+- WBAUnofficial (https://wbaunofficial.org.uk)
+-- Forum: WBAUnofficial (https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: WBAUnofficial (https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Takeover (/showthread.php?tid=31655)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
RE: Takeover - Fulham Fallout - 01-07-2024
(01-07-2024, 06:27 PM)fuzzbox Wrote:(01-07-2024, 04:01 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:That's not a fair analogy, the circumstances are very different. If we had rich owners, losing money on the academy side isn't the issue, ffp is!(01-07-2024, 03:32 PM)fuzzbox Wrote:(01-07-2024, 01:39 PM)Pragmatist Wrote: No, because we’d still have to rent it on arms length which, whilst exempt from FFP, still means paying out to rent it each year from the owner. It just shifts the problem.I don't understand that. The club pays the rent, but as it's academy related, the rent doesn't figure in ffp.
Whether you want a separate company owning the training facilities is another matter....
Put FFP to one side, the fact is that in simple cash flow terms we’d be paying out rent to a third party for something that we already currently own, which increases our annual outgoings. A bit like selling your mortgage-free house and having to pay out rent instead.
The real problem would be exercising financial discipline and getting it back again. Should we finally get to the point that ffp wasnt a critical issue, I'm guessing the money would go on a new player, instead.
Academy costs are excluded from the FFP figure, as are wonen’s football costs.
RE: Takeover - fuzzbox - 01-07-2024
(01-07-2024, 06:50 PM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:(01-07-2024, 06:27 PM)fuzzbox Wrote:(01-07-2024, 04:01 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:That's not a fair analogy, the circumstances are very different. If we had rich owners, losing money on the academy side isn't the issue, ffp is!(01-07-2024, 03:32 PM)fuzzbox Wrote:(01-07-2024, 01:39 PM)Pragmatist Wrote: No, because we’d still have to rent it on arms length which, whilst exempt from FFP, still means paying out to rent it each year from the owner. It just shifts the problem.I don't understand that. The club pays the rent, but as it's academy related, the rent doesn't figure in ffp.
Whether you want a separate company owning the training facilities is another matter....
Put FFP to one side, the fact is that in simple cash flow terms we’d be paying out rent to a third party for something that we already currently own, which increases our annual outgoings. A bit like selling your mortgage-free house and having to pay out rent instead.
The real problem would be exercising financial discipline and getting it back again. Should we finally get to the point that ffp wasnt a critical issue, I'm guessing the money would go on a new player, instead.
Academy costs are excluded from the FFP figure, as are wonen’s football costs.
Exactly.
RE: Takeover - Pragmatist - 01-07-2024
(01-07-2024, 06:48 PM)CA Baggie Wrote: Selling the training ground to the owners other company, paying a market rent that gets reinvested into academy by the owners. The money the club would spend on the academy anyway would pay the lease and the monies being reinvested would pay the academy costs.
I thought owners could invest/inject money for infrastructure type things like the academy?
You’re missing the point. The sale would have to be to a third party, otherwise everything gets consolidated and the transaction would be neutral. And by selling to a third party, that means paying rent to a third party which would be an additional rental expense that the club wouldn’t otherwise be paying.
The club would still be paying out the operational costs of the academy but outgoing rent would be in addition.
(01-07-2024, 06:50 PM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:(01-07-2024, 06:27 PM)fuzzbox Wrote:(01-07-2024, 04:01 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:That's not a fair analogy, the circumstances are very different. If we had rich owners, losing money on the academy side isn't the issue, ffp is!(01-07-2024, 03:32 PM)fuzzbox Wrote:(01-07-2024, 01:39 PM)Pragmatist Wrote: No, because we’d still have to rent it on arms length which, whilst exempt from FFP, still means paying out to rent it each year from the owner. It just shifts the problem.I don't understand that. The club pays the rent, but as it's academy related, the rent doesn't figure in ffp.
Whether you want a separate company owning the training facilities is another matter....
Put FFP to one side, the fact is that in simple cash flow terms we’d be paying out rent to a third party for something that we already currently own, which increases our annual outgoings. A bit like selling your mortgage-free house and having to pay out rent instead.
The real problem would be exercising financial discipline and getting it back again. Should we finally get to the point that ffp wasnt a critical issue, I'm guessing the money would go on a new player, instead.
Academy costs are excluded from the FFP figure, as are wonen’s football costs.
Excluded from FFP, but still a cash outgoing expense.
RE: Takeover - CaptainFantastico - 01-07-2024
I think one of the benefits of the increasing scrutiny etc is the pressure it will put on what type of owners consider getting involved now. In my view we will soon be one of the better positioned clubs to work under this in the champ. Downside I suppose is that it doesn’t solve the crazy chasm that clubs spending time between the 2 divisions have to plan for additionally to have any chance of eventually consolidating that gulf
RE: Takeover - Woodman scoreboard - 01-07-2024
(01-07-2024, 01:52 PM)Bob Fossil Wrote: Well, it’s gone from a guaranteed firesale to we may bring one or two on loan.
No-one on here truly knows as much as they profess to.
The future is looking brighter whatever happens so hope we win today and get new owners in the week.
If we run out of cashflow we have to sell players or how do we pay the wages ......don't pay and it can cost us points
RE: Takeover - sickParrot - 01-07-2024
(01-07-2024, 03:45 PM)albion_pigeon Wrote:(01-07-2024, 03:33 PM)Kit Kat Chunky Wrote:(01-07-2024, 03:32 PM)fuzzbox Wrote:(01-07-2024, 01:39 PM)Pragmatist Wrote: No, because we’d still have to rent it on arms length which, whilst exempt from FFP, still means paying out to rent it each year from the owner. It just shifts the problem.I don't understand that. The club pays the rent, but as it's academy related, the rent doesn't figure in ffp
Isn't the Academy based at the Training Ground?
Eh? The Academy is opposite the ground ay it?
It is, on Halfords lane. The training ground is off m6 junction 7.
RE: Takeover - CA Baggie - 01-07-2024
(01-07-2024, 07:52 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:(01-07-2024, 06:48 PM)CA Baggie Wrote: Selling the training ground to the owners other company, paying a market rent that gets reinvested into academy by the owners. The money the club would spend on the academy anyway would pay the lease and the monies being reinvested would pay the academy costs.
I thought owners could invest/inject money for infrastructure type things like the academy?
You’re missing the point. The sale would have to be to a third party, otherwise everything gets consolidated and the transaction would be neutral. And by selling to a third party, that means paying rent to a third party which would be an additional rental expense that the club wouldn’t otherwise be paying.
The club would still be paying out the operational costs of the academy but outgoing rent would be in addition.
(01-07-2024, 06:50 PM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:(01-07-2024, 06:27 PM)fuzzbox Wrote:(01-07-2024, 04:01 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:That's not a fair analogy, the circumstances are very different. If we had rich owners, losing money on the academy side isn't the issue, ffp is!(01-07-2024, 03:32 PM)fuzzbox Wrote: I don't understand that. The club pays the rent, but as it's academy related, the rent doesn't figure in ffp.
Whether you want a separate company owning the training facilities is another matter....
Put FFP to one side, the fact is that in simple cash flow terms we’d be paying out rent to a third party for something that we already currently own, which increases our annual outgoings. A bit like selling your mortgage-free house and having to pay out rent instead.
The real problem would be exercising financial discipline and getting it back again. Should we finally get to the point that ffp wasnt a critical issue, I'm guessing the money would go on a new player, instead.
Academy costs are excluded from the FFP figure, as are wonen’s football costs.
Excluded from FFP, but still a cash outgoing expense.
RE: Takeover - TTM2 - 01-07-2024
https://t.co/06CKdKorU0
RE: Takeover - fuzzbox - 01-07-2024
Obviously it's an outgoing expense, but it could be a loss new owners would be willing to pay if it frees up ffp by adding the proceeds of a sale. Especially if there's a buy back clause.
Hopefully I've made it clear I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying that unlike what other posts have said, I believe having wealthy owners does actually make a difference in the options available. Not huge differences, but maybe enough to see us limp through this crisis without long term injury.
For me, it is at least a small comfort to know we may have other options if we move towards the punishment stage. With our current owners, as you have rightly pointed out, we haven't. It would be just kicking the can a few months down the road until there's nothing left.
Personally I just hope that the new owners invest heavily in the academy - which again, is something our current owners can't afford to do
RE: Takeover - SW4Baggie - 01-08-2024
(01-07-2024, 07:52 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:(01-07-2024, 06:48 PM)CA Baggie Wrote: Selling the training ground to the owners other company, paying a market rent that gets reinvested into academy by the owners. The money the club would spend on the academy anyway would pay the lease and the monies being reinvested would pay the academy costs.
I thought owners could invest/inject money for infrastructure type things like the academy?
You’re missing the point. The sale would have to be to a third party, otherwise everything gets consolidated and the transaction would be neutral. And by selling to a third party, that means paying rent to a third party which would be an additional rental expense that the club wouldn’t otherwise be paying.
The club would still be paying out the operational costs of the academy but outgoing rent would be in addition.
(01-07-2024, 06:50 PM)Fulham Fallout Wrote:(01-07-2024, 06:27 PM)fuzzbox Wrote:(01-07-2024, 04:01 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:That's not a fair analogy, the circumstances are very different. If we had rich owners, losing money on the academy side isn't the issue, ffp is!(01-07-2024, 03:32 PM)fuzzbox Wrote: I don't understand that. The club pays the rent, but as it's academy related, the rent doesn't figure in ffp.
Whether you want a separate company owning the training facilities is another matter....
Put FFP to one side, the fact is that in simple cash flow terms we’d be paying out rent to a third party for something that we already currently own, which increases our annual outgoings. A bit like selling your mortgage-free house and having to pay out rent instead.
The real problem would be exercising financial discipline and getting it back again. Should we finally get to the point that ffp wasnt a critical issue, I'm guessing the money would go on a new player, instead.
Academy costs are excluded from the FFP figure, as are wonen’s football costs.
Excluded from FFP, but still a cash outgoing expense.
Yes… when those fishy fuckers were spunking AOTS not enough scrutiny was given to their claim they were spending over £10m on their academy costs…