cibaman said:Prestwich_Blue said:The main ongoing allowance is for infrastructure spending and expenditure that can be directly shown to be related to youth development. No one will know for sure what that is but it could be £20m a year possibly. We lost £97m last year and let's say £60m this, making £157m in total. Knock off 2 x £20m, which gives an FFP loss of £117m. Then, we can look at the one-off exemption for wages paid on contracts signed before June 2010. Last year it was suggested this could be as much as £80m, which can be used if it takes us under the €45m limit. Knocking the £80m off the the £117m just about brings us in so we'd be OK.more lazy than useless said:Even if we have about £60M loss won't we be there abouts for FFP? IIRC from last year's accounts once the spending allowable under FFP was taken out we were much better. Even then much of the problem came from the high transfers/wages from a few years back and most of that is now gone?
Is there still a question mark over the Etihad sponsorship or has that been cleared?
There should be no question mark over this as it's not what's known as a "related party transaction" therefore meaning it's not subject to the fair value test.cibaman said:Is there still a question mark over the Etihad sponsorship or has that been cleared?
That's because, as much as anything else, our profile has gone up so much globally in the intervening period, the reported £30m pa deal is now looking a bit thin, if anything.mayo31 said:Thee was some noise when the Eithad sponsorship was announced but now it all gone quiet.
Prestwich_Blue said:The main ongoing allowance is for infrastructure spending and expenditure that can be directly shown to be related to youth development. No one will know for sure what that is but it could be £20m a year possibly. We lost £97m last year and let's say £60m this, making £157m in total. Knock off 2 x £20m, which gives an FFP loss of £117m. Then, we can look at the one-off exemption for wages paid on contracts signed before June 2010. Last year it was suggested this could be as much as £80m, which can be used if it takes us under the €45m limit. Knocking the £80m off the the £117m just about brings us in so we'd be OK.more lazy than useless said:Prestwich_Blue said:Going to be touch and go but there are unlikely to be any significant penalties in the first year or two and we'll be able to show that we are well on course to break even and should be in profit by the time UEFA start to get tough.
Even if we have about £60M loss won't we be there abouts for FFP? IIRC from last year's accounts once the spending allowable under FFP was taken out we were much better. Even then much of the problem came from the high transfers/wages from a few years back and most of that is now gone?
They'll appear as depreciation I assume, unless there's any we can write off to P&L. We might be able to write off the cost of remediation, for example.PrestwichPeteMcfc said:Prestwich_Blue said:The main ongoing allowance is for infrastructure spending and expenditure that can be directly shown to be related to youth development. No one will know for sure what that is but it could be £20m a year possibly. We lost £97m last year and let's say £60m this, making £157m in total. Knock off 2 x £20m, which gives an FFP loss of £117m. Then, we can look at the one-off exemption for wages paid on contracts signed before June 2010. Last year it was suggested this could be as much as £80m, which can be used if it takes us under the €45m limit. Knocking the £80m off the the £117m just about brings us in so we'd be OK.more lazy than useless said:Even if we have about £60M loss won't we be there abouts for FFP? IIRC from last year's accounts once the spending allowable under FFP was taken out we were much better. Even then much of the problem came from the high transfers/wages from a few years back and most of that is now gone?
Won't all these infrastructure costs be capitalised, so won't appear in the account loss figure anyway?
Prestwich_Blue said:They'll appear as depreciation I assume, unless there's any we can write off to P&L. We might be able to write off the cost of remediation, for example.PrestwichPeteMcfc said:Prestwich_Blue said:The main ongoing allowance is for infrastructure spending and expenditure that can be directly shown to be related to youth development. No one will know for sure what that is but it could be £20m a year possibly. We lost £97m last year and let's say £60m this, making £157m in total. Knock off 2 x £20m, which gives an FFP loss of £117m. Then, we can look at the one-off exemption for wages paid on contracts signed before June 2010. Last year it was suggested this could be as much as £80m, which can be used if it takes us under the €45m limit. Knocking the £80m off the the £117m just about brings us in so we'd be OK.
Won't all these infrastructure costs be capitalised, so won't appear in the account loss figure anyway?
fbloke said:Prestwich_Blue said:They'll appear as depreciation I assume, unless there's any we can write off to P&L. We might be able to write off the cost of remediation, for example.PrestwichPeteMcfc said:Won't all these infrastructure costs be capitalised, so won't appear in the account loss figure anyway?
Everything involved with infrastructure is deductible under FFP including professional fees and consultancy.
The same applies to academy work too so there will be considerable sums removed from the losses for that too.