Bristol City, Middlesbrough and Stoke City could follow Reading FC in receiving point deductions [Berkslive]

r00fie1 said:
I get the impression this is a journalist fishing to eventually find nothing there.
The Telegraph "report" appeared to have no credible sources - just speculation.
Given that it was published today by Berkshire Live, it seemed useful to put it up for discussion.
I cant see any reason to believe it.
Our Steve is far too astute to call the pot black.
Hope you ok by the way (y)
Click to expand...
Hopefully youre spot on, probably trying to cause a bit of a reaction

All well (y)
 
This is the Reading reporter from Berkshire Live who wrote the article quoted, based on the Telegraph "report":

1642083378696.png

And here is the link to the most recent articles from Tom Morgan - Telegraph "Sports News Correspondent"

Tom Morgan

www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

Morgan wrote the original article quoted by Jonathan Low

This on Tom Morgan`s official Twitter:
1642083910925.png

This is Sam Wallace: Chief Football Writer for the Telegraph:

1642084016294.png

And here he is tweeting with Kieran Maguire:

1642084269391.png

Who is:
A man who .....is a writer of popular football books and a football "finance expert" who makes podcasts.


1642084307244.png
 
Last edited:
Priv said:
So the whole article in relation to us is guesswork.
Click to expand...
Hi Priv.

I followed the "report" and traced it back [see in this thread] from Jonathan Low [Berkshire Live]
to

Tom Morgan [Telegraph Sports Correspondence]
to his senior

Sam Wallace [Telegraph chief Football Writer]
to

Kieran Maguire ["Financial Expert" - Author and Podcaster]

It stops there - with no link to any reliable "source(s)".

The term Bullship comes to mind. (y) 🐂 :poop:
 
Last edited:
The position of those three clubs quoted is very different.
It is worth noting that a Championship club is permitted to lose £39m across each rolling 3 year period, provided £24m max is invested in new equity. Without equity injection, the loss can be only £15m across the 3 years.
It is also worth noting that while pre tax losses are the starting point for FFP, there are lots of allowances that can be added back against a loss. (Academy, Community, Womens football and revaluation of Fixed Assets are just some, plus of course sale of assets at fair value)

1. Stoke have lost over £130m pre tax over the last three seasons after declaring a loss of £88m in year to 2020. This was after charging outstanding book value of all players to the P&L that year, instead of amortising normally over outstanding contracts. They also wrote off the liability for future wages of players they felt they wouldn't be able to sell through a massive impairment charge. This is all in the public eye, just look at Stoke's published accounts.
They have blamed a supposed collapse in Championship transfer values for their actions, which is no excuse and is factually wrong in any case. Their actions are deliberately provoking the EFL to change their rules after the effect.
Their mega wealthy owners have put zero new equity in to the Club to offset these losses.
Stoke have yet to publish accounts for the year to 2021, but they will have no amortisation and much lower wage bill to declare within it due to their actions in 2020.

2. Bristol City owners injected £71m in new equity in the year to 2020. They have at least offset their losses. They have pre tax lost £34.8m in year to 2021, £7.4m in year to 2020. They made a pre tax profit of £12.7m in 2019. They are historically fine re FFP, but looking forward their revenues will be small for year to 2022 (this season) and they will lose big again this season, whilst losing the benefit of the player sale boosted profit in 2019. That is why they are concerned looking forward. Their owner will probably not want to have to invest equity into a solvent club to comply with future FFP given how much he has recently "invested". He also wont want to sell players on the cheap.
Their financial position is much better than ours given the wealth of their owner and state of their balance sheet.

3. Middlesbrough lost big last year to 2020, covered a loss the previous year to 2019 by revaluing Fixed Assets, and made a small loss the prior year 2018. It is conceivable that FFP allowances could have kept Boro within permitted losses, even without equity injection by Gibson, which is a relief given he didn't inject any.
Unlike Bristol City, we have not yet declared our 2021 accounts, but it is likely we will see a reduction in turnover, wage bill, but still a significant loss. Without equity injection in 2021 which we can't yet know about, then there must be FFP concerns based on 2020 and 2021 actuals and the 2022 (current season) projection.
If we go up this year, nobody will chase us.
If not, then equity injection or June 2022 player sales seem to be the only options.
Gibson may well be part of a group of owners who are forcing the EFL to act now re Covid impact on FFP measures.
That is not incompatible with him pursuing Derby County for scandalously breaking FFP rules pre Covid.

The three clubs have different positions and issues.
I really get Bristol City, I think Gibson will have us in hand, but find the actions of Stoke City disgraceful.
 
Cogeur_le_Conq said:
Not trying to steal anyone's thunder.

I should have quoted a previous post on this thread, but I was replying to someone suggesting they'd seen the Telegraph story posted elsewhere.

I was just trying to be helpful
Click to expand...
Apologies, my mistake.
I just saw the Berkshire Live report on NNB this morning.
Thought Ide track back to find out where the "report" came from.
Appears it is a heap of bull dung. 🐂 :poop:
From some "expert" in football finance who makes money writing popular football paperbacks and selling his services to the media.

Mmmm
 
Last edited:
indeedido said:
The position of those three clubs quoted is very different.
It is worth noting that a Championship club is permitted to lose £39m across each rolling 3 year period, provided £24m max is invested in new equity. Without equity injection, the loss can be only £15m across the 3 years.
It is also worth noting that while pre tax losses are the starting point for FFP, there are lots of allowances that can be added back against a loss. (Academy, Community, Womens football and revaluation of Fixed Assets are just some, plus of course sale of assets at fair value)

1. Stoke have lost over £130m pre tax over the last three seasons after declaring a loss of £88m in year to 2020. This was after charging outstanding book value of all players to the P&L that year, instead of amortising normally over outstanding contracts. They also wrote off the liability for future wages of players they felt they wouldn't be able to sell through a massive impairment charge. This is all in the public eye, just look at Stoke's published accounts.
They have blamed a supposed collapse in Championship transfer values for their actions, which is no excuse and is factually wrong in any case. Their actions are deliberately provoking the EFL to change their rules after the effect.
Their mega wealthy owners have put zero new equity in to the Club to offset these losses.
Stoke have yet to publish accounts for the year to 2021, but they will have no amortisation and much lower wage bill to declare within it due to their actions in 2020.

2. Bristol City owners injected £71m in new equity in the year to 2020. They have at least offset their losses. They have pre tax lost £34.8m in year to 2021, £7.4m in year to 2020. They made a pre tax profit of £12.7m in 2019. They are historically fine re FFP, but looking forward their revenues will be small for year to 2022 (this season) and they will lose big again this season, whilst losing the benefit of the player sale boosted profit in 2019. That is why they are concerned looking forward. Their owner will probably not want to have to invest equity into a solvent club to comply with future FFP given how much he has recently "invested". He also wont want to sell players on the cheap.
Their financial position is much better than ours given the wealth of their owner and state of their balance sheet.

3. Middlesbrough lost big last year to 2020, covered a loss the previous year to 2019 by revaluing Fixed Assets, and made a small loss the prior year 2018. It is conceivable that FFP allowances could have kept Boro within permitted losses, even without equity injection by Gibson, which is a relief given he didn't inject any.
Unlike Bristol City, we have not yet declared our 2021 accounts, but it is likely we will see a reduction in turnover, wage bill, but still a significant loss. Without equity injection in 2021 which we can't yet know about, then there must be FFP concerns based on 2020 and 2021 actuals and the 2022 (current season) projection.
If we go up this year, nobody will chase us.
If not, then equity injection or June 2022 player sales seem to be the only options.
Gibson may well be part of a group of owners who are forcing the EFL to act now re Covid impact on FFP measures.
That is not incompatible with him pursuing Derby County for scandalously breaking FFP rules pre Covid.

The three clubs have different positions and issues.
I really get Bristol City, I think Gibson will have us in hand, but find the actions of Stoke City disgraceful.
Click to expand...
Hi Indeed -

I followed the "report" [story] back and found no evidence available in the public domain - in other words, the originator [who appears to be football "finance expert" Kieran Maguire] , is either privvy to confidential financial accounts [of which I doubt and cant see any quoted proof to that effect] or its complete bullship! [Which seems more likely]. 🐂💩
 
r00fie1 said:
Apologies, my mistake.
I just saw the Berkshire Live report on NNB this morning.
Thought Ide track back to find out where the "report" came from.
Appears it is a heap of bull dung.
From some "expert" in football finance who makes money writing popular football paperbacks and selling his services to the media.

Mmmm
Click to expand...

No problem,

I saw the same headline on Newsnow, but traced the links and ended up having to cut and paste, paragraph by paragraph using my phone from behind the pay wall (12ft ladder)
 
Teesste said:
A bizarre article really from our point of view as it mentions us briefly at the beginning of the article but doesn't expand on why we have been singled out.

All clubs will surely be under 'severe scrutiny' and as such they could have named any Championship club in the article.
Click to expand...
I followed it back for source(s).
Its 🐂 :poop:
 
r00fie1 said:
Hi Indeed -

I followed the "report" [story] back and found no evidence available in the public domain - in other words, the originator [who appears to be football "finance expert" Kieran Maguire] , is either privvy to confidential financial accounts [of which I doubt and cant see any quoted proof to that effect] or its complete bullship! [Which seems more likely]. 🐂💩
Click to expand...
Roofie mate, every Club/business has to publish accounts every year and put them in the public domain.
Bristol City have already posted for year to June 2021, Boro and Stoke only to June 2020.
The published accounts for any club over the last n years is in the public domain, a few clicks away.
Kieran Maguire is a Chartered Accountant, and an academic who specialises in Football finances.
Kieran will not be able to see the unpublished years, but it does stop him - or anyone - making informed intelligent estimations.
 
r00fie1 said:
I`m well aware of all that young man. (y)
If you know anything about "accounts" you will understand those of 2020 - relate to the previous year. [2019].
If the accounts are available to June 2020 - they are not contemporaneous.
The current accounts are not yet published so not in the public domain [honest].
You are surely also well aware of the techniques and raison det`re employed by journalists to create a "story" and generate "interest".
Let me give you a piece of advice: dont assume being an "accountant" means they know what they are talking about.
It also doesnt mean their interpretation is necessary accurate. [ie true].

"informed intelligent estimations." = guesswork / not proven /

That is why the "report" doesnt stack up.
Its 🐂 :poop:
Click to expand...
Roofie - thanks for the young man bit, I'm probably at least your age.

I quote the Accounts being in the year to end June 2020, it covers the 2019-2020 season. This is how most clubs account.
Some clubs like Bristol City and Celtic have published to end of June 2021 covering last season 2020-21 i.e. the Covid disaster. Boro, Stoke and Fulham haven't yet. I compare like with like every time.

Informed intelligent estimations by people like Kieran are not bull, they are useful.

Kieran Maguire is an extremely well respected football finance expert.
 
Teesste said:
A bizarre article really from our point of view as it mentions us briefly at the beginning of the article but doesn't expand on why we have been singled out.

All clubs will surely be under 'severe scrutiny' and as such they could have named any Championship club in the article.
Click to expand...
We are Hardly mentioned at at all
 
indeedido said:
Roofie - thanks for the young man bit, I'm probably at least your age.

I quote the Accounts being in the year to end June 2020, it covers the 2019-2020 season. This is how most clubs account.
Some clubs like Bristol City and Celtic have published to end of June 2021 covering last season 2020-21 i.e. the Covid disaster. Boro, Stoke and Fulham haven't yet. I compare like with like every time.

Informed intelligent estimations by people like Kieran are not bull, they are useful.

Kieran Maguire is an extremely well respected football finance expert.
Click to expand...

This is the conclusion I made - based on my research as to where/what/who the "sources"of the article were:-

I followed the "report" [story] back and found no evidence available in the public domain - in other words, the originator [who appears to be football "finance expert" Kieran Maguire] is either privy to confidential financial accounts [of which I doubt and cant see any quoted proof to that effect] or its complete bullship! [Which seems more likely].

Its following the journalists trail to see where it originated - and then make an objective judgement [based on their sources].
In this instance there are no "facts" or credible sources - so I stick to my original conclusion (y)
 
r00fie1 said:
This is the conclusion I made - based on my research as to where/what/who the "sources"of the article were:-

I followed the "report" [story] back and found no evidence available in the public domain - in other words, the originator [who appears to be football "finance expert" Kieran Maguire] is either privy to confidential financial accounts [of which I doubt and cant see any quoted proof to that effect] or its complete bullship! [Which seems more likely].

Its following the journalists trail to see where it originated - and then make an objective judgement [based on their sources].
In this instance there are no "facts" or credible sources - so I stick to my original conclusion (y)
Click to expand...
Am wondering what the likelihood could be of the trail actually leading from a group currently working hard to find a buyer for an ailing football club. It would certainly be a convenient way of shifting some pressure and media scrutiny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top