News:

Use a VPN to stream games Safely and Securely 🔒
A Virtual Private Network can also allow you to
watch games Not being broadcast in the UK For
more Information and how to Sign Up go to
https://go.nordvpn.net/SH4FE

Main Menu


Frank extends his contract and heads to napoli on loan.

Started by IloveFFC, August 30, 2021, 08:15:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Rational Fan

#120
Quote from: Statto on August 31, 2021, 07:28:44 PM
If we were so screwed that we had to sell Tosin, why would we be buying Wilson, and Muniz, and potentially another CM and RB (which Silva confirmed we're after)? Why would we be loaning out Anguissa for minimal short-term financial benefit instead of trying to extract a lump sum fee? Why wouldn't we also be offloading Seri, rather than making him an integral part of the team? It just doesn't stack up at all. I think the simple explanation is these highly pessimistic, but highly speculative, estimates of our FFP position are quite far wide of the mark.

We know Fulham has FFP problems, because we can see the publically available financial records of previous seasons and then estimate.

Fulham's Offical Financial Records state for the 2019/20 season that FFCs expenses (including operating expenses and amortization) were £131,849,000 and our turnover (gate receipts, parachute payments & sponsorship but not player sales profit) was £58,035,000, with player profit near £25,310,000. In addition, we know last time we were in the Premier League in 18/19 our turnover was £137,748,000.

We can fairly safely estimate that Fulham's expenses over the period from July 2019 to June 2022 (three seasons), would be at least three times the 19/20 season (£131m) therefore expenses are more than £393m (3x131).

We also know that Fulham's turnover over the period from July 2019 to June 2022 composes of one Premier League season (last turnover was £138m) and two championship seasons (last turnover was £58m), therefore around £254m (2x58+138). We also have another £36m from the Ryan Sessegnon, Harvey Elliott, and Kamara's sale, bringing total revenue to £290m.

Fulham's lossses, difference between expenses and revenue, is supposed to be £61m plus youth development costs, but expenses are more than £393m and revenue is around £290m, so Fulham's losses before youth development are more than £103m (393-290) over three seasons.

Obviously at £42m hole needs to be made up, Anguissa contract extensions might have moved his wage and amortization to next season-saving us maybe £8m, youth development could be £30m, and a lot of last seasons loans payments conditional on staying up (keeping RLC and other wages/fee to £0m), but even then we need to find another sale like Rodak or Cairney for £5m.


mrmicawbers

Lesson learned,always look who's posting before reading.

b+w geezer

 If they've been too gloomy then great, but the post here and those by Craven Chris  do raise suspicion of a crown jewel or  two needing selling in January which is when FFP compliance must be finalised. If so, that'll be sad but a player worth attracting a big bid is rarely at a club our size for even half his career. Haynes days are long passed.

If the club sees it that way too, then it may be thinking: promotion this season is more essential than it has ever been. There are two chances to comply with the financial regs. Don't take the first, but front load the new manager with all the resouces we can, so as to reach late January in a really strong position for an automatic spot. Then, if that has worked, selling a top player won't be fatal and once in the Prem there is loads more money. Or..if it hasn't worked, sales of many players will be needed in the summer anyway. Make hay whie we can.





The Rational Fan

#123
Quote from: b+w geezer on September 01, 2021, 08:44:17 AM
If they've been too gloomy then great, but the post here and those by Craven Chris  do raise suspicion of a crown jewel or  two needing selling in January which is when FFP compliance must be finalised. If so, that'll be sad but a player worth attracting a big bid is rarely at a club our size for even half his career. Haynes days are long passed.

If the club sees it that way too, then it may be thinking: promotion this season is more essential than it has ever been. There are two chances to comply with the financial regs. Don't take the first, but front load the new manager with all the resouces we can, so as to reach late January in a really strong position for an automatic spot. Then, if that has worked, selling a top player won't be fatal and once in the Prem there is loads more money. Or..if it hasn't worked, sales of many players will be needed in the summer anyway. Make hay whie we can.

We can theoretically get 85 points before the winter transfer window deadline day happens and we need to meet FFP. We got 68 points in the last 29 games of 18/19, then maybe this season we need to aim to get 68 points that in the first 29 games, then we can sell Rodak, Hector, Bryan, Reed, Cairney, Knockaert, and Caverlio to meet FFP without fear.

b+w geezer

We'd shed a lot of wages like that -- not sure the'd all attract fees! But yes, something like that, and/or one of our real sellables.  If it is impossible to have the best of all possible worlds, then opt for the best in the circs.

Your points calculations are fun to ponder. I would certainly settle for 68 out of 29! A team with 55 could still reasonably aspire to an automatic place if they got a move on. In this scenario we'd be imagining more of a slowdown so, say 60 with 17 to go would still leave me fairly chipper. With the resources now to hand and the start made, every reason to expect Silva to deliver on that. No guarantees, but you can only lay policy bets where they seem likeliest to pay off.

Neutral Zone Ultra

Irrespective of financial issues, if we do go up this season I don't really want us to persevere with Frank in the Prem. He's undoubtedly a talented player, arguably one of the most naturally talented in our squad, but we've now had 2 unsuccessful Premier League campaigns with him in the team and I for one feel that we need to be moving away from those clearly inadequate groups of players to reinforcing the current team with something new.


terryr

Why did Frank extend his contract if he wants away?
Was  it to help us out?
Not sure I understand that aspect of this deal.

Bokonon

Quote from: TerryR on September 01, 2021, 08:37:32 PM
Why did Frank extend his contract if he wants away?
Was  it to help us out?
Not sure I understand that aspect of this deal.

Almost certainly to help out with FFP amortisation of original transfer fee.

perry geyton

Quote from: Neutral Zone Ultra on September 01, 2021, 04:33:49 PM
Irrespective of financial issues, if we do go up this season I don't really want us to persevere with Frank in the Prem. He's undoubtedly a talented player, arguably one of the most naturally talented in our squad, but we've now had 2 unsuccessful Premier League campaigns with him in the team and I for one feel that we need to be moving away from those clearly inadequate groups of players to reinforcing the current team with something new.


I agree and he's talented within reason, zero end product,  and personally I never wanna see him in a Fulham shirt again
Onwards and upwards


Dougie

#129
Quote from: Craven_Chris on August 31, 2021, 07:44:39 PM
Quote from: Statto on August 31, 2021, 07:28:44 PM
If we were so screwed that we had to sell Tosin, why would we be buying Wilson, and Muniz, and potentially another CM and RB (which Silva confirmed we're after)? Why would we be loaning out Anguissa for minimal short-term financial benefit instead of trying to extract a lump sum fee? Why wouldn't we also be offloading Seri, rather than making him an integral part of the team? It just doesn't stack up at all. I think the simple explanation is these highly pessimistic, but highly speculative, estimates of our FFP position are quite far wide of the mark.

It could easily be the case that the FFP estimates including my own, are way out and that is the easiest explanation, I hope it it the correct one.

It could also be the case that the club thought they would get a big lump sum for Anguissa and made deals (highly structured to move the financial impact out of the 21/22 season) on the assumption that Anguissa would fund them, and address any further shortfalls. Perhaps Anguissa didn't raise what they thought, and they will then be forced to sell a further asset to make it up, which is my concern.

But one thing we do know if that, with a similar squad to the one in place at the moment (actually slightly smaller) and first year parachute payments in place, Fulham lost £45m in 19/20 after selling Ryan Sess for £25m and after loaning out both Seri and Anguissa. The operating losses were close to £75m that year and its hard to see, at the moment, why this season would be financially better. Its reasonable to wonder how the club is going to address that level of loss (even is the answer is that our generous owner will just absorb it).

I'm one of those who thought we needed a net spend of minus £15m in the transfer window to hit FFP but now I'm not so sure.

Looking at 19/20 accounts and trying to work out FFP from them is pointless because most most Championship clubs posted a £30m+ loss that year without breaking FFP, and there are so many things that aren't part of those FFP calculations, including promotion bonuses of £10-20m), which is why promoted clubs always post huge losses - just look at Cardiff and Wolves in 17/18.

I'm willing to believe we operated close to FFP in 19/20. The key difference is that our net transfer amort was about £22m in 19/20 thanks to the Sess transfer, whereas it's maybe £34m in 21/22 so far (including re-calculating Mitrovic and Anguissa with respect to the new contract and contract extension). So, a £12m difference according to my sums.

But, we banked £5m more in prize money last season (because we finished 18th instead of 19th), we had the Harvey Eliott tribunal fee (£1.5m but we might actually get more this year the way he's featuring), and maybe there was genuinely a fair amount of rainy day/go-for-broke money we've always held in reserve for situations like this (it's general accounting practice have slack each year that you normally pass forward to the next year unless there's an emergency). Or, as is rumoured, clubs are using Covid to write off the transfer fees of some of their players, using the argument that "Covid losses" should include the impact of the pandemic on the transfer market, and that's what we're doing.

And quite simply, if we were really well over we wouldn't just be fudging Mitro's and Anguissa's transfer amortisation. We would be activating Seri's additional year (actually we should do this anyway), and extending the contract of Cav, BDR, and god help us Knockaert. I don't think we would have done things like extend Ream and Christie's contracts. I don't think we'd be signing players at the end of the deadline when our squad is already really strong.

When Wilson signed the press said the deal was structured "to keep Fulham within FFP constraints". I wonder if that literally meant we were at that point on the brink by our sums. Than we took in £4m, and that allowed us to sign Muniz. Then we re-structured Mitro and Anguissa sums, and we signed Chabolah.

We Are Premier League

Quote from: Bokonon on September 01, 2021, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: TerryR on September 01, 2021, 08:37:32 PM
Why did Frank extend his contract if he wants away?
Was  it to help us out?
Not sure I understand that aspect of this deal.

Almost certainly to help out with FFP amortisation of original transfer fee.

Almost certainly a condition from us to accept a loan. Not only does it help with FFP amortisation, it will also preserve more resale value for next summer if Napoli don't take up the option to buy.

The Rational Fan

Quote from: Dougie on September 01, 2021, 09:22:36 PM

Looking at 19/20 accounts and trying to work out FFP from them is pointless because most Championship clubs posted a £30m+ loss that year without breaking FFP.


I suspect most of these clubs that are posting £30m+ losses are also breaking FFP (average £13m losses per year) but not getting caught. I really doubt many clubs are spending £17m of youth development (i'd love to know how much of Parker's wage was youth development) and promotion bonuses should only be for promoted teams.


Dougie

Quote from: The Rational Fan on September 02, 2021, 02:58:54 AM
Quote from: Dougie on September 01, 2021, 09:22:36 PM

Looking at 19/20 accounts and trying to work out FFP from them is pointless because most Championship clubs posted a £30m+ loss that year without breaking FFP.


I suspect most of these clubs that are posting £30m+ losses are also breaking FFP (average £13m losses per year) but not getting caught. I really doubt many clubs are spending £17m of youth development (i'd love to know how much of Parker's wage was youth development) and promotion bonuses should only be for promoted teams.

It's more that Covid both dramatically reduced revenues that season and increased costs because the burden was on clubs to manage it without financial support. For FFP that season clubs were able to exclude the impact of Covid from their sums, and it'll be the same for 20/21.

That being said, this may have opened the door for clubs to take the piss a bit. I read somewhere that some Championship clubs had written down player valuations (i.e. reduced transfer amort on the books) in their submissions, because of the deflated transfer market due to Covid. I hope that whatever we've done is unimpeachable, but I wonder if we'[ve done something even more grandiose, like built in our new stand projections into our FFP calculations this year (because if it wasn't for Covid it'd be open right?).

Craven_Chris

Quote from: Dougie on September 02, 2021, 09:19:55 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on September 02, 2021, 02:58:54 AM
Quote from: Dougie on September 01, 2021, 09:22:36 PM

Looking at 19/20 accounts and trying to work out FFP from them is pointless because most Championship clubs posted a £30m+ loss that year without breaking FFP.


I suspect most of these clubs that are posting £30m+ losses are also breaking FFP (average £13m losses per year) but not getting caught. I really doubt many clubs are spending £17m of youth development (i'd love to know how much of Parker's wage was youth development) and promotion bonuses should only be for promoted teams.

It's more that Covid both dramatically reduced revenues that season and increased costs because the burden was on clubs to manage it without financial support. For FFP that season clubs were able to exclude the impact of Covid from their sums, and it'll be the same for 20/21.

That being said, this may have opened the door for clubs to take the piss a bit. I read somewhere that some Championship clubs had written down player valuations (i.e. reduced transfer amort on the books) in their submissions, because of the deflated transfer market due to Covid. I hope that whatever we've done is unimpeachable, but I wonder if we'[ve done something even more grandiose, like built in our new stand projections into our FFP calculations this year (because if it wasn't for Covid it'd be open right?).

I think the use of the covid cost deduction is one of the big unknowns here. I mean if Fulham had an offer for Anguissa last year of £22m (which I read somewhere) but now can only loan him out, can they put £22m as a covid cost because they would have sold him for that if they could? That would be quite extreme, but maybe that is the sort of thing clubs might be trying (for all I know).

On the subject of FFP accounting tricks... I wondered if the re-establishment of the women's team could be used for creating some FFP headroom. I understand that they now train and indeed play matches at Motspur Park, I wonder if that means that a portion of the running costs of Motspur Park can be allocated to that team, including ground staff, rates, coaches time etc. Imagine if all the coaching staff have in their contracts to spend 20% of their time coaching the women's team and 20% coaching the youth. Then can you allocate 40% of their wages to those activities, which are FFP exempt? This is the sort of thing that makes it very hard to get anywhere near the true position as we just dont know how the club approaches this sort of thing and what tricks they have up their sleave!

Forever Fulham

Quote from: Bokonon on September 01, 2021, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: TerryR on September 01, 2021, 08:37:32 PM
Why did Frank extend his contract if he wants away?
Was  it to help us out?
Not sure I understand that aspect of this deal.

Almost certainly to help out with FFP amortisation of original transfer fee.
I, for one, am encouraged that Frank didn't completely sever from us.  Will we ever really know how much  his play was influenced/stifled by Scott?  He might greatly improve this season, and if he does, come back and help our fight to stay up.  Size, talent, enough speed. Can he adapt though.  We aren't going sideways and endlessly kicking backwards anymore.  How he does away this season will answer.


Caedal

So this could be completely untrue, but I just heard the Napoli option to buy is only enforceable if we DONT get promoted. The option isn't enforceable if we do. That may be the reason the Fulham official announcement didn't mention the option and didn't sound like he was definitely leaving

bobby01

I cannot remember if it was in a Rutzler comment but I read that Frank asked for the contract extension to be activated.
Watching the ups and downs since 1958, wouldn't have it any other way, what a roller coaster of a club.