we'd argue our true "wages to turnover" numbers are. (NT) -- eganonoa, Wednesday, April 23, 03:41:26pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
            • What constitutes wages in relation to FFP is very clearly defined. What clubs include in which section of their accounts bear no relevance to that. Thats kind of the whole point i've been making here. Its like splitting matchday income between ticket sales, and merchandise. Its all still revenue when PSR calculations are done. Palace are just showing it a different way to us. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Wednesday, April 30, 09:27:55am (webdefence-pool-02.cluster-a.forcepoint.net/85.115.52.202)
        • Indeed it is. All I can say is that in my past life defending and prosecuting competition cartels I learnt the dirty secret underlying business regulatory compliance. Most act on a simple formula that measures the likelihood of being caught + attendant penalties vs the gains made in breach. Recent experience says that so long as you are comfortable footing the bill, there's really no harm in breaching the rules. Now that the drawbridge has been firmly raised, the rules are a joke (NT) -- eganonoa, Wednesday, April 23, 03:53:04pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
  • In terms of 'ignoring finance' - i mean thats just bonkers, because it can't be ignored. We simply won't do this that or the other if we can't do it fiscally (for instance loaning out ESR becomes financially prohibitive so would never be an option). That the OP didn't consider it is to his detriment - your posts are usually pretty thorough. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Wednesday, April 23, 12:59:50pm (NoHost/84.66.35.162)
    • I agree. But I'm debating on the grounds set by OP. A complete clearout is also financially unviable, but on the mere terms set by OP -- i.e. that it's desperately needed -- I fundamentally disagree. The squad is good. It needs tweaks. Mostly around the edges. If we kept every member of the squad I'd be happy with small outlays: a free for RB, a young cheapo for Vini/Stansfield, a loan again for wide forward. I think we're stronger next year with stability, natural growth and a full preseason. (NT) -- eganonoa, Wednesday, April 23, 01:17:22pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)