wilsdenrover

But spending up front would be an advantage as it’s a rolling cycle so no ‘long term’ championship club has that luxury. I agree the rules are as clear as mud - in terms of promoted clubs they say what they must do (provide the figures as I mentioned earlier) but don’t make clear as to why they must do this. In terms of their spending - their turnover was above ours* in their league two season (for reasons I seem to recall you alluding to earlier) and presumably has only continued to grow. Whether this assumed increase is enough to keep them within whatever FFP rules apply to them I guess only time will tell. * I think this is correct, if not it was very close to being so.

I think (as I said earlier) next year counts as year three of their cycle. (They definitely have to now provide financial info for promotion year and the one preceding it). It would be one hell of a loophole if clubs could spend what they wish for two years after reaching the Championship.

An ever increasing turnover plus relatively low losses in previous years.

I believe they are (why else the requirement to provide the info?).

It is measured the same way: Upon promotion clubs have to provide the relevant financial info for the promotion year plus the year prior to that. Those 2 years plus their first in the Championship = their first 3 year cycle.

https://www.printfriendly.com Paste the url of the LT story into the above…

Is it just me or do potential fees seem to be getting leaked more often this window?

I think people prefer the third option - renewing the contracts of our key players.

I’m wondering if this is a typo or not 😁

It’s not all bad - you’ve got next week’s court case adjournment to look forward to…

Officially it is to make the accounts more accurate. Of course the reduction of profit/creation of a loss could prove to be handy…

I’m very much enjoying the ‘links mean nothing’ defence from one of the forums most prolific poster of links.

Impairment is a method companies can use to reduce the value of an asset where they deem (through ‘circumstances’) the figure in the accounts to now be inaccurate.

The below is from here https://www.matchdayfinance.com/post/championship-financial-results-season-2023-24

Thanks, do you happen to know when ‘til?

It’s over a month since the Community Trust advised Companies House that Waggott is no longer one of their directors. The club are yet to do the same. Incompetence or something else?

Doesn’t apply to fee restrictions (the clue is in the name).

Given all transfer fees pass through the EFLs accounts I’m sure they’d notice if a club who can’t pay fees tried to do so…

They’re not under an embargo they’re under a fee restriction. This means they can only make free signings ( or loan signings where no fee is involved). As an aside, even clubs under an embargo can sign players under certain circumstances.

Obviously not a bowler but Pant will be a big loss for them too.

It’s worse than that (or better depending on your perspective…):

Very interesting, thank you. There appears to be no end to the number of people who want to own clubs but (seemingly) shouldn’t.

Chuck Berry - Roll Over Beethoven

Somewhere between the two… That says almost 18,000, I took the figure from the accounts which said (if I’d read properly!) exceeded 17,500. Both figures are of course far higher than the current regime could ever dream of (not that they care.)

2009 season ticket sales - 17,500.