PDA

View Full Version : have we breached STCC for YE1415


eaglejez
06-02-2016, 09:53 AM
I know there are two other finance threads but this is quite a big question so worthy of a separate thread in case others miss it !

Given the STCC part of the Premier League rules (see attached) have we breached this for 2014/15. Its a ridiculous unnecessary rule obviously drafted and agreed to by people who either don't understand the implications or are happy to preserve the status quo.

Yes clubs can grow their wages but very slowly and all clubs will eventually reach a ceiling but all at different levels. The other thing is that for us this will take years and by then the wages will have gone even sillier due to the inevitable inflation coming from the increased TV deal from the already established 'big clubs' ! IMO if they don't want clubs to get into trouble the 'equity requirement' other rule is good enough due to the parachute payments.

Back to 2014/15 the rule is here
http://i.imgur.com/M4izWBY.png

we have increased wages 14/15 by 22m ie 18m excess above the 4m.

Assuming not much of this was from contracts before Jan 13 how have we not breached this given our player profit was 0.5m and increased non TV revenue was 6.5m ?

Somebody please point out what I'm missing in all of this so the thread can be closed :(:(

ExiledStirling
06-02-2016, 09:57 AM
Somebody please point out what I'm missing
A life

eaglejez
06-02-2016, 10:07 AM
A life

http://www.cpfc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=248430

:)


Given some of the issues discussed on the BBS I reckon this is quite an important one

ee-ay-ee-ay-ee-ay-o
06-02-2016, 10:12 AM
A life

:D:D

But that's not the spirit is it..;)

ExiledStirling
06-02-2016, 10:12 AM
http://www.cpfc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=248430

:)


Given some of the issues discussed on the BBS I reckon this is quite an important one
I hope you are not down playing a take away getting an order wrong and claiming it is not of great significance. Shame on you.

alpha
06-02-2016, 10:14 AM
The increase, as far as I can see from a brief scan, represents total staff costs, so it is difficult to identify how much of this would relate to players' wages alone but as staff costs, excluding pension and employers NI is a total of £60m for the year, I'm guessing the club are unlikely to have breached the £56m limit in E.18.1.

eaglejez
06-02-2016, 10:16 AM
I hope you are not down playing a take away getting an order wrong and claiming it is not of great significance. Shame on you.

I apologise :p

eaglejez
06-02-2016, 10:23 AM
The increase, as far as I can see from a brief scan, represents total staff costs, so it is difficult to identify how much of this would relate to players' wages alone but as staff costs, excluding pension and employers NI is a total of £60m for the year, I'm guessing the club are unlikely to have breached the £56m limit in E.18.1.

I was kinda hoping that too but that would mean the 85 full time non football staff to be on over 100K pa !! NI etc has to be included for players

Big Blue Eagle
06-02-2016, 10:29 AM
I was kinda hoping that too but that would mean the 85 full time non football staff to be on over 100K pa !! NI etc has to be included for players

Pardew will be on well over £1m pa

alpha
06-02-2016, 10:30 AM
The 102 non admin staff includes Pards, Keith Milen, coaches, physics, etc, all who not be included in the £56m limit as the rule refers to players services only. So essentially the admin staff + the coaching staff (including manager)'s wages have to be taken out the staff costs. If the balance is below £56m then there's no problem.

eaglejez
06-02-2016, 10:38 AM
The 102 non admin staff includes Pards, Keith Milen, coaches, physics, etc, all who not be included in the £56m limit as the rule refers to players services only. So essentially the admin staff + the coaching staff (including manager)'s wages have to be taken out the staff costs. If the balance is below £56m then there's no problem.

Say Pards is 2m. Millen 0.5m. Other coaches 1.5m all in so that's 4m. That leaves 8m for other 85 ish so unfortunately I don't think that works :(

alpha
06-02-2016, 10:54 AM
Say Pards is 2m. Millen 0.5m. Other coaches 1.5m all in so that's 4m. That leaves 8m for other 85 ish so unfortunately I don't think that works :(

The total staff costs figure includes pension payments and employers NI which need to be added to the non-playing staff costs. It will also include any bonuses paid to managers, e.g. Pulls and may include an accrual for the bonus paid prior to his departure. Without looking at the club's payroll figures, I would be optimistic that we are below the limit.

sydney eagle
06-02-2016, 10:57 AM
A life
:D

Martin H
06-02-2016, 11:02 AM
I just think that Parish has referenced this as an issue so many times now that it is unlikely that they will have breached this. I.e. It would gave to be due to a misunderstanding of what seem complex without the benefit of supporting help text and examples (that I assume the club has).

Bones14
06-02-2016, 11:03 AM
I was kinda hoping that too but that would mean the 85 full time non football staff to be on over 100K pa !! NI etc has to be included for players

Doris the tea lady is on a pretty good wicket then.

orp pisshead1
06-02-2016, 11:03 AM
A life

:D:lux:

eaglejez
06-02-2016, 11:50 AM
The total staff costs figure includes pension payments and employers NI which need to be added to the non-playing staff costs. It will also include any bonuses paid to managers, e.g. Pulls and may include an accrual for the bonus paid prior to his departure. Without looking at the club's payroll figures, I would be optimistic that we are below the limit.

do the maths ! I'm not

eaglejez
06-02-2016, 11:52 AM
I just think that Parish has referenced this as an issue so many times now that it is unlikely that they will have breached this. I.e. It would gave to be due to a misunderstanding of what seem complex without the benefit of supporting help text and examples (that I assume the club has).

Yep. That's my assumption too. Points deduction at this stage would be a bit of a shocker

unsensibleLiam
06-02-2016, 11:55 AM
I thought the punishment was a fine equalling the amount which you go over the limit?

GreatGonzo
06-02-2016, 12:01 PM
That's the championship sanction to promoted clubs.

eaglejez
06-02-2016, 12:09 PM
I thought the punishment was a fine equalling the amount which you go over the limit?

nothing would surprise me if they deducted points. If it was just a fine you could just ignore it and keep racking up the fines :)

AJ
06-02-2016, 01:41 PM
The rule is unfair and all clubs should have been forced to start at the same amount.

Stinger1
06-02-2016, 02:21 PM
nothing would surprise me if they deducted points. If it was just a fine you could just ignore it and keep racking up the fines :)

I'm pretty sure the punishment is based on the severity of the breach and the length of the breach and goes in order fine, transfer embargo and then points deduction.

eaglejez
06-02-2016, 02:36 PM
I'm pretty sure the punishment is based on the severity of the breach and the length of the breach and goes in order fine, transfer embargo and then points deduction.

yep:(

dave_who_ru
06-02-2016, 05:45 PM
OK let's look at the numbers:

Wages have increased by £22.3m to £68m and we are above the £56m cap so we are subject to the STCC rules.

We need to explain the £12m difference.

Revenues (gate receipts, sponsorship and advertising, other commercial activities, and other income) have increased by £6.5m. So just another £5.5m to find.

Profit on disposal of players £0.46m. So just another £5.04m to find.

Then we have a problem as the remainder is all tied up in staff costs.

We know Pulis was paid a £1m bonus before the start of the season. Also we need to add on the wages and cost of getting rid of Warnock. Then AP's wages. There were reports that he was being paid £1.5m plus a bonus of £1m for keeping us up.

That still leaves all the other coaches.

I'm not sure where 85 full time admin and commercial staff come from but at an average of £15k each that is another £1.3m. Also Phil Alexander paid £0.48m.

I suggest we are OK.

JDawg
06-02-2016, 06:21 PM
I know there are two other finance threads but this is quite a big question so worthy of a separate thread in case others miss it !

Given the STCC part of the Premier League rules (see attached) have we breached this for 2014/15. Its a ridiculous unnecessary rule obviously drafted and agreed to by people who either don't understand the implications or are happy to preserve the status quo.

Yes clubs can grow their wages but very slowly and all clubs will eventually reach a ceiling but all at different levels. The other thing is that for us this will take years and by then the wages will have gone even sillier due to the inevitable inflation coming from the increased TV deal from the already established 'big clubs' ! IMO if they don't want clubs to get into trouble the 'equity requirement' other rule is good enough due to the parachute payments.

Back to 2014/15 the rule is here
http://i.imgur.com/M4izWBY.png

we have increased wages 14/15 by 22m ie 18m excess above the 4m.

Assuming not much of this was from contracts before Jan 13 how have we not breached this given our player profit was 0.5m and increased non TV revenue was 6.5m ?

Somebody please point out what I'm missing in all of this so the thread can be closed :(:(

I'm going to regret this, but what is E15 and E16? Mentioned in E17 and E18. Won't get the full picture with selective quoting.

danpalace07
06-02-2016, 06:21 PM
OK let's look at the numbers:

Wages have increased by £22.3m to £68m and we are above the £56m cap so we are subject to the STCC rules.

We need to explain the £12m difference.

Revenues (gate receipts, sponsorship and advertising, other commercial activities, and other income) have increased by £6.5m. So just another £5.5m to find.

Profit on disposal of players £0.46m. So just another £5.04m to find.

Then we have a problem as the remainder is all tied up in staff costs.

We know Pulis was paid a £1m bonus before the start of the season. Also we need to add on the wages and cost of getting rid of Warnock. Then AP's wages. There were reports that he was being paid £1.5m plus a bonus of £1m for keeping us up.

That still leaves all the other coaches.

I'm not sure where 85 full time admin and commercial staff come from but at an average of £15k each that is another £1.3m. Also Phil Alexander paid £0.48m.

I suggest we are OK.

half a mill for Two Admins Phil?

JDawg
06-02-2016, 06:21 PM
I know there are two other finance threads but this is quite a big question so worthy of a separate thread in case others miss it !

Given the STCC part of the Premier League rules (see attached) have we breached this for 2014/15. Its a ridiculous unnecessary rule obviously drafted and agreed to by people who either don't understand the implications or are happy to preserve the status quo.

Yes clubs can grow their wages but very slowly and all clubs will eventually reach a ceiling but all at different levels. The other thing is that for us this will take years and by then the wages will have gone even sillier due to the inevitable inflation coming from the increased TV deal from the already established 'big clubs' ! IMO if they don't want clubs to get into trouble the 'equity requirement' other rule is good enough due to the parachute payments.

Back to 2014/15 the rule is here
http://i.imgur.com/M4izWBY.png

we have increased wages 14/15 by 22m ie 18m excess above the 4m.

Assuming not much of this was from contracts before Jan 13 how have we not breached this given our player profit was 0.5m and increased non TV revenue was 6.5m ?

Somebody please point out what I'm missing in all of this so the thread can be closed :(:(

I'm going to regret this, but what is E14, E15 and E16? Mentioned in E17. Won't get the full picture with selective quoting. Also (as its appears to be a defined term) what is Club Own Revenue Uplift?

dave_who_ru
06-02-2016, 06:30 PM
I'm going to regret this, but what is E14, E15 and E16? Mentioned in E17. Won't get the full picture with selective quoting. Also (as its appears to be a defined term) what is Club Own Revenue Uplift?

E14 says that if Crystal Palace break any of the rules then they will be relegated to the Championship

E15 says that if Crystal Palace break any of the rules then they will be relegated to League 1

E16 says that if Crystal Palace break any of the rules then they will be relegated to League 2

dave_who_ru
06-02-2016, 06:32 PM
As E14 and E15 refer to a number of other rules it would be a never ending process.

dave_who_ru
06-02-2016, 07:27 PM
E14 covers a failure to submit financial information to the Premier League

E15 covers what the Premier League can demand if the club looks like it may not be able to fulfil its financial obligations including a refusal to register any new players or a new contract of an existing player

E16 covers a change of control at a club including evidence that the new owner has sufficient finance in place

So basically ignore E17 and the above as they don't really have anything to do with STCC.

What is missing is rule E20:

With effect from 2014, on or before 1 March in each Season, each Club shall submit Form 3 to the Secretary.

Form 3 is basically a breakdown of each player's wages and bonuses.

Duffle Coat
06-02-2016, 08:22 PM
Most of us live on Planet Palace. I think we are the insane ones but I am pleased to be a fully paid up member.:lux:

Oli28
06-02-2016, 08:49 PM
A life
:lux::lux:

eaglejez
06-02-2016, 11:25 PM
OK let's look at the numbers:

Wages have increased by £22.3m to £68m and we are above the £56m cap so we are subject to the STCC rules.

We need to explain the £12m difference.

Revenues (gate receipts, sponsorship and advertising, other commercial activities, and other income) have increased by £6.5m. So just another £5.5m to find.

Profit on disposal of players £0.46m. So just another £5.04m to find.

Then we have a problem as the remainder is all tied up in staff costs.

We know Pulis was paid a £1m bonus before the start of the season. Also we need to add on the wages and cost of getting rid of Warnock. Then AP's wages. There were reports that he was being paid £1.5m plus a bonus of £1m for keeping us up.

That still leaves all the other coaches.

I'm not sure where 85 full time admin and commercial staff come from but at an average of £15k each that is another £1.3m. Also Phil Alexander paid £0.48m.

I suggest we are OK.

It's the £22m excess over the £4m we need to explain not £12m. We are only allowed to increase player wages by 4m. Some of this will be Pards but not that much ! Player profits are 0.5m and total inc in non central payments income is £6.5 m ie. We are in breach

Eddie McGoldrick's tash
07-02-2016, 01:21 AM
I'm confused

dave_who_ru
07-02-2016, 08:59 AM
It's the £22m excess over the £4m we need to explain not £12m. We are only allowed to increase player wages by 4m. Some of this will be Pards but not that much ! Player profits are 0.5m and total inc in non central payments income is £6.5 m ie. We are in breach

Sorry but I don't read it that way. When SP said in September that wages were nearer £70m and that we were close to the cap I take it that we were OK.

Using your reasoning we would be several million out so I am happy with my calculations.

mroakley9
07-02-2016, 09:38 AM
I blame those pesky Americans for anything we may have done wrong.

dave_who_ru
07-02-2016, 10:35 AM
Just to confuse the issue even further. In September when talking to the Guardian SP said:

The annual wage bill last season was £52m. “This year it will probably be somewhere in the region of £70m,” says Parish through a whisper. “There are regulations, cost control measures and targets we have to hit, and we were close with ‘issues’ in that respect.

We know for 2014 the wage bill was £45.8m and 2015 £68m. My understanding from the interview was that the £52 related to 2015 and the £70m related to 2016.

Looking at form 3 again total wage costs for a player include contracted salary, adjustments to salary, actual salary, signing on fees, loyalty payments, other bonuses and appearance payments. There is also a separate return covering pension payments, benefits in kind and image contract payments.

On the main form we also have to report employer's NIC (national insurance) although this is included in the definition of Player Services Costs.

If we take what SP said on face value and that the (player) wage bill was £52m then we would have been within the cap of £56m for 2015. However, that would mean that non-playing staff costs were £16m, which looks very unlikely.

Maybe he was looking at pure wages (excluding NIC), who knows.

Unless CPFC2010 actually confirm that we met STCC rules for 2014/15 season we will remain in the dark until the Premier League makes it's own announcements.

eaglejez
07-02-2016, 10:52 AM
Sorry but I don't read it that way. When SP said in September that wages were nearer £70m and that we were close to the cap I take it that we were OK.

Using your reasoning we would be several million out so I am happy with my calculations.

I wish you were right but

E18

Rule E.19 shall apply if in any of Contract Years 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 a Club’s aggregated Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments: E.18.1. exceed £52m, £56m, or £60m respectively;

wages for 2014/15 were 68m. Even paying Pards and coaching staff a big salary and bonus its unlikely the 80 non playing staff would make up the difference ie get up to 12m ?

and E.18.2. have increased by more than £4m when compared with the previous Contract Year.



68m up from 46m in 2013/14 so even if non playing wages proportion was a bit different its pretty clear it went up well over 4m

E.19.

If Rule E.18 applies, the Club must satisfy the Board that either: E.19.1 the total increase is not greater than £4m, £8m or £12m respectively when compared with Contract Year 2012/13;



the increase is c22m and is over 8m. It might be less than a 22m increase since 2014/15 will include Pards et al. So say an excess of 10-14m over the 8m ?

or E.19.2 the excess increase as is referred to in E.18.2 arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or that it has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift and/or profit from player trading as disclosed in the Club’s Annual Accounts for that Contract Year.


Not much of the increase contracted before 31/1/2013 ? Club Own Revenue uplift for 2014/15 is 6.5m and player trading profit is 0.5m.

pots1970
07-02-2016, 11:18 AM
With regards to generating funds with player sales, is this the total taking player aquisitions into account or a stand alone figure? if the latter that would give almost 8 million.

dave_who_ru
07-02-2016, 11:55 AM
With regards to generating funds with player sales, is this the total taking player aquisitions into account or a stand alone figure? if the latter that would give almost 8 million.

This is the profit we made not the actual value of sales. And the c£8m figure refers to post year-end events.

ebyeeckeagle
07-02-2016, 12:02 PM
I'm confused

Phew. Not just me.

dave_who_ru
07-02-2016, 12:04 PM
I wish you were right but

E18

Rule E.19 shall apply if in any of Contract Years 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 a Club’s aggregated Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments: E.18.1. exceed £52m, £56m, or £60m respectively;

wages for 2014/15 were 68m. Even paying Pards and coaching staff a big salary and bonus its unlikely the 80 non playing staff would make up the difference ie get up to 12m ?

and E.18.2. have increased by more than £4m when compared with the previous Contract Year.



68m up from 46m in 2013/14 so even if non playing wages proportion was a bit different its pretty clear it went up well over 4m

E.19.

If Rule E.18 applies, the Club must satisfy the Board that either: E.19.1 the total increase is not greater than £4m, £8m or £12m respectively when compared with Contract Year 2012/13;



the increase is c22m and is over 8m. It might be less than a 22m increase since 2014/15 will include Pards et al. So say an excess of 10-14m over the 8m ?

or E.19.2 the excess increase as is referred to in E.18.2 arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or that it has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift and/or profit from player trading as disclosed in the Club’s Annual Accounts for that Contract Year.


Not much of the increase contracted before 31/1/2013 ? Club Own Revenue uplift for 2014/15 is 6.5m and player trading profit is 0.5m.

All I would say it is unclear what figure we have to account for. The full wage increase of £22.3m or just the excess over £56m i.e. £12m or the excess over £8m i.e. £14.3m.

eagle-leg
07-02-2016, 01:07 PM
Im quite happy for the powers that be to worry about stuff like this. I have total faith in SP not to do anything stupid or negligent.

Wycombe Eagle#2
07-02-2016, 01:59 PM
So if we've breached we pay the fine and move on no?

I'm totally confused as to how we can be a club that is actually in profit yet clubs like Bournemouth and QPR have splashed the cash like it's going out of fashion, In debt and don't seem that bothered. I'm sure there's other clubs to but everyone here seems to be getting their knickers in a twist about this possible breach.

pete eagle
07-02-2016, 02:09 PM
Auditors would have looked at this and I haven't seen any further large provisions in the accounts or indeed a modification to the Report to suggest that this is an issue.

chandlem68
07-02-2016, 02:17 PM
Auditors would have looked at this and I haven't seen any further large provisions in the accounts or indeed a modification to the Report to suggest that this is an issue.


Agreed. Would at the very least need to be disclosed as a contingent liability

AJ
07-02-2016, 02:27 PM
Bournemouth spent £36m on players this season and surely must have increased their wage bill 10 or 20 fold, they must be in violation of many of the same rules. I believe they broke FFP rules last season in the championship, but faced no action as they were promoted.

Fatboy
07-02-2016, 02:29 PM
One thing is certain - E numbers are bad for you....

Eddie McGoldrick's tash
07-02-2016, 02:36 PM
Bournemouth spent £36m on players this season and surely must have increased their wage bill 10 or 20 fold, they must be in violation of many of the same rules. I believe they broke FFP rules last season in the championship, but faced no action as they were promoted.

They probably haven't reached a £60m wage bill yet though?

dave_who_ru
07-02-2016, 02:47 PM
Bournemouth spent £36m on players this season and surely must have increased their wage bill 10 or 20 fold, they must be in violation of many of the same rules. I believe they broke FFP rules last season in the championship, but faced no action as they were promoted.

The Football League are still deciding on the level of fine that Bournemouth will have to pay.

Jim Cannon
07-02-2016, 03:16 PM
Bournemouth spent £36m on players this season and surely must have increased their wage bill 10 or 20 fold, they must be in violation of many of the same rules. I believe they broke FFP rules last season in the championship, but faced no action as they were promoted.

It is about time they closed this loophole that you effectively escape punishment if you get promoted.

eaglejez
07-02-2016, 04:02 PM
With regards to generating funds with player sales, is this the total taking player aquisitions into account or a stand alone figure? if the latter that would give almost 8 million.

net profit in P&L ie 0.4m

eaglejez
07-02-2016, 04:05 PM
All I would say it is unclear what figure we have to account for. The full wage increase of £22.3m or just the excess over £56m i.e. £12m or the excess over £8m i.e. £14.3m.

it refers to the 'increase' ie seems pretty clear it means increase in wage costs which is what they are trying to influence. That said nothing would surprise how rubbish the people in charge are

eaglejez
07-02-2016, 04:11 PM
So if we've breached we pay the fine and move on no?

I'm totally confused as to how we can be a club that is actually in profit yet clubs like Bournemouth and QPR have splashed the cash like it's going out of fashion, In debt and don't seem that bothered. I'm sure there's other clubs to but everyone here seems to be getting their knickers in a twist about this possible breach.

it would be incredible if they came up with a rule that punishes us even when we make an accounting profit. The key point is that most people have no clue about finance and that includes the people at the top of the game. The whole FPP thing is just so stupid and pointless and they are coming up with rules that they just haven't thought through - mainly because they don't understand what they are doing. We just need to hope it all gets abandoned soon

eaglejez
07-02-2016, 04:12 PM
Bournemouth spent £36m on players this season and surely must have increased their wage bill 10 or 20 fold, they must be in violation of many of the same rules. I believe they broke FFP rules last season in the championship, but faced no action as they were promoted.

but prob under the limits. ?

dave_who_ru
07-02-2016, 04:41 PM
It is about time they closed this loophole that you effectively escape punishment if you get promoted.

As far as I am aware there is no loophole for promoted clubs. Bournemouth face a fine. Clubs like Fulham and Nottingham Forest have a transfer embargo. Only Millwall who were relegated escaped any sanction as they were deemed not to have gained an advantage.

The problem is they still haven't announced a final decision on QPR from the season before last.

Eddie McGoldrick's tash
07-02-2016, 04:52 PM
I don't know if I understand it correctly but wouldn't this mean that with the new TV deal clubs might have a whole load of money they are unable to spend on wages because of the restrictions on the wagebill?

I can see us saving a bit on wages by letting some players go (Chamakh, Hangeland, Mariappa etc. but we are unlikely to bring in much from player sales unless we let one of our key players go (eg. Dann, Bolasie, Wilf).

So how can we move forwards? We will have the money for transfer fees but still not much leeway in terms of wages. I suspect several clubs would have this same problem.

Windsor_Eagle
07-02-2016, 04:59 PM
It's the £22m excess over the £4m we need to explain not £12m. We are only allowed to increase player wages by 4m. Some of this will be Pards but not that much ! Player profits are 0.5m and total inc in non central payments income is £6.5 m ie. We are in breach

No I don't think so.

There is an initial capital (£56m). Each year that cap increases by £4m presumably to represent inflationary prices. So for year 1 any wage bill over £56m has to be explained away, then the next year any wages over £60m etc. It isn't about explaining the difference in your wage bill from one year to the next - just the difference of what is over the cap. The rule couldn't work the other way around because it would massively punish newly promoted teams and positively favour the already massive clubs.

eaglejez
07-02-2016, 05:12 PM
I don't know if I understand it correctly but wouldn't this mean that with the new TV deal clubs might have a whole load of money they are unable to spend on wages because of the restrictions on the wagebill?

I can see us saving a bit on wages by letting some players go (Chamakh, Hangeland, Mariappa etc. but we are unlikely to bring in much from player sales unless we let one of our key players go (eg. Dann, Bolasie, Wilf).

So how can we move forwards? We will have the money for transfer fees but still not much leeway in terms of wages. I suspect several clubs would have this same problem.

The wage bill levels will go up for the next three year cycle. Key point is the limit on how quickly you can increase the wage bill.

eaglejez
07-02-2016, 05:18 PM
No I don't think so.

There is an initial capital (£56m). Each year that cap increases by £4m presumably to represent inflationary prices. So for year 1 any wage bill over £56m has to be explained away, then the next year any wages over £60m etc. It isn't about explaining the difference in your wage bill from one year to the next - just the difference of what is over the cap. The rule couldn't work the other way around because it would massively punish newly promoted teams and positively favour the already massive clubs.

It talks about increase in wage bill from previous contract year. It only kicks in when the player wages are above these levels. They are saying wage increases can only go up 4m pa compare with previous year with any extra increase funded by player profits or non TV income excess. If you look at the articles on the Internet on this this is what they are saying :(

dave_who_ru
07-02-2016, 05:37 PM
it would be incredible if they came up with a rule that punishes us even when we make an accounting profit. The key point is that most people have no clue about finance and that includes the people at the top of the game. The whole FPP thing is just so stupid and pointless and they are coming up with rules that they just haven't thought through - mainly because they don't understand what they are doing. We just need to hope it all gets abandoned soon

FFP makes sense provided any sanctions are appropriate. It stops clubs from running up huge losses and it limits what clubs can spend on wages.

It won't be abandoned and all the Premier League will do is put in place a new rolling 3 year set of rules in line with the new TV deal.

AJ
07-02-2016, 05:40 PM
I don't know if I understand it correctly but wouldn't this mean that with the new TV deal clubs might have a whole load of money they are unable to spend on wages because of the restrictions on the wagebill?

I can see us saving a bit on wages by letting some players go (Chamakh, Hangeland, Mariappa etc. but we are unlikely to bring in much from player sales unless we let one of our key players go (eg. Dann, Bolasie, Wilf).

So how can we move forwards? We will have the money for transfer fees but still not much leeway in terms of wages. I suspect several clubs would have this same problem.

How about we invest in the youth system in a way that may bring a player or two thru to the first team?

Eddie McGoldrick's tash
07-02-2016, 05:44 PM
How about we invest in the youth system in a way that may bring a player or two thru to the first team?

I imagine that was part of the plan with the money that came in from the Yanks - and, yes, it may mean teams have to go that way more. But it still means there may be clubs with lots of money but unable to spend it on players wages?

Eddie McGoldrick's tash
07-02-2016, 05:45 PM
The wage bill levels will go up for the next three year cycle. Key point is the limit on how quickly you can increase the wage bill.

OK, so do we know yet what it will go up to?

dave_who_ru
07-02-2016, 05:45 PM
It talks about increase in wage bill from previous contract year. It only kicks in when the player wages are above these levels. They are saying wage increases can only go up 4m pa compare with previous year with any extra increase funded by player profits or non TV income excess. If you look at the articles on the Internet on this this is what they are saying :(

The problem is there are no worked examples out there of how this is calculated. I have my view and you have yours.

I am sure we were OK last season and I will be disappointed if the same is not the case for this season.

eaglejez
07-02-2016, 06:13 PM
The problem is there are no worked examples out there of how this is calculated. I have my view and you have yours.

I am sure we were OK last season and I will be disappointed if the same is not the case for this season.

http://www.danielgeey.com/premier-league-cost-control-and-sustainability-provisions-published/

http://i.imgur.com/IBK2WLu.png

http://i.imgur.com/xd6PrxW.png

dave_who_ru
07-02-2016, 07:25 PM
Thanks eaglejez and the answer is ......... :)

dave_who_ru
07-02-2016, 07:34 PM
I found some other money. TV income in respect of the Premier League deal is excluded but we received £2.4m from the cups. That is roughly a £1.4m increase on the previous season.

Windsor_Eagle
07-02-2016, 07:37 PM
It talks about increase in wage bill from previous contract year. It only kicks in when the player wages are above these levels. They are saying wage increases can only go up 4m pa compare with previous year with any extra increase funded by player profits or non TV income excess. If you look at the articles on the Internet on this this is what they are saying :(

It seems utterly draft that a team with a wage bill of £65m (previous season £60m) could face a heavier sanction than a team with a wage bill of £100m if last season that clubs wage bill was £97m. Utterly shit to those teams who've come up and see their wage bills quickly lift.

I may be missing something, but your later example seems to support my view on it :confused:.

The £4m increase is factored in by the £4m increase in allowance. Therefore if one year you were way under allowance and then the following year you were just a smidge over it, you should not be penalised for the difference between one financial year and the next, but instead by the amount you've exceeded the allowance.

eaglejez
07-02-2016, 08:44 PM
It seems utterly draft that a team with a wage bill of £65m (previous season £60m) could face a heavier sanction than a team with a wage bill of £100m if last season that clubs wage bill was £97m. Utterly shit to those teams who've come up and see their wage bills quickly lift.

I may be missing something, but your later example seems to support my view on it :confused:.

The £4m increase is factored in by the £4m increase in allowance. Therefore if one year you were way under allowance and then the following year you were just a smidge over it, you should not be penalised for the difference between one financial year and the next, but instead by the amount you've exceeded the allowance.

yep - its 4m then 8m and then 12m referencing the start period. I'm guessing the levels will be upped a bit for the next 3 year cycle but I bet the increase limits will still be unchanged. This rule sucks big time :(

eaglejez
07-02-2016, 08:46 PM
I found some other money. TV income in respect of the Premier League deal is excluded but we received £2.4m from the cups. That is roughly a £1.4m increase on the previous season.

key to all this is that it would be ridiculous if the Club had screwed up. I'm sure they were all over this like a rash.

Does sort of make you wonder about this year (ie to June 16) and you can see why FFS went and why we didn't get anyone in

dave_who_ru
07-02-2016, 08:54 PM
Just for info these are the sanctions given to clubs promoted from the Championship to the Premier League who breach FFP rules on losses incurred during a season:

Any club exceeding the maximum permitted deviation that wins promotion to the Premier League will receive a fine equivalent to:

- 1% of the excess amount between £1 and £100,000

- 20% of the excess amount between £100,001 and £500,000

- 40% of the excess amount between £500,001 and £1,000,000

- 60% of the excess amount between £1,000,001 and £5,000,000

- 80% of the excess amount between £5,000,001 and £10,000,000

- 100% of any excess over £10,000,000

dave_who_ru
07-02-2016, 09:04 PM
key to all this is that it would be ridiculous if the Club had screwed up. I'm sure they were all over this like a rash.

Does sort of make you wonder about this year (ie to June 16) and you can see why FFS went and why we didn't get anyone in

Another aspect of this is the definition of a club's revenue uplift:

“Club Own Revenue Uplift” means any increase in a Club’s revenue in a Contract Year when compared with its revenue in Contract Year 2012/13

So it would appear that we should be comparing the increase in revenues from the 2013 promotion season to last season. :confused:

Gark Moldberg
07-02-2016, 09:45 PM
yep - its 4m then 8m and then 12m referencing the start period. I'm guessing the levels will be upped a bit for the next 3 year cycle but I bet the increase limits will still be unchanged. This rule sucks big time :(

But it works this way for all clubs. The likes of Liverpool and Arsenal are going to throw proportionately more money at players than we are to try and get a marginal gain. This is why they are desperate to increase ticket prices. They need to generate additional income to keep within the rules.

They won't admit that it's to fit in with the rules though. They blame the fact that they have to keep up with the big European clubs.

Celestial Empire
07-02-2016, 10:43 PM
A suspicious person might think that when a brilliant young player breaks through (say, Mahrez), and gets tapped up by the usual suspects, this is designed to prevent his club awarding a big pay increase to keep him.

Del Gland
07-02-2016, 10:52 PM
I fecking hate E17 .... poxy band!

eaglejez
09-02-2016, 10:19 AM
key to all this is that it would be ridiculous if the Club had screwed up. I'm sure they were all over this like a rash.

Does sort of make you wonder about this year (ie to June 16) and you can see why FFS went and why we didn't get anyone in

From Swiss Ramble

"One challenge that Palace will have to confront is the Premier League’s new Financial Fair Play rules, or more accurately its Short Term Cost Control regulations. Given their return to profitability, they will have no problems meeting the loss targets (no more than £105 million aggregated over a three-season period between 2013 and 2016), but they might well have issues with the wage bill targets.

Specifically, clubs whose player service costs are more than £52 million will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4 million per season for the three years from 2013/14. However this restriction only applies to the income from TV money, so any additional money from higher gate receipts, new sponsorship deals or profits from player sales can still be spent on wages.

Parish is aware of this problem: “There are regulations, cost control measures and targets we have to hit. And we were close with ‘issues’ in that respect.” My guess is that they have just about managed to stay within this de facto salary cap in 2014/15, though this could be a real headache in future years – unless the rules are amended in light of the new TV deal."

Looks like we would have just made it. Guessing our commercial income got us over the line plus some items moved around into other boxes :)

The most interesting news (which I sort of new but never really got round to doing the maths) is that since promotion we have generated 78m from operations, spent net 40m on players, 9m on capex (incl 2.5m on training ground), 4m on tax and banked 25m cash !

AndyStreet
09-02-2016, 10:20 AM
From Swiss Ramble

"One challenge that Palace will have to confront is the Premier League’s new Financial Fair Play rules, or more accurately its Short Term Cost Control regulations. Given their return to profitability, they will have no problems meeting the loss targets (no more than £105 million aggregated over a three-season period between 2013 and 2016), but they might well have issues with the wage bill targets.

Specifically, clubs whose player service costs are more than £52 million will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4 million per season for the three years from 2013/14. However this restriction only applies to the income from TV money, so any additional money from higher gate receipts, new sponsorship deals or profits from player sales can still be spent on wages.

Parish is aware of this problem: “There are regulations, cost control measures and targets we have to hit. And we were close with ‘issues’ in that respect.” My guess is that they have just about managed to stay within this de facto salary cap in 2014/15, though this could be a real headache in future years – unless the rules are amended in light of the new TV deal."

Looks like we would have just made it. Guessing our commercial income got us over the line plus some items moved around into other boxes :)

The most interesting news (which I sort of new but never really got round to doing the maths) is that since promotion we have generated 78m from operations, spent net 40m on players, 9m on capex (incl 2.5m on training ground), 4m on tax and banked 25m cash !

You may also have had a few contractual entitlements entered into by club in the Promotion season triggering new contracts in the event of staying up, etc.

eaglejez
09-02-2016, 10:23 AM
You may also have had a few contractual entitlements entered into by club in the Promotion season triggering new contracts in the event of staying up, etc.

yep

Gazza2
09-02-2016, 01:49 PM
The ever excellent Swiss Ramble has just published a review of the Palace accounts which covers this subject and many others:
http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

cranesparkeagle
09-02-2016, 07:01 PM
It seems utterly draft that a team with a wage bill of £65m (previous season £60m) could face a heavier sanction than a team with a wage bill of £100m if last season that clubs wage bill was £97m. Utterly shit to those teams who've come up and see their wage bills quickly lift.

I may be missing something, but your later example seems to support my view on it :confused:.

The £4m increase is factored in by the £4m increase in allowance. Therefore if one year you were way under allowance and then the following year you were just a smidge over it, you should not be penalised for the difference between one financial year and the next, but instead by the amount you've exceeded the allowance.

Strikes me that a cash rich side hamstrung by the limit STCC imposes should just budget for being fined accordingly

pots1970
09-02-2016, 08:24 PM
Chelsea match day turnover 71 million, commercial 108 million omg, we have a bit of catching up to do, roll on the new stand.

red&blue_moomin
10-02-2016, 12:51 PM
So if we've breached we pay the fine and move on no?

I'm totally confused as to how we can be a club that is actually in profit yet clubs like Bournemouth and QPR have splashed the cash like it's going out of fashion, In debt and don't seem that bothered. I'm sure there's other clubs to but everyone here seems to be getting their knickers in a twist about this possible breach.

Its a three year cycle ie newly promoted clubs can spend up to that limit but in the third year unless your no TV income has vastly expanded then you will smack straight into the limit. Ie what we have done. It's likely also this that has curtailed the January spending ie not enough players out means no headroom to offer the larger wages that 'good' players are going to want ie C Austin.

red&blue_moomin
10-02-2016, 01:00 PM
This is why increasing the size of the stadium is so important and those corporate boxes that SP always talks about.............This is where the Americans money is going as Parish has always said.

The accounts mean the activity/(lack of) in January makes total sense. Given that Soare got a new contract, and Adebayor got one we must be right up against the limit.

eaglejez
16-08-2016, 09:03 AM
we can only increase our player wage bill by 7m compared to last season. Guessing this is going to have an impact on transfers :(

(I'm assuming our commercial income hasn't increased substantially and we will be making a big loss on transfers)

Al From Bromley
16-08-2016, 09:10 AM
Don't mention STCC. I mentioned it once but think I got away with it.

Big Blue Eagle
16-08-2016, 11:52 AM
we can only increase our player wage bill by 7m compared to last season. Guessing this is going to have an impact on transfers :(

(I'm assuming our commercial income hasn't increased substantially and we will be making a big loss on transfers)
That £7m is bumped significantly by the reduction causes by Chamakh, Hangeland, Gayle, Jedi etc leaving, so not so bad. We are also currently nett positive on transfer income by some margin with around £35-40m in for a spend of maybe £25m. A loss on transfers doesn't impact STCC unless the club itself makes a loss, but positive income can go to extra wages.

eaglejez
31-08-2016, 08:12 AM
if we pay a big chunk of JW's wages we must be over the 7m limit musn't we ? I'm sure the Board have done the maths ?

Shamone
31-08-2016, 08:17 AM
How would it work if Arsenal paid his wages but we paid a loan fee of say £5m?

eaglejez
31-08-2016, 08:23 AM
How would it work if Arsenal paid his wages but we paid a loan fee of say £5m?

5m would just increase P&L loss. its the wages that count

dave_who_ru
31-08-2016, 08:26 AM
if we pay a big chunk of JW's wages we must be over the 7m limit musn't we ? I'm sure the Board have done the maths ?

But as explained we have lots to play with.

Whatever we sold Bolasie, Jedinak etc. for less current book value.

eaglejez
31-08-2016, 08:37 AM
But as explained we have lots to play with.

Whatever we sold Bolasie, Jedinak etc. for less current book value.

unless I'm missing something we will make a loss on transfers and I'm assuming our commercial income will not go up that much YE16 to YE17 (or maybe it will ?)

The STCC rules say that the wage bill can only increase 7m

Big Blue Eagle
31-08-2016, 08:50 AM
unless I'm missing something we will make a loss on transfers and I'm assuming our commercial income will not go up that much YE16 to YE17 (or maybe it will ?)

The STCC rules say that the wage bill can only increase 7m

And it had gone down significantly through

McCarthy (P)
Chamakh
Hangeland
Marriapa
Adebayor

and now more through

Bolasie
McCarthy (A)
Jedinak
Gayle

I think I trust the club accountants to keep us on the right side of the STCC fence.

eaglejez
31-08-2016, 08:53 AM
and if commercial income went up 4m that would be 80pw :p

Windsor_Eagle
31-08-2016, 08:59 AM
Haven't we just started a new three year cycle of STCC? Or is it now season by season?

Big Blue Eagle
31-08-2016, 09:00 AM
Haven't we just started a new three year cycle of STCC? Or is it now season by season?

Yes - new cycle with allowance for the new TV deal.

eaglejez
31-08-2016, 09:09 AM
Haven't we just started a new three year cycle of STCC? Or is it now season by season?

yes - the 4m became 7m

dave_who_ru
31-08-2016, 09:25 AM
unless I'm missing something we will make a loss on transfers and I'm assuming our commercial income will not go up that much YE16 to YE17 (or maybe it will ?)

The STCC rules say that the wage bill can only increase 7m

The purchases are irrelevant. Those hit the P&L when we amortise what we have paid over the term of the individual contracts.

Any profit we make on players sold compared to their book value counts towards our income for the year like an increase in gate money or commercial income.

Read all about it here:

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Crystal%20Palace

dave_who_ru
31-08-2016, 09:35 AM
I should add that wages can increase by more than £7m provided any excess is covered by a revenue uplift. That is increased income excluding the Premier League monies.

So for last year we would have benefited from the cup run.

This year we will benefit from the player sales.

Shamone
31-08-2016, 10:20 AM
5m would just increase P&L loss. its the wages that count

So why wouldn't we just account for all loans like this? I guess each lending club also wants the wages off the books

dave_who_ru
31-08-2016, 01:34 PM
So why wouldn't we just account for all loans like this? I guess each lending club also wants the wages off the books

We have to provide details of the player's contract so this is a non starter.

eaglejez
30-01-2017, 09:05 AM
I wonder how much STCC is having an impact on our problems in this window.
aka we can't afford to pay anyone the stupid wages they are after :(

LONDONMAN
30-01-2017, 11:13 AM
I wonder how much STCC is having an impact on our problems in this window.
aka we can't afford to pay anyone the stupid wages they are after :(

Got to be a good thing long term? Parish may have his faults, but I doubt he would push Palace beyond our finacial constraints after being so close to the facts of our last administration.

Leeds and Portsmouth fans will know well how bad it is to have contracts for players that you can no longer honour through a fall in revenue.

spt1978
30-01-2017, 11:19 AM
A life

:supergrin:

eagle101
30-01-2017, 12:06 PM
I wonder how much STCC is having an impact on our problems in this window.
aka we can't afford to pay anyone the stupid wages they are after :(

Doesn't help that our biggest earners aren't pulling their weight at the moment which is part of the reason we're having to desperately add to the squad.

Eaglefoz
30-01-2017, 12:20 PM
Another point is that long term injured players like Papa and Connor, does our insurance cover their wages whilst injured? if so can we effectively take them out of wage bill for the duration of any injuries?

eaglejez
31-01-2017, 10:30 AM
I reckon some big outs will be required today

Jim Cannon
31-01-2017, 10:35 AM
I reckon some big outs will be required today

Not being funny, but does anyone care too much about this anymore? Obviously we don't want another admin, but what happens anyway, clubs don't seem bothered about fines and for example Bournemouth must be breaching all manner of rules and not worrying about it

JDawg
31-01-2017, 01:28 PM
nothing would surprise me if they deducted points. If it was just a fine you could just ignore it and keep racking up the fines :)


Dangerous precedent as there will be more than one transgressor and I can't see the PL wanting any of the nine material places being determined on technicalities or points deductions. Bad for the armchair audience. So they'll keep fining.

eaglejez
20-08-2017, 09:00 AM
we can only increase our player wage bill by 7m compared to last season. Guessing this is going to have an impact on transfers :(

(I'm assuming our commercial income hasn't increased substantially and we will be making a big loss on transfers)

as predicted this would come back to haunt us. Its even worse now given the 'smaller clubs' like us only have c120m pa income so we can only pay players a paltry 100K pw.

Football is ****ed :(:(

Bryan
20-08-2017, 11:15 AM
We've moved on a ton of players on fairly big wages. Our current wage bill should be less than last season even with the players coming in

Bryan
20-08-2017, 11:20 AM
As a reminder Campbell, Mandanda, Ledley, Flamini, Sahko, Remy, Fryers

gilesy14
20-08-2017, 01:07 PM
If we have breached STCC, we've only got ourselves to blame with the short term transfer strategy we've largely tended to use since coming up.

Sp1Eagle
20-08-2017, 01:11 PM
We've moved on a ton of players on fairly big wages. Our current wage bill should be less than last season even with the players coming in

Wilf got a new contract plus others will have yearly wage rises in their contracts.

AJ
20-08-2017, 02:38 PM
As a reminder Campbell, Mandanda, Ledley, Flamini, Sahko, Remy, Fryers
Id say only Remi and Sahko were on huge wages, the rest probably on normal/average prem 2017 wages. I doubt we can replace the Fryers, Ledleys and Campbells with players on similar wages.

Jon_C-Pal
20-08-2017, 03:01 PM
Id say only Remi and Sahko were on huge wages, the rest probably on normal/average prem 2017 wages. I doubt we can replace the Fryers, Ledleys and Campbells with players on similar wages.

Campbell was on 40k a week and Mandanda would have been on 50k+ without doubt. That a another £4.5m towards wages.

eaglejez
01-02-2018, 09:38 AM
I know we are rubbish at transfers but theres no doubt the (unfair) STCC rules are having an impact

dave_who_ru
01-02-2018, 10:59 AM
Another point is that long term injured players like Papa and Connor, does our insurance cover their wages whilst injured? if so can we effectively take them out of wage bill for the duration of any injuries?

There might be insurance for a career ending injury for not for injuries in general.

Someone posted that SP had previously said cover is too expensive.

dave_who_ru
01-02-2018, 11:00 AM
Not being funny, but does anyone care too much about this anymore? Obviously we don't want another admin, but what happens anyway, clubs don't seem bothered about fines and for example Bournemouth must be breaching all manner of rules and not worrying about it

Where is the evidence and it won't be a fine. More likely transfer embargos and/or points deduction.

eaglejez
02-02-2018, 07:27 AM
Where is the evidence and it won't be a fine. More likely transfer embargos and/or points deduction.

isn't it a big fine related to the amount you've gone over ? I think Citeh got fined £50m ?

ForzaPalace
02-02-2018, 07:42 AM
Where is the evidence and it won't be a fine. More likely transfer embargos and/or points deduction.

When has that ever happened in the PL?

917L
02-02-2018, 07:52 AM
I know we are rubbish at transfers but theres no doubt the (unfair) STCC rules are having an impact

I'd say there's plenty of doubt if they have had any impact on us at all

We failed to sign players because we could agree deals with the selling clubs, nothing to do with any STCC rules

Golf Boy
02-02-2018, 07:54 AM
Would it help if Mutch was put in with the non footballing group of workers?